Changes to UK law didn't protect Tzipi Livni

[Jefferson23]

* Daniel Machover is the head of the Civil Litigation Department at London-based law firm Hickman & Rose.

Raji Sourani is the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, based in Gaza.


A London judge ordered a former Israeli foreign minister's arrest, but the UK is preventing this.

Daniel Machover and Raji Sourani Last Modified: 10 Oct 2011 09:15

In December 2009, a judge in London issued a warrant for the arrest of former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The judge received significant evidence indicating her individual criminal responsibility for war crimes committed during Israel's December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009 offensive on the Gaza Strip. The Court's straightforward application of the rule of law prompted a diplomatic offensive on the part of Israel, which on September 15, 2011 resulted in procedural changes to universal jurisdiction legislation in England and Wales. These changes were intended to prevent the arrest of suspected war criminals from "friendly" states.

On October 6, 2011, Ms Livni returned to the United Kingdom. A stated purpose of her visit was to celebrate this change in the law. In advance of her visit, and acting on behalf of civilian victims of war crimes in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Hickman & Rose requested that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) authorise the arrest of Ms Livni or consent to the victims applying to court for a second judicial arrest warrant. This application was made in full conformity with the recent legislative changes.

Extensive evidence indicating Ms Livni's individual criminal responsibility was presented to the DPP, and an effective dialogue was established with senior crown prosecutors that enabled relevant, admissible additional evidence to be supplied at their request. However, following the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's last-minute (apparently) retroactive attribution of diplomatic immunity to Ms Livni, on the basis of her visit constituting a "special mission", the DPP issued a statement that he had been blocked from making any decision as to her arrest.

Due for due process

Three principal issues arise from this case that must be highlighted.

First, the fact that no decision was made to arrest Ms Livni was not due to any lack of evidence. Indeed, in an unusual public statement, the DPP acknowledged receipt of a significant body of evidence, which was "carefully considered by senior and experienced lawyers in the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS" (Crown Prosecution Service). As confirmed in the statement, these lawyers did not reach a decision on the evidence, as their work was blocked by the attribution of Special Mission immunity. If the evidence was insufficient to justify an arrest, it is difficult to see what prompted the intervention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

remainder: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/201110912402659549.html

[oberliner]

1. Maybe Israel can arrest Tony Blair the next time the Quarter comes to town

Surely the case must be strong for him with respect to war crimes.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Maybe Britain could too!

I always say, we should deal with our own war criminals.

[oberliner]

5. How many people have been arrested in the UK for war crimes?

Do you know the numbers?

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I'd be interested in finding out how many as well...

Off the top of my head there's Pinochet, who was arrested and released not long after. And I think there was a few Rwandan war criminals that I remember reading about a long while back....

[LeftishBrit]

7. Precious few, I think

Pinochet was arrested but released.

There have been a few attempts by private citizens to make 'citizens' arrests' but none have come to much. The most famous was Peter Tatchell's attempted arrest of Robert Mugabe. George Monbiot attempted to arrest John Bolton. The same Monbiot wrote an article recommending the arrest of Blair.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot

(Edited to add link)

[azurnoir]

2. Livni was given immunity even though she is not part of the Israeli government?

It was a 'special mission' or something but the very fact that all of this legal dodging had to done says it all

[Jefferson23]

3. Well, some elected officials are more special than others. Here is

another special remark from Livni:

snip* As foreign minister, Livni led peace talks on behalf of Israel. Those negotiations came to a halt after the Gaza offensive in late 2008.

“I cannot say for sure that we can end this the next day, it is not around the corner,” Livni told the BBC when asked about prospects for a settlement with the Palestinians.

“But it is clear to me that we need to explore more and we build trust and this is something which is missing today,” said Livni.

She said she believed that “two states for two peoples represent the Israeli interest.”


http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article512676.ece

on edit for spelling error.

[Jefferson23]

8. Accountability for the violation of human rights in the Occupied Territories

International law requires that every state deal with serious human rights violations that are committed by bodies or persons acting on its behalf or with its consent. This obligation takes two primary forms: 1) investigation of suspicions of commission of human rights violations followed by prosecution of the persons responsible where the findings of the investigation warrant, and 2) compensation of the victims for the injuries they suffered as a result of the violation.

One of the primary sources for the obligation to investigate serious violations of human rights is international criminal law. This body of law defines such infringements as international crimes and imposes criminal liability on the persons responsible for their commission. These infringements generally belong to one of three categories, depending on the circumstances of the case and intention of the person responsible: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The latter is especially relevant in Israel 's case inasmuch as it includes the serious violation of human rights of persons living in occupied territory - willful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, and extensive destruction of property - as well as intentional attacks against civilian objects or intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause disproportionate injury and damage to civilians.

The principle of individual responsibility requires the state to investigate, thoroughly and without bias, every suspicion of commission of international crimes by persons acting on its behalf or with its consent. If the investigative findings confirm the suspicions, the state must arrest the suspects and prosecute them. If the state fails to do so, other states may arrest the suspects, when they are present on the other country's soil, and prosecute them, or extradite them, for the crimes they have allegedly committed.

The obligation to investigate serious violations of human rights is derived also from the right of the victims, specified in international law, to know the facts of the case in which they, or members of their family, were harmed. The root of this right, known as "the right to truth," lies in international humanitarian law, which recognizes the right of family members to receive information on the fate of their relatives, and requires the states taking part in the hostilities to search after missing persons. In the 1970s, as a result of the increasing attention given it by UN bodies and regional systems for the protection of human rights, the status of this right under international law grew. This growth was especially evident in respect of the phenomenon of the "forced disappearance" of persons living under tyrannical regimes. Subsequently, the interpreters of international law began to apply the right to truth in international law also in other cases of human rights violation, among them execution without trial.

The responsibility of a state for illegal acts carried out by bodies or persons acting on its behalf requires it to mend the consequences of these acts. The first thing it must do is return the situation to its previous condition. In most cases of serious violation of human rights, this is not possible. In those cases, the main obligation in mending the situation is achieved by compensating the victims for the injury caused to them, directly and indirectly, as a result of the infringement of their rights. This obligation of compensation is explicitly incorporated in both international humanitarian law and in international human rights law.

Since the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel has increasingly avoided accountability for the serious violations of the human rights of residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for which it is responsible. This avoidance is seen, in part, in its policy not to open criminal investigations in cases of killing or wounding of Palestinians who were not taking part in the hostilities, except in exceptional cases, and in its enactment of legislation denying, almost completely, the right of Palestinians who were harmed as a result of illegal acts by Israeli security forces to sue for compensation for the damages they suffered.

http://www.btselem.org/accountability

[aranthus]

9. One more reason to abolish universal jurisdiction laws.

It's merely an excuse for groups like this to play politics with the law. It's an affront to the integrity of the justice system, not to mention a frontal assault on the sovereignty of every other state on the planet.

[Jefferson23]

10. Merely an excuse?

You thought this was of no significance then: First, the fact that no decision was made to arrest Ms Livni was not due to any lack of evidence. Indeed, in an unusual public statement, the DPP acknowledged receipt of a significant body of evidence, which was "carefully considered by senior and experienced lawyers in the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS" (Crown Prosecution Service). As confirmed in the statement, these lawyers did not reach a decision on the evidence, as their work was blocked by the attribution of Special Mission immunity. If the evidence was insufficient to justify an arrest, it is difficult to see what prompted the intervention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).(end)

snip* Recognizing that impunity exists mainly when the national authorities of countries affected by the crimes fail to act, it is important that the national criminal and civil justice systems of all countries can step in to prosecute the crimes on behalf of the international community and award reparations to victims.

Amnesty International campaigns for all governments to empower their national courts to take on this important role by enacting and using legislation providing for universal jurisdiction. Such legislation should enable national authorities to investigate and prosecute any person suspected of the crimes, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the accused and the victim and to award reparations to victims and their families.

In doing so, governments will ensure that their countries cannot be used as safe havens by the worst criminals.

Amnesty International’s legal memorandum, Universal Jurisdiction: the duty of states to enact and implement legislation, documents more than 125 states that have universal jurisdiction over at least one of the crimes. The organization is campaigning for all states to enact universal jurisdiction legislation over all six crimes.

Since the end of the Second World War, more than 15 countries have exercised universal jurisdiction in investigations or prosecutions of persons suspected of crimes under international law, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Senegal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and others, such as Mexico, have extradited persons to countries for prosecution based on universal jurisdiction.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/international-justice/issues/universal-jurisdiction


I think it's safe to say George Bush and Cheney would agree with your position. After Nicaragua v United States, and being found in violation
of international law, we withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction..governments don't appreciate accountability much, but as a citizen, I find your
opinion on the matter, troubling. If each new elected administration decides to keep looking forward and will not even investigate, we lose and
covert wars, torture wins. That is not my idea of justice.