Admissibility & Complementarity at the ICC: The Folly of the Military Commissions Act of2006By Anonymous Author

In March! 202! millions of Americans mobili"ed for the support of the capture of alle#ed $ar criminal %oseph &ony'2They did so e(en thou#h their o$n #o(ernment is not e(en a si#natory to the )ome *tatute of the International Criminal Court'+Throu#hout the past three decades! the ,nited *tates has had a turbulent relationship $ith that international body'-o$ that the .bama administration has reen#a#ed $ith the Court! prospects for ratification seem closer than they ha(e been in decades'*till! if ratification is to be seriously considered! the ,nited *tates/ stron# policy preference for not sendin# ,'*' nationals before an international tribunal must be assua#ed'For this to happen! Con#ress must act to ma0e sure domestic la$ strictly complies $ith international $ar crimes definitions'It must also refrain from repeatin# past mista0es such as the Military Commissions Act of 2006'1uman ri#hts or#ani"ations and the international community ha(e critici"ed the Military Commissions Act for failin# to meet the minimal due process standards re2uired by Common Article + of the 3ene(a Con(entions'4hile the Act is certainly fla$ed $ith re#ard tointernational standards of due process! this paper focuses on the Act/s amendments to domestic humanitarian la$'*pecifically! it loo0s at ho$ the Act/s amendments to the 4ar Crimes Act of 556 a#itate ,'*' concerns about politici"ed prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in li#ht of the Court/s admissibility practices'6art I of this paper e7amines ,'*' in(ol(ement in the International Criminal Court and its concerns o(er politici"ed prosecutions'6art II e7amines the complementarity doctrine of 1 Candidate, JD, Chicago-Kent College of Law, 20122 Teresa Albano, Kony 2012 Explodes on World Stage, Leaves Questions in its Wake, Peoples !orld, "arch 1#, 2012, http$%%www&peoplesworld&org%'on(-2012-e)plodes-on-world-stage-lea*es-+,estions-in-wa'e%& - .d& the Court in li#ht of the Lubanga admissibility decision'6art III demonstrates $hy the Military Commissions Act of 2006 creates a barrier for ratification of the )ome *tatute'If American concerns about about sendin# a soldier before an international tribunal areto be assua#ed! it is critical that American in(esti#ations and prosecutions of $ar crimes be carried out comprehensi(ely and in conformance $ith international la$ standards'The post hoc dilusion of international $ar crimes definitions represents an approach that $ould open the door for politici"ed prosecutions' 6art I: ,* In(ol(ement in the CourtThe ICC see0s uni(ersal participation'Its ob8ecti(e is to brin# leadin# perpetrators of 9atrocity crimes: to 8ustice'Those crimes include #enocide! crimes a#ainst humanity! serious $ar crimes and a##ression';The creation of a permanent international criminal court $ould a(ert the necessity of of creatin# costly and time consumin# post hoc tribunals'6redecessor ad hoc tribunals include the -urember# court! the International Criminal Tribunal for the former eone?! @7traordinary Chambers of CambodiaA! the $ar crimes court of Bosnia & 1er"e#o(ina5! $ar crimes court of &oso(o0! and the $ar crimes court of @ast # Da*id /cheffer, The "erits of 0nif(ing Ter1s$ 2Atrocit( Cri1es3 and 2Atrocit( Law,3 2 4enocide /t,d& 5 Pre*ention 61 720089&: /tat,te of the .nternational Trib,nal for the Prosec,tion of Persons ;esponsible for /erio,s or1er ?,gosla*ia since 1661, /&C& ;es& @28, 0&A& Doc& /%;B/%@28 7"a( 2:, 166-9, http$%%www&,n&org%ict(&%& C /tat,te of the .nternational Cri1inal Trib,nal for the Prosec,tion of Persons ;esponsible for 4enocide and Dther /erio,s /HF.Astat,sHc,rrent&pdf& 2- 22 0&/&C& 8#21 et se+& 720029& abstained from (otin# on the *ecutity Council referral of the situation in DarfurF! little $as done to repair relations $ith the court or international relations #enerally'After a decade of roc0y relationships! the ,nited *tates has seen an ama"in# reGen#a#ement $ith the ICC o(er the past three and a half years'In his first year in office! .bama announced that his administration $ould re(ie$ ,'*' 6olicy on the ICC'2;At the sametime! *ecretary of *tate Clinton lamented the ,'*/s status as an ICC outsider'2=In late 2005! the ,'*' 4as represented for the first time e(er at the annual meetin# of the ICC/s Assembly of*tates 6arties! a clear si#n that 4ashin#ton $as en#a#in# $ith the Court'The ,nited *tates then announced that it stands ready to protect the $itnesses re2uired to testify a#ainst top &enyan officials at the Court'26The .bama administration has also sou#ht out meetin#s $ith the ICC prosecutor and other ICC officials to determine ho$ the ,nited *tates can best help the ICC'2?In mid 200! the ,'*' *ent a contin#ency of obser(ers to &ampala! ,#anda to attend the ICC )e(ie$ Conference'2A)emar0ably! in February 20! the ,nited *tates lobbiedother states on the *ecurity Council to refer the conflict in >ibya to the ICC'25II' Complementarity & Admissibility *tandardsA' Admissibility and Complementarity! 3enerallyAs mentioned! the ,nited *tates played a pi(otal role in draftin# the rules of e(idence and proceedure for the International Criminal Court'The )ome *tatute/s #eneral principles 2# Press ;elease, 0&/& Depart1ent of /tate, Dail( Press Friefing 7>eb& 12, 20069& 2: Bwen "acAs'ill, Clinton$ t is a )/reat -egret) the 'S is 0ot in nternational Cri!inal Court1 (illary Clinton, the Se,retary o# State Signals Shi#t +y the 'S in &avour o# the nternational Cri!inal Court, The 4,ardian, A,g& C, 2006, http$%%www&g,ardian&co&,'%world%2006%a,g%0C%,s-international-cri1inal-co,rt& 2C Alan Foswell, '1S1 "o (elp %rote,t Kenyan 2iolen,e Witnesses, eb& 11, 2010, http$%%www&*oanews&co1%content%,s-to-help-protect-'en(an-*iolence-witnesses-@#1--#C2%1:6882&ht1l&28 /tate1ent b( /tephen J& ;app, 0&/& A1bassador-at-Large for !ar Cri1es ;egarding /toc'ta'ing at the Bight ;es,1ed /ession of the Asse1bl( of /tates Parties to the .nternational Cri1inal Co,rt, "arch 2-, 2010, http$%%,s,n&state&go*%briefing%state1ents%2010%1-@666&ht1& 2@ The 1eeting was the first opport,nit( for /tates Parties to a1end the ;o1e /tat,te, a process in which the 0&/& Delegation participated acti*el( and with so1e s,ccess&26 Bdward !(att, Se,urity Coun,il Calls #or War Cri!es n3uiry in Li+ya, A&?& Ti1es, >eb& 2C, 2011&of criminal la$ are set forth in articles 22G++'They include nullum crimen sine le#e+0! nulla poena sine le#e+! nonGretroacti(ity ratione personae+2! indi(idual criminal responsibility includin# aidin# and abettin# and 8oint criminal enterprise++! e7clusion of 8urisdiction o(er persons under ei#hteen years of a#e+;! irrele(ance of official capacity $hen applyin# the )ome *tatute+=! responsibility of commanders and other superiors+6! nonGapplicability of statutes of limitations+?! intent and 0no$led#e as mens rea+A! #rounds for e7cludin# criminal responsibility+5! mista0es of fact or la$;0! and defense of superior orders and prescription of la$;'They represent a combination of ci(il and common la$ principles'The combination of ci(il and common la$ principles at the ICC raise additional concerns about the ,nited *tates e(er ha(in# to send a ,'*' national before the court'Besidesits stron# preference a#ainst doin# so! the lac0 of a 8ury trial $ould raise additional constitutional concerns'These concerns can be alle(iated by the fact that the ,'*' need ne(er send a national before the Court if it properly e7ercises the principle of complementarity'That is to say! as lon# as American prosecutors in(esti#ate and prosecute $here $arranted! the ICC $ould be estopped from e7ercisin# 8urisdiction'1o$e(er! #i(en the ICC/s 9same person! same conduct: precedent $ith re#ard to admissibility! it is important that ,'*' humanitarian la$ strictly conform $ith international definitions if the ,'*' Is to a(oid the threat of sendin# a national before the international tribunal' *ituations in(ol(in# alle#ed atrocity crimes can be referred to the ICC by a *tate 6arty! -0 ;o1e /tat,te, art& 22719 72A person shall not be cri1inall( responsible ,nder this /tat,te ,nless the cond,ct in +,estion constit,tes, at the ti1e it ta'es place, a cri1e within the J,risdiction of the Co,rt&39& -1 ;o1e /tat,te, art& 2- 72A person con*icted b( the Co,rt 1a( be p,nished onl( in accordance with this /tat,te&39& -2 ;o1e /tat,te, art& 2: 72Ao person shall be cri1inall( responsible ,nder this /tat,te for cond,ct prior to the entr( into force of the /tat,te&39&-- ;o1e /tat,te, art& 2:& -# ;o1e /tat,te, art& 2C&-: ;o1e /tat,te, art& 28&-C ;o1e /tat,te, art& 2@&-8 ;o1e /tat,te, art& 26&-@ ;o1e /tat,te, art& -0& -6 ;o1e /tat,te, art& -1 ;o1e /tat,te, art& -2 ;o1e /tat,te, art& --& by the ,'-' *ecurity Council usin# its ,'-' *ecurity Council usin# its Article HII enforcement authority! or by the ICC prosecutor follo$in# appro(al by the 6reGTrial Chamber';2The ICC does not ha(e uni(ersal 8urisdiction'To establish personal 8urisdiction! the person char#ed $ith a crime must be a national of a *tate 6arty to the ICC! or the territory on $hich the crime $as committed must belon# to a *tate 6arty';+These prere2uisites do not apply $here the ,'-' *ecurity Council acts in accordance $ith its Article HII po$ers'Admissibility of cases is #o(erned by Articles ?G5 of the )ome *tatute'These articles in(ite domestic courts to handle cases under their domestic criminal system! thereby preemptin# ICC 8urisdiction o(er a suspect'This means that concerns about protection of a ,'*' national/s constitutional due process ri#hts before the ICC need ne(er come into play if ,'*' prosecutors ta0e the initiati(e to in(esti#ate and prosecute ,'*' nationals in American courts'6ro(ided that ,'*' la$ is amended to co(er atrocity crimes and ,'*' prosecutors act $ith due dili#ence! there should be no reason for the ICC to determine that the ,nited *tates is 9un$illin# or unable #enuinely: to carry out an in(esti#ation or prosecute a suspect' 9Complementarity is the principle reconcilin# the *tates/ persistin# duty to e7ercise 8urisdiction o(er international crimes $ith the establishment of a permanent international criminal court ha(in# competence o(er the same crimesI admissibility is the criterion $hich enables the determination! in respect of a #i(en case! $hether it is for a national 8urisdiction or for the Court to proceed' Accordin#ly! admissibility can be re#arded as the tool allo$in# implementation of the principle of complementarity in respect of a specific scenario':;;Decisions on admissibility $ith re#ard to Article ? need to be made bearin# in mind the 6reamble of the )ome *tatute;= $hich 9emphasi"BesC that the International Criminal Court established under this *tatute shall be complementary to national criminal #2 ;o1e /tat,te, arts& 1--1:& #- ;o1e /tat,te, art& 12# Kony, Decision on Ad1issibilit(, "arch 10, 2010 http$%%www&icc-cpi&int%iccdocs%doc%docC#12:6&pdf para& -#: Aoted in %rose,utor v1 /er!ain Katanga and 4athieu 0gud5olo Chui, Case Ao& .CC-01%0#-01%08, -easons #or the 6ral7e,ision on the 4otion Challenging the *d!issi+ility o# the Case 8*rt1 19:, TC .., J,ne 1C, 2006, para& #8& 8urisdictions:;6 and 9BrCecallBsC that it is the duty of e(ery *tate to e7ercise its criminal 8urisdiction o(er those responsible for international crimes':;?In other $ords! the purpose of the Court is to a(oid impunity for international crimes'-ational courts ha(e a responsibility under the *tatute to e7ercise 8urisdiction J that it! to in(esti#ate and prosecute $here $arranted! international crimes fallin# $ithin their 8urisdiction',nder Article ?! the 0ey element in determinin# the decentrali"ation of in(esti#ations and the distribution of tas0s bet$een national courts and the ICC is the 9$illin#ness: or 9ability: :#enuinely: to carry out domestic proceedin#s'It should be noted that under Article ?! it is only once an in(esti#ation or proceedin# is under$ay that the 9inability: and 9un$illin#ness: assessment comes into play'1ence! it is only when domestic proceedings encompass the same conduct and the domestic judicial system is willing and able genuinely to proceed that a case will be rendered inadmissible.-either the )ome *tatute nor the )ules or )e#ulations of the Court define the term 9#enuine': The Court has yet to address this 2uestion in its 8urisprudence'It has been ar#uedthat 9#enuineness: is best sho$n in the concept of #ood faith';AThis ar#ument is supported by precedent in international la$'In Commission v. Spain! the *i7th Chamber of the @uropean Court of %ustice used the terms 9#enuine: and 9#ood faith: interchan#eably! leadin# to the same meanin#';5>i0e$ise! the First Chamber of the @uropean Court of %ustice used the same standard in Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany,! and Commission v. "ingdom of #elgium.$

In %aniagua &orales et al., the InterGAmerican Court of 1uman )i#hts held that #C Prea1ble to the ;o1e /tat,te of the .nternational Cri1inal Co,rt, para& 10 .d& at para& C@ /ee John T& =ol1es, 2Co1ple1entarit($ Aational Co,rts uban#a and &atan#a cases! the prosecutor and 6reGTrial Chambers ha(e instituted a policy of 9same person! same conduct: $hen assessin# the admissibility of a case'.n March 5! 200=! D)C authorities issued an arrest $arrant a#ainst Thomas >uban#afor the crime of #enocide Earticle 6; of the D)C Military Criminal CodeF and crimes a#ainst humanity Earticles 66G65 of the D)C Military Criminal CodeF! in addition to the ordinary crimes of murder and ille#al detention'=;1o$e(er! the domestic la$ definitions differ sli#htlyfrom the internationally reco#ni"ed definition'For e7ample! crimes a#ainst humanity in article 66 of the Military Criminal Code are in fact $ar crimes subsumed under the definitionof $ar crimes in Article A of the )ome *tatute'The Chamber obser(ed that because the arrest warrants issued by the 'RC authorities did not mention Lubanga(s alleged criminal responsibility )for the alleged *%C+F%LC(s policy+practice of enlisting into the F%LC, conscripting into the F%LC and usingto participate actively in hostilities children under the age of fifteen bet$een %uly 2002 and December 200+!: it does not follo$ that the D)C:is actin# in relation to the specific case before the Court!: despite domestic proceedin#s ha(in# been initiated a#ainst >uban#a'==

:- %rose,utor v1 "ho!as Lu+ango 7yilo, 7e,ision on the %rose,utor)s *ppli,ation #or a Warrant o# *rrest, *rt1 ;eb& 10, 200C, para& -:&:# %rose,utor v1 "ho!as Lu+ango 7yilo, 7e,ision on the %rose,utor)s *ppli,ation #or a Warrant o# *rrest, *rt1 ;eb& 10, 200C, para& --&A*ailable online$ http$%%www&icc-cpi&int%iccdocs%doc%doc2-C2C0&PD>& :: %rose,utor v1 "ho!as Lu+anga 7yilo, 7e,ision on the %rose,utor)s *ppli,ation #or a Warrant o# *rrest, *rt1 ;uban#a $ith crimes not mentioned in the domestic indictment'That is! the prosecution limited its case to the char#es of enlistin# and conscriptin# children under the a#e of = in (iolation of Article = of the )ome *tatute'In the "atanga case! the prosecutor further iterated his position that articles ?EF and 20E+F e7plicitly refer to the same 9conduct':1e hi#hli#hted the lin0 bet$een Article ?EFEcF and the pro(ision on thene bis in idem principle to sho$ that a case must be based on the same conduct for purposes of admissibility'1e further added that to determine admissibility criteria of a case! Article ?EF must address the same sub8ect matter' Therefore! the term 9case: in Article ?EaFGEcF means 9the same conduct: in the case'=6As demonstrated belo$! this 9same conduct test: pro(ides additional reasons $hy ,'*' >a$ should strictly conform to international $ar crimes definitions if American soldiers are to be le#itimately tried solely by ,'*' Courts'In "atanga case! the prosecutor further iterated his position that a state must in(esti#ate and prosecute the same person for the same conduct in order for a case to be rendered inadmissible'In his 9)esponse to the Motion Challen#in# the Admissibility of the Case by the Defence of 3ermain &atan#a! pursuant to article 5E2FEaF: he indicated: 9BTChe Democratic )epublic of Con#o did not in(esti#ate &atan#a for the crimes $ith $hich he is :C "he %rose,utor v1 /er!ain Katanga and 4athieu 0gud5olo Chui, Case Ao& .CC-01%0#-01%08, -easons #or the 6ral 7e,ision on the 4otion Challenging the *d!issi+ility o# the Case 8*rt1 19:, J,ne 1C, 2006, para& 18& char#ed in this Court'Its proceedin#s! from the outset throu#h the surrender of &atan#a to this Court! ne(er focused substanti(ely on Bo#oro! nor ha(e its lon# runnin# in2uiry into other crimes and other e(ents pro#ressed si#nificantly'Thus! because D)C authorities did not in(esti#ate or prosecute /the case/ before the Court Esee art ?EFEaFF! this case is admissible under the test for admissibility established! inter alia! in the Lubanga case':=?Furthermore! in ,hmud! the 6re Trial Chamber stated that 9for a case to be admissible! it is a condition sine 2ua non that national proceedin#s do not encompass both the person andthe conduct $hich are the sub8ect of the case before the Court':=A,nder articles A and 5! the 6reGTrial Chamber may address issues related to admissibility'6rior to the confirmation of char#es! challen#es to admissibility shall be referred to the 6reGTrial Chamber'.n .ctober 2! 200A! the 6retrial Chamber decided to initiate proprio motu proceedin#s pursuant to article 5EF to determine the admissibility of -he %rosecutor v. .oseph "ony, /incent 0tti, 01ot 0dhiambo, 'ominic 0ngwen.,nder article 5EF! the chamber maydetermine admissibility on its o$n motion in accordance $ith Article ?'=5

The 6reGTrial Chamber indicated that pursuant to article ?EaF and EbF! the fundamental criterion for determinin# the admissibility of the case is the e7istence of #enuine in(esti#ation and prosecution at the national le(el! combined $ith $illin#ness and ability #enuinely to in(esti#ate and prosecute international crimes'60The Chamber refrained from applyin# these criteria as the a#reement bet$een the >ord/s )esistance Army and the #o(ernment of ,#anda had not been implemented! and thus no acti(ity had been initiated by :8 "he %rose,utor v1 /er!ain Katanga and 4athieu 0gud5olo Chui, Case Ao& .CC-01%0#-01%08, %u+li, -eda,ted 2ersion o# the 4ar,h 19, 2009 %rose,ution -esponse to 4otion Challenging *d!issi+ility o# the Case +y the 7e#en,e o# /er!ain Katanga, pursuant to *rti,le 1982:8a:, "arch -0, 2006&:@ %rose,utor v1 *h!ad 4uha!!ad (aru! and *li 4uha!!ad *li *d+=*l=-ah!an, Case Ao& .CC-02%0:-01%08-1-Corr, 7e,ision on the %rose,ution)s *ppli,ation under *rti,le ;: o# the Statute, April 28, 2008, para& 2#& http$%%www&icc-cpi&int%iccdocs%doc%doc286@06&PD>:6 ;o1e /tat,te, Art& 16719C0 "he %rose,utor v1 ?oseph Kony, 2in,ent 6tti, 6kot 6dhia!+o, 7o!ini, 6ngwen, Case Ao& .CC-02%0#-1%0:, 7e,ision onthe *d!issi+ility o# the Case under *rti,le 1981: o# "he Statute, "arch 10, 2006, PTC .., para& 1C& ,#anda'In other $ords! the 6reGTrial Chamber reaffirmed that cases of inaction $ill be rendered admissible! $hile Article ? un$illin#ness and inability tests apply only $here there is an in(esti#ation and prosecution'The 6reGTrial Chamber affirmed the prosecutor/s mathematical e2uation of admissibility e(en thou#h the "ony case $as not ripe for consideration'This prosecutorial policy is a consistent mathematical e2uation applied to the e7istenceof national proceedin#s co(erin# the same person and the same conduct to determine the inacti(ity of the domestic 8udicial system'4here the state has not acted $ith re#ard to specific atrocity crimes! other factors such as $illin#ness! ability! or seriousness of other core crimes for $hich the person concerned has been prosecuted can be disre#arded for purposes of sub8ect matter 8urisdiction'This precedent illustrates the importance of ha(in# a domestic code that encompasses the totality of international humanitarian la$'4here domestic la$ $ould not allo$ for a prosecution of atrocities crimes! under current ICC precedent! the case $ould automatically be admissible due to state inaction'An analysis of $illin#ness and ability need not e(en come into play'4ith re#ard his decision to proceed $ith the situation in Darfur! the prosecutor stated! 9this decision does not represent a determination on the *udanese le#al system as such! but is essentially a result of the absence of criminal proceedin#s relatin# to the cases on $hich the .T6 is li0ely to focus':6III' The Military Commissions Act of 2006A' The MCA -arro$s ,'*' 1umanitarian >a$ in Dero#ation from International >a$In 2006! the *upreme Court handed do$n 1amdan (' )umsfeld! $hich held that C1 >irst ;eport of the Prosec,tor of the .nternational Cri1inal Co,rt, "r& L,is "oreno Dca1po, To the /ec,rit( Co,ncil P,rs,ant to 0A/C; 1:6-7200:9, 26 J,ne 200:, p& #&military commissions set up by the 6resident to try alle#ed terrorists (iolated the ,niform Code of Military %ustice and Common Article + of the 3ene(a Con(entions incorporated into domestic la$ by reference in the ,CM%'62In response! Con#ress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to set up military commissions compliant $ith the *upreme Court/s decision'The Military Commissions Act also amended the 4ar Crimes Act of 556'It is theseamendments $hich present a step bac0$ard from domestic conformity $ith international humanitarian la$' The Military Commissions Act amends the 4ar Crimes Act'The 4ar Crimes Act criminali"es $ar crimes committed by ,'*' -ationals'Formerly! the 4ar Crimes Act defined $ar crimes as 9conduct $hich constitutes a #ra(e breach of common Article +':6+The MCA amended the 4ar Crimes Act to define $ar crimes as 9a #ra(e breach of common Article +: and specifically enumerates and defines nine offenses $hich constitute such #ra(e breaches: torture! cruel or inhumane treatment! murder! mutilation or maimin#! intentionally causin# serious bodily harm! rape! se7ual assault or abuse! and ta0in# of hosta#es'6;In narro$in# the scope of the 4ar Crimes Act offenses! the MCA e7cluded the base principle of Common Article + G 9outra#es upon personal di#nity! in particular! humiliatin# and de#radin# treatment':6=To illustrate this point! ta0e for e7ample the case of se7ual abuse'The MCA narro$ly defines se7ual assault or abuse as re2uirin# force! coercion! or threat of force contrary to international la$'66It further restricts the definition of se7ual abuse as re2uirin# contact'6?

By contrast! the ICC defines se7ual abuse as an 9act of a se7ual nature!: thereby includin# C2 12C /&Ct& 28#6 7200C9&C- !ar Cri1es Act of 166C, 1@ 0&/&C& 2##1 7166C9&C# "ilitar( Co11isions Act of 200C, P,b& L& Ao& 106--CC, 120 /tat& 2C00 7200C9, section 6:0*7b9&C: 4ene*a Con*ention ;elati*e to the Treat1ent of Prisoners of !ar, art& -7197c9, A,g& 12, 16#6, C 0&/&T& --1C, 8: 0&A&T&/& 1-: Ohereinafter Co11on Article -PCC "ilitar( Co11issions Act of 200C, P,b& L& Ao& 106--CC, sections 6:0*7b97229, C7b97197F97d97197=9, 120 /tat&2C00 7200C9&C8 .d& nudity and se7ual entertainment'6A This is supported by precedent in predecessor international tribunals'The ICT) established in the A0ayesu case that se7ual (iolence included forced nudity'65*imilarly! the ICT< found that forcin# $omen to dance na0ed constituted se7ual abuse'?0,nli0e the ICC and its predecessors! the MCA has a se7ual contact re2uirement for se7ual abuse and assault $hich $ould not reco#ni"e acts such as forced na0edness or se7ual entertainment'Because of this! the outra#es of Abu 3hraib! such as pilin# na0ed prisoners on top of one another! or forcin# prisoners to strip and $ear female under$ear on their heads $ould constitute se7ual abuse at the ICC! but not under domestic la$'Therefore! #i(en the ICC precedents on admissibility and complementarity! the ,nited *tates could run the ris0 of a politici"ed prosecution merely because ,'*' >a$ does not support the e7act char#es that could be brou#ht a#ainst the perpetrators at the ICC'B' The MCA constitutes bad faith shieldin# under international la$'Compilin# an e7hausti(e list of situations $here a state intends to 9shield a person fromcriminal responsibility: is impossible because the determination must be made upon the factual circumstances of each case'It is possible to pro(ide some #uidelines based on the le#alanalyses and practices of international 8udicial bodies'The most strai#htfor$ard case of shieldin# $ould be a national decision reflectin# the case of a state actin# in bad faith'A national decision passin# an amnesty la$ or instructions to that effect $hich e7empts alle#ed perpetrators from facin# 8ustice is a cut and dry e7ample of allo$in# the 9person concerned: to a(oid criminal responsibility'Because Article ?E2FEaF is about testin# the effecti(eness of domestic proceedin#s! any C@ .CC Ble1ents of Cri1es, arts& 87197g9-C719, @7297b9-C71972The perpetrator co11itted an act of a se),al nat,re against one or 1ore persons or ca,sed s,ch person or persons to engage in an act of a se),al nat,re b( force, or b( threatof force or coercionGGGor b( ta'ing ad*antage of a coerci*e en*iron1ent or s,ch person or persons incapacit( to gi*e gen,ine consent&3C6 Prosec,tor *& A'a(es,, Case Ao& .CT;-6C-#-T, J,dg1ent, para& C@@ 7/ept& 2, 166@9& 80 >oca, note :C of "CAse), paras& 882-8-&intentional or seriously ne#li#ent deficiency in carryin# out domestic proceedin#s that leads toimpunity $ould reflect a state/s intention to 9shield a person from criminal responsibility':An ineffecti(e or disin#enuous in(esti#ation should be considered in(ersely proportionate to the concept of shieldin# from criminal responsibility'In other $ords! the more thorou#h the domestic proceedin#s are! the more difficult to find proof of an 9intent to shield a person fromcriminal responsibility: and (ice (ersa'This standard of assessment has been adopted by the @uropean Court of 1uman )i#htsin the conte7t of e7aminin# (iolations of the ri#ht to life and the prohibition of torture'In &cCann and others v. *nited "ingdom, the @C1) stated that 9BtChe obli#ation to protect life under this pro(ision Eart' 2 of the @uropean Con(ention on 1uman )i#htsF! read in con8unction $ith the *tate/s #eneral duty under Articleof the Con(ention to /secure to e(eryone $ithin their 8urisdiction the ri#hts and freedoms defined in BtheC Con(ention/ re2uires by implication that there should be some form of effecti(e official in(esti#ation''':? More recently in 2achova et al. v. #ulgaria! the @C1) 3rand Chamber outlined se(eral conditions for determinin# the effecti(eness of domestic proceedin#s'They are that: EFThe authorities must ta0e all reasonable steps a(ailable to secure the e(idence concernin# the incident! includin# eye$itness testimony and forensic e(idenceI E2F The conclusions of thein(esti#ation must be based on thorou#h! ob8ecti(e and impartial analysis of all the rele(ant elements! and E+F Any deficiency in the in(esti#ation $hich undermines its ability to establish the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the re2uired measure of effecti(eness'?2The @C1) then applied these standards to find that EF The in(esti#atin# authorities i#nored some rele(ant facts includin# hi#hly technical ones! E2F There $as a lac0 of strict 81 4,Cann and 6thers v1 "he 'nited Kingdo!, Application Ao& 1@6@#%61, BC=;, J,dg1ent 7"erits and J,st /atisfaction9 of /ept& 28, 166:, para& 1C1N Also see 4akarat@is v1 /ree,e, Application Ao& :0-@:%66, BC=;, J,dg1ent 7"erits and J,st /atisfaction9 of Dec& 20, 200#, para& 8-&82 0a,hova and others v1 .ulgaria, Applications Aos& #-:88%6@ and #-:86%6@, BC=;, J,dg1ent of J,l( C, 200:, para& 11-&e7amination of all the material circumstances! and E+F -he authorities conducted the investigation in an e3cessively narrow legal framewor1! i#norin# indispensable and ob(ious in(esti#ati(e steps'?+The court concluded that the 9authorities i#nored those si#nificant facts and! $ithout see0in# any proper e7planation! merely'''terminated the in(esti#ation'The in(esti#ator and the 6rosecutors thus shielded Ma8or 3' from prosecution':?;There is also precedent in international la$ that a lac0 of openness is e(idence of bad faith in determinin# the notion of shieldin#'In %oltorats1iy v. *1raine, and "u4netsov v. *1raine, the @C1) found that the lac0 of 9any contemporaneous records $hich could demonstrate step by step the nature of the in(esti#ation carried out into the alle#ations: is another factor $hich determines the state/s bad faith in carryin# out a #enuine in(esti#ation'?=The InterGAmerican Court of 1uman )i#hts EIAC1)F stated in /elas5ue4 Rodrigue4 v.6onduras that accordin# to Aricle EF of the Con(ention! the state is 9obli#ated to in(esti#ate e(ery situation in(ol(in# a (iolation of the ri#hts protected under the Con(ention':?6 Could the Military Commissions Act constitute a bad faith shieldin# of officials for the outra#es upon personal di#nity and humiliatin# or de#radin# treatment that too0 place at 3uantanamo BayKThou#h e(idence of torture is abundant! neither the %ustice Department nor the ,'*' Military has launched an in(esti#ation'4ere the ,nited *tates a party to the )ome *tatute! it $ould pro(ide one more le#al obli#ation for the %ustice Department to launch a thorou#h in(esti#ation into 3uantanamo Bay abuses'Before the ,nited *tates can 8oin the international community in ratifyin# the )ome *tatute! it must first close the #aps in its domestic humanitarian la$'The Military Commissions Act of 2006 represents a step bac0$ards from this #oal'Its amendments to the 8- .bid, paras& 11#-118& 8# .bid&, para& 11C&8: %oltoratskiy v1 'kraine, Application Ao& -@@12%68, BC=;, J,dg1ent 7"erits and J,st /atisfaction9 of April 26, 200-, para& 12CN Ku@netsov v1 'kraine, Application Ao& -60#2%68, BC=;, J,dg1ent 7"erits and J,st /atisfaction9 of April 26, 200-, para& 10C&8C 2elas3ue@ -odrigue@ v1 (onduras, J,dg1ent of J,l( 26, 16@@, .AC=; 7/er& C9 Ao& # 716@@9, para& 18CN Also see &airen=/ar+i and Solis=Corrales v1 (onduras, J,dg1ent of "arch 1:, 16@6, .AC=; 7/er& C9 Ao& C 716@69, para& 1:2&4ar Crimes Act of 556 must be repealed if the ,nited *tates is to close the #aps in domestic la$ to conform to international humanitarian la$'Conclusion4ith the ,nited *tates/ reGen#a#ement $ith the International Criminal Court and its participation at &ampala! prospects for the ,'*' %oinin# the Court seem better than e(er'From the inception of international criminal la$ at -urember#! the ,nited *tates has been a leader in holdin# the authors of atrocities crimes to account'4ith China on the rise! implementation of the )ome *tatute seems the most practical $ay for the ,nited *tates to e7ercise its po$er as a leader in the area of international criminal la$'3i(en the #lobal stru##le a#ainst terrorism and cyberterrorism! it seems most practical for the ,nited *tates to ha(e the International Criminal Court as an e7tra tool Einstead of Art' ? po$ers $hich China can (etoF in its arsenal a#ainst atrocities crimes'This is especially so #i(en the $ar $eary attitude of the American public'As seen $ith the Military Commissions Act of 2006! the ,nited *tates has a lon# $ay to#o in closin# the #aps in ,'*' >a$'As the tra#edies at Abu 3hraib and the torture at 3uantanamo Bay illustrate! the ,'*' Must first close the impunity #aps in domestic la$ before ratifyin# the )ome *tatute'In li#ht of the ICC/s 9same person! same conduct: test for admissibility! bad faith shieldin# in dero#ation from international la$ such as that seen in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 are unacceptable by *tates 6arty to the )ome *tatute'The ,nited *tates Con#ress therefore has a lon# $ay to #o before the nation can reclaim its role as a leader in international humanitarian la$'