- The ICC Board of Appeal rejected Israel's effort to annul the investigation, resulting in warrants for the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and erstwhile defence Minister Yoav Gallant, causing Israel a crucial procedural failure.
- The court unanimously held that the first 2021 announcement of the prosecutor to Israel on the basis of the Rome Statute was sufficient, rejecting Israel's claim that a fresh notification was required for events after 7 October 2023.
- Israel initially completely rejected the jurisdiction of the ICC in 2021, alternatively of utilizing the legal way to show that it was conducting its own investigations, changing the legal argument only after obtaining arrest warrants.
- Legal experts see this ruling as confirming the ICC procedure and revealing Israel's changing legal strategy, which they see as reacting to an unexpected search for warrants against elder officials.
- Although arrests are not inevitable, this ruling perpetuates the legal basis for the case, narrows Israel's procedural challenges and increases political pressure, risking further global sanctions against the Court.
In a ruling that strengthens the control of the global Criminal Court (ICC) over the war in Gaza, the Court's appeal chamber on Monday rejected Israel's effort to annul an investigation based on warrants for the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and erstwhile defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
This decision marks a crucial procedural failure for Israel, which has repeatedly covered the rights of the court since the court ordered in November 2023 on alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The five-member lineup unanimously rejected Israel's argument that the prosecutor had acted improperly without issuing a fresh notification before starting an investigation into actions after October 7, 2023.
The Court of First Instance considered that the first 2021 announcement for all the countries concerned, including Israel, concerning the investigation into the situation in Palestine covered a adequate period of time.
If Israel had succeeded, the injunctions on Netanjah and Gallant would have been revoked, forcing the prosecutor to resume a lengthy notification process.
The ICC investigation into possible crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory was formally opened in March 2021, after the Palestinian State had referred the case, which joined the court in 2015.
Then prosecutor Fatou Bensouda notified Israel and another states, in accordance with Article 18 of the Rome Statute, of the founding treaty of the tribunal.
This rule allows states to show that they themselves analyse alleged crimes, thereby establishing a fundamental jurisdiction on a rule "complementarities".
Israel did not respond to the 2021 notice, claiming to be conducting its own investigation.
Instead, he consistently rejected the jurisdiction of the court completely, arguing that, since Palestine is not a sovereign state, the ICC does not have the authority towards Israeli citizens.
However, after the attacks led by Hamas on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli military offensive in Gaza, Prosecutor Karim Khan focused on events since that day.
Following reports from 7 another countries — South Africa, Bangladesh, Comoros, Bolivia, Djibouti, Chile and Mexico — Khan filed for warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Gallant, as well as 3 Hamas leaders.
Israel then changed legal tactics. He argued that after October 7, the situation was a fresh investigation requiring a fresh notification under Article 18.
The Board of Appeal powerfully rejected that opinion, stating that the prosecutor "is not obliged to issue a fresh notice... whenever a situation arises."
Expert analysis: strategical calculation error
The lawyers considered this ruling to confirm the court's procedures and to uncover Israel's changing strategy.
Kevin Jon Heller, prof. of global law at the University of Copenhagen and peculiar advisor on the war crimes of the ICC prosecutor, noted that Israel had given up an early chance to invoke complementarity.
"As indicated in the decision, Israel had the full right to trust on the rule of complementarity erstwhile the prosecutor's office launched an investigation into Palestine. She did not do it, alternatively decided to repeat the groundless claim that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Israelis," stated Heller.
"Israel is curious in Article 18(1) only due to the fact that the prosecutor did what Israel was certain he would not do: he actually sought warrants for arrest of high-ranking government officials."
On the social platform, X Heller commended the ruling, writing, "Bravo to the Board of Appeal for reviewing Israel's groundless arguments and rejecting the appeal." He added:
"Bravo for the Board of Appeal for the courage to obey the law and to reject Israel's appeal. We can only hope that this will not lead to another circular of US sanctions."
The ICC's engagement in Palestine has been strained since the first survey in 2015.
The Court of Jurisdiction over the Territoryami, confirmed in the 2021 ruling, was rejected by Israel and the United States, which are not parties to the Rome Statute. An investigation of the warrants against the Israeli leaders in office met with a fierce diplomatic criticism from Washington.
In 2020 the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Bensouda and another authoritative in connection with the Afghan investigation, notes Enoch of BrightU.AI's.
akin measures were introduced last year against Khan and his deputies after filing warrants for the arrest of Netanjah and Gallant.
This ruling, although it is simply a procedural step, increases political force and may origin further repression by ICC critics.
This decision does not mean that arrests are inevitable; orders must be formally issued by a pre-trial chamber and the ICC does not have its own police, relying on associate States to enforce law.
However, this strengthens the legal basis for the prosecution and narrows down the anticipation for Israel to procedurally thwart its conduct.
This is besides underlined by the deepening global legal front in the conflict, parallel to the separate South African genocide case against Israel before the global Court of Justice.
Monday's ruling is more than just a method legal blow to Israel;
This confirms the long-term actions of the ICC on the Gaza conflict. Rejecting Israel's appeal, the court maintained the momentum of a process that could theoretically limit the global travel of these Israeli officials if orders were issued and the associate States would comply.
Although political and applicable obstacles to the judicial process stay enormous, the decision signals that the court is willing to withstand intense external force to follow established legal procedures, setting a precedent for the conduct of complex, evolving investigations involving powerful non-member states.
Netanyahu is accused of financing Hamas and being liable for the terrorist attack in Israel on October 7. Watch this movie.
This movie comes from Fritjof Persson's channel on Brighteon.com.
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.naturalnews.com/
