« | Home | »

Libya v. the ICC

Tags: |

The Libyan government has appealed against the International Criminal Court’s order to hand over Gaddafi’s longtime intelligence and security chief (and brother-in-law) Abdullah al-Sanusi for trial in The Hague. His lawyer, Ben Emmerson QC, said last week: ‘Libya’s rebel authorities need to understand that the days of show trials and summary executions are over.’
Sanusi is regarded in Libya as bearing the prime responsibility after Gaddafi for such crimes as the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre, in which 1200 people died, as well as Lockerbie, the bombing of a French airliner, the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, the disappearance of the Lebanese Shia leader Imam Musa Sadr and the supply of arms to the IRA.
Were Sanusi handed over to the ICC, he could never be tried for these crimes. The Libya mandate given by the Security Council to the ICC relates only to crimes against humanity committed after 15 February 2011. Once out of Libya, Sanusi could never be returned because he would be liable to the death penalty.
This may be one reason there has been no indication of support for the ICC’s actions in Libya from members of the Security Council. Libya is not signed up to the ICC, and the order could only be enforced by further action by the Security Council. Since the US, the UK and France would all like to see Sanusi go on trial for the earlier crimes, such action is unlikely.
What Emmerson calls the ‘rebel authorities’ – the Libyan government, formed after an election generally regarded as clean, is universally recognised – are unlikely to comply with the ‘order’, though for the present a normal dialogue between Libya and the Court continues. There may be a compromise, meaning proceedings in Libya in which the ICC would have some role. If there is no compromise the outcome may be more damaging to the ICC than to Libya.
The reputation of the ICC in Libya has already been damaged by the Melinda Taylor affair. Taylor, an Australian lawyer representing the ICC, paid a visit last summer to Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, whose position is much the same as Sanusi’s (except that he has a better chance being acquitted in the ICC of crimes against humanity committed after February 2011). Taylor and three colleagues were detained by the Libyans who said they were trying to hand over letters to Saif from Muhammad Ismail.
Ismail, notorious in Libya, came to international attention in 2004 when he was named as a colonel in the Libyan intelligence service involved in the alleged Libyan plot to murder Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He was also in charge of the business side of Saif’s empire.
Unless the story was simply made up, the letters or copies are presumably in the hands of the Libyans and probably the ICC, but they have not yet been published. There may have been some sleight of hand, particularly as the letters were most likely in Arabic and the Lebanese interpreter would have been the only member of the ICC team who could read them. The obvious inference is that the letters, in which Ismail is said to have asked for blank letters signed by Saif, were part of an attempt to keep Saif’s assets out of the hands of the Security Council and Libya. The assets have been frozen and are probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
The allegations about the letters were not denied at the time, or mentioned by the president of the ICC, who went to Libya to collect Taylor and her colleagues after they were released, when he apologised ‘for the difficulties resulting from the train of events’ and promised they would be investigated by the ICC. Since then I understand that the ICC has decided against any inquiry into Taylor’s detention but has not explained why. Taylor denied in an interview with the Australian in December that the ICC team smuggled in spying equipment and a coded message.
The Libyan government intends to put both Saif and Sanusi on trial in Libya, preferably in a way that will not damage its international reputation. If there is a public row with the ICC the Melinda Taylor story may provide Libya with useful ammunition. But both the Libyan government and the ICC may prefer to avoid a row and seek a compromise.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement