Publications

Queer people’s experience of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is not new. From the British Indian Penal Code of 1860, the Holocaust, the ongoing anti-gay purges in Chechnya, and legal shifts which persecute members of the LGBTQI+ community and allies, LGBTQI+ communities have been, and still are, deliberately targeted by systematic violence and discrimination. Some of these campaigns can be described as mass atrocity crimes, while others sound the alarm and significantly increase risk for the incidence of mass atrocity crimes against LGBTQI+ communities across the world. And yet understanding of this experience is not well-developed nor widely-discussed. In fact, queer people’s experiences can often be deliberately silenced in policy and research on identity-based violence and mass atrocities – a problem which is further compounded by threats to safety faced by queer populations that can make it dangerous for them to make their experiences and expertise heard and accounted for. As members of the atrocity prevention field, we know that widespread or systematic violent targeting of LGBTQI+ people can often look different from the widespread or systematic violent targeting of ethnic, indigenous, national, religious and racial groups that traditionally dominate the atrocity prevention and response agenda. However, crimes against LGBTQI+ individuals and communities may still meet the conceptual and legal thresholds of mass atrocity crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We know, too, that the absence of LGBTQI+ professionals and queer analysis from atrocity prevention work normalises and institutionalises pre-existing heteronormative and patriarchal structures. This perpetuates the exclusion of LGBTQI+ communities in – and from – atrocity prevention work. Read the Full Letter

Gender permeates the planning, commission, and resolution of criminal acts within the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. It is woven into perpetrators’ planning and commission of crimes, as well as victims’ (individual and collective) experience and recovery of acts committed against them. Accordingly, gender must be a central criterion in the group of independent experts’ review of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) and the Rome Statute system. Laudably, the Rome Statute was among the first international treaties to extensively address sexual and gender-based violence. Moreover, from the beginning of her term ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has made it a priority to close the gender justice gap, as evidenced by her Policy Paper on Sexual and GenderBased Crimes, the first ever such policy for an international court or tribunal. Despite these foundational pillars and priorities, in the 18 years of the Court’s operation there has only been one standing conviction on sexual violence. This submission highlights avenues for improving gender justice at varying stages of a case. It identifies opportunities for progress regarding staffing and prosecutorial strategies on case selection, prioritization, and investigation that hinder access to justice in these cases. Until gender is mainstreamed throughout all stages of ICC cases, the Court will be limited in its capacity to deliver justice.

On January 20, 2020, Myanmar’s Independent Commission of Enquiry (“ICOE”) submitted its final report to Myanmar’s government. The report, which was initially due on July 30, 2019, was instead submitted three days before the International Court of Justice handed down its unanimous decision on provisional measures in The Gambia v. Myanmar. With the mandate to “investigate the allegations of human rights violations and related issues, following the terrorist attacks by ARSA,” Myanmar has relied on the work of the ICOE since its creation to object to international efforts, including those of the UN Security Council, to ensure accountability for the crimes against the Rohingya.

Unlike any other constitution in the world, the Burmese Constitution creates a bifurcated sovereignty. It ensures that the military is constitutionally autonomous from and supreme over the civilian government. Even if he is willing, the President, Thein Sein, cannot enforce any laws against the military. Furthermore; the constitution guarantees the military amnesty for all crimes – including the most heinous such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also ensures the perpetual dominance of the military by guaranteeing that 25% of the seats in Parliament are reserved solely for the military, while parading itself as a multi-party “democracy”.

The conversation about the importance of providing abortion services to victims of rape in armed conflicts would be incomplete without looking at the impact on children born to rape victims. The international community has already recognized forced pregnancy as a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) but it has a limited application since it requires all three elements of the crime to be satisfied. Article 7, paragraph 2 (f) requires–(1) unlawful confinement of a woman (2) forcibly made pregnant (3) with the intent of carrying out other grave violations of the international law. It is unclear what exactly falls under other grave violations of international law and means that women who were forcibly made pregnant but escaped or forcibly made pregnant without the requisite intent are not protected under the Statute.

July 1, 2012 marked the International Criminal Court’s 10th anniversary. The ICC was established by the Rome Statute which came into effect in 2002, creating the first permanent international court in history. Ten years later, critics and supporters alike are assessing the progress of the Court in achieving its goals of bringing to justice those responsible for the most atrocious human rights violations.

IHL applies to all the signatory States of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 but it also binds non-state actors: private citizens, armed groups, national liberation movements, and international organizations. It has been established that since IHL provides rights and special protections to private citizens in conflict, it also confers obligations, as demonstrated by the Nuremberg trials, international tribunals, or recent ICC decision to sentence Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga to 14 years for using child soldiers and forcing them to commit atrocities. Several instruments also create IHL obligations on part of non-government armed or rebel groups – Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Second Additional Protocol of 1977, and Article 8 paragraph 2 of the Statue of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), whereas the First Additional Protocol applies to national liberation movements. And while there is no specific legal provision that binds international organizations under international humanitarian law, the ICC specifically stated that “an international organization is a subject of international law and, as such, is bound by all the obligations deriving from the general rules of international law.”

On July 10, just 10 days after its 10th anniversary, the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its first sentence. The ICC sentenced Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese militia leader, to 14 years in prison for the recruitment and use of child soldiers as a part of his rebel army, the Union of Congolese Patriots, from 2002-2003. Throughout that time, Lubanga and his army abducted, trained and used children to terrorize and kill villagers in the Ituri region of the DRC. While the justices clearly agreed that Lubanga deserved to be sentenced, one of the three judges, Elizabeth Odio Benito of Costa Rica, wrote a dissenting opinion saying that the sentence had been too lenient. Judge Benito suggested that the sentence should have been longer so as to properly reflect the extent of damage done to the child soldiers and their families.

Below you can read the question that Janet asked Wunna Maung Lwin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, about accountability for human rights abuser General Ko Ko at the Council on Foreign Relations. Janet Benshoof: Thank you very much, my name is Janet Benshoof, Global Justice Center. After a 4 year on the ground investigation, Harvard Law School Lawyers concluded, using the standards of the International Criminal Court that Myanmar’s Major General Ko Ko has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Karen ethnic group. I have a two-part question: First, could you explain, given that Myanmar has been in armed conflict for 60 years if there have been any prosecutions of military commanders for international crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. And second, could you explain the government process by which 6 months after the Harvard report, the government selected General Ko Ko to present and defend Myanmar’s human rights record before the Human Rights Council next month. Thank you very much. Response by Wunna Maung Lwin, Minister of Foreign Affair of Myanmar To answer your first question, there is no Myanmar General prosecuted or facing any kind of trial in the International Criminal Court or any other court because some of the allegations were unfounded and untrue. Because whenever there is a military operations or whenever there is an insurgency problem, every country has to defend their people, especially the innocent people who were hampered their livelihood by those insurgent groups. So for the military commander that you have mentioned, he is the Commander of the Southern Myanmar regions. So in his region there were insurgent problems and he commanded some of the military operations in that area. He is doing his responsibility as a military commander to defend those people from the scourge of insurgency. This is one question. Another thing is that in the next month I think we will be submitting our universal periodic review report to the Human Rights Council. So we will be sending a delegation and we will be submitting our universal periodic review for the second time.