Gaza investigators call for war crimes inquiry
16 March 2009, 03:40PM
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson and Justice Richard Goldstone are among signatories "shocked to core" by recent events.
A 16-strong group of the world’s most experienced investigators and judges have called for a full international investigation into alleged abuses of international law during the recent Gaza conflict.
Send an urgent appeal to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to urge the UN to hold an independent international investigation into these abuses of international law.
Don't let war criminals get away with murder
The call, supported by Amnesty International, is made in an open letter (full text below) to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as well as all members of the UN Security Council. The letter comes at a time when a UN Board of Inquiry is expected to report to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, on its initial findings regarding attacks on UN facilities and personnel in the region.
The new letter stresses the need for an investigation into “all serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict”. It argues that the UN investigation “should not be limited only to attacks on UN facilities.”
The signatories - who have led investigations of crimes committed in former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, East Timor, Lebanon and Peru - say that they have been “shocked to the core” by events in Gaza. The signatories argue that they “have seen at first hand the importance of investigating the truth and delivering justice for the victims of conflict and believe it is a precondition to move forward and achieve peace in the Middle East.”
The letter’s signatories - who include Antonio Cassese (First President and Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Head of the UN Inquiry on Darfur) and Richard Goldstone (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and Chairman of the UN Inquiry on Kosovo) - urge world leaders “to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable by any party on any count.”
The letter calls for the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the Gaza conflict that:
- Has a mandate to carry out a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation of all allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict;
- Acts in accordance with the strictest international standards governing such investigations;
- Can provide recommendations as to the appropriate prosecution of those responsible for gross violations of the law by the relevant authorities.
Prof. William A. Schabas, former member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a signatory to the letter, said: “The international community must apply the same standard to Gaza as it does to other conflicts and investigate all abuses of the laws of war and human rights. The current UN inquiry is no substitute for a full investigation. It is not only the UN personnel that deserve truth and justice, but Palestinians and Israelis themselves.”
The signatories conclude that: “relief and reconstruction are desperately needed but, for the real wounds to heal, we must also establish the truth about crimes perpetuated against civilians on both sides.”
Full text of the Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
To: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Security Council Ambassadors
Find the truth about the Gaza war
Dear Secretary-General, dear Ambassadors
Allegations of serious violations of the laws of war have emerged throughout the latest Gaza conflict - relating to the conduct and actions both by the Israeli military and by the Palestinian armed groups.
As individuals with direct experience of international justice and reconciliation of conflict, we believe there is an important case to be made for an international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict. Without setting the record straight in a credible and impartial manner, it will be difficult for those communities that have borne the heavy cost of violence to move beyond the terrible aftermath of conflict and help build a better peace.
A prompt, independent and impartial investigation would provide a public record of gross violations of international humanitarian law committed and provide recommendations on how those responsible for crimes should be held to account. We have seen at first hand the importance of investigating the truth and delivering justice for the victims of conflict and believe it is a precondition to move forward and achieve peace in the Middle East.
The international humanitarian law enshrined in the Geneva conventions provides universal standards of conduct of war for both state and non-state actors. The world must vigilantly demand respect for these standards and investigate and condemn their violations.
We urge world leaders to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable by any party on any count. We call on them to support the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the Gaza conflict. The commission should have the greatest possible expertise and authority and:
- a mandate to carry out a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation of all allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict; it should not be limited only to attacks on UN facilities;
- act in accordance with the strictest international standards governing such investigations;
- if it finds sufficient evidence, it should provide recommendations as to the appropriate prosecution of those responsible for gross violations of the law by the relevant authorities.
The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core. Relief and reconstruction are desperately needed but, for the real wounds to heal, we must also establish the truth about crimes perpetuated against civilians on both sides.
List of signatories
Prof. Dr. M. Cherif Bassiouni (USA) - Chairman of the UN Commission of Experts to Investigate Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia (1992-1994) and Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the UN Diplomatic Conference on the International Criminal Court (1998). He is currently Professor of International Law and President Emeritus of the International Human Rights Law Institute.
Prof. Dr. Alex Boraine (South Africa) - Vice-chairman of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995-1998). He is currently Chairman of the International Center for Transitional Justice and Professor of Law at the New York University.
Prof. Dr. Antonio Cassese (Italy) - First President (1993-1997) and Judge (1993-2000) of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1993-1997) and Head of the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004). He is currently Professor of International Law at the University of Florence.
Mr. Luc Côté (Canada) - Former Executive Director of the Independent Special Commission of Inquiry for Timor-Leste (2006) and Director of Prosecutions of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (2003-2005). Currently Director of a Justice Mapping Project in the DRC.
Justice Richard J. Goldstone (South Africa) - Chairman of the South Africa Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation (1991-1994), Chief Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (1994-1996), Judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa (1996-2003) and Chairman of the UN Independent Inquiry Commission on Kosovo (1999). He is currently a visiting professor of international law.
Ms. Hina Jilani (Pakistan) - Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders (2000-2008) and Member of the Darfur Commission of Inquiry (2006).
Prof. Dr. Salomón Lerner Febres (Peru) - Chairman of the Peru Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2001-2003). He is currently Rector Emeritus of the Catholic University of Peru and President of the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights.
Mr. Dumisa Ntsebeza (South Africa) - Member of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995-1998) and of the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004).
Prof. Dr. Stelios Perrakis (Greece) - Member of the UN Commission of Inquiry to Lebanon (2006). He is currently Professor of International and European Institutions at the Pantheion University and Member of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission.
Prof. Dr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil) - UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burundi (1995-1998) and in Myanmar (2000-2008) and Chairman of the Independent Special Commission of Inquiry for Timor-Leste (2006). He is currently Commissioner and Rapporteur on Children at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Ms. Mary Robinson (Ireland) - President of Ireland (1990-1997) and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002). She is currently Chancellor of the University of Dublin.
Prof. William A. Schabas (Canada) - Member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2002-2004). He is currently Professor of Human Rights Law at the National University of Ireland and Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights.
Ms. Yasmin Sooka (South Africa) - Member of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995-1998) and of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2002-2007). She is currently Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights.
Mr. Desmond Travers (Ireland) - Former Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces, he is currently Director at the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu (South Africa) - Chairman of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995-1998) and Noble Peace Prize winner (1984).
Mr. Ralph Zacklin (United Kingdom) - United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs (1998-2005), Member of the Independent Special Commission of Inquiry for Timor Leste (2006), Chairman of the United Nations Independent Panel on Accountability (2008).
Features and analysis
Life on the ground
Amnesty's experts on Sri Lanka and Afghanistan tell of the worsening situation in these two volatile countries.
Burma’s resistance
Despite arrests and torture an enduring optimism exists amongst activists struggling against Burma's military leadership.
Millenium Development Goals
In 2000 a UN agreement set out to end poverty. Find out what it is delivering ten years on.
These features are taken from our Human Rights Defender magazine - subscribe free now
By Category
By month
Make an impact
You can make a difference right now. Your action will help shine the light of hope into people's lives across the world.
Check out what 114,435 people are doing right now to support human rights.
Stay Informed
Get Involved
Amnesty International relies on your support to continue our vital work protecting human rights. Please help us keep governments accountable, bring the guilty to justice, and save lives.
Sitewide information
- Copyright © Amnesty International Australia
- ABN: 640 0280 6233
- Phone: 1300 300 920
Comments
Comments are submitted by members of the public and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Amnesty International Australia. If you find a comment objectionable please contact us.
James Fehon
27 March 2009, 06:11PM
NGO Monitor continue to single out Human Rights Watch for the most of their criticism? And in spite of the fact they do criticise Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran.
Please have a read of this article Sandy, from 2005 http://www.forward.com/articles/3517/
Israel is not immune from criticism – it’s also not being unfairly criticised.
Sandy
27 March 2009, 05:54PM
Jerusalem-based research organization NGO Monitor today (25/3/09) rejected Human Rights Watch’s latest report on the Gaza conflict, “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza,” as inaccurate and distorted, revealing a readiness to manipulate “evidence” to match pre-determined ideological conclusions.
HRW’s record exhibits a strong anti-Israel bias. Its reporting in 2008 reflected the portrayal of Israel as the second worst abuser of human rights in the Middle East. Even before the renewal of the military conflict on December 27, 2008, HRW focused disproportionately on Gaza.
See http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/hrw_s_gaza_campaign_advocacy_not_accuracy for the full article
Steve
26 March 2009, 12:27AM
James
I fully agree that “the rights of all people must not be abused” and also accept that you are well-intentioned.
I also readily agree that the verbal ping pong that inevitably goes on on blog comments pages risks becoming merely a “continuation of the conflict” ...it’s certainly more constructive to try to take the time to understand each other, and above all to seek common ground and reconciliation. Therefore I also appreciate and accept your offer to “have a discussion instead of exchanging claim and counter claim” Finally, I ALSO agree that each of us has his own unique perspective of the world (if not “bias”).
So ...we already have a lot of common ground! ...and I’ll write to you at your MSN Messenger account, to continue the discussion.
Regards…
James Fehon
25 March 2009, 10:24PM
I really don’t agree that there’s been any hysteria and I react strongly to claims of bias.
Israel’s actions have highlight some serious issues which need to be explained and acted upon. No matter the circumstance the rights of all people must not be abused: this is the aim of the web pages, emails and donations.
I’ve also mentioned before this ideological battle is a continuation of the conflict: I’d love if we could have a discussion instead of exchanging claim and counter claim (usually of bias (I’m guilty of this too clearly)). So … less arguing and accusations, more solutions: in the spirit of constructive discussions, what are your thoughts on this article: http://newmatilda.com/2009/03/25/obama-can-convince-israel. Challenging thoughts but viable?
James Fehon
25 March 2009, 10:24PM
There’s problems with the actions of both parties in this conflict & I know both your comments are highlighting this. I guess it comes down to Amnesty International’s ability to change the situation but at the same time it mirrors the negative impact each is having on the lives of others. In some ways the focus on Israel’s actions demonstrates a belief that they’re most likely to respond, in others the magnitude of injustice Palestinians experience. Rockets vs White Phosphorus – both are deplorable but I agree with which has been criticised most strongly.
Israel is a civilised society and I agree most likely willing to conduct an investigation. From what I’ve seen of the organisation its claims are well researched, it will call out abuses as they happen & do its best in achieving its aims defending the human rights of ALL people.
Israel also has a right to security & attacks by Hamas have to stop. My comments here & in threads you’ve been in before express this belief too.
James Fehon
25 March 2009, 07:02PM
Steve you’re bias far outstrips this organisations, Richard Falks or the UN’s. (You’ve just misquoted The Australian and posted a shocking video).
On what do you base your assertion that Israel is willing to allow investigations? Who do YOU suggest should conduct them?
There is no double standard when it comes to rights. People such as Sandy and yourself simply create noise around the issue, and attempt to shift to political arguments.
Use of the term “hysterical” should be reserved for baseless claims, not claims of bias because you’re ideology is being disagreed with.
Steve
25 March 2009, 06:14PM
However Hamas…now that’s a different story. What sort of co-operation with an inquiry woud you expect from that fine organisation? From The Australian 25/3/09 (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25236972-15084,00.html): “...The UN also cited alleged abuses by Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules Gaza. Ms Coomaraswamy [from the UN] said the group had been unwilling to investigate the charges made.” ...UNWILLING, James…
Perhaps Hamas can expalin how 8 years of rocketing, shelling and suicide bombing is OK? ...or follow this link see how Hamas treats its political opponents: http://www.road90.com/watch.php?id=OrfFEfyK5F
So james, why shouldn’t this blatant, biased, double-standard of Amnesty’s be called “hysterical”? For that matter, how many comments have you, personally posted, james criticising Hamas’s obvious war crimes?
Steve
25 March 2009, 05:55PM
Israel is VERY willing to allow investigations. It happens to be a civilised society.
But the investigations should be done by unbiased observers (NOT the UN, nor Amnesty, which are both biased)
See this from The Australian 25/3/09 (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25236972-15084,00.html)
THE US yesterday said UN expert Richard Falk was “biased” in calling for an investigation of Israel’s January offensive in the Gaza Strip on the grounds it could be construed as a war crime.
“We’ve expressed our concern many times about the special rapporteur’s views on dealing with that question,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said. “We’ve found the rapporteur’s views to be anything but fair. We find them to be biased. We’ve made that very clear.”
James Fehon
24 March 2009, 03:06AM
Sandy, Amnesty International’s on the ground reporting of this has in no way been hysterical. Yes, some very grave concerns, and serious allegations have been made which is why a UN investigation is now being called for.
Richard Kemp did not undertake such an inquiry, and made comments related to his opinion of the IDF generally. The list of signatories above certainly don’t share his belief and see value in holding an independent inquiry.
Sandy, if Israel has done nothing wrong then what harm is there in holding such an inquiry? I personally am concerned about some of the tactics used, and the legality of their actions and would like to see some facts.
Why not let this inquiry cut through the propaganda on both sides and get some clear conclusions here?
Sandy
23 March 2009, 06:33PM
Amnesty International has destroyed its own credibilty on any human rights issues, by its hysterical criticism of israel over Operation Cast Lead in Gaza recently.
Amnesty devoted many web pages, thousands of emails and thousands of dollars of its donors funds publicising dubious Hamas claims and allegations.
Yet see this report at http://scrippsnews.com/node/41614:
“...Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan, carefully examined the Israeli military action and came to this conclusion: “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians” than did the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza, he told the BBC.”
Page 1 of 1 pages