Crimes against Humanity Essay

Offenses against Humanity

Offenses against humanity are one of the global international crimes. The three nations that comprised the Allied governments—Great Britain, France, and Russia—were responsible for coining the phrase when they denounced the Turkish government for the crimes committed against the Armenians in 1915. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be trusted as the most reliable conceptualization of what crimes against humanity entails, despite the fact that a standard definition for the notion has not yet been established. (United Nations, 2017). In terms of what defines crimes against humanity, the international community has come to an agreement, which is reflected in the statute. The statute spells out the crimes, which when knowingly carried out systematically against a given population constitutes crimes against humanity. The identified crimes include extermination, murder, torture, forcible transfer of populations, torture, and rape and other sex-related offenses, a conviction against a group that can be identified by race, culture, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion or any other profiling attributes (United Nations, 2017).

Many Cases of Crimes Against Humanity

Many cases of crimes against humanity have been reported across the globe. Many of the cases are mainly tried at the ICC and the International Criminal Tribunal, as well as the international court of justice, which are charged with the responsibility of investigating, and prosecuting those suspected to have committed crimes against humanity. Notable crimes against humanity prosecutions include Tokyo trials, Nuremberg trials, and the International Crime Tribunals for Rwandan and Yugoslavia. Even in the 21st Century, cases of crimes against humanity have been reported in different parts of the globe. One of the notable cases is the one involving the current president in Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta his deputy William Ruto alongside four other Kenyans that was commenced by the ICC ion 2011.

Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta

In the case involving the prosecutor for the ICC against Uhuru Muigai Kenya, the latter was accused of crimes against humanity in the period 2007/2008 following Kenya’s post-election violence. The procedure to convict the Kenyan President commenced in 2011 after a Proprio Motu by the then ICC prosecutor Ocampo. Uhuru Kenyatta was accused of multiple accounts of crimes against humanity, including murder, deportation, persecution, rape, and other inhuman actions. The crimes were said by the prosecutor to have been committed between 24 and 28th January 2008 following the disputed general elections (International Criminal Court, 2015). Through Mungiki, a criminal organization that was active at the time of the alleged crimes, Mr. Kenyatta is accused to have led a systematic attack on the non-Kikuyu tribes who were affiliated with the ODM party. The targeted persons were of Luo, Kalenjin, and Luhya who were residing in Naivasha and Nakuru towns.

The prosecutor also indicated that Uhuru Kenyatta significantly contributed to the planning and execution of a plan. Specifically, the prosecution indicated that Mr. Kenyatta signed an agreement with Mungiki on how to carry out the attacks on other tribe residing in and around Naivasha and Nakuru. The procedure for the charges against Uhuru Kenyatta commenced in 2011 with up to 750 witnesses being lined up. The pre-trial chamber at the ICC confirmed the charges in 2011 with the official commencement of the cases taking place in 2014. However, the charges against the president were withdrawn by the prosecutor leading to the termination of the case on 13th March 2015.

Analysis of the Case

In the handling of the case against Mr. Kenyatta, the prosecution faced multiple challenges that weakened the case leading to its termination in 2015. One of the major challenges was the lack of cooperation from the Kenyan government. According to Allison (2014), the Kenyan government failed to provide the prosecutor with vital documentation and records that would have helped the prosecution table a stronger case against the president. Mr. Kenyatta became the Kenyan President in 2013, which further affected the cooperation between the government and the ICC as he was in control of most processes.

Another problem was the lack of support for the ICC process by the international community. This followed a vigorous campaign by the government to portray the ICC as an untrustworthy organization. The success of the ICC depends on the public support, which was lacking in Mr. Kenyatta’s case. Even the western world did not come out to support the prosecution of Mr. Kenyatta at the international court.

The prosecution also experienced a high rate of witness dropout from the case, which severely affected its progress. The prosecution failed to get more witnesses to enhance the effectiveness of its prosecution agenda. There were allegations of the prosecution witnesses being bullied into withdrawing their accounts of the situation. Human rights activists argue that the high dropout was as a result of bribery, threats as well as making the identity of the witnesses public. Mysterious disappearances of some witnesses were also reported. These compelled the prosecution to request the trial court to terminate the case.

Conclusion

Witness intimidation is a rampant problem that makes it impossible for the successful conviction of the persons accused of crimes against humanity. In the case at hand, the major undoing in the case was the identity of the witnesses being known by other persons other beyond judges, registrars, and parties to the case, which adversely affected the witnesses (Biqiri, 2011). Measures should be taken to preserve the identities of the witnesses involved in a particular case. Where the court suspects a compromise in the identity of the witnesses, contingency plans should be put in place to ensure the safety of the witnesses. If possible the witnesses should be moved to safe places away from the accused persons who may be interested in ensuring that their cases are terminated on the ground of inadequate evidence. Absolute protection of the witnesses may enable full compliance and availability of witnesses for the prosecution to argue its case adequately.

Another issue that became apparent in the case is the role of governments in providing records and documentation to investigators. Parties to the ICC should pass resolutions compelling governments to respond to the requests for records whenever called. Stringent measures should be implemented to ensure total compliance of the governments who may decide to deny the ICC and other jurisdictions dealing in crimes against humanity. A possible approach is sanctioning the engagement with such a country in matters of trade with other counties who are members of the ICC. Though some countries may still desist from offering their support to the ICC, such an action may compel others to cooperate with the courts.

References

Alison, S. (2014). ICC should drop charges against Kenyatta - for now. The Guardian. Retrieved 11 December 2017 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/icc-uhuru-kenyatta-kenya

Beqiri, R. (2011). Witness Protection in International Criminal Court. Lund University. Retrieved 11 December 2017 from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2167029&fileOId=2171585

International Criminal Court. (2015). Situation in the Republic of Kenya The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta. Retrieved 11 December 2017 from https://www.icc-cpi.int/kenya/kenyatta/Documents/KenyattaEng.pdf

United Nations, (2017). Crimes against Humanity. Retrieved 11 December 2017 from http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.html