Jan 12, 2024 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ considers the government’s proposed bill to establish a Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation unlikely to advance accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims and survivors of the 26-year-long armed conflict that ended in 2009 and involved widespread atrocities.
The ICJ is concerned that the lack of consultation with victim communities and the continued neglect of their demands deprive the Bill of legitimacy.
A draft Bill on Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation was gazetted on 1 January 2024, to establish the Commission, amidst a climate of impunity for past human rights violations and abuses and intimidation of victim communities in the North and East of the country.
“Considering the repressive political climate in Sri Lanka, and the absence of the conditions that are necessary to ensure the success of the proposed Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation, the Bill appears to be more of a legislative manoeuvre aimed at deflecting the attention of the Human Rights Council and removing Sri Lanka from further scrutiny rather than a genuine accountability measure.” said Melissa Upreti, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The Bill suffers from a lack of transparency regarding the consultation process and non-acceptance by victim communities.
If adopted, it would empower the Attorney-General to prosecute cases where the Commission makes a finding of responsibility for an offence. The ICJ is concerned that in the past the Attorney-General’s office has assumed potentially conflicting dual roles of legal advisor for the State and prosecutor of offences allegedly committed by State officials. The ICJ has previously noted how the Department had mishandled cases relating to serious human rights violations and abuses which has contributed to a climate of mistrust. The ICJ recalls that the years since the end of the conflict have been marked by near total impunity for conflict era crimes, owing to the failure of the Attorney-General’s Department to act to hold to account those responsible for serious crimes under international law.
The Bill provides that appointments to the Commission will be made by the President upon the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. The ICJ has previously noted that the governing party holds a majority in the Constitutional Council and that a majority of members are parliamentarians with only three members appointed from outside. Further, a representative of the smaller political parties (including parliamentarians representing the North and East) is yet to be appointed to the Council. The ICJ is concerned that these arrangements are conducive to creating a Commission that lacks independence and may be subjected to political pressures and considerations in carrying out its work. The situation is exacerbated by the Constitutional Council approving the appointment of the current Acting Inspector General of Police who had in December 2023 been held directly responsible for torture by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
The Bill would further authorize the proposed Commission to seek the assistance of the police to conduct investigations and liaise with the National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses, which in turn depends on the police to provide support for the protection of victims and witnesses. However, a number of police officials have allegedly been responsible for recent cases of torture and ill-treatment and extra judicial killings. The government’s failure to initiate thorough and impartial investigations into these cases and to bring perpetrators to justice has deepened the public’s mistrust of the police and prosecuting agencies.
Successive UN Human Rights Council Resolutions on Sri Lanka have called for the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms with the active participation of all stakeholders, including women who have been at the forefront in leading victim demands for accountability, particularly for cases of enforced disappearance. Yet, protesting mothers and female family members of the disappeared are routinely detained, intimidated or put under surveillance and their voices suppressed.
The Bill lacks also provisions that are gender responsive and makes the establishment of mechanisms and procedures to address women’s concerns discretionary.
Existing transitional justice institutions such as the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) and the Office for Reparations have been ineffective. As underscored by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OMP has failed to earn the trust of victims and their representatives. As recently observed by the High Commissioner, there has been little to no development regarding cases of past human rights violations and abuses.
“The victims of Sri Lanka’s 26-year armed conflict, replete with atrocities, have been forced to wait too long to learn the truth about their loved ones and to be granted justice. When the UN Human Rights Council considers a new resolution on Sri Lanka later this year, it must avoid blind acceptance of Sri Lanka’s flawed transitional justice process and institutions and adopt an approach that genuinely puts the interests of victims and survivors first,” added Upreti.
Background
The draft Bill provides for the establishment of the Commission with a Head Office based in Colombo and Regional Offices as necessary (clause 2). The Commission will have between seven to twenty-one members, who are to be appointed by the President upon recommendation by the Constitutional Council (clause 3). The term of the Commissioners is five years (unless removed earlier) and the President can extend their term on an yearly basis for an additional two years (clause 9). The Commission may conduct public or closed sittings as necessary (clause 7).
The stated objectives of the Commission are to investigate, inquire and make recommendations in respect of complaints or allegations or reports relating to damage or harm caused to persons or property, loss of life or alleged violation of human rights which occurred during the conflict in the Northern and Eastern Provinces between 1983 to 2009 or connected to such period or its aftermath and has a mandate to promote truth telling and make recommendations for reparations, and non – recurrence (clause 12). If it appears to the Commission that an offence under any Sri Lankan law has been committed it may refer the matter to the relevant law enforcement or prosecuting authorities for further investigation and necessary action (clause 13 (zd)). The Commission does not have the mandate to determine civil or criminal liability of any person (Clause 16 (1)) and instead the onus is on the Attorney-General to institute criminal proceedings regarding an offence in Court based on material collected by the Commission (clause 16 (2)).
The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Victim and Witness Protection Division (clause 28) and a Data Management Division (clause 29). The Commission may also appoint any mechanisms and procedure to address requirements related to women, children, persons with disabilities and disadvantaged groups and advisors relating to specific issues (clause 30).
The Bill also provides for the appointment of an advisory panel to advise the Commission on matters referred to the Panel (clause 32). This panel is to consist of a minimum of ten members appointed by the President on the Commission’s recommendation. Clause 39 of the Bill states that within one month of the interim report of the Commission being published the President shall appoint a monitoring committee to implement the findings of the report. Clause 40 states that such Committee be comprised of 11 members, of which six members are to be recommended by the Constitutional Council while the others are members ex-officio. Ex-officio members include the Secretaries of the Ministries of Defence, Justice, Law & Order, Finance, Public Administration & Women, Child Affairs and Social Empowerment or their nominees. The Committee is expected so submit bi-annual plans evaluating the implementation of recommendations of the TUR Commission and other previous Commissions of Inquiry.
Clause 49 of the Bill states that the Commission can defer its investigation regarding any disappearance of a person/s if requested to do so by the OMP until such time it can be resumed without compromising inquiries conducted by the OMP.
In September 2023, the ICJ joined eight other international human rights organizations in expressing their grave reservations about the proposed Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Commission and setting out prerequisites to be addressed before appointing any new Commission. The concerns relate to Sri Lanka’s legacy of failed commissions, lack of a conducive environment and confidence building efforts, lack of meaningful consultations with victim communities, the failure of domestic transitional justice institutions, and the blocking of prosecutions. None of these concerns have been addressed to date, which bring into question the newly proposed Commission’s likelihood of serving as an effective mechanism for accountability.
Jan 8, 2024 | Advocacy, Cases, News
For Immediate Release
Gambian Ex-Minister Sonko Faces Crimes Against Humanity Charges
(Geneva, January 5, 2024) – The opening of a Swiss trial on January 8, 2024, for serious crimes committed in The Gambia represents a significant advance for justice for the victims of grave abuses, Gambian and international groups that are part of the Jammeh2Justice campaign said today.
The former Gambian Interior Minister Ousman Sonko is charged with crimes against humanity relating to torture, kidnapping, sexual violence, and unlawful killings between 2000 and 2016 under then-President Yahya Jammeh. Jammeh’s 22-year rule was marked by systematic and widespread human rights violations, such as arbitrary arrests, torture including sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances of actual and perceived opponents to his rule.
“The trial of Ousman Sonko is another major step in the search for justice for victims of brutal crimes and their families committed under Jammeh’s rule,” said Sirra Ndow, coordinator of the Jammeh2Justice campaign. “The Sonko case should reinforce efforts back in The Gambia to try crimes under Jammeh’s rule so that perpetrators are held to account for the atrocities committed.”
Sonko was arrested in Bern, Switzerland on January 26, 2017, the day after TRIAL International filed a criminal complaint against him. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland filed an indictment against Sonko before the Federal Criminal Court on April 17, 2023. The trial, taking place in the city of Bellinzona, is expected to last about three weeks.
The trial is possible because Swiss law recognizes universal jurisdiction over certain serious international crimes, allowing for the prosecution of these crimes no matter where they were committed and regardless of the nationality of the suspects or victims. Swiss nongovernmental organizations, former federal prosecutors, members of parliament, and others have previously criticized judicial officials in Switzerland for lagging behind other European countries on universal jurisdiction cases despite having solid legislation to address serious crimes.
“With Sonko’s trial, Switzerland appears at last to be gaining momentum on prosecuting atrocity crimes committed abroad,” said Philip Grant, executive director at TRIAL International, which supports plaintiffs in the case. “Sonko is the highest-level former official to be tried under the principle of universal jurisdiction in Europe.”
Sonko is the second person to be tried in Switzerland before a non-military court for serious crimes committed abroad, the second person to be tried in Europe for crimes committed in The Gambia, and the highest ranked official to be prosecuted in Europe on the basis of universal jurisdiction. Gambian activists and survivors, and international advocates will attend the trial’s opening in Bellinzona and are available for comment. The first case addressing crimes committed in The Gambia was in Germany against Bai Lowe, a former member of the paramilitary unit known as the “Junglers,” which Jammeh created. Lowe was convicted and sentenced to life in prison by a German court on November 30, 2023, for two murders and an attempted murder, constituting crimes against humanity.
A major challenge will be to ensure that Gambians, whether in the audience or outside the courtroom, can access, follow, and understand the proceedings, which will be conducted in German. Survivors, victims’ groups, and civil society groups have tried to ensure that information on developments is disseminated within The Gambia to increase their impact.
“Developments in the proceedings of such a significant case should be made accessible to Gambians, victims and non-victims alike, in the English language, which they understand, there by boosting their interest in the trial,” said Fatoumata Sandeng, a plaintiff in the Sonko case who heads the Solo Sandeng Foundation. “Greater action on accountability by the government back home in Gambia is also needed.”
Since Jammeh’s fall, The Gambia has moved forward with only two prosecutions for Jammeh-era crimes. In December 24, 2021, the final report of Gambia’s Truth Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) found that Jammeh and 69 of his associates committed crimes against humanity, and called for their prosecution. On May 25, 2022, the Gambian government accepted the TRRC’s recommendation for accountability, but without an action plan.
On May 12, 2023, the government presented a long-awaited detailed implementation plan calling for the creation of a Special Prosecutor’s Office to complete the investigations initiated by the TRRC and to prepare case-ready dossiers. A hybrid tribunal of Gambia and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) would be created to carry out prosecutions of the most serious offenses. The Gambia and ECOWAS have created a joint technical committee to develop the hybrid court.
“The Gambian government and ECOWAS should move without delay to create the hybrid court,” said Elise Keppler, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “Victims and the Gambian public have waited a very long time to have the chance to see justice done.”
Groups involved with the campaign include: Africa Center for International Law and Accountability (ACILA), African Network Against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED), Amnesty International–Ghana, Center for Justice and Accountability, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Gambia Center for Victims of Human Rights Violations, Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-GHANA), Human Rights Advocacy Center, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA), POS Foundation, Right 2 Know–Gambia, Solo Sandeng Foundation, The Toufah Foundation, TRIAL International, and Women’s Association for Victims’ Empowerment (WAVE).
For more information on the trial, please visit:
https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/ousman-sonko-case-the-second-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-switzerland-to-take-place-in-january-2024/
or, https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/The-Ousman-Sonko-Case_QA.pdf
For more information, please contact:
For Human Rights Watch, in New York, Elise Keppler (English, French): +1-917-687-8576 (mobile); or kepplee@hrw.org. Twitter: @EliseKeppler
For TRIAL International, in Geneva, Vony Rambolamanana (English, French, German): +33-66 -48-80-305 (mobile); or media@trialinternational.org. Twitter: @trial
For ANEKED, in New York, Nana-Jo Ndow (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese): +1-929-684-5734 (mobile); or nanajo.ndow@aneked.org. @theANEKED
For International Commission of Jurists, in Barcelona, Reed Brody (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese): +1-917-388-6745 (mobile); or reedbrody@gmail.com. Twitter: @reedbrody
For Solo Sandeng Foundation, in Germany, Fatoumatta Sandeng (English, German, Mandinka, Wollof) +49-16-31-74-75-19 (mobile); or solosandengfoundation@gmail.com. Twitter: @solosandengfound
Dec 21, 2023 | News
On 18 December 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) filed a submission to the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) on Tunisia’s implementation of the Committee’s 2020 concluding observations regarding the Constitutional Court and the use of counter-terrorism provisions in the context of the Committee’s follow-up procedure.
“Since July 2021, President Kais Said has systematically eroded all checks on his authority, including by curtailing the powers of the Constitutional Court under the 2022 Constitution and by instigating arbitrary prosecutions against those suspected of opposing his rule , including judges, journalists, human rights defenders, and political opponents,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA director. “The Tunisian authorities must abide by their obligations under international law, immediately reinstate a democratic constitutional order, and end the use of the criminal process and counter-terrorism measures to crackdown on dissent and free speech.”
In April 2022, pursuant to the Committees’ request to the State party to provide follow-up information on the implementation of its recommendations regarding the Constitutional Court, the state of emergency and counter-terrorism, and freedom of peaceful assembly and excessive use of force by the State’s agents, Tunisia submitted further information regarding its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as they pertain to the above-mentioned concerns. During the Committee’s 140th session between 4 and 28 March 2024, this information, and Tunisia’s implementation of the Committee’s recommendations on the same, will be reviewed.
The ICJ’s submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing human rights concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of ICCPR, which are not adequately addressed in the State’s submission of further information, including:
- Article 2(3). By failing to establish a Constitutional Court, and by severely limiting the independence and powers of the Constitutional Court under the new Constitution – should one ever be established – Tunisia has failed to provide recourse to resolve disputes about the constitutionality of the exceptional decrees promulgated by the President under the state of exception, including by removing the power of the legislature to challenge the constitutionality of such decrees in the new Constitution;
.
- Article 4(1) and (3). By failing to specify the nature of the public emergency that purportedly necessitated the suspension of the Constitution in July 2021 per article 80 of the 2014 Constitution on state of exception, and the corollary interference with ICCPR rights, and by failing to notify the derogation to these rights, Tunisia has failed to meet its obligations to prove and ensure that the exceptional measures adopted by the President were “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”;
.
- Article 9(1). By arbitrarily detaining perceived political opponents, lawyers or judges under counter-terrorism provisions without reliable evidence, Tunisia is unlawfully interfering with their right to liberty;
.
- Article 19 (1) and (3). By arbitrarily investigating and prosecuting members of the judiciary, political opponents and lawyers under counter-terrorism provisions, Tunisia is unlawfully interfering with their right to express their opinions both in their professional and personal capacity; and
.
- Article 14(1). Through interference in the appointment, career, disciplining and dismissal of judges, prosecutors and High Judicial Council members, the President has undermined the independence and impartiality of tribunals presiding over criminal investigations and prosecutions, including with respect to counter-terrorism proceedings against perceived political opponents and members of the judiciary.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Dec 20, 2023 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ condemned aspects of the agreement reached by the EU Member States and the European Parliament on the last five instruments from the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, stressing that it will effectively strip away core human rights and refugee protections for persons from vulnerable populations.
The ICJ calls on the EU and its Member States to adhere strictly to their international legal obligations, particularly under human rights law and refugee law, in implementing any new legislative measures.
The Pact, a major set of legislative proposals on the EU’s migration policy initially proposed by the European Commission in September 2020, aims to update the existing rules of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which was renegotiated just a few years prior to this proposal.
« The agreement reached today between the co-legislators, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament sends a worrying signal on the state of EU’s commitment to human rights protection, » said Karolína Babická, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. « Although a final text of the legislative instruments is yet to be seen, the agreement waters down protection and safeguards for the rights of migrants and refugees, that oblige the EU Member States under international law. »
Based on the agreement reached today on the Asylum Procedures Regulation, applicants will not have access to free legal assistance, including in border procedures, as it will only be available for certain persons at the appeals stage, where for many it will be too late. Other points agreed include more fast-track procedures with fewer individual safeguards for the migrants and refugees in question. The Council and the European Parliament also agreed with the proposal of a fiction of “non-entry” to the territory, which is intended have the effect of removing migrants and refugees from the protective of spheres of the state on the grounds that they are not really in the country.
« These are in breach of international human rights standards and rules on jurisdiction and will lead to more administrative detention, which effectively punishes those in most need of protection, » said Babická, « It appears that the instruments are intended to allow for border procedures with nearly no procedural safeguards, resulting in quick deportations. However, even in border zones or transit zones, the State’s human rights law obligations remain fully applicable. »
The asylum border procedure as agreed would apply to asylum seekers who are either “unlikely to be granted asylum”, whose claim is fraudulent or abusive, or who are considered a security risk. This provision undermines the key principle of refugee protection, ensuring an individual assessment of one’s asylum claim. Regardless of the general recognition rate, many individuals are still refugees in need of protection status due to circumstances of their individual case. Equally in assessing whether the application is fraudulent, abusive or potentially a security risk, an individualised assessment must be in place.
Indeed, it is difficult to assess any of the purported criteria without fair hearing based on equal protection and the rule of law.
A further problematic aspect includes the disparate treatment and safeguards for available for children below the age of twelve and those twelve and older. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is considered a person under the age of 18 must be afforded the protections due to them. Under these rules, older children would for instance not be exempted from border procedures.
The ICJ has previously warned about harmful provisions in the proposals regarding detention in the Screening and Asylum Procedures Regulation.
The Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management, replacing the current Dublin Regulation, will now exclude the possibility for applicants to be transferred to the Member State where they have a sibling or other family member with a legal residence. This provision seriously worsens the situation of asylum applicants in the EU CEAS so far, in breach of international legal standards, especially the right to family life.
Dec 20, 2023 | Cases, News
Desi Bouterse sentenced to 20 years in prison
Paramaribo, Suriname; 20 December 2023 – The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomed the 20 December decision by the Hof van Justitie, the highest court in Suriname, confirming the conviction of former president Desi Bouterse for the 1982 murders of 15 political prisoners.
The three-judge chamber also confirmed Bouterse’s sentence of 20 years in prison. It was not immediately clear when Bouterse, who was not in court, would begin serving his term. The court also sentenced his four co-accused to 15 years each.
It took 41 years, but the long arm of the law has finally caught up to Desi Bouterse,” said Reed Brody, an American lawyer who attended the verdict for the ICJ. “Suriname has chosen the rule of law. The judges who rendered today’s decision and those who issued the original conviction while Bouterse was still president should be praised for their fortitude and their independence.”
Bouterse’s lawyer had indicated that in the event of a conviction, he would file a challenge with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, though it is not clear on what ground, and such a filing does not stay the operation of the sentence. The only domestic channel available for Bouterse is to seek a pardon from president Chan Santokhi.
The ICJ underscored that extrajudicial executions are crimes under international law, that Heads of State enjoy no special immunity from prosecution for such crimes irrespective of when they were committed, and that pardons may not be applied to shield those responsible from criminal accountability.
Today’s decision is a victory for the families of Bouterse’s victims, who never gave up, and for all those around the world seeking to bring powerful abusers to justice,” said Brody. “It should serve as another reminder that accountability for the most serious crimes has no expiration date.”
Background
On 8 December 1982, 15 leading opponents of Suriname’s then military regime led by Desi Bouterse, who had been taken from their homes and arbitrarily detained the night before, were executed at the military barracks of Fort Zeelandia in the capital Paramaribo, after apparently being subjected to torture. The victims included the country’s chief labor leader, four lawyers, two reporters, a radio commentator, the owner of a news service, an industrialist, a former congressman, and a professor of biophysics.
No investigation of the killings was undertaken, even following the restoration of democracy in 1987. On the eve of the expiration of the 18-year statute of limitations for murder in 2000, the families of the victims obtained a court order mandating an investigation. In November 2007 the Krijgsraad (a military court comprised in the case of Bouterse of civilian judges) was established to hear charges against Bouterse and 24 other suspects. The process was plagued with prolonged suspensions and delays, especially following the election of Bouterse as president of Suriname in July 2010. First, the trial was suspended for four years following an amendment passed by Bouterse’s party to the Amnesty Law of 1989 (now repealed) granting him and the other accused immunity from prosecution. Then Bouterse ordered the attorney general (procureur-generaal) to block resumption of the trial on “national security” grounds, but the courts refused the request. He also sought unsuccessfully to fire the attorney general,an independent judicial officer with lifetime tenure, for failing to stop the prosecution. Finally, on 29 November 2019, while Bouterse was still president, the Krijgsraad sentenced him to 20 years in prison for planning and ordering the “December murders”. Because Bouterse chose not to be present at that trial, he was able to obtain a review of the conviction. On 30 August 2021, the Krijgsraad affirmed the conviction. Eyewitness and video evidence adduced at the trials placed Bouterse at Fort Zeelandia where he personally confronted victims before they were shot.
Bouterse, who lost power in 2020, appealed to the Hof van Justitie.
The ICJ has been monitoring the Bouterse trial since 2012. Details of some earlier ICJ’s missions reports and statements can be found here.
Contact:
In Paramaribo, Reed Brody (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese): +1-917-388-6745 or reedbrody@gmail.com. Twitter: @reedbrody
Watch his post-verdict interview with ITV here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A3DBVVsAmY&t=132s
Dec 17, 2023 | Cases, News
ICJ will monitor Desi Bouterse appeal
Paramaribo, Suriname; 17 December 2023 – On 20 December 2023, the Hof van Justitie, the highest court in Suriname, is expected to issue its final decision in the appeal by former president Desi Bouterse against his conviction for the 1982 murders of 15 political prisoners.
The International Commission of Jurists, which has monitored the trial since 2012, will be present in court in Paramaribo.
“This is the most important criminal trial in Suriname’s history,” said Reed Brody who will attend the verdict for the ICJ. “That a final decision will be delivered, after so many delays and detours, is a tribute to the courage and independence of Surinamese judges, the perseverance of the victims’ families and the resilience of the rule of law.”
Background
On 8 December 1982, 15 opponents of Suriname’s then military regime led by Desi Bouterse, including lawyers, union leaders and journalists, who had been arbitrarily detained the day before, were executed at the military barracks of Fort Zeelandia, Paramaribo, Suriname, after apparently being subjected to torture. Following a complaint by the families of the victims in 2000, in November 2007 the Krijgsraad (a military court comprised in the case of Bouterse of civilian judges) was established to hear charges against Bouterse and 24 other suspects. The process was plagued with serious suspensions and delays, especially following the election of Bouterse as president of Suriname in July 2010 and an amendment of the Amnesty Law of 1989 (now repealed) granting him and the other accused immunity from prosecution. On 29 November 2019, following a decade-long court martial, the Krijgsraad sentenced Bouterse- while he was still president – to 20 years in prison for planning and ordering the “December murders”. On 30 August 2021, the Krijgsraad affirmed the conviction and Bouterse- who lost power in 2020 – appealed. A final decision of the Hof van Justitie is due on 20 December in the cases of Bouterse and four others who have appealed their convictions.
ICJ Monitors
The ICJ trial monitors have been: from 2012 until 2020 – Jeff Handmaker, a former UK barrister and associate professor at Erasmus University in The Netherlands and the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa; from 2020 – Godfrey Smith SC, former Attorney General of Belize, former acting Justice of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court; and from 2023 – ICJ Commission member and veteran war crimes prosecutor Reed Brody who has participated in cases involving Augusto Pinochet, Hissène Habré and Jean-Claude Duvalier among others.
Reed Brody will be present in court on 20 December.
Details of some earlier ICJ’s missions reports and statements can be found here.
Contact:
In Paramaribo, Reed Brody (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese): +1-917-388-6745 or reedbrody@gmail.com. Twitter: @reedbrody
