[ad_1]
Bloc interested in the Syrian file in the Security Council (Anatolia)
The Netherlands’ intentions to file a lawsuit against the Syrian regime in the International Court of Justice have not been well received by Syrian human rights activists and activists specializing in documenting and monitoring the regime’s crimes in organizations and courts. of all the world. Jurists refer their position to the jurisdiction of that court, which would sue states and governments, not individuals, unlike the International Criminal Court. Syrian jurists emphasize that any case against the regime should be brought before the International Criminal Court and not before the Court of Justice, as the first deals with holding those involved in Syrian war crimes accountable and the second is to make governments be held accountable, and this does not apply to the situation in Syria, where a group of criminals gives orders. With assassinations, arrests, bombings and the implementation of military operations.
The Netherlands announced its decision to hold Syria responsible for torture
In parallel, the regime refused, through a source in its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the announcement by the Netherlands of its intention to archive the case. The regime’s SANA agency quoted him as saying that “the Dutch government, which has accepted the role of the subservient subordinate of the United States, insists on using the International Court of Justice in The Hague to serve the political agendas of its American master.” On Friday, Dutch Foreign Minister Steve Block informed his country’s parliament of the government’s intention to file a lawsuit against the government of Bashar al-Assad for human rights violations, including torture and the use of weapons. Chemicals. “The Netherlands announced its decision to hold Syria responsible under international law for gross violations of human rights and, in particular, torture,” he told members of the Dutch parliament in a letter addressed to them. The minister cited Syria’s commitment to support the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Damascus ratified in 2004. The Netherlands indicated that they decided to take this step after Russia thwarted multiple efforts in the UN Security Council to refer a case related to human rights violations in Syria to the International Criminal Court, which tries people for war crimes and is based in The Hague. The Dutch minister’s letter also indicated that “there must be consequences. Large numbers of Syrians have been tortured, killed and forcibly disappeared, subjected to poison gas attacks or have lost everything, fleeing for their lives.”
In his first comment on the Dutch effort, Syrian human rights defender Anwar al-Bunni considered, on his Facebook page, that “the decision of the Dutch government to lodge a complaint with the International Court of Justice on Syria and the declaration of his Foreign Minister before Parliament, in no way raises the demands of the Syrian people or justice for the victims It is simply a matter of throwing ashes in the eyes and covering up the shame of countries that have kept silent about the crimes of the Syrian regime for ten years. He explained: “The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to consider cases of torture, and referring the case to it is a full recognition by the Syrian regime that it is a state and not a gang of criminals. It would have been better for a host country of the International Criminal Court file a complaint against the Syrian criminal regime, because the victims of these crimes are on Dutch soil. ” It grants him the power to make such a request, as is the case in Myanmar and Bangladesh, not to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice, which is invalid and does not benefit from any request that is presented to him. Al-Bunni pointed out that “the Dutch government’s step is to reactivate the role of the regime at the international level as a government and not as an organized criminal gang,” and explained that the Convention for the Prevention of Torture establishes that “states are obliged to begin by trying to reach a common solution, through the approval of the opposing state or through joint negotiations. ” If these negotiations fail, the complaining state has the right to go to international arbitration. But in the event that international arbitration fails, the state has the right to petition the International Court of Justice (which examines disputes between states) for a decision on the matter. Syrian government diplomacy asks it to start negotiations on the crime of torture. “Al-Bunni indicated that the Dutch government will ask the Syrian government for some points, such as recognizing responsibility for violations and torture, stopping this violation, providing guarantees to the Dutch government so that these violations are not repeated and provide compensation to the victims, noting that negotiations are mandatory under article 30 of the Convention against Torture. In turn, Syrian human rights defender Michel Shammas explained to through “Facebook” the difference between the two courts, noting that “the International Court of Justice is competent to resolve international disputes, that is, between states and non-individuals, such as border disputes, or violation of an international agreement, and prosecutes states, not individuals, and issues Decisions to indemnify the complaining state or leave the indemnity order to the agreement between the complainant state and the accused, and does not issue criminal sentences such as arrest or prison, and is closer to the civil courts. Nine members and not using the veto. “As for the International Criminal Court, according to Shammas,” it is competent to prosecute the perpetrators of the most serious crimes under international law, that is, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, and its prosecutor has the authority to issue an international arrest warrant, and the court orders the imprisonment of people as well as to award compensation. To the victims. ” Shamas described the Dutch step in presenting the case as “a symbolic step that will not stop torture in Syria, and until the complaint reaches the International Court of Justice and becomes a case, it can take up to five years. Furthermore, the court will not be able to take measures such as inspecting places of detention and arrest in Syria. ” Since Syria has made reservations to Article 20 of the Convention against Torture, which provides for the possibility of making surprise inspection visits to detention centers and prisons. “He expressed the hope that” we can put pressure on the Dutch government and other European governments so that they allow victims to present cases based on the principle of universal validity, similar to what is happening in Germany, Austria, Sweden and Norway. “
The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to hear cases of torture
For its part, the “National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces” welcomed the Dutch move, highlighting its “importance”, the step taken by the Dutch government to work to hold those responsible for torture in Syria accountable. Reuters reported that the Netherlands will present a case against the Syrian regime before the International Court of Justice, if dispute resolution fails. This link may indicate that the Netherlands entered the line of Western pressure and efforts to force the regime to sit at the negotiating table and seriously enter the political tracks under the cover of the United Nations. The United States is leading these efforts, which is advertising more than before, using carrot and stick methods against the regime. The disclosure of the Dutch effort came along with the announcement by the UN envoy to Syria, Geir Pedersen, during a Security Council session on Friday night, that the negotiations of the last round of work of the Constitutional Committee did not give as a result an agreement on the agenda for the next round. And he called on Russia and the United States to lobby to encourage the parties to participate in the Geneva meetings of the Constitutional Committee.
[ad_2]
