The Muslim News

PRESS RELEASE by PRC:

To commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacres the Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) organized a public seminar yesterday at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The seminar chaired by the Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead, Mr. John Austin, examined the possibilities of pressing legal charges in a British court against Israel’s incumbent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other political and military officials involved in the 1982 massacres and that of the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002.

Fifteen minutes after the start of the programme many latecomers were forced to go away because the venue was packed to capacity. John Austin in his opening remarks said that the seminar was held at a very important time in the history of the Middle East as well as the world. He pointed out that the region was on the brink of a major catastrophe as the US intensified its military build up in the region in preparation for an all out war on Iraq. This, the British MP declared demonstrated the double standards and injustice that has troubled the region for decades.

He explained that while one country, Iraq, was threatened with war no such measures were even contemplated against Israel which also stockpiles weapons of mass destruction and threatens its neighbors. The danger of the current situation has become ever more ominous because Israel is led by an individual, Ariel Sharon, who for more than half a century has committed numerous war crimes for which he was held indirectly responsible even by an inquiry from his own country.

Swee Chai Ang:

The first speaker at the seminar was Dr. Swee Chai Ang, a British surgeon who worked in the Gaza Hospital during the time of the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Before beginning her presentation Dr. Ang was presented with a gift by Mr. Hussam Hushabi from the Palestinian Human Rights Organization in Beirut for her outstanding and courageous service to the Palestinian people.

Ang recalled that prior to her arrival Beirut in the summer of 1982 she was very supportive of Israel and perceived the Palestinians as terrorists. Her first change of heart came when she witnessed first hand Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian buildings in Beirut. The sadness of the people, including Christian Lebanese and Palestinians with the departure of the PLO led her to a new realization about the conflcit.

Dr Ang recalled Israel’s promise not to harm the Palestinian refugees in the camps after the PLO withdrawal; a pledge they treacherously broke with devastating consequences. Aided with slides taken during the siege of Beirut the Singaporean born surgeon recalled with horror the Israeli bombing of the Gaza hospital even while it flew the flag of the International Red Cross.

Among the more happy memories Dr. Ang spoke of the generosity and hospitality of the Palestinian people despite their poverty and deprivation. She told the audience “when you hear people say that the Arabs don’t love it is a lie. They do love. They are human and they care for their people as well as others.”

Ang concluded her presentation by urging the gathering to speak out against injustice and oppression and never to forget the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila.

Lloyd Quinan:

The second panelist was Lloyd Quinan of the Scottish Parliament. He was one of the first British and European officials to visit the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002 after its invasion by the Israelis. Quinan said he never thought in his wildest dreams that he would have witnessed such carnage in his entire life.

He spoke of his first taste of Israeli arrogance and contempt when he went with a team of international workers to visit President Yasser Arafat in his compound in Ramallah. Quinan spoke of his shock when the Israeli soldiers, mainly Ukrainian, fired upon them and then shouted at them and then shouted through their microphones, “have a nice day!” This he said underlined the Israeli mindset and explained its indiscriminate, disproportionate, criminal, and brutal conduct against the Palestinians.

If this was what life was for him after seven hours in Palestine, Quinan said he could only imagine what hell it must be for the Palestinians who had to live through this torment day after day and week after week.

Lloyd Quinan told the audience that when the Israelis asked them to fly a white flag for safe passage they refused. He flew his Scottish flag, which the Israelis seized and tore to pieces. When he reported this back to his people in Scotland, Quinan said this resulted in a “quantum change” of support for the Palestinians. The Scottish MP also recalled his memories of Israeli tanks deliberately destroying pavements and sewage lines, leading him to ask, is this really the Holy Land? These, he said, were not the perceptions of the land that he had as a Christian boy growing up in Scotland.

Concerning his visit to the Jenin camp Quinan said he wished never in his life to see or smell again what he did at Jenin camp. The smell of death filled the air. The stench of damaged sewers was everywhere. The Israelis flattened an entire area the size of four of five football pitches. Nothing was spared, not even ambulances, the MSP noted.

In an attempt to underscore the vindictiveness of the Israeli Occupation Quinan recalled the case of a young boy who suffered injuries which under normal circumstances were not life threatening. The Kuwaitis had offered to fly in a helicopter to move the boy to Jordan for treatment. That same day the Israeli Knesset imposed a no fly ban in the air space over the camp and the boy died later that evening.

In concluding Quinan said while he was not entering the debate of whether a massacre was committed or not he was convinced that the Israelis had committed war crimes in the Jenin refugee camp. He called upon the audience to support the international economic, social and cultural boycott of Israel.

Meanwhile, chairman John Austin responding to a question from the audience confirmed that many British labour MPs were appalled and ashamed by the support given by Prime Minister Blair to the US in its policies in relation to Iraq and Palestine. The audience applauded the Mr. Austin when he pointed out that water is the source of all life and Israel was using it as a weapon of mass destruction against the Palestinians by cutting off and denying them adequate supplies. It was no wonder, therefore, that both Israel and the US were refusing to ratify the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court.

Michael Verstraeten:

One of the highlights of the evening was the presentation given by the Belgian solicitor, Michael Verstraeten, who participated in the case brought against Ariel Sharon in Belgium. Verstraeten explained the position of Belgian law regarding crimes against humanity. He traced its historical development to June 1993 when Belgium introduced a new law against war crimes (infractions of the Geneva Conventions).

Officially the Law was called: “Law concerning the punishment of serious infractions on the International Conventions of Geneva from the 12th of August 1949 and on the Supplement Protocols I and II on these Conventions from the 8th of June 1977”. It applied to serious war crimes only.

With the introduction of a new law in February 1999, application was extended to all crimes against humanity and genocide. The name of the Law changed into: “Law concerning the punishment of serious infractions on the humanitarian law”. (Belgisch Staatsblad, 23th of March 1999).

Verstraeten explained the important issue of retrospective effect of the law, a matter which the ICC does not uphold preferring instead to deal with cases after July 2002 only. He noted that this principle is an application of what was already part of the international law on crimes against humanity and genocide. Examples are found in the Nuremberg Trials and several decisions of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Several international conventions introduced these principles, such as the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, the Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the Genocide Convention of 9th December 1948.

Verstraeten mentioned that in the case of Adolf Eichman the Israeli Supreme Court had decided, “...It is possible to trace a direct line to the inclusion of the crimes mentioned from the wording of Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, above cited, which refers to “the laws of humanity” and the dictates of public conscience”.

This means that even when there is no internal law in a country punishing crimes against humanity or genocide, these crimes exist and are punishable in this country.

Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity have been well documented by UN bodies, namely the UN Human Rights Commission, and international jurists.

International experts concur that as a consequence of acts of aggression committed by its officials, or agents acting on its behalf, Israel being the Occupying Power at the time the crimes were committed is liable to the following legal sanctions: reparations for damage and destruction of property (including compensation to victims and relatives of survivors of all massacres) and apprehension, trial and punishment of its officials as war criminals for their commission of “grave breaches” of the laws of war.

On the question of universal jurisdiction and extra-territoriality Verstraeten said, the universal jurisdiction of the Belgian Courts had been introduced in the law by article 7 of the law of 1993.

“The Belgian Courts are competent to acknowledge the crimes described by this law, regardless the place where they took place.”

Which means that any crime committed anywhere in the world can be prosecuted in Belgium.

This rule goes back to the principle “aut dedere, aut judicare”, which means that for crimes on international law, a country is obliged to prosecute the offender, or seek his extradition for trial.

Due to the fact that crimes against humanity affect all people in all countries, nobody can expect that these crimes remain unpunished. This is why all countries should take action when a country reneges on prosecuting the individual and neglects to extradite offenders for trial for crimes against humanity.

The Brussels High Court has decided that a rule of “ius cogens” exists recognising the universal jurisdiction in cases of crimes against humanity and it is the obligation of national authorities to prosecute in all circumstances the suspects of crimes against humanity.

With regard to the issue of immunity the Belgian solicitor pointed out that by a change of the Law in 1999: “The immunity attached to any official state does not put a limit to the application of the law.”

Concerning former heads of state, two decisions are important. Verstraeten recalled here the November 1998 ruling of the English House of Lords regarding the Pinochet-case which decided :

“... A former head of state enjoys immunity from arrest and extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom only in respect of official acts preformed in the exercise of his functions as head of state. The crimes of torture and hostage-taking could not be regarded as part of the functions of a head of state.”

In the same matter, the Belgian High Court in Brussels took the same decision. The principal immunity of a former head of state concerns the acts he had preformed in the exercise of his functions but the crimes in question with regard to Sharon were not seen as a normal exercise of those functions.

By the Court, the immunity of ministers does not exist for their personal interest but only to allow them to exercise freely their function. The Court concluded that the functions of a minister of government are of such a nature so that he benefits of a total immunity and inviolability abroad.

However, the Court decided that this immunity for jurisdiction can only prevent prosecutions for a certain time or for certain infractions. It does not exclude this person to all criminal responsibility. The protected person can not be unpunishable for the crimes he committed. Accordingly a minister can be subject to jurisdiction the moment he leaves his executive post because he does no longer benefit from immunity under international law.

Owen Davies:

The final speaker at the seminar was the promnent British Queen’s Council, Owen Davies. He particpated in the sveral high profile international cases the most famnous of which was that brought against the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Davies alluded that the reason why no action was taken against Sharon and other Israeli officals after so many years was partly due to ignorance of the law and how to apply it. Although it is not the be all and end all of everything Davies said he believed that the law had a role to play in the establishment of justice. He said there were four factors that must be considered in the staging of criminal charges. These were: the nature of the crime, the jurisdiction of the state in which the crime was committed, the date of the offence, and the status of the offender.

Davies explained that although Israel was not a signatory of the Rome Treaty if it were to comit a crime in the territory of a state that is itself a signatory then it would be liable to prosecution.

He added that while he recognized that the stautes of the Rome Treaty does not allow for trial of crimes prior to 1st July 2002 there were certain crimes that are so universally abhorrent that they necesitate criminal prosecution.

Although British law does not allow for the genociode rules to be applied extra-territorially there is a strong case to be made for its application. Davies said accoridng to the Geneva Convention Act of 1957 in Britain the breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions was prosecutable in Britain with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

He referred to article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlines what constitutes “grave breaches”. The application of the rule would, however, require the special assigned body of experts charged with the responsibility to arrest and seize individuals who breach the conventions upon their arrival in Britain.

Davies also referred to the laws against torture and said that they were also prosecutable in Britain wherever such crimes are committed in the world. The session ended with chairman John Austin reminding the gathering that although the laws definitely offered ways to prosecute acts of genocide and crimes against humanity it was all a question of political will in the final analysis

Email this story to a friend | Printable Version

CS4 CS3 software

Graphics oem softsare