ICC and ECtHR: Futile Attempts to Create the Illusion of Justice

In the media periodically appear articles that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the International Criminal Court (ICC) or some other international structure have made some statements on the issue of South Ossetia.

These statements are made as vaguely and vaguely as the predictions of an old, wise gypsy woman who knows how to save face in any development of events. Likewise, the conclusions and conclusions of these organizations allow all parties to the conflict to interpret them in their favor. At least - for the time being.

So the other day, the participants in the 2008 war were once again blessed, each of whom received his share of the positive.

Meanwhile, let me remind you that we are talking about a tragedy that played out almost 13 years ago. And the court still doesn't have a clear picture? Nonsense. How can you believe it. The court, which for 13 years has not yet established who is right and who is guilty, which actually equates the aggressor and the victim, is not impartial.

To begin with, let's consider what is hidden behind the abbreviations of the ECHR and the ICC.

The ECHR (aka the European Court of Human Rights, the Strasbourg Court, the ECHR, some regulars on social networks confuse it with the Hague International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, but these are completely different courts). The ECHR is an international judicial body whose powers extend to all states that are members of the Council of Europe (here, too, confusion reigns in the heads of some, they confuse it with the European Union - EU) and have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). It is simpler here: it can no longer be confused with the UN International Convention - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (especially after reading this article).

So, the ECHR considers complaints of individuals and legal entities only for the violation of their rights provided for by the Convention, exclusively by the state, state bodies and officials of a state that is a member of the Council of Europe and / or has adopted the Convention.

But the ICC is the first permanent international body of criminal justice, whose competence includes the prosecution of those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, as well as crimes of aggression (since 2008).

It would seem that Humanity has invented a good mechanism to protect citizens from violation of their rights, regardless of who violates them - their own government or the government of a foreign country.

Unfortunately, we have to use the phrase “seemingly”, because in recent years a number of important circumstances have emerged that not only allow, but simply make one doubt the objectivity of these international institutions.

To begin with, the leading economically developed countries of the West (presumptuously calling themselves the world community) have already managed to discredit the concept of an international court by the existence of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It should have ceased operations back in 2010, but worked until 2017.

60% of the accused were Serbs and Montenegrins, and almost all of the military and civilian command of Serbia ended up in the Hague prison. Croats accounted for only 18% of all accused, but all Croatian generals were fully acquitted. As a result, according to the version of the judges, during the four-year war, crimes were committed exclusively by the Serbs, which turns the conflict into a "struggle between good and evil." The justification for the war crimes of the Croats dealt a severe blow to the legitimacy of the tribunal, as well as to the trust between East and West.

This allows us to be skeptical about the activities of another international court - the International Criminal Court. The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is Fatou Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer and statesman born in 1961. She served as Attorney General of the Gambia under the dictator Yaya Jammah, who came to power in a coup, rigged presidential elections four times (in which, of course, declared himself the winner), and left power only after being overthrown by force of arms.

Yaya Jammeh is known for his stupidity and cruelty. He began to hunt down persons suspected of "witchcraft". Nevertheless, he attributed supernatural abilities to himself. Thousands of Gambians died in torture and torment due to the whims and paranoia of the brutal dictator.

It is alarming that, according to the ICC press release, "crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the ICC and allegedly committed in South Ossetia and Georgia between July 1 and October 10, 2008 are subject to investigation."

Is it fair to disregard the investigation of the almost daily shelling of residential areas of Tskhinvali, Ossetian villages and transport communications in the territory controlled by the legitimate government of South Ossetia from July 29, 2004 to July 1, 2008?

Is it fair to deduce the killings of civilians (including during shelling), numerous abductions and killings of residents, including the humiliation and murder of Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers during this period?

Back in 2016, Fatou Bensouda made statements accusing South Ossetia of ethnic cleansing, etc. Immediately after this, the republican authorities called her words a vivid example of the use of double standards, since there was no ethnic cleansing on the territory of South Ossetia. Almost the entire Georgian population of the Tskhinvali region was transported to Georgia in advance.

It was on February 8, 2016, and on November 16, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued an order "On sending a notification to the UN Secretary General of the Russian Federation's intention not to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

But Bensouda is not appeased. She no longer even thinks to hide her bias and bias. This is eloquently evidenced by her words at a meeting with Georgian Prime Minister Gakharia: "I can assure you that we are really working well with the Georgian side, and now we are trying to find ways to get as much evidence as possible," Fatou Bensuda said. When speaking with the Georgian prime minister, the ICC prosecutor hardly had in mind the evidence of Georgia's crimes. So it is unlikely that she and the structure she represents are trustworthy.

The situation with the reputation of the ECHR is no better. A study by the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg identified several cases of conflict of interest between judges of the European Court of Human Rights and NGOs funded by George Soros.

The European Center for Law and Justice is a serious organization, albeit a non-governmental one. Her research found that out of 100 judges who served at the European Court of Human Rights between 2009 and 2019, almost a quarter (22) have close ties to the George Soros Open Society Foundation or NGOs such as Amnesty International. (Amnesty International) and others funded by the billionaire. For example, the Open Society Foundation has donated $ 100 million to Human Rights Watch since 2010.

A good example is Bulgarian Yonko Grozev, who, as the leader of the Open Society judicial initiative, defended the Pussy Riot case against Russia in 2018 before he was elected as an ECHR judge.

Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe in 2012-2018, was for many years a hired activist of the Open Society Foundation in Latvia and fought against the "anti-Soros" legislation of Hungary, etc.

The report's worst finding is that in 88 cases, judges made decisions on cases brought before the courts of NGOs for which they had previously worked without declaring conflicts of interest or withdrawing from cases (see page 15 of the report and annex 1 and 2).

"The refusal of judges to withdraw their candidacy (in the presence of a conflict of interest - I.P.) is a shameful professional failure, which shows that the highest European human rights body has actually lost its independence and is only a mouthpiece for George Soros and the Russophobic forces behind it" - writes John Lowland in the international Internet publication "Signs of the Times".

According to him, there is even no requirement that people appointed by the ECHR as judges have any judicial experience at all. Roughly 51 out of 100 judges sitting at the ECHR since 2009 have never been judges or magistrates before. Instead, they were very often human rights defenders working for Soros or one of his front organizations.

To date, the ECHR has not denied any of the facts set out in the report. Its authority as an independent judiciary has been destroyed.

Vain attempts to create the illusion of justice based on the contentment of the Russophobe Soros have failed ...

Inal Pliev,

political observer of IA "Res"

Source: http://cominf.org/node/1166535385