INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT & INDIA
JAVED I. NAQI
1. The International Criminal Court
1.1 General overview
The ICC is an independent permanent tribunal that tries persons accused of international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It was established by the
From the 1st October 2008 108 countries will be State Members of the Court.
The ICC is a court of last resort. It doesn’t act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine and it only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.
After the second World War the UN constituted the Nuremberg Tribunal (1945) and the Tokyo Tribunal (1948). After these two big steps the United Nations General Assembly realized the need for a permanent international court. An International Law Commission (ILC) was nominated by the General Assembly and it started working on two draft statutes (1950s), but these were put aside because of the Cold War.
In 1989 Robinson, the prime minister of
In 1993 the international community established the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and
In 1994 the ILC completed its work and submitted the draft to the UN General Assembly. The UN General Assembly created the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. This Committee met twice and draw up a draft. In 1995 the Assembly established the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court to prepare a widely acceptable consolidated draft text for submission to a diplomatic conference. In March-April 1998 the Preparatory Committee completed its work.
The 17th of July of 1998 the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted at the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries in
The Preparatory Commission for the
The Commission also worked on a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations; basic principles governing a headquarters agreement for the Court; financial regulations and rules; an agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court; a budget for the first financial year; the rules of procedure of the Assembly of States Parties.
In January 2002 the UN, in agreement with the
In April 2002 the number of countries that ratified the Statute reached 60 (the number required before the Statute could be enforced).
The Statute legally entered into force on the 1st July 2002. It states that the Court can prosecute the crimes committed after that date and under the Statute. An Advanced team of Experts began working in
The Rome Statute is an International treaty which binds only the states which formally expressed their consent to comply with its measures and, as a consequence, to become “Parties” to the Statute.
In February 2003 an Assembly of State Parties elected 18 judges which in March swore-in before the President of the Assembly of States Parties HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al Hussein during the inauguration of the Court.
The Court has already started four investigations into crimes committed in the
1.3 Assembly of State Parties
Today 108 States have become Parties to the Statute. The State Parties meet in the Assembly of State Parties which is the management oversight and legislative body of the Court.
The Assembly of State Parties consists of one representative from each state who is proposed to the credential Committee by the Head of State of government or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The bureau of the Assembly of State Parties is composed by a President, a Vice-President and 18 members elected by the assembly for a three-year term.
The Assembly of States Parties decides on various items, such as the adoption of normative texts and of the budget, the election of the judges and of the Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutor(s) .
Each State Party has one vote and every effort has to be made to reach decisions by consensus both in the Assembly and the Bureau. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are taken by vote.
The Court is based in
It is composed of four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.
The Presidency is responsible for the administration of the Court.
The Judicial Divisions consists of the 18 judges of the Court which are divided in three divisions: Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeal Division.
The office of the Prosecutor acts independently, it receives referrals and information about crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court and it conducts investigations and prosecutions before the Court.
The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court.
The ICC exercises its jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (defined in the Statute of Rome) and aggression. The crime of aggression is not defined in the Statute o f
The Court has jurisdiction over the individuals accused for these crimes. This means that the Court prosecutes not only the material and direct responsible of the crime, but also anyone who can be liable for it.
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction only if:
· The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;
· The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or
· The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.
The jurisdiction of the Court takes place from the 1st of July 2002 and is a State joins the Court after that date, the Court has jurisdiction since the date of its adhesion.
On the strength of the principle of “complementarity” in some cases the Court cannot act even if it has jurisdiction and Art 17 and 20 of the Statute describe the cases.
The principle of complementarity means that the ICC will complement national courts so that they retain jurisdiction to try genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. If a case is being considered by a country with jurisdiction over it, then the ICC cannot act unless the country is unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute. A country may be determined unwilling if it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes. A country may be unable when its legal system has collapsed.
1.6 How it works
The Prosecutor begins an investigation on his own initiative or after receiving information of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court by State Parties or the UN Security Council. He evaluates the information received and he decides whether proceeding or not. If he decides to proceed he asks the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize an investigation. The prosecutor investigates all facts and evidences and incriminating and exonerating circumstances.
During the investigation the Pre-Trial Chamber is responsible for the judicial aspects of proceeding, it can issue a warrant of arrest, and it has to confirm the charges that will be the basis of the trial before the Court.
The case is then assigned to a Trial Chamber. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has the right to conduct the defense in person or through counsel of his or her choosing. Victims may also participate in proceedings directly or through their legal representatives. Finally the Trial Chamber issues a sentence. The decision can also be appealed and decided by the Appeals Chamber.
108 countries are now States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.
During the Conference in
In second place he strongly criticized the Security Council’s position and role in the International Criminal Court since the Statute gives the SC the possibility to violate international law and, he added, the power to refer, the power to block and the power to bind non-States Parties.
The power to refer means that the SC can point out cases to the ICC. This power has no sense unless the council’s referral is more binding than other referrals and it implies that some members do not enter the ICC but have the privilege to refer cases to it.
The power to block means that the SC can order not to proceed with a case.
The power to bind non-State parties considers the fact that the SC can make referrals about countries which are
The Indian Government also feared that charges brought against Indians by some countries could be politically motivated.
There are also other reasons (non-official reasons) which haven’t been mentioned during the conference.
First of all we have to consider the characteristics of Indian foreign policy after its independence from British rule in 1947. A strong opposition to British imperialism seen as an exploitative system lead to a Foreign policy constructed upon two pillars: anti-imperialism and anti-fascism. In particular anti-imperialism is the foundation of
After the colonization period
We can notice this attitude not only in the rejection of the International criminal Court but also in the WTO negotiations and over nuclear proliferation:
The rejection of international agreements that do not respond to India’s strict distributive negotiation strategy as witnessed in recent WTO and nuclear proliferation agreements is a consequence of an anti-colonial mindset that rejects any interference in state sovereignty and nationalist rhetoric that claims a special place for India in the formulation of international principles and proclaims a strong sense of pride both in Indian economic success since the liberalization of 1991 and the administrative and judicial system that was inherited by the British.
In second place we have to count the possible consequences of the ICC on Indian society.
If we firstly consider the jurisdiction of the court, the principle of complementarity comprises three elements: any state has the right to hold a trial for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and the national courts retain jurisdiction over these crimes. There are however two situations when the ICC may step it. First, if the country in question is unwilling to prosecute the crime, or clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes, and secondly, if the country in question is genuinely unable to investigate or prosecute ICC crimes because its legal system has collapsed.
The second point concerns the inclusion of armed conflicts not of an international character in the jurisdiction of the Court.
Finally the resistance in recognizing the role of the SC is also due to
2.2 Situation of Human Rights in
However in reality
In case of disappearances in
The human rights situation is pathetic in
Amnesty International India in its 2008 Annual Report holds
Also the National Human Rights Commission which was set under persistent pressures from the international human rights organization, the UN Human Rights Commission and western governments, which pulled up
2.3 Relevance of the International Criminal Court to
The existing law in the country has been unsuccessful in responding to large-scale violation of human rights, such as crime against humanity and genocide. There are many reasons for the near collapse of the Indian justice delivery system a)the general problems related to the system, such as backlogs of cases, huge time delays, poor investigation and corruption; b) an absence of definition of grave crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity under Indian law, leading to a situation where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute such crimes; c) immunity from prosecution for high-ranking government officials as well as non-state actors due to the requirement of government permission for such prosecutions; d) a lack of any policy of reparations by state for human rights violations caused by its officials, including the police. The ICC could be useful to overcome these situations; it is the only hope to end impunity, and to ensure justice and accountability.
3. The press
If we consider Indian press we can deduce an almost homogeneous tendency favourable to the International Criminal Court.
The Hindu and its national magazine Frontline have dedicated a large number of articles to the ICC and we can conclude a positive opinion about the ICC and The Treaty of Rome.
In 2002 and in 2003, after the crimes committed in Gujarat, the newspaper published some articles illustrating the gravity of the crimes committed in
The crimes committed in Gujarat were classified as genocide, so pursuable by the ICC, considered as the first legal option, only if
After the formal opening of the offices of the ICC in The Hague in
Frontline magazine comments and criticizes USA-India signature of the “Impunity agreements” in December 26th, 2002 saying that this is nullifying the potential of the International Criminal Court. The “Impunity agreements” are bilateral treaties which provide that neither country will surrender any current or former government official or national of the other country to an international tribunal without the express consent of that country. This is not limited to the nationals of the two states, but could include anyone in the pay of either state, including for instance those involved in espionage or undercover operations. The author also makes the point that “the impunity agreement amounts to an express assertion of non-cooperation with the court” and it “was a closely held piece of information. There was no public information of the impending deal, no discussion which could have elicited public opinion. And, now that the treaty has been signed, sealed and delivered, there is no means of retracting even if the agreement were to meet with public opprobrium”.
"The ICC is the best international forum for combating impunity and bringing to book perpetrators of serious crimes, which often go unpunished", says Usha Ramanathan, a New Delhi-based independent law researcher. "It is ideally placed to achieve justice for all, to act as a court of last resort, to remedy the deficiency of ad hoc tribunals, to deter future perpetrators of heinous crimes, and to have true and lasting peace, based on justice."
In these articles prevail the themes related to the function of the ICC, global criminal justice, genocide, prosecution and, in particular, they deeply analyze and criticize
The problem in refusing to be party to the statute is that it reduces the potential for making a difference to the development of a law around the ICC statute - there would be no Indian representation among the judges in the Prosecutor's office, in the Registry and in the Assembly of State Parties. Yet, if the state where the offence is committed or the accused belongs to a nation which is a State Party to the statute, or the Security Council decides to refer the matter to the ICC,
The theme of genocide and
Besides the opinions about the ICC there are also some articles dedicated to
The general idea is that they are favourable to the International Criminal Court and they suggest the ratification of the Treaty of Rome by India since it is seen as “an extraordinary body that is without question required in a strife-torn modern world”, but they also recognize that this new institution has to sort out many elements, but for the maturity of a country this is a step to be done.
In The Times of India it is underlined the importance of justice, the role of governments to ensure life of dignity and freedom, the failure of the democratic process trough militancy, the responsibility of those who weld arms and the prosecution of those who break this fundamental norm. All these arguments and September 11th lead to the conclusion of the favourable establishment of an ICC.
In another article it is analyzed the relation between the ICC and the UN considering also the role and the position of the
The Indian Express reported the position of the BAI chairman and of the jurist Fali S Nariman who said that it is time for
The newspaper explains the need of an ICC where those who break international law are brought to a fair trial. After asking if a country exercising its unilateral sovereignty makes for a better world, he concludes that it is necessary to give up some sovereignty and underlines the need of international organizations.
Another article explained the importance of ICC for
4. The response of political parties
BJP: about the
The BJP and the RSS have suppressed religious basilar rights. In particular they are hostile to christianism. In fact the attacks against Christians have increased since the BJP has become more powerful.
Many say that the BJP is responsible for the
The party is also accused of having committed and of being still committing crimes or of being behind them.
From all these accuses addressed to the BJP we can deduct that the party doesn’t support
The ICC prosecutes only the crimes committed after the adhesion of the country, so the Gujarat massacre wouldn’t be considered unless
INC: A Rajya Sabha member, E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan in a recent conference discussing about the importance of ICC in India, said that India must become a signatory to the ICC adding that 'our police forces and agencies do not have the efficiency nor the protocol to fight terrorism, crimes against women and children' and that 'We need a federal police system with power to investigate and file charges,'. Until such a system is in place,
During the Session in the House, Shri Eduardo Faleiro, Indian politician and former federal minister related to the INC, raised among The matters of Urgent Public Importance one concerning the International Criminal Court.
5. Society organizations
During the Second law conference (14-17 Nov 2004,
Golden Jubilee Summer course on International Law (16th June-27th June 2008). Discussion about many topics including International Criminal Law and references to the International Criminal Court.
Third international conference on the emerging trends on International Criminal Jurisprudence (10-11 December 2005). Kirsch was present to the discussion.
The Indian Society of International Law (ISIL) and the Law Centre-ll, University of Delhi, jointly organised a seminar on, Implementation of International Law in India: The Problems and Prospects at the Society's premises (2nd April 2005).
4th summer course on International Law (20th June-2nd July
UGC Refresher Course in International Law (8th-27th Sept): TRATTATE many branches of International Law and special attention to International Criminal Law.
International Jurist Organization (IJO)
For IJO’s 18th anniversary a workshop was held on “The UN at 60 years” (16-17 Dec 2005
International initiative justice (IIJ): “Threatened existence: A feminist analysis of the Genocyde in
6th International Conference of Chief Justices in the World 10th December 2005 at 9:00 am at the CMS World Unity Convention Centre. Hon’ble Madam Justice Anita Usaka, Judge, International Court of Justice was represented by Hon’ble Mr Reinhold Gallmetzer, Legal Officer, Trial Division, International Criminal Court, who made a multimedia presentation on her behalf which reminded everyone that ICC can be an effective tool, including to protect the rights of children and women. This despite the fact that several states still prefer to do as they will and deal with these international matters internally but there are a 100 members and
The Indian Law Insititute (24-25 November 2006,
International seminar in
World Social Forum held from 16 to 21 January
The Conference on people’s foreign policy-resolution in 7-8 December
A one-day seminar aimed at focusing the attention of academic circles on the International Criminal Court (ICC) was held on 29 January by the ICRC in cooperation with the law department of Punjab University in Chandigarh, the joint capital of the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana.
A senior judge of the
26th -27th October 2007, New Delhi: UNIFEM with funds raised from PONDs India Limited supported The Lawyers Collective (Women’s Rights Initiative) (“LCWRI”) to organize a “National Conference to Commemorate the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) in the Gulmohur Hall of the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The Conference was organized in collaboration with the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the National Commission for Women, and the Bureau of Police Research & Development. The Conference brought together representatives of state agencies (such as Departments of Women and Child Development, State Commissions for Women, Protection Officers, police, Legal Services Authorities, etc.) as well as women’s groups to share their experiences of working with the law and provide their suggestions for its effective implementation. Participants were drawn from all states and union territories in the country. One of the highlights of the Conference was the Keynote Address by Judge Navanethem (Navi) Pillay. Born in
Leading the list of these organizations is the ICC Campaign of the Women Research and Action Group (WRAG) whose objective is to ensure India’s accession to the ICC treaty and using ICC standards to strengthen the domestic legal system. WRAG along with Indian Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRL) are working towards spreading awareness about the International Criminal court and are also trying to make
1. Inherent jurisdiction of ICC would perpetuate impunity.
2. Power of referral ascribed to U.N. Security Council.( this objection no longer holds water since
3. Powers of prosecutor(the reality is that there are ample safeguards to prevent misuse of this power)
4. Inclusion of War Crimes committed during non-international conflicts. ( India is already a signatory to conventions which consider internal armed conflicts to be in the purview of war crimes; e.g. Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.)
This Organisation under the leadership of Saumya Uma is trying its best to fill the lacuna of knowledge regarding ICC and initiate a dialogue with the government regarding its ratification .As a part of the campaign, discussion meeting on International Criminal Court & India was held on 18 January 2005 at
Many universities have included in the study programs topics related to the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Law and Humanitarian Law.
Without an international criminal court that holds individuals responsible for their actions, acts of genocide and violations of human rights have generally gone unpunished in the last 60 years. An international criminal court with universal jurisdiction has been the missing link in the system of international criminal justice. The ICC’s permanence, institutionalised identity, and universal jurisdiction will enable an escape from the tyranny of the episodic and attenuate perceptions of politically motivated investigations and selective justice. It should be an efficient alternative to ad-hoc tribunals with respect to money, time, and energy, and may also provide sensible alternatives to dubious sanctions and unilateral military retaliation.
ICC’s intervention must always be guided by the precautionary principles of right intention, last resort, proportional means, and reasonable prospects.
The application of international mechanisms comes second, only after the domestic mechanisms are either exhausted or powerless. The ICC Statute stipulates that its jurisdiction is activated only when states are “unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.” Similarly, the “responsibility to protect” concept expects and requests states first to protect their populations, and triggers international intervention only after governments are either weak and unable, or unwilling (complicit in crimes) to do so.
The problem is the atrocities committed against innocent civilians. The related two tasks are to protect the victims and punish the perpetrators. Both require substantial derogations of sovereignty, the first with respect to the norm of non-intervention and the second with respect to sovereign impunity up to the level of heads of government and state. At the same time, both require sensitive judgment calls: the use of external military force to protect civilians inside sovereign jurisdiction must first satisfy legitimacy criteria rooted largely in just war theory, while the prosecution of alleged atrocity criminals must be balanced against the consequences for the prospects and process of peace, the need for post-conflict reconciliation, and the fragility of international as well as domestic institutions.
The ICC was vigorously promoted by the UN and is related to it through several agreements. Its statute complements the UN charter. The Security Council can refer a particular matter or situation to the ICC, but the Court does not need Security Council approval before starting proceedings. The ICC can try cases referred to it by States Parties, by the Security Council, or by its Special Prosecutor, who can initiate an investigation into a crime that has come to his/her attention.
The ICC statute contains numerous checks and balances to prevent possible misuse. It is based on the principle of complementarity (it would complement national legal systems, and not act as a substitute for them). The prosecutor cannot start an investigation without permission from a pre-trial chamber of three judges.
The research I did lead me to the conclusion that
On one side
On the other side we can notice a strong tendency especially trough the medias turned to obtain justice in India after all the crimes and massacres (Gujarat, Kashmir) which took place during the last years and whose liable would have been punished if the Rome Treaty had been ratified in India.
The first type of tendency comes from the high, from the strongest powers represented by those who guide this country. It is a tendency linked also to relations with other powers such as the
The second tendency instead, derives from who has no other interest out of the love for justice and for freedom.
Unfortunately the first nowadays id prevailing on the second since the supporters of the ICC are less powerful and not enough numerically to be influent enough.
It is, in my opinion, fundamental to work on both front lines.
It is necessary to persuade the strong powers, but to make this happen we have to considerably increase the number of supporters and connoisseurs.
I have singled out the potential supporters in young students: they represent the next future and the energies of this country.
A good strategy could be structured like this: ICC experts should go to every University and invite all the students to activities that allow them to know more about ICC trough workshops, seminars, case competitions, simulations, study of cases, gifts and videos.
This activity must be developed in an incisive way to be effective in the brief period.
I also think that a group of experts should go to primary schools to explain to children the basic concepts of ICC (ICC=justice). In this way future generations will grow up with the consciousness that the ICC exists and that it is something good, positive and a guarantee of justice.
Later on it is necessary to organize some meetings-discussions of high level in which politicians representing their political parties and students/experts will discuss together about the need and the importance of the ICC. During the meetings between the students/experts and the politicians the intention of the first ones to have an ICC must be manifested in a clear and firm manner.
I have in fact verified that there are many preconceptions and ignorance from the political world on ICC.
The promotion of a constructive meeting between young expert students and politicians on ICC could be a good way to acknowledge the politicians on ICC and to show the strong powers that the most promising future of the country (students) wants the ICC.
I don’t think that the creation of a political party pro-ICC would lead to positive results: in fact we risk the creation of a break-up and in the end the movement would be associated to a particular political current; as a consequence not all the parties would be motivated to adhere to it or to follow it.
All the activities promoted till now by the society organizations, such as seminars and workshops, despite being very interesting, have remained limited to a particular group of people and the knowledge of the ICC hasn’t really increased that much among common people.
Instead if we try to diffuse the knowledge on ICC in a horizontal way trough the students and trough the politicians it is more probable to obtain a positive result.
 Mr. Dilip Lahiri, Additional Secretary (UN), Statements in the Conference on the International Criminal Court, June 16, 1998
 Balraj Puri, “Pattern of Human rights violation in Jammu & Kashmir”, J& K Human rights journal, available at http://humanrightsjournal.com/index.php?option=com
 See ‘Walliullah Ahmed Laskar, “ Human Rights situation in
 Sumanta Banerjee, “Human rights in Global Context”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38(5), 2003 (Feb), at p.425.
 Mihir Desai, in Workshop on ICC: Relevance and challenges in
 Saumya Uma, The
 Arvind Narrain, Case for `the genocide', Mar 02, 2003, The Hindu
 Vaiju Naravane, Bush Govt. move weakens court, Jul 02, 2002, The Hindu
 Usha Ramanathan, To
and the Icc, Usha Ramanathan, Frontline, Volume 18 - Issue 07, Mar. 31 - Apr. 13, 2001 India
 Case for `the genocide', Arvind Narrain, The Hindu, 02 /03/2003;
India and world concern on Gujarat
A. G. Noorani, Frontline, Volume 19 - Issue 11, May 25 - June 07, 2002
 To kill a court, Usha Ramanathan, Frontline, Volume 20 - Issue 02, January 18 - 31, 2003
 R.K. Raghavan, Rendering Criminal Justice Globally, Frontline (Volume 21 - Issue 05, February 28 - March 12, 2004)
 Gautam Navlakha, 'There are no short cuts to justice', Dec 09, 2001, The Times of
 Rakesh Bhatnagar, International court needs to come out of UN control, Nov 29, 2004, The Times of India
 “Let us define genocide, crime against humanity”, Feb 25, 2006, Indian Express
 Dhiraj Nayyar “What’s sovereignty?”, Sept 22, 2007, Indian Express
 Neha Jain, “Justice has another address”, Apr 26, 2008, Indian Express
 Siddharth Varadarajan, “Eight theses on the war in
 Ram Puniyani, Newsletter of All
 “Cong lying about Lord Ram and me: Modi”, Dec 06, 2007, Expressindia.com
 “The Applicable Principles Of Responsibility (Chapter 9)” Threatened Existence: A Feminist Analysis of the Genocide in Gujarat-Report by the International Initiative for Justice (IIJ), December 2003
 It is a Mumbai based organization.
 Saumya Uma, Internatinal Criminal Court and
 For details please refer to Appendix 1.
 The responsibility to protect — and prosecute?, Ramesh Thakur, The Hindu, 10/07/2007