MYANMAR MAY HAVE TO ANSWER TO ICC AFTER ALL
▶ Inquiry will assess whether a case can be made against regime officials
The International Criminal Court has launched a preliminary investigation into the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh.
The inquiry – which an expert said was likely to take three to five years – will assess whether senior government officials have a case to answer for crimes including killing, sexual violence, enforced disappearance, destruction and looting.
The initial inquiry will establish if there are grounds for a full-blown investigation.
It follows a ground-breaking ruling by international judges this month that would allow an investigation to go ahead into actions allegedly committed by a country that is not a signatory to the global treaty that established the court.
The announcement came on the day that the UN presented a full, grim report about widespread human rights offences and the burning of Rohingya villages that led to about 700,000 Muslims fleeing to Bangladesh after August last year.
Investigations can normally be opened only if a country is a signatory to the Rome Statute or the five permanent members of the UN Security Council refer the case to the ICC, based in The Hague, the Netherlands.
Judges at the court two weeks ago gave chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda the go-ahead to launch an inquiry because Bangladesh is a signatory to the Rome Statute and the victims of the military regime fled there.
UN investigators said last month that Myanmar’s military carried out mass killings and gang rapes of Rohingya and that six generals should be prosecuted.
The only similar case was eight years ago, when the ICC launched a preliminary inquiry into non-signatory North Korea for war crimes after it fired shells that sank a South Korean warship, killing 46 people.
It did not result in a full inquiry. “This sends a really powerful message,” said Dr Yvonne McDermott Rees, an associate professor of law at Swansea University who has examined the work of the court.
“It’s not as powerless as some of its critics would allow us to believe.
“The implications are potentially significant.”
The court has been ratified by 123 countries but not the United States, which has threatened sanctions if it prosecutes Americans over alleged detainee abuse in Afghanistan.
The ICC has also been accused of a bias against African states and has faced questions over the quality of its prosecutions following the acquittal in 2014 of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on charges of crimes against humanity.
It has also suffered over its failure to ensure that defendants were put in the dock when states were unwilling to hand them over.
Any arrest warrants in future could be sealed and suspects alerted about the charges only if they are arrested while travelling abroad, Dr McDermott Rees said.
The likely lengthy process of any investigation also opens the possibility of a change of regime in Myanmar that could lead to greater co-operation with the ICC.
Ms Bensouda said on Tuesday that prosecutors “will [engage] with the national authorities concerned with a view to discussing and assessing any relevant investigation and prosecution at the national level”.
The ICC is a court of last resort that acts only when national authorities are unable or unwilling to prosecute alleged crimes.
It does not have its own police forces and relies on states to enforce its warrants.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is due to visit Myanmar next week, said the UK would increase support for gathering evidence for victims who have suffered sexual violence at the hands of the military in Rakhine state.