[Telegraph-UK] Joshua Rozenberg - What prospect is there of using the courts to undermine Ahmadinejad? Irwin Cotler, a former law professor who served as Canada's attorney general and minister of justice until last year, outlined four ways in which legal action could be taken against Ahmadinejad. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide of 1951 specifies that genocide is a crime under international law which its 138 parties, including Iran, undertake to prevent and punish. Among the acts punishable under the convention is "direct and public incitement to commit genocide." Offenders "shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." Nine men have been convicted of incitement to genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, including a former prime minister. Any country that has signed the genocide convention may call on the UN to take action, but no state has yet referred Ahmadinejad's exhortations to the Security Council. Signatories to the convention can ask the International Court of Justice to deal with a dispute over a state's responsibility for incitement to genocide. Any other country could request a ruling from the UN court over whether Iran was responsible for its president's remarks and what amends the country should make. An entirely different court in The Hague, the International Criminal Court, was established in 1998 to try the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It operates under the Rome Statute, which specifically provides that an individual shall be criminally liable if he "directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide." The main problem is that Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute. An individual country could take action against Ahmadinejad under its own national laws. Under what is known as the protective or security principle, states can try foreigners for crimes abroad that are regarded as injurious to the state's security. It was on this basis that Israel tried Adolf Eichmann under the genocide convention. There is also the principle of universality. States, including Britain, assume jurisdiction over some of most serious crimes against humanity, wherever they are committed. That was how an Afghan warlord received a 20-year sentence at the Old Bailey in 2005 for torture and hostage-taking in his own country. Even issuing an indictment against Ahmadinejad would have a significant public impact, and it would make it harder for him to travel abroad.
2007-02-16 01:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive