The Prosecutor vs Mr. Abu Garda

Following the particularly critical situation in Darfur, the then UN’s General Secretary Mr. Kofi Annan set up an international committee to investigate the alleged breaches of humanitarian law in the country. In its final report issued on January 2005, the body concluded that crimes against humanity and crimes of war had been committed and recommended that the case be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Exercising its power under the Rome Statute, the UN Security Council seized the ICC by way of Resolution 1593 of March 31st, 2005. The judicial opened an investigation into the alleged facts starting July 01st, 2002. After more than three years of investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor requested on November 20th, 2008, the issuance of an arrest warrant, or failing that, a summons to appear before Mr. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda in connection with the attack of September 29, 2005 against the African Union peacekeeping mission stationed at the Haskanita base during the civil conflict between government and rebel forces. Twelve peace officers were killed and 8 more seriously injured, as well as other communications, facilities, dormitories, vehicles and other materials were destroyed during the attack.

The summons to appear was issued in May 2009 and on May 18th, 2009, Mr. Abu Garda voluntarily appeared before the Pre-Trial Chamber I. The hearing on confirmation of charges took place during the month of October 2009.

The chamber ruled on the question on February 8th, 2010 and decided not to confirm the charges presented by the Prosecutor, considering that the elements submitted were not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a plan to launch an attack on the Haskanita base. 

Judgment of 08-02-2010.pdf

On March 15th, 2010, the Office of the Prosecutor filed a motion to appeal this judgment, which was dismissed by a  Decision dated April 23rd, 2010.

Decision of 23-04-2010.pdf

This summary of the facts of this case and the proceedings is only proposed for informational purposes, does not engage Dome in any way and cannot replace the careful reading of the judgments and orders of the case.