Sudan Refuses to Cooperate with the International Criminal Court

March 1, 2006

On Monday, February 20, 2006, President al-Bashir rearticulated his government’s refusal to extradite any Sudanese citizen to face charges for atrocities in Darfur before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The president insisted that only Sudanese courts could have jurisdiction over those suspected of involvement in the attacks on civilians.

The Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy is heartened to see that President al-Bashir recognizes that suspected perpetrators of war crimes or crimes against humanity currently roam freely throughout the Darfur region and that they must be brought to trial. However, his comments mischaracterize the breadth of jurisdiction available under international law and the ability of the Sudanese justice system to hold wrongdoers accountable. Consequently, the president’s intransigence threatens to undermine the thorough investigation and impartial adjudication of claims arising from the violence in Darfur.

President al-Bashir’s assertion that only Sudanese courts have jurisdiction over the crimes committed in Darfur is patently unfounded. It ignores the fact that the U.N. Security Council has authorized the investigation and prosecution of persons suspected of committing atrocities in Darfur under the auspices of the International Criminal Court. Though Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, it nonetheless signed the authorizing treaty on September 8, 2000. Thus, the Sudanese government is amply aware that the ICC offers a suitable, neutral forum for trying individuals accused of committing crimes in Darfur.

The Sudanese government points to the criminal proceedings of its special tribunal to justify its position that Sudan’s courts can handle the challenge of providing a fair trial for the accused. The history of the special tribunal, however, leaves ample room for doubt. First, it is improbable to expect that a temporary court with limited resources could properly investigate the decade of violence that Darfur has witnessed. Moreover, the special tribunal has had a poor record in terms of effectiveness. The individuals initially indicted have mostly been low-ranking soldiers, and there has been little transparency during the trials. Consequently, the verdicts have had little impact on those perpetuating the attacks on the civilians of Darfur.

More damagingly for President al-Bashir, Sudanese courts cannot serve as an adequate forum for holding perpetrators accountable, since the Darfur crisis extends across an international border. The New York Times has reported that Arab militias from Darfur have recently conducted attacks on civilians in Chad.¹ Sudanese courts would have difficulty hearing claims about the illegal activities of the Sudanese Janjaweed committed abroad. Furthermore, the Sudanese government, in an effort to distract observers from the role played by domestic Sudanese militias and the official security force, has periodically accused Chadian troops of responsibility for the violence in Sudan. Assuming for the sake of argument that these latter allegations were true, it is unlikely that Chad would allow its soldiers to be extradited to Sudan for trial. Again, the neutrality of an international court like the ICC would provide Chad with more incentive to cooperate if its nationals were actually indicted. Since the conflict has not confined itself to Sudanese territory, President al-Bashir’s assertion that only Sudanese courts could have the necessary jurisdiction is disingenuous at best.

The international element of the crisis and the paltry results of Sudan’s internal efforts to bring those responsible to justice leave many questions unanswered. Only the world community, with its established legal infrastructure and available resources, can effectively provide an impartial and transparent judicial forum for investigating the violence in Darfur. The Damanga Coalition therefore calls upon the international community to encourage the Sudanese government to recognize the important role the ICC can play in protecting its own citizens from suffering at the hands of others.