Abdel Rahman Abu Touta, former Supreme Court president, said that the International Criminal Court’s demand for the trial of Dr. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is only the implementation of another chapter of the Atlantic campaign on Libya.
He said in a lengthy statement, entitled “A must in defense of justice and human rights,” read by “Og” After reviewing the provisions of domestic law, “not national” and the rules of the so-called Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, what is happening in The Hague is only Implementation of another chapter of the Atlantic campaign on Libya. ”
He continued: “If the purpose of the establishment of this court is to combat impunity and achieve justice and address the deficiencies and deficiencies of local criminal justice institutions, the Libyan criminal justice to conduct the trial of the accused within the territory of the State certainly obscured the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as a complementary jurisdiction It shall be held only if the trial on the territory of the State is abstained. ”
The former Supreme Court President added that Dr. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was tried publicly under the sight of everyone, and the Libyan Criminal Procedure Law “adapting the law” was amended to make the trial procedures correct and in his presence, by video or closed circuit and is not closed, but “ The defendant appeared before the Criminal Court in Tripoli through the Chamber and was confronted with the charges against him and the lawyer assigned to defend him, so the verdict against him shall be a legal and not in absentia presence, as he did not attend the pronouncement hearing only for technical reasons related to the means of transport. ”
He continued: “Especially since he was not a fugitive, but during all the trial proceedings, he was remanded in custody, that is, under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, which is a manifestation of the authority of the state, and therefore may not be retried again before any other domestic or international court for the breach. All international human rights safeguards instruments prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of an accused twice for acts irrespective of their identity, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
He continued: “Since the verdict against the accused is“ a legal presence ”, and not in absentia, it is in this case a final verdict that does not fall in the presence or arrest as in the case of absentee judgment, and the convicted person has the right to benefit from the general amnesty law if the conditions of its application are met. It is the duty of the Public Prosecution as the competent authority to enforce judicial rulings to apply the provisions of the amnesty law to achieve the principle of equality set forth in the Interim Constitutional Declaration of 3 August 2011 and its amendments. ”
The former President of the Supreme Court concluded: “The lesson remains in describing the verdict as my presence, absence or legal presence in reality, and not with what we call it descriptions or descriptions. This is what the Libyan Supreme Court judged in many of its judgments.”
It is noteworthy that the International Criminal Court, on Tuesday, completes its session on the trial of Dr. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, after earlier issued by the Appeals Chamber of the Court, a judicial order to hold a hearing to consider the appeal submitted by Dr. on 11 and 12 plowing, and called the court, The UN Security Council, the Libyan government, and the so-called “February 17 Victims Association” provide written remarks no later than 24 October.
Members of the defense board, Dr. Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, with International Criminal Court, prosecutors and the Minister of Justice participated in the hearings. Government of accord Internationally supported, a representative of Libya at the Court, and a number of members of human rights organizations.
The delegation called on the Government of Accord to hand over Dr. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to the Criminal Court for a retrial in a historical precedent that raised the surprise of the audience, that the government abandon the trial of its citizens on its territory and under its sovereignty.