ICC’s double standards

As expected by many, the International Criminal Court

(ICC), speaking through its prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, came out with its report which threw out the complaint filed by ex-Foreign Affairs secretary Albert del Rosario and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales against Chinese President Xi Jinping. Del Rosario and Morales accused President

Xi of committing crimes against humanity for Beijing’s expansionist activities in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Philippines in the South China Sea.

Experts in International Law predicted the summary dismissal of the complaint because communist China is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty which created the ICC. It turned out that the ICC dismissed the Del Rosario-Morales complaint precisely on that ground.

The ICC dismissed the complaint also because the crime attributed to Xi was allegedly committed inside the EEZ of the Philippines, and that the EEZ is not legally considered a part of the territory of a sovereign country.

There is reason to believe that the ICC found the Del Rosario-Morales complaint so insignificant that its dismissal was embodied in a report which included other cases. Restated, the complaint was dismissed not through a full-blown decision, but by way of a minute resolution.

Notwithstanding the summary dismissal of their complaint, Del Rosario and Morales insist that there was no actual dismissal of the case, and that the report itself allows the complainants to submit additional information which may make the ICC change its mind.

All that, however, is mere wishful thinking on the part of Del Rosario and Morales. That’s because if their interpretation of the ICC report is correct, then it should not have summarily dismissed the complaint, and should have simply advised them to submit further evidence.

The problem with the ICC report submitted by Prosecutor Bensouda is its obvious double standard.

Aside from dismissing the Del Rosario-Morales complaint, the ICC report also stated that the ICC will still pursue its investigation of two separate complaints filed by a Filipino lawyer and a Filipino organization against President Rodrigo Duterte. Both complaints are about alleged extrajudicial killings supposedly countenanced by President Duterte in his unrelenting war against drug syndicates in the Philippines.

Since Bensouda herself acknowledged in the ICC report that the complaint against President Xi cannot prosper mainly because China is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, then the cases against President Duterte should likewise be dismissed because the Philippines has already withdrawn its signature to the Rome Statute as of May 2018. Under the provisions of the said treaty, the withdrawal took effect in May 2019.

The lame excuse tendered by Bensouda for the double standard in her treatment of Philippine cases is that the alleged crimes attributed to President Duterte were supposedly committed when the Philippines had not yet officially withdrawn from the Rome Statute.

Huh? Even if the crimes allegedly committed by President Duterte took place prior to May 2019, it cannot be gainsaid that the Philippines is no longer a signatory to the Rome Statute even before an official, full-blown investigation can be conducted by the ICC.

Obviously, Bensouda’s excuse puts more premium to form than substance. Without the Philippines’ signature on the Rome Statute, Bensouda must be seen as a meddler in the internal affairs of the Philippines. That is not what International Law is all about.

Before Bensouda continues with her meddling in Philippine affairs, she should engage in some introspect and stocktaking, since she does not seem to be the impartial judge she likes to comport herself to be.

It has been reported that in 2011, Bensouda’s son was charged for a firearms offense and for narcotics possession in the United States, and that he was killed outside a bar in Minnesota in 2017. All that triggered Bensouda’s unusual interest in investigating America’s intervention in Afghanistan. In April 2019, the US government revoked Bensouda’s visa.

In 2017, a report disclosed that a German news magazine questioned Bensouda’s integrity in the course of an investigation she was conducting. President Duterte, therefore, has good reason to be displeased with Bensouda.

“Before Bensouda continues with her meddling in Philippine affairs, she should engage in some introspect and stocktaking, since she does not seem to be the impartial judge she likes to comport herself to be.

“All that, however, is mere wishful thinking on the part of Del Rosario and Morales. That’s because if their interpretation of the ICC report is correct, then it should not have summarily dismissed the complaint.