Holocaust settlement

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels issued a ruling on Tuesday that will close a case against Assicurazioni Generali, an Italian insurance company, which may well be the last large lawsuit against a European company brought by Holocaust survivors and their families in the United States.

Under the deal, Generali would accept new claims until March 31, even though it has already paid $135 million to settle claims. So far, 3,300 people have made fresh claims, which might entitle them to payouts under an international commission’s formula. Lawyers said an average of $25,000 was expected to be paid out per claim.

Samuel Dubbin, a lawyer for six of the victims, said he didn’t “think the true voice of the survivors or victims had a chance to be adequately heard by the court.”

Sudan will not cooperate

Not surprisingly, a day after the ICC handed down summons for two suspected genociders in the ongoing Darfur crisis Sudan has said that it will not cooperate with the ruling. The ICC judges will now have to decide if they should issue international arrest warrants against Haroun and Ali Kushayb.

ICC issues Darfur summons

This morning, the International Criminal Court issued the first summons for suspected perpetrators of war crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked pre-trial judges to issue summonses for Ahmed Haroun, state interior minister during the height of the Darfur conflict, and militia commander Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-al-Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb.

Haroun is currently Sudan’s state humanitarian affairs minister, a post below the full ministerial level. Ali Kushayb was a commander of the Janjaweed militia, who prosecutors said led attacks on towns and villages, where dozens were killed.

Sudan has yet to comment on the finding. Naturally, as with other cases, the responsibility to arrest or deliver the summons will lie with the government of Sudan.

Serbia not responsible

Following quickly behind my entry from last week, the International Court of Justice has issued a ruling stating that Serbia is not responsible for the genocide in Bosnia. The court was unable to find enough evidence proving that the government intended. Even though this will clear the Serbian government from any financial responsibility, it does not stop the courts from pursuing individuals involved in the genocide.

UN court to rule on Serbia

The UN’s highest court is preparing to rule on whether the nation of Serbia was complicit in the 1990 slaughter and displacement of Bosnian Muslims. The trial is complex for several reasons, but perhaps the most daunting of arguments is whether the court has jurisdiction to hand down a ruling.

The key is whether the judges are persuaded that the Bosnian Serbs were under the control of the Serb government – an issue that might have been resolved had the Milosevic trial reached its conclusion. It was stopped when he died, and the massive amount of evidence it heard is now legally worthless.

The Yugoslav tribunal “has not been successful in establishing a proven link between the paramilitaries who did the killing and the government in Belgrade,” said Johannes Houwink ten Cate, a historian at the Netherlands War Documentation Centre and a professor of genocide studies.

By contrast, he said, the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war criminals found a clear chain of command to the Holocaust.

The Bosnia-Serbia dispute is not a criminal case, and the standards of proof are lower than required for a criminal conviction. It is enough that a majority of judges find on a “balance of probabilities” that Serbia was responsible.

However, before the judges even address Serbian responsibility, they must first rule on whether they have jurisdiction – a tricky question on which the same court has contradicted itself in the past.

Serbia argues it was not a UN member when the murders happened, and therefore cannot be judged by the UN court. Yugoslavia’s UN membership was suspended in 1992, and Belgrade was only readmitted as Serbia and Montenegro in 2001. Montenegro split from Serbia last year, and has asked the court to remove its name from the case.

As much of international law has yet to be written, it will be interesting to follow the court’s ruling, as it will likely have huge ramifications for future trials. The most immediate of which is the beleaguered Darfur region of Sudan, where 1.5 million displaced people will hopefully one day have their day in court.