|
Press
Release - For Immediate Release - 28
November 2002
WOMEN’S GROUPS EXPRESS OUTRAGE AT APPOINTMENT
This week, the President of Argentina, Eduardo Duhalde, announced the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Antonio Boggiano. Mr. Boggiano’s candidature was a surprise to many in Argentina given that the government did not follow either of the two possible procedures set out in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for nominating candidates – and because a different candidate had already been selected pursuant to one of those procedures. Women’s groups have expressed alarm at Boggiano’s nomination as a result of his having been implicated in corruption scandals and his participation in judicial opinions against the use of the ‘morning-after’ pill - even in emergency cases of rape. “We are shocked and very disappointed to learn of Argentina’s decision and its actions,” said Pam Spees, Program Director of the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, an international justice advocacy network of hundreds of organizations and individuals. “The government’s disregard of the Statute’s procedures and its arbitrary and extra-legal appointment of a candidate as problematic as Mr. Boggiano must be challenged if the integrity of the Rome Statute and the Court are to be preserved.” The Rome Statute mandates in Article 36(4)(a) that candidates may be nominated by one of two procedures: the same procedure as that for nomination to the country’s highest judicial office or that for nomination to the International Court of Justice, which is determined by the National Group of the Permanent Court of Arbitrators and submitted to the President. In selecting Mr. Boggiano, President Duhald by-passed the selection of Ms. Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, a renowned international legal expert who played a leading role in the negotiation of the Rome Statute. Ms. Fernandez had been selected by the National Group of the Permanent Court of Arbitrators and submitted to the President for approval. The National Group is comprised of four persons – three of whom voted in favor of Ms. Fernandes. Mr. Boggiano was the fourth member of the National Group and withheld his vote. The President claimed that because Mr. Boggiano was already sitting as a judge on Argentina’s Supreme Court, it did not need to go through the procedures mandated by the Rome Statute. “The qualifications necessary to be a judge at the International Criminal Court are vastly different from those required for Argentina’s Supreme Court,” said Lorena Fries, a member of the Women’s Caucus and Director of the Citizenship and Justice Program of La Morada based in Chile. “Even more importantly, there is a process and it was violated in this instance. This is in addition to concerns about Mr. Boggiano’s hostility to women’s human rights and his alleged involvement in corruption.” Women’s rights advocates say the Rome Statute stands as one of the most significant treaties in history for the way it deals so inclusively with crimes of sexual and gender violence. “Mr. Boggiano’s track record runs counter to everything the Rome Statute stands for. He couldn’t even begin to do justice the way it is enshrined in the treaty,” Fries said. In a similar development, the government of Fiji ignored the required process and passed over another highly qualified female judge when it nominated Mr. Timoci Tuivaga. Two years ago, Mr. Tuivaga led efforts to set aside the Constitution of Fiji during the attempted coup led by George Speight. In selecting Mr. Tuivaga, the government disregarded a process which had been set in motion in accordance with the Rome Statute and which had identified as a worthy candidate Ms. Nazhat Shameem, a former prosecutor currently serving as a judge in Fiji who had stood firm in her defense of the Constitution. The government of Fiji claims it followed the same procedure as that for nomination to highest judicial office and therefore that the nomination is in accord with the Rome Statute. However, had the nomination been handled in the same way as that for highest judicial office there would have been open consultations with the Judicial Services Commission and a parliamentary committee of the House of Representatives. Experts in Fiji say this never happened. According to Virisila Buadromo, Coordinator of the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, the nomination of Mr. Tuivaga represents a lost opportunity for Fiji to make a positive contribution to international justice. “His involvement in the abrogation of the 1997 constitution makes it a lot harder for him to be supported by other countries,” Buadromo said in a recent interview with Radio New Zealand International. “These international committees which appoint judges on to the international criminal courts are going to research every single nominee and if they find that any nominee is not squeaky clean, the likelihood of that person being appointed is going to be a total waste of time for Fiji.” According to Spees, what has happened in these two instances is evidence of some of the difficulties women face in their efforts to attain these international posts and contribute to the development of the international legal order. “Discrimination is still so embedded that it’s difficult enough for women to compete for these posts when the processes are open and transparent and the rules of the game are complied with,” Spees said. “In both these cases qualified women were about to be selected pursuant to those rules and instead the governments threw the rulebook out the window.” “The Bureau of the ICC Assembly of States Parties must develop a process to assess and disqualify candidacies such as these which violate the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute,” she said. Experts say that other qualified women are encountering similar obstacles in different countries around the world even in the face of mandates in the Rome Statute calling for a “fair representation” of male and female judges. The statute’s provisions were seen as critical to helping to correct the historic imbalances in international institutions. They point to the International Court of Justice as an example where only 1 woman has ever served on 15-member panel in its 85 years of existence. Currently, only one woman is serving as a judge on the 16-member panel of judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and three are serving on the 16-member panel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. “Two essential principles of universal justice codified in the Rome Statute are stake,” said Rhonda Copelon, professor of international law and director of the International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic at the City University of New York School of Law. “One is that women be equally represented and the second is that there be judges capable of and committed to ending impunity for crimes against women.” The ICC elections will be held from 3-7 February 2003. The nomination period ends on Saturday, November 30. Thus far, 39 candidates have been nominated – only eight of which are women. -30- For more
information contact: Reena Geevarghese, Media Contact Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice Tel. 718-626-2681 Email: reena@iccwomen.org
Pam Spees Program Director Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice Tel. 718-626-2681 / mobile 917-957-5801
Lorena Fries La Morada Tel. 562-442-9632 Email: LFries@lamorada.cl
Rhonda Copelon Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law Director, International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic Tel. 917-957-5801 Email: copelon@mail.law.cuny.edu
Virisila Buadromo Fiji Women’s Rights Movement virisila@fwrm.org.fj Tel ( 679) 3313 156 Fax ( 679) 3313 466
Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein President of the Bureau ICC Assembly of States Parties Tel. (212) 752-0135 |