A court too far

The International Criminal Court has spent over $600 1000000 since it was set up five years ago. Not one day of trial has yet been held, only three accused are in hold, and just seven others have been publically indicted. Various factors have contributed to this lamentable record, but one obvious cause is geographics.

The ICC is based in The Hague. On paper, this seems a reasonable choice for an establishment designed to prosecute international law-breaking, and to whose legal power 106 countries have now submitted.

In pattern, however, all of the ICC's probe are in sub-Saharan Africa: Darfur, eastern Congo, Republic of Uganda and the telephone exchange African democracy.

This geographic focus is wholly justified, and is probably to continue for the foreseeable future. 1000000 of inexperienced person civilians have been massacred, sexually assaulted or forcibly displaced in armed struggle in those part of Africa.

No other place on earth has suffered crimes on that scale. Domestic help courts are unable or unwilling to punish these law-breaking. In the conflict-torn Congolese state of South Kivu, 26,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 alone - doubtless a mere fraction of the actual number - yet about no one has been charged for these law-breaking in domestic help courts.

The Hague, nevertheless, is more than 6,000 kilometers away. Consistently holding trials at that distance makes no sense. Felon justice in pattern is an intensively face-to-face concern, regardless of word picture of the law-breaking. Witnesses need to be found, interviewed and often persuaded to cooperate in a procedure that they may not wholly trust. Consultations with local communities are indispensable to obtain a comprehensiveness of views on who is most culpable.

Once the trials begin, an uninterrupted flow of witnesses is necessity to efficiency. Transporting witnesses from sub-Saharan Africa to northern Europe is expensive and fraught with chance for delay. Eventually, high-level, personal contacts must be continuously maintained to pressure states to cooperate in the investigation of crimes that they might prefer to sweep under the rug.

The impact of distance on cost can be gauged by comparing the track record of the ICC with that of the tribunals set up by the UN Security Council in the 1990s to prosecute crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

By the time the Yugoslavia tribunal had spent $600 million, more than 50 individuals had been indicted, of whom about half had been put on trial. More than 30 accused will be on trial this year on an annual budget that is still less than that of the ICC.

The Rwanda tribunal has been similarly cost-effective. Both tribunals are located an easy flight from the crime-scenes under their investigation: the Rwanda tribunal in neighboring Tanzania, the Yugoslavia tribunal in The Hague.

Distance also impacts on the legitimacy and transparency of trial proceedings. Most victims, community members and local journalists will never be able to afford the trip from Africa to The Hague. The ICC's field offices in the region host no judicial activity and have no real decision-making authority.

Occasional visits by hand-picked local leaders to The Hague and other public relations activities are a poor substitute for direct community access to judicial and investigatory activity. A recent UN survey confirmed that average northern Ugandans perceive the ICC to be illegitimate and remote.

This perception undermines a fundamental purpose of international justice: to facilitate reconciliation by giving communities a sense of catharsis through the trial process.

At least some Rwandese and ex-Yugoslavs of modest means can travel to those tribunals, if motivated enough to endure a long bus journey. Both tribunals host large permanent press corps representing diverse perspectives, broadcasting and reporting almost daily on the trials. Both tribunals are within the same regional space as the communities affected - East Africa and Europe, respectively. It's not quite a local courthouse, but it's as local as international justice can be in light of the security considerations.

The ICC should follow these examples and move its headquarters, or a substantial part of its judicial and investigatory resources, to sub-Saharan Africa. Tanzania, with its long and durable traditions of democracy and peace-making, offers the ideal combination of proximity, security and infrastructure.

As a matter of fact, the courtrooms and facilities of the UN's Rwanda tribunal will soon be available as its mandate comes to an end. Huge cost-savings could be used for more investigations and more justice for crimes that would otherwise go unpunished.

Integrating sub-Saharan Africa as a central player in the system of international justice would also enhance the ICC's credibility and visibility in the region, potentially increasing its leverage over states that have been uncooperative.