Recently, the name of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has come into attention of the Thai public when Robert Amsterdam, international lawyer hired by Mr.Thaksin Shinawatra, advocates for filing the Thai government on the charge of “crime against humanities” through the institution. I asked, Hans Peter Kaul, Vice President of the ICC the procedure of the investigation and whether it is possible.
Q: The red shirt protestors said they’d like the ICC to investigate the death of 90 people from the riot in April and May last year, what is the possibility, can ICC involve in this investigation?
A: I have of course been informed about this news, I have also been told that it is American professor or American lawyer, Robert Amsterdam who was advising certain people in the country to take this out…this is nonsense, why is it nonsense, because he must know that as long as Thailand is not a state party to the court, the court can never intervene to the domestic policy of the country. I am grateful that I can clarify this important message as there are so many people in this country who do not understand the system of the treaty, so the public opinion should not be misled by false prophet who are directing public opinion in the direction which is irrelevant and which cannot work.
Q: The only factor that can bring ICC to this case is Thailand has to ratify in the “Rome Statute” first, am I right?
A: Yes, again, ICC has jurisdiction over crime committed in Thailand only after the ICC ratification, so we cannot look back into events occurred in the past and, of course, this is also another important point. Not every political violence amounts to genocide or crime against humanities and it cannot be war crimes even if human rights violation might have been committed. If the type of crime does not correspond to this treaty, it is of course no jurisdiction, because we are not responsible for ordinary killings, we are not responsible for police violence or this type of normal crime. We are the most competent for the most serious crime concern to the International Community. See, it is on a different scale, they are mass crimes and more serious than ordinary crimes.
Q: With the death toll of 90 people and it happened in Thailand, don’t you consider it as massive killings?
A: I cannot comment on this because this will end up immediately as taking position on domestic policy matters. Judges of the ICC cannot matter into internal affairs of state so well let me repeat what I said before, ICC can be of relevance to Thailand and can benefit the Thai society if the government and Thai people join the International Criminal Court.
Q: Just in the case, “Red shirts” want to file petition again in this case, will it be possible?
A: As I said ICC for the time being, have no relevance to Thailand and I would like to make clear that we know, yes, in various countries there are always forces who want to use ICC as an instrument against their political opponents. ICC cannot be instrumentalised in the conflict of domestic policies; we are a non-political nature and objective institution, so we must avoid to be drawn into a political conflict between two parties in the domestic disputes.
Q: Even though Robert Amsterdam, the lawyer…
A: I do not give any importance to him, no importance should be given to him by Thai people to what he is saying and the way he is proposing because it does not work, he is misleading the Thai people.
Q: Even though he has tried to put on international pressure on the Thai government to do so? Would it be possible?
A: There are many people in the world who try all kinds of maneuvers; ICC has nothing to do with this. As I said and I repeat for the third time, ICC can be of relevance to Thailand only if Thai people and the Thai government make a sovereign decision to become a member of the ICC. ICC cannot play any role in the struggle between two factions of the Thai domestic policy scene; we do not want because we are a judicial neutral and objective body. So many political disputes in the world and each time, if we would be silly enough, it would be crazy enough to meddle in this political disputes, it would be very harmful in our standing and our reputation in the world.
Q: What is the stance of Thailand on signing the “Rome Statute”?
A: Well, the possibility is Thailand has signed Rome Statute already in 2000 and to sign a treaty means normally the state has the intention to ratify and what is required is someone’s decision by Thailand to join a treaty or not. It is a positive thing that such a treaty, such a statute is not imposed on a nation. It is sovereign and voluntary decision of people of the government and of the people concern. We sincerely have the hope that such a country like Thailand which is so resourceful with so many talented people and committed to the rule of law and committed to human rights can join ICC.
Q: What would be the positive aspect of ratification to the Rome Statute?
A: The positive aspect is Thailand will strengthen the protection of human rights both on international and national level and let us compare with adoption of a new law protecting human rights of a population of a country, then the parliament of Thailand adopt a new law enhancing and promoting human rights of Thailand. So people of Thailand do not get more money, but more secure and have a better guarantee so they can live out the fear of injustice and human rights violation.
2 comments:
Kaul wishes not to meddle in the affairs of a legitimate state (?) - but he conveniently omits to say that Thailand is an "illegitimate" state (under an unelected government imposed through the use of parastatal repressive instruments)that has caused massive violations of human rights and the deaths of scores and scores of innocent people. What the hell is the purpose of the ICC? Maybe international funders/supporters should withdraw funding to a three legged horse and an impotent jockey?
Has Thailand signed the Statute or not.Hans Peter Kaul answers 4 times that Thailand did not sign the Statute so therefore the ICC cannot investigate but to the 2nd last question he states that Thiland may have signed in 2000,they either signed or not it is a matter of record,there fore the ICC can investigate. Hans Peter Kaul seems to be trying to stop the legitimate investigation WHY?and who is paying him?
Robert
Post a Comment