Australian lawyer Melinder Taylor following her release from detention in Zintan, Libya (c) AFP Photo / Mahmud Turkia
A sigh of relief as Melinda Taylor goes free
Today we breathe a sigh of relief.
Aussie defense lawyer Melinda Taylor and other ICC staff are on their way to the Hague after being released from detention in Zintan, Libya.
Three weeks ago Melinda was in Libya with the permission of Libyan authorities to visit Saif al Islam Gaddafi as his defense lawyer. She was arrested after her meeting with Saif and accused of passing documents that undermined Libyan national security. She had been held in a jail cell in Zintan ever since.
Melinda's freedom comes after sustained diplomacy between Bob Carr and Abdurrahim el-Keib, the Libyan Prime Minister, and pressure from the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court and Amnesty supporters around the world.
As Amnesty supporters, we should be proud to have contributed to the pressure that helped secure their release.
While it is great news that we have seen the release of Melinda and other ICC staff, they should never have been detained in the first place.
International Criminal Court staff enjoy diplomatic immunity under Article 48 of the Rome Statute, the international treaty that establishes the International Criminal Court.
"While it is great news that we have seen the release of Melinda and other ICC staff, they should never have been detained in the first place. "
ICC officials enjoy this immunity to the extent it is necessary for them to carry out their roles. Melinda's arrest and subsequent detention is an example of how a government may attempt to frustrate the role of the ICC if the immunity is not enforced.
Arguments have been made that as Libya is not a party to it, the Rome Statute is irrelevant and the immunity should not apply. However, when the UN Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC in 2011, it established the jurisdiction of the ICC and therefore the application of the immunity in the Rome Statute.
We must also remember that there are still thousands of Libyans arbitrarily detained by militia groups throughout Libya. They must be charged or released immediately if the new Libya is going to break with the abuses of the past and genuinely implement the rule of law.
Amnesty will be launching a report on Libya's militias (like the group that detained Melinda) on 5 July. We will continue to push the Libyan authorities to seize the opportunity to break with abuses of the past and implement the rule of law.
Comments
Luis Prenda | Posted on 6 July 2012, 12:48AM | Report comment
To be free is humain…
Upendra Kumar | Posted on 5 July 2012, 11:46PM | Report comment
Its a
‘Journey against Torture’
show solidarity and support for all victims of torture.
A campaign against human voilation
Promotion of Human Dignity - categorize activities/actions/behavior/tricks, works/mechanism/machinery/facility, experiences/practices/occurrences/incidents, emotions/sentiments, expectations etc. and make crime…
John Taylor | Posted on 5 July 2012, 01:46PM | Report comment
Sorry I meant Michael
John Taylor | Posted on 5 July 2012, 01:43PM | Report comment
No Dalal it was a press release on behalf of our family
Michael Hayworth | Posted on 5 July 2012, 01:26PM | Report comment
Paul, thanks you for the feedback and I am very glad for the debate on our blog. Amnesty called for the release of the ICC staff because they have immunity provided by the Rome Statute which is necessary for the performance of their functions.
The ICC is mandated with investigating and prosecuting crimes in situations which will often be hostile and where ICC staff may be threatened or intimidated, including with arrest. The defence faces specific risk as they are often associated with their clients and unfairly criticized for conducting the essential role of representing them.
The ability of lawyers to perform their functions is vital to the rule of law. Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principle on the Role of Lawyers (1990) specifically states:
16. Governments shall ensure that lawyers
( a ) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference;
( b ) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and
( c ) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.
Now that the ICC staff have been released, allegations made by the Libyan authorities against them are now being investigated by the ICC in accordance with its procedures.
Like you, Amnesty has received only vague and inconsistent accusations against the ICC staff. We welcome the ICC’s investigation and have called for it to focus not just on the allegations made by the Libyan authorities but also on the legality of the detention of the staff. Pending the outcome of these investigations and any subsequent proceedings, which we hope will be made public, they must be presumed innocent.
I hope this helps give clarity to our position. Danielle and John I am very glad to see Melinda released and we send our best wishes to your family.
Michael Wild | Posted on 5 July 2012, 01:02PM | Report comment
Dear Dalal. While this thread is a free one I think it’s best to keep it on Melina and the ICC rather than the US (They’ll be plenty of opportunities on this site.). I’m surprised if you don’t think that it’s “understandable” that a nation could go over-board retaliating after something as awful and high profile as 9/11. You may not like Americans (including Bush and Co) but surely you can manage a little empathy!
I’m also puzzled with the “terrorist” query. If al-Qaeda can’t be called terrorists than who can be? A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets innocent non-combatants with the intention to generate fear and further a political end. It’s usually referred to non-states but I believe governments can do it too. Often bigger and better because they have more money and empolyeess rather than volunteers. Still let’s keep to Melina and ICC and accept that it has to mean something ot anti-US people that a pro US person said what I said.
Dear John. I take it the “we” who released the press release is the ICC?
John Taylor | Posted on 5 July 2012, 07:42AM | Report comment
I am disappointed at some of the comments in these posts.Here is an extract from a press release we published over three weeks ago
“Accused, no matter how heinous the allegations, are entitled to a proper defense, else the system fails.
We weLl understand that in places of conflict there is a strong feeling against persons accused of war crimes, even to the point where people representing them are felt to be tainted by association.We, as a family, hope that the Libyans can rise above this and see fit to release the delagation.”
I might add that Melinda did not volunteer to be defence counsel, she was appointed by the court.If there was any misconduct, which is yet to be established, the proper course was to declare them persona non grata an expel them, not lock them up in prison without consular access or access to legal representation. This was reluctantly given after considerable delay.
Paul Brennan | Posted on 5 July 2012, 03:27AM | Report comment
Hi Danielle, you make a very valid point, and it’s brilliant that we’ve been able to have this civilised discussion.
You’re right. Legally, Melinda should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
However, I’m not a lawyer and I wasn’t intending to talk legally. I was talking as a journalist who is trying to work out what did or didn’t happen in that prison cell four weeks ago.
And what I was trying to say at the start of all this is that because none of the evidence has been produced, none of us is yet in a position to say, one way or another, what the truth of the matter is.
Best wishes.
Dalal Doughan | Posted on 5 July 2012, 02:22AM | Report comment
dear Michael ... am really worried about you when you say ‘understandable’ and terrorists’ I wonder in whose terms these are true?? at the same time you commend the US while they contributed to the destruction of iraq bombing torturing and killing over 600000 iraqis plus invading and slealing its wealhgiest museums and lest we forget OIL lol…plus bombing Afghanistan killing thousands and misplacing humdreds of thousands plus now the opium fields growing nice n green under US sponsorship… plus supporting the state of Israel which has been committing crimes under the very eyes of Amnesty International and lest we forget Rachel Corey and the shelling of innocent people for the past 50 odd years…. even using illegal weapons such as the cluster bombs and phospharic ones plus biological weapons like the ones US used in Iraq ,,,,, the list is endless but am not surprised because politics take over principles and human rights even Amnesty is biased and fall short of actions when they’re really needed… look how the US let Russia and china veto UN recommendations in favor of a dictator… tell me who are we and what the UN stand for and what do we stand for??? a question trhat has multioptional answers and all of them are WRONG.
I meant millions by big $$$$ ... theres nothing wrong with people applying for jobs with big salaries but not at the expense of someone’s blood ... I would not defend that monster even If i was given the whole of Lybia its all about our principles and what we believe in ... in my book noone’s blood is cheap and Ibelieve there’s a business deal going on ... multimillion dollar business lol
Michael Wild | Posted on 5 July 2012, 01:53AM | Report comment
Dear Dalal (and all readers). Believe me Dalal I DEPLORE G-Bay! I’m genuinely fond of the US but believe that while understandable, G.W Bush and Co have defiled the name and honour of their country. The OK to torture was worst but G-Bay is just plain wrong however appealing. Terrorists aren’t soldiers; they’re contemptible criminals. With criminals, you arrest suspects, perhaps detain for a reasonably short time as you investigate, then charge and give proper trials or release them. Sure, sometimes that isn’t easy; doing the right thing can sometimes be really hard. But that’s when we find out just how good a man or country’s moral fibre. It was a tough test of character and Bush failed it. Sadly so has Obama, though closing G-Bay’s harder than not setting it up.
When you start holding people for ages with no charge, you open the gates of hell. It’s almost certain that large numbers of innocent or guilty of small things (not terrorism) are languishing in G-Bay and other black holes. That’s just not good enough. There endeth the sermon on G-Bay. Praise be to Amnesty and Co for their gutsy stance on this.
Re Melinda’s salary. You actually said “millions”, now it’s “big $$$$”. I suspect we’ve different ideas of what this means. But if you really “bet your life” on this I’d be very worried about you. I expect she lives well, but I’m certain there’s better paid legal work for a lawyer of her experience. Let’s say she’s paid multi $mls. OK, you and me might get jealous but what the hell’s wrong for applying for jobs with huge salaries anyway?
Dalal Doughan | Posted on 5 July 2012, 12:24AM | Report comment
Danielle
Also one of the rules of the LAW is freedom of speech or are we implying double standards over and over again… see you have politics around human rights !!!!
Danielle | Posted on 5 July 2012, 12:13AM | Report comment
Hi Paul, I’m not sure why you take issue with those people who are presuming Melinda’s innocence?
Surely one of the rules of law is ” innocent until PROVEN guilty”.
Thank you for your well wishes.
Dalal Doughan | Posted on 4 July 2012, 11:43PM | Report comment
dear Michael .. if I agree with you on the ‘Fair tral’ explain to me plz Guantanamo Bay!!!! ...and if we are afraid of having a ’ victor’s justice’ explain to me the 50000 lives who were killed by the Lybian regime and don;t quite understand whether there’s what we call victory when we have so many lives lost at the hands of Khadhaffi and his sons… and since he’s been trailed by ICCA i dont see any relevance of making the lybian people endure more pain seeing Saif el Islam trailed fairly as you describe it in the heart of Lybia… amazingly still we dont see Amnesty international doing anything more than talking whether in regard to palestinians the syrians and the afghani… to tell you the truth I have no faith in this organisation because it has double standards and politics ... good luck
p.s. in relation to Melinda’s receiving big $$$$ I bet my life on it… this case is no easy task trust me
Michael Wild | Posted on 4 July 2012, 10:10PM | Report comment
For the record, Michael Wild’s last post was written before he read Paul Brennan’s (I’d feel pretty silly if I had).
That said, Mr B the International Court has been around for some time and I believe its professional staff have vastly greater credibility than their equivalences in many countries. Appointment of corrupt, low- competent justice officials via corruption is endemic in many countries, including the Middle East. The ICC has also operated and far greater scrutiny than many courts outside the 1st World. The Libyan government, (good luck to them) remains a government and we all know what governments can be like. In this case it’s a government that hasn’t had the time to establish the institutional credibility of the ICC .
By all means let’s try to establish the truth and every institution can make mistakes (including Amnesty) But I don’t think it naive to believe the ICC is more likely to be competent and honest than the Libyan government. To assume equality is at kindest, a very generous treatment for the new government. (I must say it’s a buzz to know someone’s reading this verseas. I contribute often and in 70& of the time I’m the only one who ever does. Furthermore I’m writing from a modest regional city)
Michael Wild | Posted on 4 July 2012, 09:28PM | Report comment
Hi Danielle and whoever reads this. If Melinda was my sister I know I’d be ropeable followed by a an extended time of being let us say “deeply concerned.” I’d possibly be fragile myself in your position let alone Melinda’s. Being prickly seems quite reasonable.
I’m deeply dubious about a threat to Libyan” internal security” as I can’t image anything Melinda could have given her client that threatens anything. Short of killing him Saif al Islam Gaddafi is as harmless as you can make him to the Libyans. I doubt there’s a strong “bring back al-Gaddafi” movement. If there is a dangerous underground movement (the sort that has real spies) I can only say if they are dumb enough to smuggle valuable information to a jailed non leader they won’t be dangerous for long. You’re right Danielle; it is pretty funny.
However, the principle of “let even feral journoes loose’ matters. There’s no shortage of dreadful people whose friends and family would say are people of “high integrity” etc. In the long run the ICC and staff are better served by free journalists. I don’t watch al-Jazeera but understand that while imperfect, it’s a force for good. Think of it’s competitors such as the Syrian Arab New Agency (government run). I don’t know how Mr Brennan operates. But I think it highly likely he, or one of his colleagues will be asking “where’s the evidence?” to the right people. Do you have any reason to doubt that? PS Like everyone I’m pleased for you and your sister about the long overdue release.
Paul Brennan | Posted on 4 July 2012, 08:56PM | Report comment
I’m enjoying the vigorous and healthy debate here.
Danielle, I and others HAVE asked for details of the evidence. As I said in my original posting here: “despite repeated attempts by us journalists” neither the Libyans NOR the ICC have seen fit to offer a proper explanation or give us sight of the allegedly incriminating items.
However, it would be naive in these circumstances to believe that just because no evidence has been produced publicly, no evidence exists. This has become an international diplomatic situation, complete with the usual ‘smoke and mirrors’, non-apology apologies, and limited admissions. The outcome now is less likely to be about the ‘truth’, and more about damage limitation and face-saving..
I take your sister’s denials at face value. I do not dismiss them out of hand and I certainly do not presume her guilt. But I do take issue with those people who presume her innocence.
What bothers me, as I sit here in Tripoli writing this, is that the prevailing assumption seems to be the Libyans are lawless and the ICC blameless. That is hopelessly simplistic.
My best wishes to your sister and to you.
Danielle | Posted on 4 July 2012, 08:10PM | Report comment
Michael , I agree that if there was any wrong doing , there should be an investigation. But believe me , there was absolutely no wrong doing or misconduct. Everyone that knows Melinda both professionally and personally, know her of a woman of extremely high integrity and morals.
Melinda Taylor is my sister and I have spoken to her personally in the last few days. Not only was she detained illegally, but the allegations were ludicrous. The ICC detainees knew this and so did the Libyans. She was used as a political pawn ( my words not Melinda ). I am not sure how much Melinda can reveal about her detention at the moment, particularly when she is still pretty fragile from the experience. However, I am sure in the following week, the truth will come out.
Journalists most certainly can and should ask questions. The most important one they should have asked is ” where is the evidence?” .
Michael Wild | Posted on 4 July 2012, 07:29PM | Report comment
Dear Danielle. I have an emotional (and intellectual) attatchment to the ICC. I wrote letters to help set it up, cheered the brith and rejoiced when it delivered some goods; completed trials and long prison terms. (OK I’d have like quicker ones but speedy trials can easily become botched ones). So I recon we are on the same page.
I don’t like my “baby” being questioned either. But just as it’s a defence lawyers job to defend, it’s a journalist’s job to ask questions. That includes questions of everyone/organization that matters. I have no reason to doubt the ICC president’s refused to answer questions. The ICC shouldn’t do illegal things seems OK.. The Libyan’s right to investgate suspected wrong do-ers seems OK. The right to “detain” ...regardless of diplomatic status” is a big “Hmnmm, I don’t think so” though I’d defer to a clearly impartial lawyer on that one. But we all make mistakes.
I agree with Mr Brennan that there are some “unanswered questions” for thie ICC though the regime’s one’s look much more sersious. But I’m sure the ICC will answer them in due time. I agree this woman should never have been detained and what ever she did, it can’t possibly compare to what Gaddafi junior has almost certainly done.
Neverthless let’s not be too prickly at Mr Brennan. The ICC is made of a ordinary men and women who can always go off the rails. A key preventative is letting journalists ask uncomfortable questions as all organizations can become corrupt, even my much loved ICC. Unfettered journalists are in fact part of the ICC’s immune system. Impede them and the long term health of the ICC and a lot more very important things, are at risk. Just ask an AIDS patient..
Michael Wild | Posted on 4 July 2012, 05:43PM | Report comment
Dear Dalal. I share your opinion about the behavoiur and moral conduct on Saif el islam. But A FAIR TRIAL IS NOT NEGOTIABLE. Otherwise people will say his near certain conviction will be merely “victor’s justice”.
We must have a fair trial and you can’t have a fair trial without a lawyer being there who’s job it is to stand up and fight for the accused. Relax mate. If this woman is the best lawyer in the world she’s going to lose unless the prosecution stuffs up big time.
It’s easy to get big numbers wrong and the idea that Melina is on $! million salary plus seems very unlikely. Unless you can provide some really good evidence I"m going to have to conclude you stuffed up when you posted that number. I agree with you that the man being detained should be tried with the ICC. So you’ll be happy to know he IS being tried by the ICC and this lawyer is part of the ICC procedure. (Another reason to believe she’s not being paid $1m)
Natalie | Posted on 4 July 2012, 03:59PM | Report comment
What happened to everybody (and really anybody regardless of the accused crime) having the right to a defence lawyer and a fair trial?
I thought that was a principle of justice and human rights.