Al-Bashir Case Analysis

1479 Words6 Pages
Al Bashir the president of Sudan who is also one of the longest serving presidents in Africa. In July 2008 the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court accused al-Bashir of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. The court issued an arrest warrant for al-Bashir on March 2009 on counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity but ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him for genocide and al-Bashir became the first sitting president to be indicted by the International Criminal Court for allegedly directing a campaign of mass killing, rape, and pillage against civilians in Darfur. July 2010 the Court issued a second warrant containing three separate counts. The new warrant like the first was delivered to the Sudanese government which did not recognize it and does not even recognise the International Criminal Court. The Arab League and the African Union condemned the warrant. Al-Bashir has since visited China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Qatar and several other countries that refused to arrest him and
…show more content…
The first is the country’s accession to the Rome Statute of the ICC on November 2000. This made it a state party to the court. In terms of Article 86 of the statute, state parties are duty bound to cooperate fully with the court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. To facilitate the ICC’s prosecution the government was obliged to arrest al-Bashir as soon as he landed in South Africa. The second is that in 2002 the South African parliament passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27. This law domesticated the ICC Statute in line with the countries constitution. The constitution states that an international agreement binds the Republic only after it has been approved by resolution in both houses of

More about Al-Bashir Case Analysis

Open Document