Read on Twitter
The Office of the Prosecutor of the @IntlCrimCourt has decided to close its preliminary examination into allegations of war crimes committed by British forces in Iraq.
The executive summary is pretty scathing in its assessment of...
https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf
The executive summary is pretty scathing in its assessment of...
https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf
the British ability to hold perpetrators to account. It stated:
"The preliminary examination has found that there is a reasonable basis to believe that various forms of abuse were committed by members of UK armed forces against Iraqi civilians in detention."
"The preliminary examination has found that there is a reasonable basis to believe that various forms of abuse were committed by members of UK armed forces against Iraqi civilians in detention."
It noted that there was reasonable basis to believe that 68 people had been subjected to inhuman/cruel treatment, sexual violence or murder (it breaks down the numbers by type of abuse so not clear if some victims fell into more than more that one category).
It was scathing about IHAT and SPLI:
"The outcome of the more than ten year long domestic process, involving the examination of thousands of allegations, has resulted in not one single case being submitted for prosecution: a result that has deprived the victims of justice."
"The outcome of the more than ten year long domestic process, involving the examination of thousands of allegations, has resulted in not one single case being submitted for prosecution: a result that has deprived the victims of justice."
It notes that these allegations are not all "vexatious", a term that has been frequently used by the British Government to denigrate allegations of war crimes, after serious allegations against British soldiers during the Al-Sweady Inquiry proved to be inaccurate.
"the dearth of criminal prosecutions contrasts with the large number of civil claims resolved, where evidence has been challenged and tested, either before the High Court... or out of court settlement. These have involved claims with respect to hundreds of victims."
Ultimately, the decision to close this case is based on the conclusion that the UK authorities have not been genuinely unwilling to carry out relevant investigative inquiries and/or prosecutions.
The Overseas Operations Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament, will place an effective statute of limitation of prosecutions of members of the armed forces to 5 years. This seems relevant in light of this decision by the ICC to close this case.
Given the stated conclusion of the ICC, one wonders if their decision would be different if the Bill had been in effect during this period, in which case UK personnel could have been facing war-crimes charges in the Hague. Could any international lawyers answer that?
