Johannesburg - The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on Saturday expressed concern at government's decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“The ICC is the only permanent international criminal court and is a crucial instrument of international criminal justice, particularly with respect to ending impunity for perpetrators of international crimes,” the commission said in a statement.
South Africa had signed and ratified the Rome Statute in 1998 and thereby joined other state parties in affirming its commitment to the rule of law and to ending impunity for perpetrators of international crimes.
Ratifying the statute was a tacit recognition that human rights extended beyond geopolitical boundaries and interests, and that a collective commitment was required to uphold these rights.
This commitment to the Rome Statute was a reaffirmation of South Africa's constitutional commitment to human rights and the rule of law. In the absence of a viable alternative mechanism for holding African perpetrators of human rights violations and international crimes accountable for their actions, an exit from the ICC would not bode well for the rule of law, a principle to which South Africa had committed, the SAHRC, a Chapter 9 institution in terms of the Constitution, said.
While the commission recognised that the establishment of the African Court of Human and People's Rights was an attempt to ensure greater accountability, this did not go far enough.
“In this regard, the jurisdiction of the African Court of Human and People's Rights does not extend to criminal prosecutions and the court's competence to receive complaints from non-state parties and non-African intergovernmental organisations is limited.” While the 2014 Protocol (on amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights) conferred criminal jurisdiction to the court, the protocol also granted immunity to sitting heads of states and other senior state officials.
“The effect of this immunity is that those guilty of the grossest violations of human rights and the perpetration of international crimes will not be held accountable for their actions for as long as they remain in power. Combined with the tendency of some heads of states to want to remain in power for life, the extension of such immunity will undoubtedly result in some heads of states not being held accountable for their actions.
“ Moreover, granting immunity to sitting heads of states was likely to encourage an increase in the number of heads of states in Africa who wanted to overstay in office, even for life, while unleashing a litany of human rights violations against their citizens. This was of course undesirable and went against the values upon which South Africa was founded. In a letter to International Relations and Co-operation Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane on July 15, the commission availed itself to help government in any way possible to ensure that its international relations policy reflected the highest ideals of the Constitution.
“Unfortunately, a meeting with the minister did not transpire and it is the commission's regret that an opportunity was lost to re-iterate South Africa's commitment to rule of law and human rights in our international relations framework. The ICC remains essential in ensuring the rule of law and the upholding of human rights globally for victims of human rights violations.”
The ICC represented an important mechanism for victims of human rights violations to access justice and to end impunity in the particular situation where their family and loved ones had been killed and maimed. In the absence of regional courts with criminal jurisdiction, the ICC provided justice internationally for those affected by egregious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and for victims of genocide, the SAHRC said.
African News Agency