The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam – A Quest to Reconcile Economic Development with the Right to Water

By: Kristoffer Burck, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is a dam project in Northern Ethiopia along the Blue Nile, and is set to become the largest hydropower plant in the African continent.  With its current construction date set at 2023, the dam promises to bring industrialization and development to Ethiopians.  But despite the opportunity the dam may represent for Ethiopians, it has been met with objections from others.  In fact, Sudanese and Egyptian politicians, whose populations are highly dependent on the freshwater supply of the Nile, warn that the dam constitutes a threat to their national security.  Since July 2020, when  Ethiopia began  to partially fill up the reservoirs of the dam, the relationships between the states have soured.  The disagreements concern the applicability of colonial treaties, the  balancing of the right to economic development with the right to water, and ways to facilitate effective regional cooperation. 

Colonial Baggage

According to some Egyptian politicians, the legal situation of the Nile is quite straightforward: the “Nile Waters Agreement” of 1929 guarantees a large share of the Nile´s water to the Egyptian population, and gives the government a right to veto construction projects of riparian states.  But, the problem with this agreement is that it was not concluded with the upstream states, but with Great Britain, who had colonized most of the riparian upstream states, including Sudan.  In 1959, a newly independent Sudan renegotiated the agreement with Egypt, with the result that the water resources were re-allocated between these two states.  The former Eastern African colonies located upstream the Nile (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda), argue that they are not bound to these colonial treaties under the tabula rasa theory. The controversial theory is codified in article 16 of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties and holds that newly independent states are not automatically bound by colonial treaties.  For Ethiopians the argument is even clearer: they were not a party to any of the applicable agreements and are therefore not bound by them. 

The Right to Economic Development

The difficulties in interpreting colonial treaties is not the only field of contention.  The GERD project potentially has a considerable impact on human rights of the populations of Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan.  More specifically in Ethiopia, the project could positively impact the right to economic development, recognized as a human right in Article 22(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights. While the Ethiopian economy has steadily grown over the past years, its successful development is still held back by endemic power cuts.  A hydroelectric dam could provide a reliable source of energy, not only for Ethiopia but also for bordering countries, struggling with the same situation.  A majority of the Ethiopian (diaspora) population has shown high hopes for the project, and a large portion of the GERD was funded through popular bonds.  As a result, the dam could provide a pathway for Ethiopia to attain their right to development, to industrialize large parts of their economy, and create jobs that could possibly lift millions out of poverty. 

The Right to Water

However, concerns about the dam project by Egypt and Sudan are based on arguments of human rights too.  The “Human Right to Water” has been recognized in several international human rights agreements and receives particular attention in Goal 6 of the Sustainable Development Goals.  In theory, filling the GERD reservoir would require a full annual flow of the Blue Nile.  The Egyptian agricultural sector and the population rely heavily on the steady flow of the Nile.  Consequently, a sudden substantial drop in Nile water supply would be disastrous.  Egypt therefore argues that the GERD project would interfere with their right to water is to be seen as an issue of national security. In addition to the right to water, strong fluctuations of water flow could furthermore be damaging to Sudanese and Egyptian hydroelectric dams. This could impair their respective electricity stability and thereby threaten Sudanese and Egyptian rights to economic development. 

Conclusion 

Regional negotiations, such as the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) of the Nile Basin Initiative, have failed to reach a solution.  Specifically, the definition of “water security” in Article 14 of the CFA caused contention.  Arguing based on their “historical rights”, stemming from the colonial treaties, Sudan and Egypt refused to sign the agreement.  After mediation attempts by intermediaries, such as the United States and the African Union (AU), and the rejection of an Ethiopian proposal for a preliminary agreement, Ethiopia started to fill the GERD´s reservoirs without an agreement in July 2020. While the situation might appear to be in a deadlock, an agreement could be beneficial to all states involved.  A recent study, published in October 2020 by Nature Communications, shows that the Dam could benefit Sudan and Ethiopia, without negatively impacting Egypt. However, especially in the case of a prolonged drought, coordination between all states is crucial.  The speed of filling the reservoirs would have to be adjusted to periodical rainfall and water flows would need to be communicated openly.  The study suggests that a minimum annual release of water from the GERD could actually increase water safety for Sudanese and Egyptian populations, also in cases of drought. A harmonized schedule for filling and releasing water could therefore ultimately balance the rights to water and the rights to economic development.   Since the release of the study, trilateral talks continued and yielded some positive results in regard to coordinating the filling process.  Nevertheless, Sudanese officials boycotted the latest round of negotiations in November 2020, demanding a stronger involvement of mediators.  

A cooperative agreement could offer a path to reconcile Ethiopia’s desire to economic development with Egypt’s and Sudan’s rights to water safety.  Yet, such a commitment requires trust and mutual assurances.  In light of the volatile situation in the region, all parties involved would be best served by agreeing on procedural issues and continuing negotiations on the technical specifications of filling and releasing water from the dam in good faith.

France’s Global Security Law: Article 24 and the Right to Information

By: Alexandrah Bakker, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

On October 20, 2020, MPs from France’s ruling party proposed the so-called “Global Security Law” (Loi Sécurité globale): a law purporting to be “inventive and innovative” in its approach towards national security, while respecting the actors who contribute to it.  Although the entire bill has elicited criticism, its Article 24, in particular, has gained notoriety.  

Article 24 criminalizes the dissemination of images showing the face or other identifying characteristics of a member of the national police or of the gendarmerie participating in a police operation.  The provision applies when the dissemination aims to undermine the officer’s physical or mental integrity.  Individuals convicted under this provision may face imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of up to €45,000.

Proponents of Article 24 claim that police officers have increasingly faced personal attacks on social media, and that this provision is solely intended to protect them from those who have malicious intent.  Meanwhile, critics have denounced the law as an instrument of impunity.  Many have pointed to recent high-profile incidents of police violence that would not have been brought to the public’s attention were it not for the widespread distribution of videos of the incidents on social media.  A few notable cases include the Benalla Affair, the death of Cédric Chouviat, the Theo rape case, and, more recently, the beating of Michel Zecler, which was condemned by French President Emmanuel Macron.  In other words, they consider that Article 24, by limiting the right to distribute information, can have further implications for the accountability of public authorities in France.

Domestic and international institutions, such as the Defender of Rights (Défenseure des droits), the League for Human Rights (Ligue des droits de l’homme), Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, and United Nations experts, have decried the law’s potential implications for the right to privacy, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.  In particular, these institutions have criticized Article 24 as a threat to the right to information.  In response to this criticism and large-scale protests, legislators modified the law to add that it is without prejudice to the right to information.

The Right to Information in International Human Rights Law

The right to information is a corollary of the right to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in both domestic and international human rights law.  France’s international obligations with regards to this right can be found in two places: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR provide for a right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information.  However, this right is not absolute.  Both provisions allow the state to limit the right to information if such a limitation is pursued for a legitimate aim, is provided for by law, and is necessary and proportionate.

Article 24 and the Right to Information

Both the ICCPR and the ECHR recognize the protection of national security and the rights or reputation of others as grounds to limit the right to information.  However, the restrictions imposed citing these grounds must be legal, necessary, and proportionate.  It is in this respect that human rights experts have expressed concern over Article 24. 

Although Article 24 finds basis in legislation, experts consider that the legality requirement is not satisfied due to a lack of precision.  A law that limits the right to information must be sufficiently clear that the public can regulate its behavior accordingly, and that those charged with its execution can distinguish between forms of expression that are and are not permitted.  It is hard to say, for instance, how the intent underlying the dissemination of images will be ascertained.

The necessity and proportionality elements require that the law must be applied only for the purpose for which it was adopted, must be directly related to the need used to justify it, and must be the least intrusive means of achieving its goal.  Reporters Without Borders observed that, even if the law is applied appropriately by judges, Article 24 may still be treated by law enforcement as a justification to arrest individuals live streaming from protests or other events with significant police presence.  Furthermore, law enforcement officers’ right to privacy is already recognized within Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 9 of the French Civil Code.  It could be argued that steps could be taken to reinforce the civil remedies available under these provisions, rather than adding elevated criminal sanctions.

Conclusion

On November 24, 2020, the National Assembly voted to adopt the Global Security Law with 388 votes in favor and 104 against.  The government has since announced that the article will be completely rewritten to address the criticism, a move which has itself been criticized as an inappropriate intervention by the executive in the legislative process.  However, experts claim that it is the underlying idea, and not the phrasing, of Article 24 that is incompatible with international human rights standards.  They have therefore called for the article to be withdrawn entirely.  The law is expected to reach the Senate in January 2021.

ASP19 Side Event: Assessing the Independent Expert Review Report’s Findings and Recommendations on Victims’ Rights: The Perspectives of NGOs

19TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES 

18 December 2020

Name of the Side Event: Assessing the Independent Expert Review Report’s Findings and Recommendations on Victims’ Rights: The Perspectives of NGOs - A Tribute to the Legacy of Dr. Felipe Michelini
(Co-hosted by the Permanent Mission of Italy to the UN, International Center for Multigenerational Legacies of Trauma (ICMGLT), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), Redress and Victims’ Rights Working Group)

Report by: Shaya Javadinia & Isabelle Jefferies, Junior Research Associates PILPG-NL

Highlights: 

• This event presented an NGO perspective to the IER’s findings and recommendations relating to victims’ rights within the Rome Statute system and was structured around the three main features of victims’ rights: participation, protection, and reparations.

• At its 18th session in 2019, the Assembly of State Parties commissioned the Independent Expert Review (IER) of the International Criminal Court and Rome Statute system. The IER published its final report containing extensive findings and recommendations to strengthen the Court on 30 September 2020. After lengthy informal consultations, the 19th Assembly adopted a resolution creating a mechanism to follow-up on the implementation of these recommendations, during a plenary meeting that took place just after this event. 

• This event was a tribute to Dr. Felipe Michelini, who dedicated his life to the rights of victims, and sadly passed away in April 2020.

Summary of the Event: 

Ambassador Stefano Stefanile, Deputy Permanent Representative of Italy to the UN, opened the side event, taking place in the margins of the first day of the resumed 19th ASP in New York. He noted that Italy has been at the forefront of the promotion of victims’ rights at the ICC and that it attaches great importance to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV). Ambassador Stefanile called on all States Parties to the ICC to sustain the TFV and encouraged fundraising efforts among private stakeholders, a recommendation also made by the IER. 

Analia Banfi continued by remembering Dr. Felipe Michelini, Chair of the Board of Directors of the TFV who sadly passed away in April 2020. Ms. Banfi, a Human Rights specialist at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and a professor at Georgetown Law School, and a very close friend and former student of Dr. Michelini, shared some of the main legacies of his work and personal history with human rights issues. Dr. Michelini’s sisters were political prisoners and his father, Senator Rafael Michelini, was killed during the Uruguayan dictatorship. Perhaps as a result of his experiences, his contribution to human rights always revolved around one central aspect: the rights of victims. He strongly believed in the need for the right to reparations for human rights violations, as there is no justice without reparations. As an illustration of Dr. Michelini's dedication to victims, Mrs. Banfi spoke about the Plan Condor Trial. The Condor Plan was a campaign of political repression against opposition to the right-winged governments of South America that took place in the 1970s, under which Dr. Michelini’s father was killed. After the Uruguayan parliament passed a law to prevent the prosecution of human rights abuses committed during the dictatorship, Dr. Michelini helped the families of victims achieve justice through Italian courts. In December 2019, a historical conviction was achieved for several of the key leaders of the Condor plan. Furthermore, in 2015, he was appointed as a member of the Working Group for Truth and Justice in Uruguay mandated to investigate crimes against humanity committed between 1968 and 1985. Thanks to his work, the Working Group was granted access to military archives, which is an important element in any prosecution, and the search for the whereabouts of those who disappeared during the dictatorship was reactivated. 

The discussion moved onto the merits of the work on victims’ rights, with a discussion structured around three main features: participation, protection, and reparations. Delphine Carlens, Head of International Justice Desk at the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), presented the framework for the participation of victims in ICC proceedings. Under the Rome Statute, victims have a right to participate in proceedings and express their views and concerns where their personal interests are affected. Victims are crucial to the ICC, as they support justice by providing a factual and cultural context to the commission of crimes, provide evidence, and contribute to the legitimacy of the ICC. Mrs. Carlens conceded that victim rights under the Rome Statute are innovative, so the Court is expected to take some time to identify the modalities for effective and meaningful participation of victims. 

FIDH submitted observations and recommendations to the IER, based on consultations with victims from situations under preliminary examination and investigation by the Court. FIDH’s main finding was that victim participation is overly complex and bureaucratic, sometimes inconsistent, and far removed from the reality that many victims find themselves in. The IER reflected some of these concerns and made the interesting finding that judges have considerable discretion in terms of victims’ rights, as the Rome Statute and its texts provide little guidance on the practicalities of victims participation. However, the IER report refers to certain common misconceptions about victim participation in ICC proceedings, and fails to respond to them adequately. For instance, the IER report refers to the common idea that victim participation increases the length of proceedings. However, there is no basis for suggesting that victim participation has this effect. Furthermore, the IER report refers to another common misconception that victim participation increases the cost of the Court. However, Mrs. Carlens believes that the impact of victim participation on the budget of the ICC is minimal. On the other hand, the 0% growth policy of the ICC’s budget has impacted victim participation. In fact, legal representatives for victims have faced budget cuts that have impacted their capacity to represent victims in proceedings. Mrs. Carlens emphasized the crucial role played by judges in ensuring the implementation of victims’ rights, and in guaranteeing their meaningful participation in all stages of the proceedings. Hence, the new judges elected at the 19th ASP must find ways to improve the scheme and harmonize it, without narrowing the participatory rights of victims.   

David Donat Cattin, Secretariat General for Parliamentarians for Global Action, continued the discussion. For him, the independent experts struggled between two exigencies. On the one hand, they wanted to address the concerns of states, such as the time-consuming and costly nature of victims’ rights. On the other hand, they responded to the demands of civil society for more meaningful participation of victims, whereby they participate early on in the proceedings, understand what their role is, and expectations are met by the court. Dr. Cattin stressed that judges need to know how to address victims, who are survivors of heinous crimes. He invited people to consider Finding 865 of the IER, on the issue that judges can require notice of the questions legal representatives propose to put to witnesses. He argued it is not right to allow victims to participate, but impose a matter of weeks before they can actually be asked questions. He emphasized the need for immediacy in the interaction among parties, something which Recommendation 340 does not provide.    

The discussion then moved onto the second feature of victims’ rights under the Rome Statute system: protection. The IER only provides one finding in this regard. Dr. Cattin pointed participants to Finding 481 concerning redactions. Redactions are included in Court decisions to conceal certain information and are fundamental for the protection of victims and witnesses. Under Article 68(1) of the Rome Statute, the Court has the obligation to take any possible measures to safeguard the safety, security, privacy, and well-being of victims and witnesses, and redactions are probably the most common way of doing this at a procedural level. However, Finding 481 stipulates that the use of redactions by the Court is probably the most significant factor in causing international criminal trials to last long. The IER does not make any recommendation on this basis, as the experts likely recognized the need to safeguard the safety, security, privacy, and well-being of victims and witnesses, even at the detriment of the efficiency and expeditiousness of trials. Dr. Cattin also stressed the importance of preventing re-victimization of victims at the hands of the Victims and Witness Section (a body within the Registry responsible for protective services to victims).

The discussion then moved onto the third feature of victims’ rights under the Rome Statute system: reparations. By contrast to protection, the IER report covered a lot regarding reparations. The floor was given to Alejandra Vicenti, Head of Law at Redress.  She began by calling attention to the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, which just celebrated its 15th anniversary. The adoption of these principles followed the entry into force of the Rome Statute, and was a key moment for victims rights. Mrs. Vicenti believes that the expectations of victims within the ICC system have so far not been met. In 2019, Redress published a report entitled “No Time to Wait: Realising Reparations for Victims before the International Criminal Court”, which analyzed some of the challenges that exist within the court. Some of its recommendations were also made by the IER. For instance, both reports highlight the profound delays in awarding and implementing reparations. For instance, although Lubanga was convicted in 2012, it was only in 2020 that the Trust Fund announced the delivery of service based reparations. Moreover, in the Katanga case, the conviction took place in 2015, and monetary reparations ordered by the Court have been paid. However, the victims received a sum of 250 dollars each, and it is questionable whether this constitutes an effective reparation to address the harm they suffered. Lastly, the Al Mahdi case is another example in which the Court ordered the payment of reparations in 2017, but the contracts for these payments were signed only in 2020.  Furthermore, Mrs. Vicenti explained that the number of beneficiaries of the TFV is unclear, as the number presented includes both direct victims, and indirect victims (the relatives of the victims). This raises a number of issues, as the calculations are merely based on average numbers and not all victims have received the same level of assistance from the TFV. As a result, the true impact of the TFV is difficult to assess. More transparency is needed to overcome these issues, Mrs. Vincenti concluded. 

Furthermore, the IER has identified difficulties faced by the TFV in receiving funding.  So far, it has been unable to meet its fundraising goals for its reparations awards, reparations orders, and expansion of its assistance mandates. The IER linked this to ineffective fundraising strategies and governance issues. This is also directed at states, which have an important cooperative role in asset recovery and enforcement of orders against individuals. But it is debatable whether states can always be expected to be the main contributors to the TFV. Some of the problems identified in this regard are a lack of consistent approach of the Chambers, but also the capacity of the TFV to implement reparations and its ability to respond to judicial requests in a timely manner. For instance, in the Al Mahdi case, the Chamber complained that the TFV had not provided an implementation plan by a certain date. On this topic, Dr. Cattin joined the discussion and stressed that when judges are not familiar with reparation proceedings, the matter is referred to the TFV while this is not the task of the TFV. The IER has suggested a new interpretation of the process, by viewing the reparation stage as a continuation of the trial (an approach which is not excluded by the Rome Statute). This approach could shorten the process, without infringing on the rights of the accused. Mrs. Vicenti agreed with Dr. Cattin on this point and referred to the IER as a “breath of fresh air” that could help overcome certain challenges associated with the current process. She explained that this is not a critique to the TFV, and all organs of the Court should work on developing a consistent approach, which could also help with managing the expectations of victims as to what they can(not) expect from the ICC.  

The floor was then given to Dr. Yael Danieli, founder and director of the International Center for Multigenerational Legacies of Trauma. She highlighted the value of having people, such as Dr. Michelini, of high moral integrity and authority working for the TFV and the Court as a whole. It is important that those who listen to victims of heinous crimes understand and have the capacity for empathy for the most vulnerable. Dr. Danieli stated that “Justice is not only about the outcome but equally about the process. Any interaction between victims and the ICC is a moment of opportunity for healing, or a moment for disappointment and (re)traumatization. How early do we attend to the victims? As early as possible. Even before we plan to see them with this vision in mind.” In the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power and in the Remedy Resolution, victims are considered victims regardless of whether the perpetrator has been found or is planned to be brought to justice. 

She argued that the TFV is called an “independent organ” partially because of political reasons, and partly because the Court did not want to be involved in the process of the Fund, which could have negative repercussions. While there is now a better understanding among the various organs of the Court, particularly the registry and the TFV, in Dr. Danieli’s experience, judges are still seen as the weakest link who need to go through mandatory training on victim rights and optimal care. She expressed her belief that ICC judges are not prepared to adopt a consistent strategy when it comes to victims and therefore proposed a series of guidelines on this matter. 

Dr. Danieli announced that the TFV will publish a report on Monday 21 December 2020, in which it will address the issue of humanitarian aid vs. justice-based assistance. She pointed out that the issue of time is one of the most important challenges between victims and justice, and is a matter of urgency. Moreover, Dr. Danieli discussed the issue of outreach by arguing that the TFV needs to do better in its own outreach, public relations, and education of the public on its work, process of decision making, and operations. She recommended that the ASP, states, and private institutions follow Sweden’s example of consistently supporting the TFV, and reminded the states that they have committed to the Court’s reparative justice mandate. 

Following the discussion of the panelists, Dr. Cattin opened the floor for questions from the audience. One of the questions concerned the role of victims in ICC proceedings and asked whether victims are essentially playing the role of a second prosecutor. The panelists discussed that victims do not intervene beyond their role. They can even be considered as an ally to the defendant since they want the truth to be revealed and the right person to be convicted. This is also why the prosecutor has an obligation to find evidence against the accused and to acquit the accused if not guilty. Moreover, it is necessary for the judges to understand the victims. For that reason, it is important for the judges to be trained on victim participation at the ICC, regardless of their domestic background. The IER has discussed this issue and recommended that new judges receive a comprehensive introduction to the practice, law, and culture of the ICC.

Another question concerned the balance between the independence of the TFV and its need to have a direct link with the Court. The independence of the TFV is based on Article 79(1) of the Rome Statute, which states that the TFV shall be established by the ASP. The TFV is not a judicial or prosecutorial body, and it has to remain autonomous and professional. Its independence is not the type of independence that prosecutors and other organs of the Court have, but a type of autonomy that separates the TFV from the judicial institution the Court is. It still requires close, coherent, and predictable coordination, however.

ASP19 Side Event: Accountability in Nigeria: Time for Action

19TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES 

17 December 2020

Name of the Side Event: Accountability in Nigeria: Time for Action (Hosted by Amnesty International)

Report by: Alexandrah Bakker, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Highlights: 

• The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court recently announced the conclusion of its preliminary examination into the situation in Nigeria, with the statutory criteria for opening an investigation met.

• The speakers welcomed the OTP’s decision, emphasizing that various actors continue to commit crimes with impunity throughout Nigeria.

Summary of the Event: 

Ms. Samira Daoud, Regional Director for Amnesty International (AI) in West and Central Africa, opened the side event by noting its timeliness. On the one hand, the OTP announced the conclusion of its preliminary examination of the situation in Nigeria, and on the other, Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for the recent abduction of over 500 students in Katsina State, of which over 300 remain missing.

Mr. Netsanet Belay, Research and Advocacy Director for AI, welcomed the OTP’s conclusion of its preliminary examination as a major milestone in the struggle for accountability in Nigeria. Nonetheless, he noted that this is not enough: the OTP must urgently seek permission to open an investigation, and this investigation must begin as soon as possible while action is taken on evidence preservation, witness protection, and outreach to victims in Nigeria. Mr. Belay gave three reasons for the continued urgent need for accountability. First, crimes continue to be committed, with no end in sight, by both Boko Haram and Nigerian security forces. Second, Mr. Belay sees no promising prospects for prosecution of perpetrators of those crimes from within the Nigerian government. He noted that while there have been countless inquiries, these have not been designed or conducted with a view to facilitating prosecutions and their findings have never been made public. Third, Mr. Belay cautioned that further delays will sabotage the successful prosecution of crimes in the future, as delays will result in evidence and witness tampering. He finished by recognizing the challenges faced by the OTP from a lack of resources, but adding that he will not accept a situation in which the OTP declares that justice for victims in Nigeria is too expensive.

Ms. Hamsatu Allamin, an activist from North East Nigeria, described the situation in that region. She noted that the North East is the least developed part of the country, with education largely inaccessible and knowledge of human rights virtually non-existent. She added that both insurgents and counter-insurgency forces grant themselves absolute power and operate with impunity, indiscriminately murdering citizens and abducting young girls into sexual slavery. Ms. Allamin observed excitement in Nigeria about the ICC’s progress in the situation, noting that impunity has become the norm in the North East.

Ms. Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, agreed with previous comments on the extent of impunity in Nigeria. She reflected on her own experiences in Nigeria, when the Nigerian authorities did not respond to her with aggression but simply failed to engage in a meaningful dialogue with her over her findings. She described the situation in the entire country as an “injustice pressure cooker,” with injustices simmering in many localized conflicts as well as on a national level due to widespread insecurity. Within this context, she found a high level of resentment and grievance, most of which is expressed through “toxic ethnoreligious narratives,” or, in counterterrorism terminology, “extremist ideologies.” Four broader contextual factors added to her worries: a nationwide population increase, the increased rate of extreme poverty despite growth on the national level, increased environmental degradation and desertification, and the proliferation of small and military grade weapons. Ms. Callamard noted that the history of Nigeria and other comparable situations makes it clear that tackling human rights violations also requires addressing these broader contextual factors. Despite all this, Ms. Callamard was hopeful that recent instances of large-scale demonstrations in the End SARS movement, which were based neither on ethnicity nor religion but on a hope for a better Nigeria, show that it will be the young population of Nigeria who finally decides that “enough is enough.”

Mr. Rod Rastan, Legal Advisor at the OTP, explained that while the OTP quickly concluded that crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction had been committed in Nigeria, its decision to open an investigation was delayed as it tried to engage with the Nigerian authorities and encourage them to take action at the national level. He added that, moving forward, the OTP will continue to work in a collaborative spirit with Nigeria, while continuing to build its cases if the Nigerian authorities do not make progress. In response to Mr. Belay, he added that the OTP is already taking steps to identify opportunities for evidence preservation and operational planning, and is working on identifying issues in cooperation and security. 

To conclude, Ms. Obianuju Catherine Udeh, an artist and activist better known as DJ Switch, described the plight of Nigerians. Ms. Obianuju Catherine Udeh noted that while it was hopeful to see Nigerians standing up for their country in the End SARS movement, they continue to face violence for doing so. She described the unprovoked use of force by Nigerian authorities against protestors at the Lekki toll gate, adding that this was not an isolated incident. She emphasized the irony of this violence when the constitution states that ensuring the security and welfare of the people is the primary purpose of the government. As such, she noted that the End SARS movement has transformed from a movement against police brutality into a movement against bad governance. She concluded by reflecting on a popular Nigerian saying according to which “the problems never end,” adding that this does not mean that the problems cannot be solved.

ASP19: The Hague, 14 - 16 December 2020

19TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES 

The Hague, 14-16 December 2020

Report by: Tamia Brito, Research Associate, Alexandrah Bakker, Junior Research Associate, and Emma Bakkum, Assistant Counsel PILPG-NL

Highlights:

• Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the 19th session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) takes place in two parts: from 14-16 December in The Hague and from 17-23 December a resumed session in New York (elections). 

• During the General Debate, States Parties addressed several key issues. Many welcomed the report of the Independent Expert Review, condemned US sanctions and other threats taken against the Court, and urged States Parties to provide the Court with the necessary resources to fulfill its mandate. 

• The ASP approved the Court’s 2021 programme budget, in line with the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF)’s recommendations, of €144,673.9 million (a 0,7% decrease of the 2020 budget). 

• The ASP adopted six resolutions: on the proposed program budget for 2021; on cooperation; on the remuneration of judges; the Omnibus Resolution (adopting similar language as the previous year); on procedures for adoption of decisions by the ASP during the 19th session due to COVID-19; and on a possible second resumption of 19th session.

• States Parties did not reach consensus on a resolution regarding the Review of the Court and the Rome Statute system, proposing a mechanism to report on the implementation of the IER’s recommendations, and informal consultations will continue during the resumed session.

• The ASP adopted a resolution on a possible second resumption of the 19th session of the ASP, foreshadowing the postponement of the election of the Prosecutor to early 2021. 

• The OTP launched its 2020 Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, also noting that it will share a report in the first quarter of 2021 assessing the IER recommendations focused on the OTP.  

Summary of the 19th ASP (The Hague)

Facing the challenges of a global pandemic, the Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court convened for its 19th session (part 1) at the World Forum in The Hague, The Netherlands, combining a small in-person presence with a larger virtual audience. With only eight NGO representatives allowed to enter the World Forum, PILPG reported from the ASP with one delegate present in The Hague and a vast number of PILPG-ers worldwide following the ASP virtually.

With the resumed 19th session scheduled to start this week (17 December) at the UN headquarter in New York, US, this post provides an overview of what happened during the first part of the ASP in The Hague, from 14-16 December 2020.

Day 1 (14 December) 

First Plenary Meeting 
The President of the ASP, O-Gon Kwon, opened the first plenary meeting on Monday with a minute of silence or meditation in respect of victims worldwide. The meeting continued with a keynote address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, host of the Court, Stef Blok, who addressed the ASP through a pre-recorded video. Blok set the tone for the General Debate, as States Parties’ often covered the same key topics. Throughout his statement, Blok strongly condemned the “deeply disturbing” measures taken against the Court and its staff by the US government and called on the US President-Elect, Joe Biden, to revoke the sanctions. He further called upon States Parties to be firm with the Court and to allow for critical reflection. States should cooperate with the Court, he noted, as the “wheels of justice won’t grind if there is nobody to turn them.” Blok concluded by welcoming the IER Report and called for the ASP to swiftly implement its recommendations.

The keynote address was followed by the adoption of the agenda and statements from ICC staff, all nearing the end of their term. In his final opening address, O-Gon Kwon reflected on his time as ASP President, his first diplomatic and political position, and expressed his gratitude. He reflected on some of the challenges the Court has faced during his tenure, including a “very heavy agenda of important matters for the future of the Court and the Assembly”, and the additional challenges brought by a global pandemic. He reflected on Rome Statute’s universality, specifically in his region, the Asian Pacific region, and - while proud of welcoming Kiribati as a State Party - he expressed hope for more Asia Pacific states to join the Rome Statute in the near future. He concluded that “we have a collective obligation to future generations to care for the development of the international justice system.”

The ASP President welcomed statements of the President of the Court, the Prosecutor, the Registrar, and Chair of the Trust Fund for Victims. ICC President Chile Eboe-Osuji addressed the Assembly through a pre-recorded video, expressing his gratitude to those who have supported and encouraged him and highlighting achievements during his term as ICC President.

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda addressed challenges faced by the Court this year, describing the year as one of “resilience and commitment in the face of great adversity.” Besides the COVID-19 global health crisis, she noted the Court was subjected to “unprecedented and wholly unacceptable threats, attacks and sanctions in the past year,” and expressed hope that the US “reverses its aggressive policy of antagonism towards the Court.” While dealing with these adversities, the Court has had an extremely active and busy year, with the IER process as well as core mandate functions, with seven cases in different stages of the proceedings and several successes (transfer to the court of Mr. Abd-Al-Rahnan and Mr. Gicheru, ongoing preparations for trial in the Yakatom and Ngaïssona case, start of trial in the Al Hassan case, and nearing conclusion in the Ongwen case). In her final address to the ASP, Bensouda stressed to her successor and those electing her/him that “assuming office as Prosecutor means an unyielding devotion to the pursuit of international criminal justice, without fear or favour, even in the face of adversity, and a commitment to honourably and with integrity discharge a complex multi-faceted mandate, one that is largely without precedent with investigations and preliminary examinations covering situations spanning the globe.” Bensouda, further forewarning her successor, referred to two of the most significant challenges of the OTP: “While one important challenge has been the political environment and other external conditions in which the Office operates, another great challenge might well be the incompatibility of the mandate with the resources allocated to it.” She highlighted her commitment to hand over an office that is accountable at all levels, both in terms of performance and professional conduct. Reflecting on the IER, she underscored that the OTP is making an inventory of priority recommendations that can be implemented in the short and long term, and identifying those that will not affect efficiency or effectiveness. Bensouda announced that a full report on this will be issued in the first quarter of 2021. Finally, she concluded by expressing pride in the OTP always paying homage to the Rome Statute and its goals, without fear or favour. 

ICC Registrar Peter Lewis, through his statement, paid most attention to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ways in which the Court continued its work throughout 2020. He then touched upon the second and “more profound challenge” of US Executive Order 13928. He further underscored the challenge the Court faces with its fragile liquidity situation due to an unprecedented level of states in arrears. Lewis thanked states who paid their contributions in advance and encouraged others to comply with their outstanding commitments. Finally, he referred to the IER report, noting the important step the Court has taken in recruiting a Focal Point for Gender. In the months ahead, the Court will also issue stronger policies on harassment and the disciplinary process.

Mama Koité Doumbia introduced the Trust Fund for Victims’ (TFV) report, touching upon the legacy of former Board Chair, Felipe Michelini, who passed away this year. She expressed that the TFV is profoundly committed to collaborate with the Court, States Parties, as well as victims who are at the core of the functionality of the ICC and the Rome Statute system. She further spoke about two main aspects of the work of the TFV, impact and performance, noting that the TFV extended its work to seven countries this year.

Second Plenary Meeting 
The second plenary meeting saw the General Debate, with 27 States Parties addressing the Assembly in-person or through a written statement or prerecorded video message, due to the constraints brought by COVID-19. The General Debate started with an in-person statement from Mr. Taylor Lubanga, on behalf of the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Félix Tshisekedi. In his statement, President Tshisekedi shared the honor it was for him to address the ASP, highlighted the DRC’s efforts in the fight against impunity for the most heinous crimes, and underlined the disastrous consequences those crimes can bring. He expressed that the ICC requires commitment and cooperation to succeed, and he called for all states to continue their contribution to those endeavors.

Following the DRC, 26 States Parties delivered statements, including France, Austria, Sweden, Georgia, Costa Rica, Spain, Nigeria, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Sierra Leone, United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Trinidad & Tobago, Portugal, Norway, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Italy, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Switzerland, El Salvador, Germany, and Palestine. Several other states submitted written statements, found on the ASP website. 

States Parties used the General Debate to address several key issues, present throughout the statements, including the Independent Expert Review, elections of the Prosecutor and six judges, external threats to the Court, the Court’s budget, and the Trust Fund for Victims. Almost all states referred to the efforts put forward by the ICC and its remarkable achievements, especially by continuing its work uninterrupted despite the challenges brought by COVID-19. They expressly defended the universality of the Rome Statute and noted States Parties should cooperate with the Court to maintain its strength as a unique international institution. 

The majority of states commended the work of the Independent Expert Review for the ICC and the Rome Statute System and encouraged the ICC to find means and mechanisms to adopt the recommendations promptly. Nigeria issued a critical view, noting that the report should not be based on “unverified rumors or inaccuracies,” yet applauding the efforts nonetheless and underlining the need to strengthen the ICC for the sake of international justice.

Most states took note of the external challenges that the ICC and the Rome Statute System face and expressed their disapproval. Several, including France and Switzerland, condemned the US economic sanctions imposed on the Court’s Chief Prosecutor and the head of the ICC’s jurisdiction division, calling for immediate revocation or withdrawal.

States universally highlighted the importance of the ongoing renewal process of the judiciary and the OTP. They called for each member to maintain the highest standards for the upcoming elections, carefully reflecting on motives, experience, and expertise when selecting the future judges and the Prosecutor. Many highlighted the need for fair and transparent elections and various states, such as Sierra Leone, Georgia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and the United Kingdom, took the opportunity to present their respective nominees, inviting other states to endorse them during the election.

Sweden, Sierra Leone, Estonia, Italy, Trinidad & Tobago, Belgium, Finland, and the Czech Republic, among others, were vocal about the role of victims at all stages of the work of the Court and the Trust Fund for Victims. They individually reminded the ASP that victims are at the core of the ICC’s mandate and efforts. Thus, they called for all states, both members and non-members, to contribute to the TFV as it implements reparations in the Katanga, Ntaganda, and Al Mahdi cases.

Day 2 (15 December)

 Closed Meetings and Third Plenary Meeting
Day two saw a few closed meetings, with States Parties convening in the Working Group on the Budget and for informal consultations on the resolution on the Review of the Court and Rome Statute System. The brief third plenary meeting included updates from coordinators and facilitators of the working groups on draft resolutions as well as a report from the Credentials Committee.

OTP’s Launch of its 2020 PE report
The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) hosted its annual side event to launch the OTP’s 2020 Preliminary Examination Activities report. The 2020 report includes information on the OTP’s activities in preliminary examinations over the past year. In 2020, the OTP concluded four preliminary examinations, in the situations in Palestine, Iraq/UK, Nigeria, and Ukraine. Read a report on the OTP’s launch event by PILPG Research Associate Raghavi Viswanath here.   

Day 3 (16 December)

Fourth Plenary Meeting
After the introduction of draft resolutions a day earlier and further informal consultations, the ASP considered the adoption of resolutions on its final day in The Hague. States Parties adopted six resolutions by consensus (to be published on the ASPs website soon):

• The resolution on the proposed program budget for 2021;

• The resolution on cooperation;

• The resolution on the remuneration of judges;

• The Omnibus Resolution (adopting similar language as the previous year);

• The resolution on procedures for adoption of decisions by the ASP during the 19th session due to COVID-19;

• The resolution on a possible second resumption of the 19th session of the ASP. This resolution seeks to address the (likely) possibility that the Assembly will not be able to conclude the election of a Prosecutor and six judges during the resumed session in NY. In this case, the resolution provides that the bureau considers practicalities of a second resumption in NY as soon as possible in the first months of 2021.

 Notably, the draft resolution on the Review of the Court and the Rome Statute System did not reach consensus in the Hague Working Group (HWG) leading up to and during the ASP. It seems negotiations on a mechanism to report on the implementation of the IER recommendations has reached a dead end. Mr. Jens-Otto Horslund, Vice President of the ASP, reported that States Parties will continue informal consultations at the resumed ASP session in NY.

Budget
The ASP considered and adopted the Court’s proposed programme budget for 2021. States approved a budget of €144,673.9 million, representing a 0.7% decrease compared to the 2020 approved budget (excluding the host state loan). The approved 2021 budget is in line with recommendations of the CBF, while the Court itself proposed a budget of €144,917.2 million. Belgium delivered a statement after the adoption of the resolution (on behalf of Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland), calling on States Parties to provide the Court with a budget that is in line with its needs to implement its mandate. Belgium acknowledged that this year’s budget negotiations had been easier than in previous years, as there was only a small difference between the Court’s budget and CBF’s budget proposal. However, Belgium noted great concern regarding the Court’s liquidity and the number of states in arrears.

CICC Statement
President O-Kon Gwon gave the floor to Elizabeth Evenson (Human Rights Watch) on behalf of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) to provide a statement to the Assembly. CICC focused on five issues and urged for 1) proactive, fair, informed, and transparent elections; 2) adequate resources for the Court; 3) a timely assessment of IER recommendations that is inclusive of victims and civil society; 4) States Parties to be vigilant to protect the Court’s mandate from attacks and interference; 5) to support, defend, and protect human rights defenders.

Resumed 19th Session in New York
The resumed 19th session will continue this week (17-23 December) in New York, the weather allowing. With President O-Kon Gwon not able to attend, Vice President Mlynár (Slovakia) will preside over the resumed session.

On the agenda are the elections of six members of the CBF; the election of the ASP President, two Vice Presidents, and 18 members of the Bureau; as well as the election of six judges. The election of the Prosecutor appears to have been postponed to early 202 already. Interesting to follow will also be the continued informal consultations on the IER resolution, which did not reach consensus during the first three days of the ASP.