Link TV, connecting you to the world. Link TV is viewer supported. Watch more at linktv.org.
As victorious Allied forces occupied Europe, Nazi atrocities shocked the world. As a liberator of many concentration camps, beginning in Buchenwald and Mauthausen and going on through, I saw the crematoria going with the bodies in them. I saw the dead bodies all over the place.
I experienced the horrors of war itself. The Allies had to decide what to do with the worst of the Nazi war criminals. The U.S. argued for putting the war criminals on trial, while Great Britain and the Soviet Union favored summary executions. The U.S. position for the rule of law prevailed. We are now ready to hear the presentation by the prosecution.
We ask this court to affirm by international penal action man's right to live in peace and dignity, regardless of his race or creed. The case we present is a plea of humanity to law. I was then 27 years old. It was my first case.
My defendants were 22 high-ranking SS officers. They were accused and convicted of murdering in cold blood over a million people. I didn't ask for the death penalty. I simply asked for a new rule of law which would protect humankind against that type of criminal abuse.
The charges we have brought accuse the defendants of having committed genocide. We hoped that we would lay a foundation stone saying that genocide was a crime. Crimes against humanity are punishable.
Nobody is immune. The head of a state will be brought to trial. Despite Nuremberg's strides toward international law, the politics of the Cold War hindered the evolution of international justice.
With the end of the Cold War, a pioneering tribunal was established in the former Yugoslavia to try perpetrators of mass atrocities committed there. As the Yugoslav tribunal got underway, a horrific genocide swept Rwanda. 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. Another UN tribunal was set up to try those most responsible for the massive deaths. These international tribunals were proving a success.
But the international community knew that it couldn't set up expensive and time-consuming tribunals for each new conflict. In 1998, people from all over the world gathered in Rome to attempt something that had never been done, create the basis for a permanent international criminal court. About 140 governments showed up, and everyone who was there, I think, certainly I felt this way, knew we were part of a very historic undertaking. States had in mind to establish a mechanism to fight against impunity for the most heinous crimes. Crimes which I would say shock the conscience of all humanity.
Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. You had the sense that so much was at stake and so much hung in the balance. And that was whether the international community on the verge of the 21st century was going to create it. institution that would have the authority to investigate and prosecute these horrific crimes, or whether the whole negotiation would just implode and collapse.
The United States was reluctant to join a court that might challenge its sovereignty. So at the Rome Conference, the U.S. delegation pushed hard for a court where it had more control. The vote will now be closed. The delegates rejected the U.S. position and overwhelmingly approved the Rome Statute, the Constitution for the new court.
It was a great victory in my mind for the rule of law, because for the first time since Nuremberg, the first time in human history a truly international criminal court had been drafted and accepted overwhelmingly by the nations in that room. But in the United States, opposition to the possibility of this new court was growing stronger. Whether the ICC survives and flourishes depends in large measure on the United States.
We should isolate and ignore the ICC. Tangible American interests are at risk. Our main concern should be for the president. and other senior leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy. I took it on myself to be one of my responsibilities because I felt it was so important to protect American citizens from being...
the subject of investigation or prosecution by this institution. Are Americans at danger from the ICC? Well, if in fact we have a government that does plot and plan crimes against humanity or war crimes, it's U.S. courts which have first take on that. The Rome Conference called for a court of last resort that would only be able to take cases when a country was unable or unwilling to try the criminals themselves.
This was called complementarity. Under the complementarity principle... We'll look into this matter. We'll investigate it. We'll determine whether there's a basis for prosecution or not of these crimes.
When I was negotiating the treaty, that was in fact one of our victories. And yet, of course, the criticism has continued. continued.
Specifically, I propose for the U.S. policy the three no's. No financial support, directly or indirectly, no collaboration, and no further negotiations with other governments to improve the statute. This approach is likely to maximize the chances that the ICC will wither and collapse, which should be our objective.
The U.S. was unable to stop other countries from signing on to the new court. For the first time in human history, there is a permanent, independent, international criminal court with power to investigate and try perpetrators of the worst crimes, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. When I got here, it was very much like this court is a baby, and it was exciting for that reason. I think at the beginning, we all had a very strong sense of participating in a startup.
It's a justice startup. Young, committed professionals from around the world, including the U.S., came to help build the new court. I like the thought of working in a brand new place like this.
I mean, the ICC is pretty much a blank canvas at the minute. Like most Sri Lankans, I have an innate interest in conflict. I come from a family that suffered quite a lot during the... the dictatorship.
I saw the problems and I saw also the people's yearning for some kind of justice for the crimes. It's like taking home a gold medal from the Olympic Games. You know, when you're at the Olympic Games, you're kind of doing it yourself, but once you have that medal, it's for your country, it's for your people.
I felt that I wanted to do something somehow to raise the collective consciousness, I guess. I grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust, and that's why I was encouraged to work in such an international organization. I believe that by participating in the international criminal process, I would contribute in my own little way to restoring the dignity of human beings.
Working here has made me realize that justice is easier said than done. When you tell people it's an international criminal court, they automatically think, oh, you're at the top. You know, your job is to be the king court of all courts. You're the king global permanent court.
And in fact, that's untrue. We're more like a court at the bottom that catches the cases that fall through because other states or countries are unwilling or unable to do them themselves. Hello, how are you?
I believe this courtroom is the symbol of a new era. This courtroom means that the international community is learning how to work together to protect people all over the world. All rise, we will leave it.
The International Criminal Court is now in session. Could security please bring in Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dilo, please. The first case to go to trial was referred by Congo and involves a militia leader, Thomas Lubanga Dilo.
Mr. President, Your Honors, this is a case about children. And this is a case about young children under the age of 15 years having been conscripted, having been enlisted. and having been used to participate actively in hostilities.
And it is the case about the criminal liability of Thomas Lubanga Diilo. It's very bad. It's like you're going to die. You're going to die.
You're going to die. You're going to die. You're going to die.
Mr. President, honorable judges, during the previous century, millions of people, many of them children, were victims of unimaginable atrocities. The International Criminal Court symbolizes the hope that by ending impunity for such crimes we might prevent their occurrence and contribute to the peace, security and well-being of the world. When I went to school, there was no such thing as human rights law.
Humanitarian law didn't exist. So I have seen these changes coming in our lifetime. It's a long life. I'm in my 87th year. But it's very short.
It's a blink in the eye. of time, of historical time. We need several generations to continue working on it, and I hope someone will pick up this torch when it slips from my hand, which may be soon. So it can be done, and we should never be defeatist and say it can't be done.
It's so obviously correct that law is better than war, and that it's better to live in peace with human rights than to live in war killing people whom you don't even know. You're watching a special presentation of excerpts from the documentary The Reckoning. To learn more about civil society efforts to secure justice for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, visit www.coalitionfortheicc.org. The International Criminal Court was founded on the premise that you cannot have lasting peace without at least a component of justice.
For 20 years, the people of northern Uganda have been devastated by a war between the Ugandan government and a rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA. The main characteristic of the war has been that the LRA abducts very young children, typically from the ages of 8 to 12 or 8 to 14. This is the school that made me what I am. It's the basis of my foundation in life.
And this is the school that shaped me. And this is also the school where I was abducted by the rebel of the Lord's Registrant Army. And I remember on that fateful night, it was a very dark shade of my life. Whenever you are abducted, you are forced to kill. And this killing is against your will.
And what they used to do is a kind of orienting you to the bush life, so that you lose hope for the future and you join the racket. And you yourself, if you refuse, that's the end of you. So basically you have no choice.
You have to do what they want you to do. And doing what they want you to do means you're committing the atrocities that they are actually committing. As the LRA terrorized the countryside, more than a million people had to flee their farms and villages, ending up in overcrowded IDP camps. The war has taken 20 years and people have been in camp for 20 years.
These people who have been in camp simply want to find a way out of the camp. They want to find a way out of their suffering. Helping trying to end the crisis came from an unexpected source. The International Criminal Court, or ICC, started in 2002. It prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. We had a referral from the government of Uganda, but when we got the referral we had responded back to the government to tell them that we will investigate everybody involved in the conflict, including the government of Uganda.
The ICC took on the case. ICC investigators concluded that the gravest crimes were committed by the LRA. LRA atrocities continued to plague the North. On May 16, 2004, the Lord Registrar's Army came and attacked my camp. The woman who was in the hospital, she was in the hospital.
She was in the hospital and she was in the hospital. And you can see, what you can see in the picture is, you know, the wounds are awful. The skulls are split open.
There are certain incidents on which we've chosen to focus that I think are signature crimes of the LRA, attacks upon civilian populations that are either war crimes or crimes against humanity, and we were able to establish links directly to the leadership for those crimes. The court's constitution considers child soldiers under 15 as victims, not criminals, so the case was focused on the top LRA commanders. After the arrest warrants were made public, the Lord's Army leaders, of course, started looking around for explanations as to what this was.
So they started sending out feelers about who could explain what was going on to them. And that's how I became involved. And you have to walk many miles.
Vince Adote came first to announce that there would be a meeting and the next morning they arrived very, very well armed indeed. And Joseph Kony opted for a public meeting on the island. I became a little bit concerned when I had to say there loudly so that they could all hear that the forcible abduction and conscription of children was an international crime.
The attacks on civilians and cruelty, killings, these were so serious that the international community could not stay away. The International Criminal Court had issued its first arrest warrants, and the problem of balancing the need for justice and peace flared up. In the past, peace negotiators could offer amnesty for crimes in exchange for peace. But the ICC arrest warrants meant that there would be no impunity for the worst crimes. Because when we first issued the warrants, and they were the first warrants issued by the court, I think there was...
Yeah, there was a lot of outcry and sort of criticism at the beginning because, okay, well, the warrants are going to be an impediment to achieving a negotiated peace. The peace versus justice problem intensified. The threat of the ICC warrants helped push the LRA to seriously negotiate peace.
If Uganda government is really with interest of ending the war through dialogue, I think this one will be the end of it. Because we want to talk peace, to solve the differences between the LRA and the government, through negotiation and end the war or end the conflict in Uganda. But the LRA had one non-negotiable demand. Remove the ICC warrants. The ICC is affecting the peace process because it will still let down the peace process.
The ICC has still blocked it away. At the ICC, decisions on the LRA case were being considered by the Office of the Prosecutor. I don't think there can be peace without justice. The mere fact that if there is peace negotiated without justice sends the message that people can commit atrocities and then... are not held accountable, there cannot be true reconciliation, I don't think, unless the people who suffered are at least made to see that justice has been done for their suffering.
We cannot withdraw the arrest warrants. I am a woman, and I am a woman of faith. Kony and the LRA had fled Uganda and were hiding in the Congo.
There was a ceasefire and LRA attacks in Uganda had stopped. This was extremely a special Christmas, especially for me also, because this is the first Christmas I've experienced, I've celebrated here in northern Uganda without hearing a gunshot, without hearing that somebody is abducted. without hearing the fear that all the rebels have crossed this way. So this is a special Christmas. And I think that our future is still bright.
As long as there is peace, nothing shall defeat us. Many in northern Uganda were ready to put aside justice and forgive the crimes of the LRA so that they could live in peace. I would feel that the arrest warrant should be detained until the peace process yields a foot that can be shared within the community here. Peace negotiations allowed an LRA delegation to return to northern Uganda.
Their message to the local population was clear. If you want an end to the fighting, then get rid of the ICC. I am very happy to be here today.
The local population here, like everybody everywhere else, are asking whoever is responsible for the ICC to take every step to make sure that the ICC indictment is withdrawn. The ICC began to work with local activists to teach people about the court. When I came back and with the experience I saw from the captivity, it completely changed my mind. All I kept thinking was maybe I should work in a human rights related kind of activity. My name is Jimmy Otim.
I work as a field public information and outreach coordinator for Uganda. Today we are going to hear a lot from the office of the prosecutor. And we are also going to hear a lot from you, feedback, because we can also learn from you.
The people of northern Uganda and Uganda in general are yearning for the peace and they are looking at the ICC as being the biggest stumbling block actually. We're not against the peace process. We're not against it at all. We want peace to return to Uganda, and we're very, very happy that the crimes have diminished.
But the reason the international community, including Uganda, created the court was because they believe that if you hold those most responsible to account, account, you'll not only reestablish the rule of law, and you'll not only establish the truth about what happened, because often when you do amnesties, the truth is sort of shoved under the carpet, but you'll also try to deter crimes from happening in the future. Suddenly shocking news leaked out from the LRA hiding in the jungle. Vincent Otte, second in command, who had been pushing hard for a real peace, was murdered by Joseph Kony, head of the LRA.
If Kony can kill Otte, his closest friend, then how about you? How about us? That means, Coyne is not serious about even the peace itself. With Kony's true intentions exposed, people in northern Uganda felt that justice and peace should be pursued together.
But what kind of justice, and how? There should be a driving force. There should be a driving force. Samarais, samarais.
You have seen that point? Look, when we are looking at the LRA, Lupa is not only one side, Lupa is two sides of the same coin. Amnesty is being done by Ono Jomati Lumi to the government. Both the government have made a mistake. Even the LRA have also made a mistake.
Then why amnesty on those ones who can't walk? Very important. We are not going to let you go.
We are going to make you pay for what you did. We are going to make you pay for what you did. We are going to make you pay for what you did. We are going to make you pay for what you did.
We are going to make you pay for what you did. When the parliament is coming with a law, when the parliament is coming with a law, I'm going to have a special court system. You know, there's no case in The Hague. There's been a real discussion about peace and justice, and it's bringing the idea of rule of law into communities.
Civilized societies and peaceful societies have a foundation in a rule of law. And so against the very, very worst offenders who will observe no boundaries, you have to have some accountability mechanism. And if you don't, you should be very pessimistic about the prospects of having a secure society. You're watching a special presentation of excerpts from The Reckoning. To learn more about the field of transitional justice and efforts to help societies address legacies of massive human rights violations, visit the International Center for Transitional Justice at www.ictj.org.
This idea of the law... International relation is new, it's totally new. The world is changing. For centuries, for three or four centuries in fact, national states were responsible to protect their own people. But after the Nazi system, international communities start to believe that national sovereignty cannot be a limit to international community duty to protect.
The first 18 judges of the International Criminal Court will make their solemn undertaking. The ICC began in 2002, born of an international demand for justice. It is the first permanent, independent international criminal court.
The court prosecutes perpetrators, no matter how powerful, of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The court's involvement in Darfur would become a test of the limits of international law. Since 2003, the world has watched massive crimes being committed in Darfur.
There was global pressure on the United Nations to protect the people of Darfur. The UN sent peacekeepers, but the mission was ineffectual and the violence continued. So in 2005, the UN Security Council voted to have the International Criminal Court investigate.
The responsibility for investigation rests with the prosecutor. I was prosecuted in 1985 in Argentina in the trial against the Junta. This was the first trial after Nuremberg in which generals were prosecuted for massive crimes.
This changed the country. We had a dictatorship for 60 years and was the end. All my life I had the idea that this was the most important work of my life.
prosecute the top generals of the country because they killed 20,000 people. And now I feel it was just my training. It was my training to do this job. In Darfur, getting the evidence is complicated. The prosecutor has opened investigations in the situation in Darfur.
For reasons of security of the witnesses and victims, we have not been able to deploy to Darfur itself. But we have been investigating outside of Darfur and we are gathering evidence. The court's investigation has revealed that the Sudanese government, in battling rebel groups, has targeted the civilian population of Darfur.
Attacking and killing civilians is a crime against humanity. Now the court must identify those most responsible. When the court issued warrants against Haroun and Khashoggi, the Sudanese government refused to enforce any ICC arrest warrants.
A major hurdle now faced the court. How to enforce its arrest warrants without Sudan's cooperation? Normally when you are a criminal prosecutor, your judges have the possibility to give instructions to the police.
When I was prosecuted in Buenos Aires, I was just in Buenos Aires, but I had 30,000 policemen who could follow my instructions. Here I have at least two states as possible jurisdiction and zero policemen. So this court is not a national court, it is based on order and command.
This is a court based on voluntary cooperation of sovereign states. In the Darfur case, the United Nations must take the lead in rallying sovereign states to support the arrest warrants. This idea to have international criminal law is so new that it's not in consensus in the world, and that's why... We have to use our case to build consensus. Mr. President, the Sudan, a UN member state, has not complied with its obligation to arrest and surrender the inductees.
In Darfur today, massive crimes continue to be committed. When will be a better time to arrest Haroun? How many more girls had to be raped? How many persons had to be killed? You can make a difference.
What is at stake is simple. The life... or death of 2.5 million people. Thank you.
Ocampo exposed today his moral and professional bankruptcy. I think this is highly politically motivated. It will be harmful to the peace process. Could you just explain in clear terms how is the actions of the International Criminal Court prosecutor affecting Sudan's willingness to allow peacekeepers into Darfur? What he stated today before the council has the power of...
interfering and spoiling the roadmap and destroying the peace process in Sudan. And we don't have any confidence in what Ocampo is doing. And we are not going in any way to surrender our citizens. When you go to the Security Council and you tell everyone at the Security Council, listen, Achmed Haroun and other people are responsible for this conspiracy, they're not thinking to themselves, well, maybe that's wrong.
I think people know this is happening and they understand the mechanism by which it's happening. The problem is that the world just doesn't want to do it. anything about it. And I feel that's why I feel showing how the state was used to commit a crime is so important. The ambassador told me, but what do you expect from me?
I had to go to see a minister and tell the minister, your colleague, Mr. Haroun, is committing a crime, has to do something? Yes. When I told him yes, he was desperate. For him, it was impossible. It destroyed all.
His rules. Our intervention is like a shock for the Security Council, who is not used to this independent judicial actor. But I think we have to learn how to make this work, and if not, there is no future. Another half year goes by with no UN Security Council action on Darfur. But the court continues its investigation.
The law is not just for judges, prosecutors and criminals. The law is for legal advisors in the foreign affairs minister. The law is for president of countries.
Following the evidence of the chain of command, the prosecutor concluded that the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, was directly implicated in the Darfur crimes. It's a genocide. It's a genocide.
If we are not indicting this person for fear, that would be a shame. And in two years people will say, you ignore a genocide, you ignore Bashir's responsibility. If the court decides to indict Bashir, it will be the first time the ICC has attempted to bring to trial a sitting head of state. Rape. You have a thing called rape, hunger, fear.
God, why? I need to spread the message in the world. It's not about just the legal aspect.
It's a combination of factors. So I need to find on time. The prosecutor is on his way now.
I just submitted an application requesting an arrest warrant against Omar al-Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Al-Basir has intention to destroy the full Masallid and Sagawa ethnic groups. We don't need to wait. We don't need to wait until he finishes his work.
These people are waiting for our protection. ICC judges must decide if there is enough evidence to honor the prosecutor's request. After eight months, they issued an arrest warrant for President al-Bashir of Sudan on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. al-Bashir embarked on a global diplomatic push to rally his allies and discredit the ICC.
Some Arab and African leaders asked the UN Security Council to defer the arrest warrant. The issuance of a warrant of arrest in respect of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan could seriously undermine the promotion of long-lasting peace and reconciliation in the Sudan. The African Union Peace and Security Council considered it advisable that the Security Council consider making a request to the ICC to defer the potential case against President Al-Bashir. Thank you, Mr. President. President Al-Bashir is the president of the country.
A president cannot use openly a state to commit crimes. That's why they cover the crimes. Part of his cover-up... It's diplomatic work to you. Diplomatic work in the African Union, in the Arab League, in the UN.
They say, I have no evidence, because they are attacking. They are trying to attack all my witnesses all over the world. Cover-up is part of the crime. Security Council cannot be part of the cover-up.
We issued a warrant and they cannot be executed because people have so much power as Pinochet had in Chile. But as Pinochet showed, after ten years you could arrest him. And that is the beauty of having a permanent international criminal court. One day it will be justice.
If you like this program, you can watch the entire film, The Reckoning, at skylightpictures.com. Link TV is the only U.S. network dedicated to global and national news, uncompromising documentaries, and diverse cultural programs. Programs which connect you to the world.
To learn more, visit linktv.org.