We have been following Ms. Alamuddin’s involvement with the Libyan legal issues prior to becoming part of Abdulla Senussi’s legal team with lead council, Matrix Chambers’ Ben Emmerson. Back then it seemed that the only subject was Saif Gaddafi.
See our copy of the presently-hard-to-locate PDF: Amal Alamuddin’s article about Saif and ICC .
At the time, we found an article by Ms. Alamuddin. Once connected by a link to the Lawyers for Justice in Libya, LFJL site, it is no longer available. Nor is it available on her iLawyer Blog where Ms. Alamuddin is a co-iLawyer with her fellow Doughty Street Chambers‘ member, John R.W.D. Jones. John Jones is well known as Saif Gaddafi’s ICC lawyer.
Ms. Alamuddin authored the article in February 2012 and then …”Considered a high-flier in the close-knit world of international lawyers, Alamuddin was hired for the case by Ben Emmerson QC.”
Her article is heavily slanted towards the ICC’s jurisdiction by being sarcastic and overwhelmingly negative for Libya’s right to retain and try Saif in Libya. She argued that as the process has already begun, Libya’s ONLY option is to surrender Saif to the ICC. Ms. Alamuddin DID mention that Libya has a legitimate option to end the ICC through the diplomatic channels, but only in her conclusion. And Ms. Alamuddin went on to DISMISS Libya’s diplomatic right within a footnote.
We note that this simple, diplomatic option dismissed within Ms. Alamuddin’s footnote would END the international dimension of Saif Gaddafi’s case BEFORE the celebrity international lawyers got involved, BEFORE the ICC petitions started to flow, and BEFORE the human rights lawyers’ per-hourly-fees started to amass.
Actually, in direct contrast to Ms. Alamuddin’s assessment, her colleague, a former legal advisor to the ICC prosecutor weighed in a few months earlier. A notable international human rights lawyer himself, Dr. Payam Akhavan said that the International Criminal Court proceedings COULD BE CANCELLED through diplomatic channels. That is through the United Nations’ Security Council. We quote this former legal advisor to the prosecutor’s office of the International Criminal Court:
“One final point is that the Libyan case has been put before the Court by the Security Council referral and there is …huh… Libya has never signed the statute of the court, so the court only has jurisdiction because of the UN Security Council referral and the Security Council could decide to withdrawal that referral in deference to the Libyan government. In which case, the ICC prosecutor would have no leg to stand on…”
In other words, the Court has NO RIGHT to Saif or Abdulla Senussi if the Security Council withdraws that referral to the ICC, as it would thereby cancel the ICC proceedings. The mechanism he refers to is Article 16 of the Rome Statue. ROME STATUTE
Article 16 Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution: No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the court to that effect, that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.
The former legal advisor to the ICC’s prosecutor’s office gave this interview on CBC News the night that Saif was captured. Dr. Payam Akhavan is a member of the team of human rights lawyers and ICC experts REPRESENTING Libya before the ICC in the case of Saif and Abdulla Senussi. His opinion was given prior to representing Libya, in a November 20, 2011 CBC televised interview. CBC News is a division of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. See video & start at 3:27:
A 5 November 2015 Update from the Authors:
Is Legacy is a concern for those involved in Libya’s ICC Case?
This Canadian Broadcast Company video was removed after over 400 views worldwide and four years on Dailymotion. We, however, have a copy of the CBC video. As it is so important for the Libyan people to see and hear their hired legal representatives discuss their ICC case while representing them and BEFORE, we place a video link to our November 2011 CBC copy on our FACEBOOK site to maintain the integrity and continuity of the articles that contain reference to this video. Therefore, we maintain the articles as they were while adding our copy of the CBC interview.
The rest of the article…
We reiterate that in direct contradiction to Dr. Akhavan, Ms. Alamuddin dismissed Libya’s Diplomatic Option of Article 16 of the Rome Statue within a footnote. See our copy of the presently-hard-to-locate PDF: Amal Alamuddin’s article about Saif and ICC .
Doughty Street Chambers: Amal Alamuddin and her co-counsel AND ALL their Libyan clients in the Libyan International Criminal Court case. Is there a conflict of interest ? Amal Alamuddin, John R.W.D. Jones and Wayne Jordash are also co-iLawyers for the iLawyer blog. These three lawyers simultaneously represents three DIFFERENT clients on BOTH sides of the Libyan ICC case. Although on OPPOSITE sides in the dispute they are all members in the SAME law firm: Doughty Street Chambers. Amal Alamuddin represents Abdulla Senussi, John R.W.D. Jones represents Saif Gaddafi and Wayne Jordash represents the Government of Libya.
Interested in Libya’s ICC legal issues? Please consult our other articles; the lawyers and law firms that represent them:
Parts of this op/ed article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.