Parmas, who applied to be an International Criminal Court (ICC) judge last year, made his remarks in an interview which follows, given in the wake of that court's lead prosecutor's request to issue arrest warrants for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

What does the ICC announcement actually mean? It is not an actual arrest warrant, right?

It is not an announcement; it is a request from the prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant, which is being submitted to pre-trial judges, to decide on whether to go ahead and issue those arrest warrants.

Some crimes were listed which both the Hamas leader and the Israeli Prime Minister are charged with. So is this already an indictment?

No it is not yet an indictment. These are suspicions, on whose basis the prosecutor is requesting arrest warrants for the individuals in question, to go ahead with the process and ultimately bring charges.

How soon might the court consider it, and decide whether the arrest warrant is to be issued or not? For example, Bloomberg notes that last year's decision on Vladimir Putin was made in the course of three weeks.

I cannot provide a set timeline for how long the court will take to deal with this. I can state anything with certainty.

What next?

The prosecutor submitted the request today (Tuesday – ed.), but it is unusual for such a request to be made publicly. This indicates that the prosecutor believes they have evidence of potential guilt in the case of these individual and the enumerated crimes.

Evidence collection will undoubtedly be ongoing, along with the process of individualizing accusations based on the gathered evidence. It's not just about heinous acts potentially having been committed, but expressly about the individuals named in the arrest warrant request being responsible for acts like this in the assessment of the prosecutor.

There has been skepticism in international media about whether the ICC's jurisdiction even extends to Israel. How do you assess whether the court can adjudicate these matters? Israel hasn't signed the Rome Statute, if I'm not mistaken?

It is indeed a complex international legal issue. On one hand, the State of Palestine is not a UN member state and is not recognized by the UN as a state.

However, the ICC considers Palestine a member state, and therefore, they see their jurisdiction as applicable here.

As an international legal dispute this is certainly significant. The same issue applies to Israel, which is not an ICC member, similar to the situation with Russia in respect of crimes committed in Ukraine. Russia, too, is not a member of the ICC, yet the ICC is investigating Russian crimes.

Shouldn't justice be blind? Should trials be held for both the Russian regime leader, the Israeli Prime Minister, and the Hamas leader? Many Estonian politicians have argued that equating the Hamas leader with the Israeli Prime Minister is not appropriate.

Lady justice must indeed be blind and must not be influenced by political considerations. However, it is a surprising thing when the prosecutor files an arrest request simultaneously for the leaders of a terrorist organization and the leadership of a state protecting itself against a terrorist attack from said organization.

It is a challenge, from afar or by reading the media, to determine whether Israeli leaders can be responsible for any war crimes. Many things can happen during war.

Orders are often given or ignored which may not be lawful. But equating the leaders of a state defending itself with the leaders of a terrorist organization trying to destroy it is undoubtedly puzzling.

I comprehend the desire to create a balanced approach, but I am not sure this is the most successful way to do that.

However, as a lawyer, I must state that if there is substantial evidence, the appointed official must take the appropriate steps to address it.

This includes filing suspicions and charges with the court and administering justice.

It is possible this aspect could have been handled differently.

If the arrest warrant is issued and the Israeli Prime Minister wanted to visit Estonia, does that mean he would have to be arrested here?

Yes. By joining the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), member states have declared their commitment to adhere to the requirements of the statute. This includes the principle that no one's official status protects them from prosecution. Thus, Estonia would indeed be obligated to enforce an arrest warrant issued by the ICC.

What would this mean in real life? It would certainly bring significant political problems for both the leader who is the subject of the arrest warrant and the countries he might wish to visit.

There are precedents here. The ICC had previously issued an arrest warrant for the then-leader of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, but when that individual was in South Africa, an ICC member state, the political leadership of that country did not wish to fulfill their obligations and arrest him, in order to hand him over to the courts.

However, the judiciary in South Africa did issue a domestic order to arrest al-Bashir. This was ultimately prevented by the South African political elite, who carried out a small military operation to rescue Omar al-Bashir from arrest.

So, such situations can undoubtedly have very serious consequences for all the countries involved.

Succinctly evaluating the ICC's success is a challenge. If we look at the number of individuals the court has managed to convict, it can't be considered very successful. There have only been a handful of convictions. When we consider whether the court has managed to prosecute in full and conclude significant cases involving perpetrators from non-member states, it has in particular not proven itself to be very successful.

Member states, the international community, and the UN Security Council have not taken sufficient steps to cooperate effectively with the ICC.

For instance, the ICC has not managed to apprehend individuals like Omar al-Bashir or Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the [Russian] commissioner for children's rights, against whom arrest warrants have been issued. There are others individuals too who have not been apprehended.

The enforcement of ICC arrest warrants is complex, because this relies heavily on the cooperation of member states and international bodies. The court itself lacks the power to enforce its rulings without the support of these entities, which often complicates the process of bringing individuals to justice.

How successful has the ICC been in accomplishing its aims? These major international crimes cross international boundaries, as you just described. They can become very complex. How is it even possible to hold these individuals accountable?

It is difficult to summarize in brief how successful the ICC has been. If the metric is the number of individuals the court has managed to convict, it cannot be considered very successful. The figure is only a handful.

Particularly if we consider whether the court has been able to prosecute fully or to process significant cases involving charges against perpetrators from non-member states, then again it has not been able to do that.

Neither the member states nor the global community, including the UN Security Council, have taken the necessary steps to adequately cooperate with the court.

For example, Omar al-Bashir has not been made available to the court. Similarly, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and the children's rights ombudsman have not been apprehended. There are also other individuals against whom arrest warrants have been issued but who remain at large.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!