Al Bashir Case
The Prosecutor vs Mr. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir
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 obtained the issuance of two arrest warrants against Mr Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, former president of the Republic of Sudan from June 30th, 1999 to April 11th, 2019, so that he can respond to the ten charges involving his criminal individual responsibility:
- Five counts of crime against humanity: murder (article 7-1-a), extermination article (7-1- b), forcible transfer (article 7-1-d), torture (article 7-1-f) and rape (article 7-1-g);
- Two counts of war crimes: intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population or civilians not participating in the conflicts (article 8-2-e-i) and looting (article 8-2-e-v);
- Three counts of genocide: genocide by murder ( article 6-a), genocide caused by serious injury to physical or mental integrity (article 6-b) and genocide by intentional submission of each target group to conditions of life leading to death or physical destruction (article 6-c).
As Mr. Al Bashir did not surrender to the ICC nor was apprehended, the legal proceedings could not continue insofar as the Court does judge people who are not present in the courtroom. The former president is currently on trial in his own country, for overthrowing a democratically elected government after the 1989 military coup.
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.
