Persverklaring van Soedanse Ambassade

---

PRESS RELEASE

Sudan reiterates its well known position to never turn Sudanese citizens for trial abroad. It has not ratified the ICC treaty & consequently the court has no jurisdiction over the country or its citizens. The logic is straightforward and simple: Sudan is not party to the court statute, hence the country owes no treaty obligations to the ICC.

However, the country is keen to end impunity. We emphasize the fact that Sudan, as an independent and sovereign nation, is committed to the principle of prosecuting the perpetrators of Darfur crimes. The country is willing & able to prosecute all offenders. It has a capable, professional and impartial judiciary .We have full confidence in the Sudanese judiciary system’s ability to dispense justice. In this case, and according to the complementarity principle, the ICC does not take precedence over domestic courts.

It must be stated on this occasion that the referral of the case against Sudan’s president to the ICC, in the first place, was a political exercise par excellence in both substance and style. The Security Council had no right to start with to refer a non-signatory party to the ICC. The Council, in the process of doing this, made mockery of the legal ideal of equality of all before the law. This manifested itself when the Council struck a political deal with the US not to veto resolution 1593 in exchange of exemption of its citizens from any future trial in the ICC. As a result resolution 1593 violated the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute of the ICC. This vintage international power politics in which small countries, like Sudan, are compelled to the will of the powerful reinforces the perception of double standard in matters of global governance. And as a result it severely undermined the court’s credibility and legitimacy.

Mr. Ocampo, on his part, made a political rather than a legal or professional case against the president. He cited in his memorandum a considerable amount of hearsay material that has no evidential value and is contrary to the expectation that he should have attempted to verify and corroborate the information. But it was clear that the stockpiling of the allegations to distort the image of Sudan and its president was more important than the legal notion of verification.

Playing politics with the UN processes and norms are not, however, a novel phenomenon in dealing with Sudan. We experienced this throughout the Darfur crisis .The forces, that do not have the interest of Sudan at heart, manipulated the UN process from the beginning of the crisis for nakedly political and geopolitical ends. That was clear in the simplistic characterization of the crisis: instead of being a conflict between local populations over meager resources because of the drought and desertification, it was transformed into a war between “Arabs” and “Africans”. It was clear in the insistence that genocide was committed, although the European Union concluded in 2004 that the situation in Darfur was not genocide and so was the conclusion of the UN International Inquiry Commission in 2005. The African Union was of the same opinion. The focus was exclusively on the symptoms of the crisis rather than addressing the root causes of the problem and pushing the peace efforts. The regional dimension which contributes to the complexity of the conflict was always missing from the diagnosis. There was only a deliberate and consistent effort to distort reality and to demonize the country. And the irony of it all is that some of those who are criticizing Sudan in the name of human rights, are busy violating them somewhere else.

We would like also to bring to attention the fact that the timing of the latest move of the ICC was a huge mistake. Some neutral observers have expressed their fears of potential negative ramifications which may threaten a lot of positive developments in Sudan: the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Abuja Peace Agreement, the peace process in Doha, the democratic transformation and the elections which is scheduled for next September and the cooperation of the government with both AMIS and UNAMAID. In addition it may send the wrong signal to the rebels who may end up hardening their position.

As a country Sudan will do its part to preserve and safeguard these significant developments, but the international community has to do theirs as well. And here we say to the world, small as we are as a country, we want to be a force for good. We will join hands, in this respect, with all nations and people of good will who seek peace and justice.



Date : 4 March.2009

---