Category:The Mitchell Firm: Difference between revisions

International Criminal Court, Nigeria, Boko Haram, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Iraq, Syria, Libya

On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of inclusion of an amendment in the FY17 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would permit more robust U.S. support of International Criminal Court cases, including those involving religious persecution. The United States has long been a champion of accountability and justice for perpetrators of atrocity crimes, including in Nazi Germany, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The passage of this amendment will further solidify American leadership on the rule of law and human rights, and, of particular interest to us, will allow the U.S. to promote accountability and justice in conflict situations involving religious freedom abuses. The International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) is the worlds only permanent international tribunal mandated to investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes. The ICCs governing statute specifically includes religious persecution as a punishable offense within the three core atrocity crimes that the Court prosecutes - genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - and religiously motivated crimes are implicated in six of the nine country situations currently before the Court. In light of the ICCs mandate to prosecute perpetrators of religious persecution, and as a result of the recognition that the Court serves to protect core religious values, including justice, bearing witness, redress, protecting the vulnerable, and helping to lay the foundation for durable peace, many faith-based organizations from diverse cultural, social, and political backgrounds support the work and mission of the ICC. Moreover, the U.S. has been broadly supportive of all of the ICCs cases, as they are consistent with U.S. national interests. For instance, the State Departments Rewards for Justice Program was created in 1984 and has been used for over 30 years to help apprehend and prosecute international criminals. In 2013, Congress passed a bipartisan expansion of this program to allow for the payment of up to $5 million to individuals who provide information that leads to the capture of ICC fugitives. Yet, an outdated provision of U.S. law hampers Americas ability to provide the full array of professional, logistical, and other resources to ICC cases. Presently, the U.S. can only provide limited, in-kind support to the ICC on a case-by-case basis. This results in the U.S. being unable to provide the ICC with the resources needed to bring to justice perpetrators of atrocities, including the most egregious abuses of international religious freedom. Essentially, this means that the hands of the U.S. government are tied when it comes to assisting in crucial efforts to prosecute atrocity crimes, including religious persecution. The language we are supporting, a proposed Atrocity Accountability Amendment (Amendment), would make a moderate, limited, and narrowly-tailored change to U.S. law that would allow the U.S. to provide to the ICC the same type of critical support that it provided to the Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, and other international tribunals. This change would ensure that Americas options in the fight against atrocities are not artificially restricted and would give the U.S. more tools in its toolbox to counter impunity, promote accountability, and contribute to justice and peacebuilding efforts. This change could, for instance, mean that the U.S. could offer finances for additional investigators, witness protection assistance, sophisticated law enforcement technologies, and expert scientists and other professionals to the ICCs current investigation of Boko Harams atrocities in Nigeria, religious persecution in the Central African Republic, and Joseph Kony and the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda and other areas - all cases which the United States has a principled and strategic interest in supporting, especially where national security concerns are implicated. The limitation existing under current law should be of serious concern to the United States because, in many cases, the ICC is the only mechanism available to hold individuals accountable for their commission of religiously-motivated atrocities. Indeed, in its 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommended that the U.S. push for a UN Security Council Resolution that refers atrocities committed by the so-called Islamic State to the ICC. In recent congressional testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, the then-chair of USCIRF specifically recommended the change to U.S. law that the Amendment would make.