In this post, Niamh Hayes writes about the significance of the sexual violence aspects of the Bemba judgment.
For interested observers of the ICC’s efforts to investigate and
prosecute conflict-related sexual violence, there has been very little to cheer
about over the last 14 years. Despite the broad range of sexual and
gender-based crimes contained in the Rome Statute, Prosecutor Ocampo’s early
failures to pursue evidence-led investigations and tendency to develop the
theory of the prosecution case in the abstract led, unsurprisingly, to a very weak record on prosecutions for crimes of
sexual violence. When Fatou Bensouda took over as Prosecutor, the attrition
rate for charges of sexual violence at the ICC stood at over 50%, with fewer
than half of all such charges successfully confirmed for trial. Those figures
have improved under her tenure, particularly following the successful
confirmation of all sexual and gender-based charges in the Gbagbo and Ntaganda
confirmation decisions. She also spearheaded the development of the Office of
the Prosecutor’s Policy Paper on Sexual and
Gender-Based Crimes, which made some important recommendations about pursuing alternative
modes of liability and selecting the most appropriate legal characterisation of
the charges based on the evidence. However, as of yesterday, the ICC had never
entered a conviction for crimes of sexual violence.
Today is a very good day for the Office of the Prosecutor. This
afternoon, Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo was convicted of rape as a crime against
humanity and a war crime, due to his failure as a military commander to prevent or punish such
crimes committed by MLC troops under his effective control. This represents the
first ever conviction for the crime of rape at the International Criminal
Court. Although rape was charged in the cases against Germain Katanga and
Mathieu Ngudjolo, and although the Trial Chamber ultimately concluded that the
alleged acts of sexual violence had in fact taken place, Katanga and Ngudjolo’s
individual criminal responsibility for those crimes were not proven to the
satisfaction of the judges and they were both acquitted on those counts. Bemba
is not only the first defendant to be convicted of rape as a war crime or crime
against humanity at the ICC, he is also the first person to have been held individually
responsible for violations of international criminal law committed during the
2002-2003 coup in the Central African Republic.
Bemba’s conviction also represents another first, not only for the ICC
but for international criminal law in general. During the trial, the Chamber
heard from Witness 23, a male community leader who was raped in front of his
wife and children, and Witness 69, who was raped by two soldiers for protesting
the rape of his own wife. The testimony of Witness 23 is powerful and heart-rending in its own
right, but is also striking for its obvious parallels to the experience and
testimony of female victims of sexual violence on issues such as psychological
trauma, social stigma, rejection by family members and access to appropriate
medical care to treat physical complications caused by the rape. Including this
testimony to support the charge of rape was an important step in the ICC’s
efforts to highlight and address all forms of sexual and gender-based crimes,
including the commission of sexual violence against men, a crime which is habitually ignored even at the
international level.
It is even more significant to realise that the Bemba judgement
represents the first time in the history of international criminal law that
sexual violence against men has been charged as the crime of rape (as opposed
to crimes of torture, outrages upon personal dignity or cruel treatment) or
that a defendant has been convicted of rape based on the testimony of male
victims. The Bemba case will go down in history as a vital precedent on that
basis alone, but it also represents a hugely important step in the ICC’s
broader efforts to provide greater accountability for sexual violence crimes.
Prosecutor Bensouda today reiterated her personal and
professional commitment to that goal: “[w]here some may want to draw a veil
over these crimes I, as Prosecutor, must and will continue to draw a line under
them.” The inclusion of further allegations of male rape in the Ntaganda case
and extensive allegations of sexual violence against civilians in the Ongwen
case are important and welcome developments in that regard.
It is also worth highlighting the mode of liability in the Bemba case. Bemba
was not accused of ordering or directly perpetrating sexual violence himself;
he was accused of failing to prevent or punish crimes of sexual violence
committed by Mouvement de libération du
Congo (MLC) troops under his control. The judges found that Bemba, as
President and commander-in-chief of the MLC, had the authority to exercise
effective control over MLC troops, that he had knowledge of crimes which had been
committed or were about to be committed by MLC soldiers, and that his failure
to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent, repress or punish such
crimes directly contributed to their commission. In essence, Bemba was
convicted for what he failed to do and for what he allowed others to do, rather
than what he did himself.
This represents the first conviction for command responsibility under
Article 28 of the Rome Statute. The ICC has struggled with more immediate forms
of liability in other cases, particularly establishing responsibility for
direct and indirect co-perpetration under Article 25(3)(a) or proving that
sexual violence formed part of a common plan under Article 25(3)(d). Achieving
a conviction for command responsibility is based on proving the knowledge of
senior political and military leaders that crimes are being or may be
committed, their failure to exercise effective control over forces under their command,
and their failure to use their powers or authority to either prevent such
crimes or submit them to the relevant authorities for investigation and
prosecution.
Article 28 is therefore a powerful means of holding senior leaders
accountable for creating a “climate of acquiescence” where serious international crimes
can be committed with impunity. Bemba is the most senior military or political
leader to be tried or convicted by the ICC to date, and it is worth remembering
that he was arrested in Belgium in 2008 pursuant to a sealed warrant. While
it may not be possible to accurately measure the deterrent effect of
international prosecutions, it is comforting to think that, after today, senior
political and military figures who have responded dismissively or permissively
to allegations of sexual violence committed by troops under their command might
find themselves experiencing a sudden zeal to be seen to effectively exercise
their disciplinary powers, or at least a sudden rush of anxiety about their
next European shopping trip. They most certainly should not sleep as soundly as
they did last night.
4 comments:
"It is even more significant to realise that the Bemba judgement represents the first time in the history of international criminal law that sexual violence against men has been charged as the crime of rape (as opposed to crimes of torture, outrages upon personal dignity or cruel treatment) or that a defendant has been convicted of rape based on the testimony of male victims."
Is this actually the case? Not a lawyer, but my understanding was that the ICTY in the Češic case charged and convicted the defendant of rape for, inter alia, forcing two male prisoners to perform fellatio on each other. One way or another, though, it's a very welcome development. International tribunals have been maddeningly inconsistent in their approach to male sexual victimisation. This decision lays down an important marker that will encourage people to call rape, regardless of the sex or gender of those against whom it's perpetrated, by its proper name.
This might be a silly question but does a conviction based on command responsibility entail a lower level of culpability than direct (co)perpetration? That is to ask is the offender liable to a lesser penalty because of the less direct nature of the mode of liability?
Thank you Niamh, very sound and timely.
Great point about Cesic, R Douglas. It's a bit of a nerdy legal distinction but that incident was charged as 'sexual assault' rather than the crime of rape specifically. It was charged under Article 5(g), which was interpreted as including rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as the war crime of humiliating and degrading treatment. The judges do refer to it as a rape in the sentencing judgement though, maybe it's splitting hairs on my part. All credit to the ICTY, they have a fantastic record of charging incidents of sexual violence against men, but often as you know under different legal categories. I'm just relieved to see this type of crime being unequivocally called by its proper name at last.
Post a Comment