Chaos!!!

by: George Petkakis

This is the last day of the questioning and evidence collecting in the International Court of Justice. The atmosphere is tense and the heat is striking, as are the questions of the judges when addressing the advocates of the two countries. It’s Senegal against Belgium on the case of Hissen Habre, the former president of Chad (1982-1990) who authorized tens of thousands of political and other murders, of which the exact number is unknown. Habre overthrew Oueddei, President of Chad at that period of time, in a coup, while backed by the CIA. For the next 8 years, until his deposition, chaos and disorder ruled the country of Chad, murder was a plain sight and the public was excessively agitated. And after being overthrown twenty-one years ago, Habre hasn’t been put to trial yet. He is accused of several crimes, most of which violate Human Rights, and the trial is more than urgent. This is where the ICJ comes in. Belgium demands that Senegal releases Habre into its custody in order for a more unbiased trial to be conducted. Senegal refuses, as they believe that Habre should be put on trial in Senegal and his extraction is not at all necessary. The International Court of Justice is currently discussing, questioning, investigating and taking sides in order to reach a legitimate verdict on the matter. On the one hand, Senegal wishes to keep Habre and wait for funds in order to carry out the trial properly, funds which will probably come from the African Union or the European Union, or some combination thereof but not necessarily limited thereto. On the other hand, Belgium demands the extraction of Habre into Belgium, the Capital of the European Union in order to conduct the trial there. Senegal, however, refuses to give him in as they are waiting for funds provided either by the UN or the EU. The Judges don’t seem to be biased at all, even though they are asking more questions to Belgium than Senegal, but that is probably coincidental. The Court has had a very heated debate for the past days as the analysis and the thorough investigation of the evidence, the lengthy questioning of the witnesses has sparked and reignited the debate several times and has made the process time consuming but extremely productive and helpful to the final outcome. In general, the Judges, the Advocates and especially the Presidents of the ICJ were excellently dressed, something that promoted the idea of formal and serious debate throughout the conference. The ICJ as a whole showed great interest in the topic and there was mutual respect among the people that the Court consisted of. Apart from the misunderstandings that arose, such as the question of whether the Courts in Belgium have International Jurisdiction, something that the Advocates defending Senegal seemed not to be aware of, the debate was most fruitful and the entire court seemed satisfied and fulfilled just before the judges were about to make their final decision.