Arrest warrants ‘urgent’
But ICC prosecutor accused of ‘moral disgrace of the highest order’
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has asked its judges to decide “with utmost urgency” whether to issue warrants for the arrest of Israeli ministers and Hamas leaders.
Karim Khan KC revealed his frustration in a partly redacted submission that he made to the chamber of three judges who are considering the application he filed on 20 May.
On 22 July 2024, after receiving over 70 applications, and without providing in the decision reasons as to why “the observations proposed are desirable for the proper determination of the case”, the chamber granted leave to provide observations by 6 August 2024 to most applicants, even though many applicants had raised issues unrelated to the Oslo accords.
That was a reference to a submission made by the United Kingdom before the general election but not pursued by the incoming government. The question raised by the UK was “whether the court can exercise jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in circumstances where Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals pursuant to the Oslo accords”.
His formal response to the court last month was also critical of the way it had handled the matter.
The main purpose of Khan’s submission on Monday was to withdraw his application for a warrant of arrest against Ismail Haniyeh “because of the changed of circumstances caused by Haniyeh’s death”. The prosecutor has not yet received sufficient information to confirm the death of another suspect, Mohammed Deif.
Calling for an urgent decision on arrest warrants for Deif, the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Khan claimed that their arrests were necessary to “ensure that they do not obstruct or endanger the investigation or court proceedings, prevent the continuing commission of the crimes alleged and/or the commission of other Rome Statute crimes”.
A statement from the Israeli prime minister’s office said:
The comparison made by the prosecutor in The Hague between the prime minister and defence minister of Israel, which is fighting murderous Hamas terrorism in accordance with the laws of war, and the war criminal Sinwar, who executed Israeli hostages in cold blood, is pure antisemitism and a moral disgrace of the highest order.
Unfortunately, we have seen from the beginning that the proceedings in The Hague are politically biased and have no professional legal basis whatsoever.
As I reported on Monday in an update to an earlier piece, regulatory complaints have been lodged with the Bar Standards Board against Khan and his trial lawyer Andrew Cayley CMG KC. It’s alleged they have failed to comply with their professional duty not to mislead the court.
Similar complaints have also been lodged at the International Criminal Court against Khan, Cayley and their colleague Brenda Hollis. It’s alleged that they failed to include important material in their applications to the court that would exculpate the suspects.
Law, in its practical application, reflects the moral standards agreed upon by society. Judges, therefore, are tasked with upholding and interpreting these laws in accordance with the will of the people, rather than imposing their own authority or enforcing behaviour that contradicts societal morals. Some judges should hang their head in shame.