International Criminal Court

! !asdf!

PMUNC 2015

Chair: Sukrit Puri

ICC PMUNC 2015 !

Contents

Chair’s Letter………………………………………………………………3

Introduction………………………………………………………………..4 Founding of the International Criminal Court……………………….4 Organizational Structure……………………………………………..6 The ICC and International Law……………………………………...8 Rules of Procedure………………………………………………….10

Case Assignments………………………………………………………….12

Cases……………………………………………………………………….14 The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat Pasha………………………………….14 The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred Kissinger…………………………………15 The Prosecutor v. George Walker Bush…………………………………...17

2 ICC PMUNC 2015 !

Chair’s Letter

Dear Delegates

While I was in high school, Facebook rolled out an update that allowed users to create a list of their Inspirational Persons. Along with Stephen Colbert, I added Henry Kissinger to the list. A few years later, my parents ran into the famous statesman, and my mom unabashedly leapt at the chance to score me his autograph, which I hung up proudly on my wall next to a poster that read, “‘Power is the greatest aphrodisiac’ – Henry Kissinger”.

Welcome to the International Criminal Court committee at PMUNC 2015, where we will be trying my hero, Henry Kissinger.

The purpose of this committee is to simulate what will never be. Be prepared to prosecute, defend, and judge three world leaders who have never seen and will probably never see a courtroom, but whose actions demand a trial.

We will be trying Talaat Pasha posthumously as the man who perpetrated the Armenian Genocide of 1915, an issue often overlooked and airbrushed by history (and also an issue that curiously came to popular attention this year thanks to Kim Kardashian). We will also be trying George W. Bush for overseeing the inhumane torture of detainees in Afghanistan. And finally, we will prosecute the Bismarckian statesman Kissinger for war crimes committed in Cambodia at the end of the Vietnam War. I’m excited to preside over these sessions!

A bit about me: I’m a third year student at Princeton, and this will be my fifth PMUNC—I competed at PMUNC in high school too! I’m from New Delhi, India, but I finished my high school in New York, and now I live in Belgium. When I’m not playing FIFA or watching hours of late night talk shows (Conan is a favorite), I study economics, with certificates in political economy and statistics and machine learning. On campus, I’m heavily involved with Princeton’s International Relations Council, and used to captain the Princeton collegiate Model UN team. And these days I’m seeing if I can receive university funding to create a Kanye Appreciation Society of Princeton (it seems unlikely as of this writing).

I’m looking forward to a great conference,

Sincerely, Sukrit Puri

3 ICC PMUNC 2015 !

Introduction

Note: The majority of this introduction to the on their soil or by their citizens.2 Though ICC is identical to that which was contained in the parties to the Rome Statute accepted the background guide for the ICC committee the jurisdiction of the ICC, the purpose of simulated at PMUNC 2014, written by Aaron the court is not to replace the national Hauptman, who was the chair for that committee, laws of its signatories: “The ICC can only and Martha Jachimski. Additional edits have intervene where a State is unable or since been made by Ararat Gocmen. unwilling genuinely to carry out the investigation and prosecute the The Founding of the International perpetrators.”3 In this way, the ICC acts as Criminal Court a fail-safe mechanism to address the most serious crimes in the case that the States The International Criminal Court (ICC) is on their own refuse to act. a relatively recent addition to the world’s set of supranational institutions, with its The desire to create an institution like the founding treaty having entered into effect ICC had its basis in the aftermath of the in 2002. The ICC serves as “the court of Second World War, as the international last resort for the prosecution of community sought to address the genocide, war crimes, and crimes against atrocities committed in the first half of the humanity.”1 The creation of the ICC twentieth century. The brutality of Nazi marked the first time that a collection of Germany shocked the Allies, who set one sovereign states signaled their willingness of their key post-war goals to be the to follow the rulings of a permanent redress and punishment of all those international legal institution charged with involved in the crimes through an the punishing of criminal acts committed

2 http://www.icc- 1 cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICC http://www.hrw.org/topic/international- Eng.pdf justice/international-criminal-court 3 Ibid.

4 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! organized system of international justice.4 future international criminal justice U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert M. system, though their unclear rules of Jackson, who served as the Chief US procedure, standards for evidence, and Representative at Nuremberg, saw the lack of international representation make tribunals as a crucial part of the post-war them significantly different from today’s reconciliation, given the levels of brutality ICC. The momentum for the creation of reached by the war, and an important the ICC was reawakened after the end of precedent for future standards of conduct the Cold War, and on July 17th, 1998, the for war: “We must never forget that the conference in Rome to establish the ICC record on which we judge these adopted the Rome Statute.7 The treaty defendants today is the record on which went into effect on July 1st, 2002, with 60 history will judge us tomorrow … We states ratifying the treaty. must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this The establishment of the ICC was the trial will commend itself to posterity as product of several ambitions of the fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do international community. Many justice.”5 Following the end of the war, international legal experts hoped that the the International Military Tribunal at creation of an impartial international court Nuremberg and the International Military would help end some brutal conflicts. Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo were Former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin established, with each of the key Allied B. Ferencz saw the reestablishment of nations appointing justices to try all those justice as a necessary precondition to a who ordered, implemented, and were lasting peace.8 The creation of two recent involved in the campaigns of mass ad hoc tribunals—in the former murder, diaspora, and ethnic cleansing.6 Yugoslavia and in Rwanda—was These courts serve largely as the “moral motivated by the hope that guaranteeing legacy” which formed the basis for a

7 4 http://www.icc- cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICC http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/resea Eng.pdf rchpublications/prb0211-e.htm 8 5 Ibid. http://legal.un.org/icc/general/overview. 6 Ibid. htm

5 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! the punishment of at least a portion of the war criminals would bring the end of The Office of the Prosecutor is one of the violence more quickly and prevent a key organs of the ICC, with the head resurgence of fighting.9 The establishment prosecutor elected by the Assembly of of the ICC was also intended partially to States party to the Rome Statute. The deter future war criminals, given the Office of the Prosecutor receives and historical lack of punishment for those examines referrals of crimes to the Court who committed the most brutal crimes, to determine whether or not there is a especially those holding high positions of legal basis for future investigations or power.10 proceedings.13 Its mandate creates three divisions within the Office: The Organizational Structure Investigation Division, which is required to cover both incriminating and According to its charter, the Court has exonerating evidence; The Prosecution jurisdiction over international crimes only Division, which is principally responsible when they were committed by a national for litigation; and the Jurisdiction, of or on the territory of one of its Complementarity, and Cooperation member states.11 This requirement may be Division, which assesses the admissibility circumvented when a situation is referred of evidence, coordinates with people to the ICC Prosecutor by the United outside the ICC on investigation, and Nations Security Council, as its handles the Court’s external affairs.14 In resolutions are technically binding on all addition to responding to referrals of UN members, or if a state declares its crimes, the Office of the Prosecutor may willingness to abide by the Court’s also launch its own investigations into ruling.12 potential crimes, which must then be

confirmed by a panel of judges in the Pre- 9 Ibid. Trial Chamber of the Court.15 10 Ibid. 13 11 http://www.icc- http://www.icc- cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20c cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/OTP ourt/icc%20at%20a%20glance/Pages/icc Eng.pdf %20at%20a%20glance.aspx 14 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 15 Ibid.

6 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! •! The disclosure by the Office of In order to judge crimes impartially, the the Prosecutor of any evidence Court also has a division charged with found during the investigation defending those indicted.16 In order to which points to the innocence of ensure the due process rights of all the accused.17 defendants, article 67 of the Rome Statute states that the accused is “entitled to a The Court itself is made up of 18 judges public, impartial and fair hearing.” To that from different member countries, each end the accused is guaranteed the elected for nine year terms by the following provisions: Assembly of States. The election of judges takes into account their individual

•! Trial without undue delay competence in criminal law and human rights, as well as the “need to represent

•! Defense by a lawyer of their the world’s principal legal systems, a fair choice, along with the ability to representation of men and women, and present evidence and call equitable geographical distribution.”18 witnesses Judges are not allowed to participate in

•! Legal assistance provided by the cases in which their impartiality may be in court if they lack the resources to question.19 The judges choose a President appoint their own lawyer and two Vice-Presidents from their ranks.

•! Information about the witnesses They are organized into three divisions in to be called by the prosecution, order to handle every step of the legal and the right to challenge the process: Pretrial, Trial, and Appeals. Each credibility of those witnesses case is therefore heard by multiple judges

•! The right against self- at each stage of litigation.20 incrimination and to remain silent, without silence being held 17 Ibid. equivalent to an admission of guilt 18 http://www.icc- or innocence. cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/Judge sENG.pdf 16 http://www.icc- 19 cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/Defe Ibid. nceEng.pdf 20 Ibid.

7 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! The ICC and International Law The legal principles used by the International Criminal Court are clearly The Court’s Legal Position delineated in the Rome Statute, and each delegate should take some time to Unlike the International Court of Justice, familiarize themselves with them. The key an organ of the United Nations, the provisions will be explained in this International Criminal Court’s charter section, though they can all be found in provides for universal jurisdiction. Section 3 of the Rome Statute. Whereas the ICJ has limited jurisdiction and allows UN members to voluntarily Article 24: Non-retroactivity ratione and conditionally accept its rulings, the personae ICC’s universal jurisdiction means that has jurisdiction everywhere since it can receive This article can be seen as a parallel to the cases from non-member states through principle of U.S. law that prevents ex- the UN Security Council.21 In order to post-facto prosecution. The accused may exercise this jurisdiction and effectively not be held as criminally responsible for implement the international legal an act that occurred prior to the entry into principles enshrined in the Rome Statute, force of the Rome Statute or one of its the ICC has extensive protocols for amendments. If the law is changed during international cooperation and assistance the court’s proceedings, the law more between the Court and national favorable to the accused shall apply. authorities.22 Article 25: Individual criminal Relevant Legal Concepts: Criminal responsibility Responsibility An individual may be deemed criminally responsible for an act if they committed it alone or jointly with another person, 21 “regardless of whether that other person http://www.americanbar.org/content/da m/aba/migrated/dispute/essay/intlcrimi is criminally responsible.” As stated nalcourt.authcheckdam.pdf earlier, someone may also be responsible 22 Ibid. even if they did not directly commit the

8 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! crime, in the case that they ordered, as a head of state, member of solicited, or induced the crime or its government, or elected representative. attempt. Aiding, abetting, or assisting the Military commanders or those acting as crime also implies responsibility. Any military commanders will be held contribution to the crime will result in criminally responsible for crimes that responsibility if it was “made with the aim happen on their watch due to their of furthering the criminal activity” and if it effective order or due to their failure to was “made in the knowledge of the properly control their forces. intention of the group to commit the crime.” In the case of a charge of Articles 26, 30 & 31: When are individuals genocide, any direct and public incitement not criminally responsible? of genocide makes the individual criminally responsible. It is important to Those who were under the age of 18 note that the Rome Statute does provide when the crime was committed are for the possibility that someone withdrew exempt from ICC prosecution. Article 30 support prior to the completion of the requires that an individual commit the crime. Article 25(3)(f) states the following: crime in question with both intent and “A person who abandons the effort to knowledge. If this cannot be proven with commit the crime or otherwise prevents sufficient evidence, the accused must be the completion of the crime shall not be acquitted. They may also be excluded liable for punishment under this Statute from criminal responsibility if “the person for the attempt to commit that crime if suffers from a mental disease or defect that person completely and voluntarily that destroys that person’s capacity to gave up the criminal purpose.” appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or the capacity to Article 27-28: Irrelevance of official control his or her conduct to conform to capacity, and responsibility of the requirements of the law.” This commanders and other superiors provision is somewhat equivalent to the idea of the “insanity defense” in the US According to the Rome Statute, the ICC legal system. Article 31 also provides for has the power to prosecute individuals special circumstance in war where criminal even if they acted in their official capacity responsibility may be excluded, where

9 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! “the person acts reasonably to defend the three cases. The positions will rotate himself or herself or another person or, in after the end of each case. The the case of war crimes, property which is assignments of the roles for each case are essential for the survival of the person or listed below. The cases will be brought to another person or property which is trial in the following order: essential for accomplishing a military mission, against imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to 1.! The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat the degree of danger to the person Pasha protected.” The key to this provision is 2.! The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred the proportionality of the response to the Kissinger “imminent” danger. However, the Rome 3.! The Prosecutor v. George Walker Bush Statute expressly states that labeling a military operation as “defensive” alone does not necessarily exclude criminal Each case hearing will have the same responsibility. Lastly, Article 31 excludes structure, and the time limits outlined in responsibility if the crime was caused “by the following procedure are up to the duress resulting from a threat of imminent chair’s discretion in order to facilitate a death or of continuing or imminent more productive debate. serious bodily harm … and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid Trial Preparation (45 minutes) this threat.” Again proportionality is key in applying this provision as a successful Each side will have time to gather and defense. prepare for the trial. During this time, delegates should determine within their Rules of Procedure respective sides who will give opening statements, examine and cross-examine For the duration of the conference, each witnesses, and give closing statements. delegate will be assigned to represent one Delegates may draft opening and closing of the 18 ICC judges. Throughout the statements before the conference and conference, each delegate will serve as the combine these during trial preparation. prosecution, defense, and judge on one of Both sides must also present a written list

10 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! of requested witnesses to the chair. Judges Defense questions pertinent to the facts should use this period to review the case and arguments of each side’s case. Each and determine what questions they will judge is encouraged to ask at least three ask the prosecution and defense during questions. Dialogue and Discussion. Closing Statements (30 minutes each) Opening Statements (15 minutes each) Closing statements will be presented by During opening statements, both sides both sides. The Prosecution will speak should present the background first, and may elect to only use half its information of the case and discuss how time before the closing statement of the evidence will be used throughout their Defense. After the Defense presents its presentation of the case. The charges closing statement, the Prosecution may being brought should be discussed as well use the remainder of its time to put as each side’s theory of the case. forward a rebuttal. The closing statements should review and further analyze the Direct Examination and Cross evidence and arguments put forward Examination of Witnesses (time limit at throughout the trial, point out the relevant chair’s discretion) law, and argue for a judgment in the side’s favor. In direct examination, each side will question their own witnesses in order to Deliberation bring information forward to the court. This will be followed by cross After closing statements the court will examination, in which the other side will recess and the judges will deliberate on the question the same witnesses. case. This will happen in the form of a moderated debate in the absence of the Dialogue and Discussion (time limit at Prosecution and Defense over which the chair’s discretion) chair shall preside. During this deliberation, the judges will produce a Following the examination of witnesses, ruling and a statement describing the judges will ask the Prosecution and rationale behind it

11 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! Case Assignments Alfred Kissinger •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat Pasha Sivlia Fernandez de Gurmendi •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. George (Argentina), to be played by the chair Walker Bush

Joyce Aluoch (Kenya) Piotr Hofmanski (Poland)

•! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. George Mehmed Talaat Pasha Walker Bush •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Henry •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Alfred Kissinger Talaat Pasha •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. George •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred Walker Bush Kissinger

Chile Eboe-Osuji (Nigeria) Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Democratic Reupblic of the Congo) •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat Pasha •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. George •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Henry Walker Bush Alfred Kissinger •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. George Talaat Pasha Walker Bush •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred Kissinger Robert Fremr (Czech Republic) Sanji Mmasenono Monageng •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. (Botswana) Mehmed Talaat Pasha •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. George •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Henry Walker Bush Alfred Kissinger •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Henry •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Alfred Kissinger Talaat Pasha •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. George Geoffrey A. Henderson (Trinidad and Walker Bush Tobago) Howard Morrison (United Kingdom) •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat Pasha •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. George •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Henry Walker Bush Alfred Kissinger •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. George Talaat Pasha Walker Bush •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred Kissinger Olga Venecia Herrera Carbuccia (Dominican Republic)

•! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Henry

12 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! Kuniko Ozaki (Japan) Sylvia Steiner (Brazil)

•! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. George •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Henry Walker Bush Alfred Kissinger •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. Henry •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. George Alfred Kissinger Walker Bush •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat Pasha Talaat Pasha

Marc Perin de Brichambaut (France) Cuno Tarfusser (Italy)

Bertram Schmitt (Germany) Christine van der Wyngaert (Belgium)

•! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Henry •! Prosecution: The Prosecutor v. Alfred Kissinger Mehmed Talaat Pasha •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. George •! Defense: The Prosecutor v. George Walker Bush Walker Bush •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Mehmed •! Judge: The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred Talaat Pasha Kissinger

13 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! Cases The charges concern Talaat Pasha’s authorization of and general involvement Though the committee is a simulation of in the mass deportations and executions the ICC, the cases that will be simulated in of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire this committee—the trials of Talaat Pasha, during the First World War, considered by Henry Kissinger, and George W. Bush— many historians and officially recognized are ones which the ICC has not and will by a number of governments around the likely never attempt to prosecute, whether world as the first genocide of the for reasons of historical impossibility twentieth century.23 However, a number (Talaat Pasha was assassinated in 1921, of academic historians maintain that the decades before the ICC was etasbilshed) exile and killings of Armenians in the or due to political and legal complications Ottoman Empire was the result of war (Kissinger and Bush are both major rather than genocide, and Turkish officials American political figures whose crimes also assert this view.24 committed against humanity, if any, occurred during U.S. wars). As the Ottoman Minister of Interior, Talaat Pasha transmitted a circular to the The Prosecutor v. Mehmed Talaat commander-in-chief of the Ottoman army Pasha on April 24, 1915, ordering the arrest of all the Armenian intellectuals living in The ICC has brought a case against Istanbul at the time, many of whom were Mehmed Talaat Pasha, the Ministry of soon after murdered.25 A month later, Interior of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Referring to the 23 http://www.armenian- Rome Statute, the Prosecutor charges genocide.org/recognition_countries.html 24 Talaat Pasha on two counts: 1) "genocide http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo by killing" (article 6-a) and 2) "genocide by rld/us-academics-join-rush-to-deny- deliberately inflicting on the target group turkish-massacre-of-armenians- 1253821.html conditions of life calculated to bring about 25 the group's physical destruction” (article https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_ 6-c). on_April_24_1915

14 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! Talaat Pasha requested and signed the genocide, the prosecution and defense will Tehcir Law, a bill which resulted in the have to determine, using a combination of deportation of the Ottoman Empire’s both legal and historical documents, Armenian population, leading to the Talaat Pash’s direct role in the genocidal displacement and eventual deaths of crimes that were perpetrated by the hundreds of thousands of Armenians Ottoman government. between the years 1915 and 1921.26 The Prosecutor v. Henry Alfred All these events, of course, took place at a Kissinger time when the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, leaving controversial the The ICC has brought a case against Henry question of who was officially responsible Alfred Kissinger, former National Security for the sufferings of the Armenian people, Advisor (1969-1975) and the 56th and whether those sufferings occurred as Secretary of State (1973-1977). Referring a result of a failing administration acting to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor in self-defense or a nationalist government charges Kissinger with war crimes, seeking to ethnically cleanse their specifically with “intentionally directing territories. attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not As part of this case, both the prosecution taking part in hostilities” (article 8(2)(e)(i)). and the defense involved will have to become familiar with the historical record The charges concern Kissinger’s surrounding the Armenian genocide, involvement in the bombing campaigns in including both sources that affirm and Cambodia during the Vietnam War, deny that what occurred to the Armenian specifically the Operation Menu campaign people in those last years of the Ottoman (March 1969-May 1970). The campaigns Empire constituted constituted genocide. violated the Cambodia’s neutrality and Additionally, and more importantly, if resulted in massive civilian casualties in those events did indeed constitute addition to the planned combatant casualties. However, no separate data for 26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_La the 1969-1970 bombings exist; the total w civilian death toll of the bombing

15 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! campaigns in Cambodia is estimated to be legality of the action to question in the anywhere between 50,000 and 150,000 context of both American and people.27 international law.

Kissinger’s alleged role in Operation Because of the covert nature of the Menu involved drafting up the plans, bombing campaign, Kissinger was coordinating the required resources and personally involved in day-to-day political support, and supervising the supervision and orchestration of the developments of the campaign. Kissinger attacks. Kissinger has been identified as became the National Security Advisor to the person who created and introduced President Richard Nixon on January 20, the draft of Operation Menu, as the 1969. At the time, the peace talks between person who handled the communication the United States and North Vietnam had between the President and the US Army already begun and mutual de-escalation forces carrying out the attacks, and as the had been initiated. President Lyndon person who had access to all available Johnson had ordered bombings to halt US intelligence before any other US foreign bombings in Vietnam, while the National policy agent. As the main actor behind the Front for Liberation of South Vietnam operation, Kissinger is believed to have had formed a Provisional Revolutionary well understood the potential civilian Government to gain equal status at the casualties that would have resulted from talks. the actions he ordered.

As such, the appropriateness and necessity Kissinger maintains that the Cambodian of the bombing campaign is drawn to government was informed of the question. To avoid this debate at home, Operation Menu and that the US Army Nixon administration kept Operation officials were instructed to minimize the Menu secret from the Congress (only potential damage to Cambodian civilians. three individual Congressmen and two As such, he maintains, it was a necessary Senators were informed), putting the and politically justifiable course of war. However, Kissinger’s defense does not 27 http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_Camb address the questions of urgency, of odiaBombing_OCT06.pdf knowing and willful attacks on civilians,

16 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! and on bypassing democratic civilian ance of those interrogation methods for oversight of military operations as years. 28 established in American and international law. The report details actions by CIA officials, including torturing prisoners, The Prosecutor v. George Walker Bush providing misleading or falsified information about classified CIA The ICC has also brought a case programs to the media, impeding against the 43rd President of the United government oversight and internal States of America, former President criticism, and mismanaging of the George Walker Bush (2001-2009). program. It also revealed the existence of Referring to the Rome Statue, the previously unknown detainees, that more prosecutor is trying Mr. Bush for ordering detainees were subjected to harsher torture, a crime against humanity (article treatment than was previously disclosed, 7(1)(f)), and for imprisonment or other and that more forms of torture were used severe deprivation of physical liberty in than previously disclosed. It concluded violation of fundamental rules of that torturing prisoners did not help international law (article 7(1)(e)). acquire actionable intelligence or gain cooperation from detainees and that the The charges concern Bush’s program damaged the United States' oversight of a program of detainee torture international standing.29 Furthermore, ac- of supposed Al Qaeda terrorists, which is cording to the report, the CIA use tech- a criminal offense under U.S. civilian and military law, but not one person has yet 28 "Committee Study of the Central been indicted in connection with the Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program, F." United States torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mohamedou Ould Slahi. According to the Archived on 2014-12-09. Retrieved 15 June 2015. Declassification Revisions Investigation by Senate Select Committee December 3, 2014 on Intelligence which was compiled in a 29 report released on December 9, 2014, the http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i ndex.cfm?p=senate-intelligence- CIA systematically misled Congress and committee-study-on-cia-detention-and- the public about the severity and import- interrogation-program!

17 ICC PMUNC 2015 ! niques that were at times not directly ap- proved by the Justice Department or top CIA leadership. The study, which ex- amined more than 6 million internal CIA documents, also concluded that the agency’s management of its rendition, detention, and interrogation program, especially during 2002 and 2003, was funda- mentally flawed. Yet, an e-mail dated May 22, 2004, to senior FBI officials released under a Freedom of Information Act request repeatedly referred to an Executive Order that permitted military interrogators in Iraq to place detainees in painful stress positions, impose sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, intimidate them with military dogs and use other coercive methods more than a year after the Pentagon reputedly disavowed the use of such interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay. The e-mail makes 11 references to an Executive Order “signed by President Bush” that authorized these abusive interrogation methods. The involvement of Mr. Bush is still unclear.