Tunisians: Dissolution of the Judicial Council “a peg to cover failure”

تونس- علاء حمّودي: تصاعد الجدل في تونس، مع إصدار الرئيس قيس سعيد مرسوماً بحل المجلس الأعلى للقضاء، واستحداثه مجلساً مؤقتاً بدلاً منه.  والسبت، أعلنت الرئاسة التونسية، أن سعيد وقع مرسوماً باستحداث المجلس الأعلى المؤقت للقضاء، وذلك بعد إعلانه قبل أيام أن المجلس الحالي “أصبح من الماضي”.  وكشفت تفاصيل المرسوم الذي أصدره سعيد، أنه يتضمن نصاً يحظر إضراب القضاة، وآخر يعطي الرئيس “الحق في طلب إعفاء كل قاض يخلّ بواجباته المهنية بناء على تقرير معلّل من رئيس الحكومة أو وزير العدل”.  وجاءت هذه التطورات في وقت تشهد فيه البلاد أزمتين سياسية واقتصادية، بعد نحو 7 أشهر من إجراءات سعيد التي كان منها تجميد اختصاصات البرلمان والإعلان عن انتخابات مبكرة في 17 ديسمبر/ كانون الأول المقبل وإلغاء هيئة مراقبة دستورية القوانين وإصدار تشريعات بمراسيم رئاسية وترؤسه للنيابة العامة وإقالة رئيس الحكومة وتشكيل أخرى جديدة عَيَّنَ هو رئيستها.  والمجلس الأعلى للقضاء، هيئة دستورية مستقلة من مهامها ضمان استقلالية القضاء ومحاسبة القضاة ومنحهم الترقيات المهنية.  ويُجدد الرّئيس التّونسي في كل مناسبة تأكيده أن “عمل القضاء هو وظيفة صلب الدّولة التّونسية وليس من دوره التّشريع” (أي أنه لا يسن القوانين بل يعمل بها).  وفي 7 فبراير/ شباط الجاري قال سعيد إن حل مجلس القضاء يهدف “لتطهير البلاد (من الفساد)”، معتبراً أن “التّطهير لا يتم إلا بوجود قضاء عادل، الجميع متساوون أمامه، ليس كما يحصل اليوم حيث لا عقاب للمجرمين والبعض محتمٍ بأفراد تسللوا داخل السّلطة وداخل القضاء”.  ويرفض مجلس القضاء (الذي حلّه سعيد) القرار، ويؤكد أنه بتركيبته الحاليّة (قبل إعلان حلها) هو “المؤسسة الدستورية الشرعية الوحيدة الممثلة للسلطة القضائية” في البلاد.  ويسانده في هذا الموقف العديد من الهيئات الحقوقية غير الحكومية منها، “الجمعية التونسية للقضاة الشبان” و”جمعية القضاة التونسيين”.  الطريقة “تعسفية” واعتبر الكاتب الصحافي والمحلل السياسي نزار مقني، أن “هذا الإجراء في لحظة من اللّحظات كان ضرُوريًا، لكن طريقة الحل المباشر من قبل الرئيس سعيد متعسفة من سلطة على سلطة أخرى”.  وأضاف: “في محصلة نهائية يبدو أن الدّافع الرّئيسي لإصرار سعيّد على قراره هو إتمام القطيعة النهائية مع منظومة ما قبل 25 يوليو/ تموز، لأنها وجّهت القضاء لخدمة أغراض سياسية لا لخدمة الشعب”.  ويرى مقني، أن “الإصلاح يمكن أن يتم بطريقة أخرى غير الحلّ المباشر” مقترحاً أن “تأتي المبادرة من القضاة أنفسهم بإجراء حوار داخلي يضم المتداخلين في هذا القطاع من قضاة ومحامين وعدول تنفيذ، لتعديل القوانين الجاري العمل بها، والابتعاد عن شبهات المحسوبية وخدمة أطراف سياسية على حساب أخرى”.  وأشار إلى أن “طريقة الإصلاح لا يجب أن تكون بهذا الشكل (الحلّ المباشر للمجلس)”.  وتابع: “اعتماد هذه الطريقة قد يضع الرّئيس في صورة الباحث عن جمع السلطات بيد واحدة، إن كان هو أو المحيطون به لأهداف خاصة بهم وهم من يشكلون سبب تخوف، لكن ذلك لن يحصل وحرية الكلمة والإعلام موجودان حتى تتعافى تونس وتتجاوز أزمتها الحالية”.  “شماعة لتغطية الفشل” من جهته يرى الصحافي والمحلل السياسي صالح عطية، أن “الرئيس قيس سعيّد حلّ البرلمان والحكومة قبل سبعة أشهر واستحوذ على السّلطة التنفيذية بشقيها كما وضع يده على السلطة التشريعية، لتبقى السلطة القضائية العائق الأخير للتحكم والاستحواذ على السلطة”.  واعتبر أن “الرئيس يريد تعليق فشله لأشهر منذ يوليو 2021 على شماعة القضاء الذي طالب بتطهيره باسم إرادة الشعب الذي لم يخرج في يوم من الأيام للمطالبة بحل المجلس الأعلى للقضاء”.  وأوضح عطية أن “المجلس الأعلى للقضاء لا يدير المحاكمات ولا يباشر القضايا وصبغته ترتيبية وتنظيمية، ورقابية بالأساس، وهنا الأمر واضح وجلي؛ فالرّئيس يريد تصفية خصومه بقضاء التّعليمات وليعود إلى مرحلة الاستبداد الذي يوجه الأوامر وفق دوافعه ورغباته الشخصية”.  وقال إن “سعيّد أدرك أن مشروعه السّياسي والاجتماعي والاقتصادي فشل، ليبحث الذهاب إلى الاستحواذ على القضاء لإجراء محاكمات على المقاس تضمن تأييد الشعب التّونسي له، وهو ما يجب أن يتصدى له القضاة والمعارضة بشدّة” على حد قوله.  وتوقع عطية أن تؤدي هذه الخطوة، إلى بقاء تونس لمدة عقدين من الزمن على الأقل تحت إمرة قضاء التعليمات والولاءات للرئيس الساعي إلى البقاء لفترة أطول بالحكم والسّيطرة على انتخابات البرلمان المقبلة، لنمر إلى مرحلة مستبدة أشرس وأخطر من سابقاتها بالبلاد، بدعم خارجي من دول كالإمارات ومصر وفرنسا” (دون أن يقدم توضيحات).  رفض قانون الصّلح الجزائي هو السبب وفي نفس السّياق يعتبر المحلل السّياسي بولبابة سالم، أن “السّبب الحقيقي لمُضي الرّئيس سعيّد في قرار حل المجلس الأعلى للقضاء هو رفض هذا المجلس لقانون الصّلح الجزائي الذي اقترحه سعيد”.  و”الصلح الجزائي” هو مرسوم قانون اقترحه سعيد على مجلس القضاء أواخر عام 2020، لإرساء صلح جزائي مع “من تورطوا في قضايا الفساد ونهب ثروات ومقدرات البلاد والملك العام طيلة السنوات الماضية”.  وأشار سالم إلى أن “المجلس قال حين عرض مرسوم القانون أنه يحتاج محاكم مختصة ولم يتقبله بالصيغة التي عرض بها، الأمر الذي دفع الرّئيس لشن هجمات متتالية على المجلس قبل أن يصدر قرارًا بحله، في جانب أول لدوافع سعيّد لحل الأعلى للقضاء”.  وأضاف أن “الجانب الثاني لدافع قرار الرّئيس يأتي نتيجة لرفض المجلس قبول مرسوم قانون الصّلح الجزائي، في رغبة واضحة من الرّئيس للسيطرة على السّلطة القضائية بعد الإمساك بشكل كامل على السّلطتين التنفيذية والتّشريعية”.  وتوقع سالم أن تكون التركيبة الجديدة للمجلس، في “صفّ الرّئيس ومؤتمرين بأوامره، عكس التركيبة المنتخبة (التي تم حلها) المتكونة من 45 عضوًا بين قضاة ومحامين قبل أشهر من موعد انتخابات المجلس”.  وفي أكثر من مرة قال سعيّد، الذي بدأ في 2019 فترة رئاسية تستمر 5 سنوات، إن إجراءاته الاستثنائية هي “تدابير في إطار الدّستور لحماية الدولة من خطر داهم”، وشدد على عدم المساس بالحقوق والحريات.  (الأناضول)   Tunisians: Dissolution of the Judicial Council “a peg to cover failure”  Tunisia - Controversy escalated in Tunisia, with President Kais Saied issuing a decree dissolving the Supreme Judicial Council and creating a temporary council in its place.  And on Saturday, the Tunisian presidency announced that Saeed had signed a decree to create the Interim Supreme Judicial Council, after he announced a few days ago that the current council “has become a thing of the past.”  The details of the decree issued by Saeed revealed that it includes a text prohibiting judges’ strike, and another that gives the president “the right to request the exemption of every judge who violates his professional duties based on a justified report from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.”  These developments came at a time when the country is witnessing two political and economic crises, after about 7 months of Saeed’s actions, which included freezing the powers of Parliament, announcing early elections on December 17, abolishing the constitutionality control body of laws, issuing legislation by presidential decrees, his presidency of the Public Prosecution and the dismissal of a president The government and the formation of a new one he appointed its head.  The Supreme Judicial Council is an independent constitutional body whose tasks include ensuring the independence of the judiciary, holding judges accountable, and granting them professional promotions.  The Tunisian president reiterates on every occasion that “the work of the judiciary is a function of the core of the Tunisian state, and it is not part of the legislative role” (that is, he does not enact laws, but rather implements them).  On February 7, Saeed said that the dissolution of the Judicial Council aims to "purify the country (of corruption)," considering that "purification can only take place in the presence of a just judiciary, everyone is equal before it, not as is happening today where there is no punishment for criminals and some are inevitable with individuals who infiltrated inside authority and within the judiciary.”  The Judicial Council (dissolved by Saeed) rejects the decision, and asserts that in its current composition (before announcing its dissolution) it is “the only legitimate constitutional institution representing the judiciary” in the country.  He is supported in this position by many non-governmental human rights organizations, including the “Tunisian Association of Young Judges” and the “Association of Tunisian Judges.”  The method is "arbitrary" Journalist and political analyst Nizar Makni considered, “At one point, this measure was necessary, but the method of direct solution by President Saeed is arbitrary from one authority to another.”  He added, "In the end, it seems that the main motive for Saeed's insistence on his decision is to complete the final break with the pre-July 25 system, because it directed the judiciary to serve political purposes and not to serve the people."  Makni believes that “reform can take place in a way other than a direct solution,” suggesting that “the initiative comes from the judges themselves to conduct an internal dialogue that includes those involved in this sector, including judges, lawyers, and non-implementation, to amend the laws in force, and to move away from suspicions of favoritism and serve political parties.” at the expense of others.”  He pointed out that "the method of reform should not be in this way (the council's direct solution)."  And he continued, "Adopting this method may put the president in the image of a researcher who seeks to gather the authorities with one hand, if he or those around him are for their own goals and they are the ones who constitute a cause for fear, but this will not happen and freedom of speech and the media exist until Tunisia recovers and overcomes its current crisis."  "Peg to Cover Failure" For his part, journalist and political analyst Saleh Attia said, "President Qais Saeed dissolved parliament and the government seven months ago and seized the executive authority in both parts, as well as placing his hand on the legislative authority, so that the judiciary remains the last obstacle to controlling and appropriating power."  And he considered that "the president wants to suspend his failure for months since July 2021 on the peg of the judiciary, which demanded its purification in the name of the will of the people, who never came out to demand the dissolution of the Supreme Judicial Council."  Attia explained that “the Supreme Judicial Council does not manage trials and does not handle cases, and it is essentially arranging, organizational, and oversight. Here the matter is clear and evident; The president wants to liquidate his opponents by fulfilling the instructions and to return to the stage of tyranny that directs orders according to his personal motives and desires.”  He said, "Saeed realized that his political, social and economic project had failed, so he looked to take over the judiciary to conduct trials of scale that would guarantee the support of the Tunisian people, which the judges and the opposition must confront vigorously," he said.  Attia expected that this step would lead to Tunisia remaining for at least two decades under the command of fulfilling the instructions and loyalties of the president, who is seeking to stay for a longer period in rule and control over the upcoming parliamentary elections, so that we will pass to a tyrannical stage fiercer and more dangerous than its predecessors in the country, with external support from countries such as the UAE and Egypt. and France” (without elaborating).  Rejection of the Penal Conciliation Law is the reason In the same context, political analyst Boulababa Salem considers that “the real reason for President Saeed’s decision to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council is this council’s rejection of the Penal Conciliation Law proposed by Saeed.”  And the “Penal Conciliation” is a legal decree that Saeed proposed to the Judicial Council in late 2020, to establish a penal conciliation with “those who have been involved in corruption cases and looting the country’s wealth and capabilities and the public domain over the past years.”  Salem pointed out that “the council said when the decree of the law was presented that it needed specialized courts and did not accept it in the form in which it was presented, which prompted the president to launch successive attacks on the council before issuing a decision to dissolve it, in the first aspect of Saeed’s motives to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council.”  He added that "the second aspect of the motive of the president's decision comes as a result of the council's refusal to accept the decree of the Penal Conciliation Law, in a clear desire by the president to control the judicial authority after taking full control of the executive and legislative authorities."  Salem expected that the new composition of the council would be “in line with the president and two conferences under his orders, in contrast to the elected (dissolved) composition of 45 members between judges and lawyers months before the date of the council elections.”  On more than one occasion, Saeed, who began a 5-year presidential term in 2019, said that his exceptional measures are “measures within the framework of the constitution to protect the state from an imminent danger,” and stressed that rights and freedoms should not be violated.(Anatolia)

Tunisians: Dissolution of the Judicial Council “a peg to cover failure”


Tunisia - Controversy escalated in Tunisia, with President Kais Saied issuing a decree dissolving the Supreme Judicial Council and creating a temporary council in its place.

And on Saturday, the Tunisian presidency announced that Saeed had signed a decree to create the Interim Supreme Judicial Council, after he announced a few days ago that the current council “has become a thing of the past.”

The details of the decree issued by Saeed revealed that it includes a text prohibiting judges’ strike, and another that gives the president “the right to request the exemption of every judge who violates his professional duties based on a justified report from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.”

These developments came at a time when the country is witnessing two political and economic crises, after about 7 months of Saeed’s actions, which included freezing the powers of Parliament, announcing early elections on December 17, abolishing the constitutionality control body of laws, issuing legislation by presidential decrees, his presidency of the Public Prosecution and the dismissal of a president The government and the formation of a new one he appointed its head.

The Supreme Judicial Council is an independent constitutional body whose tasks include ensuring the independence of the judiciary, holding judges accountable, and granting them professional promotions.

The Tunisian president reiterates on every occasion that “the work of the judiciary is a function of the core of the Tunisian state, and it is not part of the legislative role” (that is, he does not enact laws, but rather implements them).

On February 7, Saeed said that the dissolution of the Judicial Council aims to "purify the country (of corruption)," considering that "purification can only take place in the presence of a just judiciary, everyone is equal before it, not as is happening today where there is no punishment for criminals and some are inevitable with individuals who infiltrated inside authority and within the judiciary.”

The Judicial Council (dissolved by Saeed) rejects the decision, and asserts that in its current composition (before announcing its dissolution) it is “the only legitimate constitutional institution representing the judiciary” in the country.

He is supported in this position by many non-governmental human rights organizations, including the “Tunisian Association of Young Judges” and the “Association of Tunisian Judges.”

The method is "arbitrary"
Journalist and political analyst Nizar Makni considered, “At one point, this measure was necessary, but the method of direct solution by President Saeed is arbitrary from one authority to another.”

He added, "In the end, it seems that the main motive for Saeed's insistence on his decision is to complete the final break with the pre-July 25 system, because it directed the judiciary to serve political purposes and not to serve the people."

Makni believes that “reform can take place in a way other than a direct solution,” suggesting that “the initiative comes from the judges themselves to conduct an internal dialogue that includes those involved in this sector, including judges, lawyers, and non-implementation, to amend the laws in force, and to move away from suspicions of favoritism and serve political parties.” at the expense of others.”

He pointed out that "the method of reform should not be in this way (the council's direct solution)."

And he continued, "Adopting this method may put the president in the image of a researcher who seeks to gather the authorities with one hand, if he or those around him are for their own goals and they are the ones who constitute a cause for fear, but this will not happen and freedom of speech and the media exist until Tunisia recovers and overcomes its current crisis."

"Peg to Cover Failure"
For his part, journalist and political analyst Saleh Attia said, "President Qais Saeed dissolved parliament and the government seven months ago and seized the executive authority in both parts, as well as placing his hand on the legislative authority, so that the judiciary remains the last obstacle to controlling and appropriating power."

And he considered that "the president wants to suspend his failure for months since July 2021 on the peg of the judiciary, which demanded its purification in the name of the will of the people, who never came out to demand the dissolution of the Supreme Judicial Council."

Attia explained that “the Supreme Judicial Council does not manage trials and does not handle cases, and it is essentially arranging, organizational, and oversight. Here the matter is clear and evident; The president wants to liquidate his opponents by fulfilling the instructions and to return to the stage of tyranny that directs orders according to his personal motives and desires.”

He said, "Saeed realized that his political, social and economic project had failed, so he looked to take over the judiciary to conduct trials of scale that would guarantee the support of the Tunisian people, which the judges and the opposition must confront vigorously," he said.

Attia expected that this step would lead to Tunisia remaining for at least two decades under the command of fulfilling the instructions and loyalties of the president, who is seeking to stay for a longer period in rule and control over the upcoming parliamentary elections, so that we will pass to a tyrannical stage fiercer and more dangerous than its predecessors in the country, with external support from countries such as the UAE and Egypt. and France” (without elaborating).

Rejection of the Penal Conciliation Law is the reason
In the same context, political analyst Boulababa Salem considers that “the real reason for President Saeed’s decision to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council is this council’s rejection of the Penal Conciliation Law proposed by Saeed.”

And the “Penal Conciliation” is a legal decree that Saeed proposed to the Judicial Council in late 2020, to establish a penal conciliation with “those who have been involved in corruption cases and looting the country’s wealth and capabilities and the public domain over the past years.”

Salem pointed out that “the council said when the decree of the law was presented that it needed specialized courts and did not accept it in the form in which it was presented, which prompted the president to launch successive attacks on the council before issuing a decision to dissolve it, in the first aspect of Saeed’s motives to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council.”

He added that "the second aspect of the motive of the president's decision comes as a result of the council's refusal to accept the decree of the Penal Conciliation Law, in a clear desire by the president to control the judicial authority after taking full control of the executive and legislative authorities."

Salem expected that the new composition of the council would be “in line with the president and two conferences under his orders, in contrast to the elected (dissolved) composition of 45 members between judges and lawyers months before the date of the council elections.”

On more than one occasion, Saeed, who began a 5-year presidential term in 2019, said that his exceptional measures are “measures within the framework of the constitution to protect the state from an imminent danger,” and stressed that rights and freedoms should not be violated.(Anatolia)

Le Nigérian Israël Adesanya conserve son titre de champion  Le Nigérian Israel Adesanya a conservé sa ceinture de poids moyen dimanche à l'UFC 271 à Houston, aux États-Unis, après avoir battu le Néo-Zélandais Robert Whitaker par décision unanime.  Adesanya, aussi plastique et félin dans l'échange que d'habitude, a maintenu Whitaker à distance. Le Néo-Zélandais a montré un excellent jeu de combat mais n'a pas pu ajouter suffisamment de dividendes aux yeux des juges.  Le Nigérian a été sélectif dans ses coups de poing, tenant à distance l'ancien champion, qui n'a pas réussi à entrer dans la zone de frappe. Il n'a pas fallu longtemps pour que le challenger envoie un avertissement à Whitaker. Une puissante gauche directe d'Adesanya a envoyé le Néo-Zélandais au tapis.  Octogone Le dernier maître du style était plus à l'aise et, à l'inverse, Whitaker devenait désespéré. Connaissant les vertus du champion dans l'échange de coups, il a tenté de réduire la distance en cherchant à faire tomber le champion et à prendre des points en dominant sur la toile.  Israel Adesanya a continué à insister et a augmenté le rythme. En se basant sur des feintes et des changements de garde, il a grandi et a étouffé le challenger avec son envergure. Le Néo-Zélandais a essayé d'égaliser le combat en essayant de placer quelques volées et en se pressant contre la barrière.  Robert Whitaker sort tout son arsenal et cherche le dos du Nigérian, qui ne semble pas avoir besoin de passer à la vitesse supérieure. Le combattant de Middlemore est bien conscient qu'Adesanya a deux bombes déguisées en gants après avoir été mis au tapis lors de son premier combat.  Malgré le désavantage de la distance, Whitaker a bien joué ses cartes en basant sa stratégie sur la lutte. N'ayant que le gauche comme coup de poing efficace, le tête-à-tête n'était pas une bonne option pour le challenger, qui est allé de force en force en adaptant sa stratégie. Le combat a été décidé sur les cartes de pointage, où les juges ont vu Adesanya comme vainqueur par décision unanime (48-47, 48-47 et 49-46). Depuis qu'il a pris la ceinture de Whitaker lui-même en 2019, il a maintenant fait 4 défenses réussies d'affilée en tant que monarque des poids moyens.   Nigeria's Israel Adesanya retains league title  Nigerian Israel Adesanya retained his middleweight belt on Sunday at UFC 271 in Houston, USA after defeating New Zealander Robert Whitaker by unanimous decision.  Adesanya, as plastic and feline in the exchange as ever, kept Whitaker at bay. The New Zealander showed great fighting game but couldn't add enough dividends in the eyes of the judges.  The Nigerian was selective in his punches, holding off the former champion, who failed to enter the strike zone. It didn't take long for the challenger to issue a warning to Whitaker. A powerful direct left from Adesanya sent the New Zealander to the mat.  Octagon The last master of the style was more at ease and, conversely, Whitaker was becoming desperate. Knowing the champion's virtues in the exchange of blows, he tried to close the distance by looking to knock the champion down and take points by dominating on the canvas.  Israel Adesanya kept pushing and picked up the pace. Based on feints and guard changes, he grew and smothered the challenger with his wingspan. The New Zealander tried to level the fight by trying to land some volleys and pressing into the barrier.  Robert Whitaker is pulling out his full arsenal and looking for the back of the Nigerian, who doesn't seem to need to step up a gear. The Middlemore fighter is well aware that Adesanya has two bombs disguised as gloves after being knocked out in his first fight.  Despite the distance disadvantage, Whitaker played his cards right by basing his strategy on grappling. Having only the left as an effective punch, the one-on-one was not a good option for the challenger, who went from strength to strength adapting his strategy. The fight was decided on the scorecards, where the judges saw Adesanya as the winner by unanimous decision ( 48-47, 48-47 and 49-46 ). Since taking the belt from Whitaker himself in 2019, he has now made 4 successful defenses in a row as a middleweight monarch.

Nigeria's Israel Adesanya retains league title


Nigerian Israel Adesanya retained his middleweight belt on Sunday at UFC 271 in Houston, USA after defeating New Zealander Robert Whitaker by unanimous decision.

Adesanya, as plastic and feline in the exchange as ever, kept Whitaker at bay. The New Zealander showed great fighting game but couldn't add enough dividends in the eyes of the judges.

The Nigerian was selective in his punches, holding off the former champion, who failed to enter the strike zone. It didn't take long for the challenger to issue a warning to Whitaker. A powerful direct left from Adesanya sent the New Zealander to the mat.

Octagon
The last master of the style was more at ease and, conversely, Whitaker was becoming desperate. Knowing the champion's virtues in the exchange of blows, he tried to close the distance by looking to knock the champion down and take points by dominating on the canvas.

Israel Adesanya kept pushing and picked up the pace. Based on feints and guard changes, he grew and smothered the challenger with his wingspan. The New Zealander tried to level the fight by trying to land some volleys and pressing into the barrier.

Robert Whitaker is pulling out his full arsenal and looking for the back of the Nigerian, who doesn't seem to need to step up a gear. The Middlemore fighter is well aware that Adesanya has two bombs disguised as gloves after being knocked out in his first fight.

Despite the distance disadvantage, Whitaker played his cards right by basing his strategy on grappling. Having only the left as an effective punch, the one-on-one was not a good option for the challenger, who went from strength to strength adapting his strategy. The fight was decided on the scorecards, where the judges saw Adesanya as the winner by unanimous decision ( 48-47, 48-47 and 49-46 ). Since taking the belt from Whitaker himself in 2019, he has now made 4 successful defenses in a row as a middleweight monarch.

Un procès en appel est-il possible dans l'affaire Dominc Ongwen ? Dominic Ongwen, un commandant supérieur de l'Armée de résistance du Seigneur (LRA) en Ouganda, regarde la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) à La Haye.  Dominic Ongwen, verra-t-il sa peine réduite ou annulée, c'est en tout cas l'objet de l'appel interjeté par les avocats de la défense auprès de la Cour pénale internationale. Les juges de la CPI doivent lors d'une audience entendre les arguments de l'ex-chef de l'armée de résistance du seigneur condamné à 25 ans de prison en mai 2021 pour crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité.  Il a notamment été reconnu coupable de viol, esclavage sexuel et enrôlement d'enfants-soldats. Il a également été condamné pour grossesse forcée, une première pour la CPI, créée en 2002 pour juger les pires atrocités commises dans le monde.  Les juges décideront si un procès en appel doit avoir lieu. Pour la défense, il y a eu des erreurs juridiques, factuelles et procédurales. Dominic Ongwen encourait la prison à perpétuité. Mais la CPI a jugé, à l'issue d'un procès long et complexe, que les souffrances extrêmes endurées par l'enfant-soldat au moment de son enlèvement par la LRA devaient conduire à une peine clémente. Dominc Ongwen a toujours nié les accusations portées contre lui estimant être la première victime d'enlèvement d'enfants.    Is an appeal trial possible in the Dominc Ongwen case? Dominic Ongwen, a senior commander of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, looks on at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.  Dominic Ongwen, will he see his sentence reduced or canceled, this is in any case the subject of the appeal lodged by defense lawyers with the International Criminal Court. ICC judges are due in a hearing to hear the arguments of the ex-chief of the Lord's Resistance Army sentenced to 25 years in prison in May 2021 for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  He was notably found guilty of rape, sexual slavery and enlistment of child soldiers. He was also convicted of forced pregnancy, a first for the ICC, created in 2002 to judge the worst atrocities committed in the world.  The judges will decide whether an appeal trial should take place. For the defense, there were legal, factual and procedural errors. Dominic Ongwen faced life imprisonment. But the ICC ruled, after a long and complex trial, that the extreme suffering endured by the child soldier at the time of his abduction by the LRA should lead to a lenient sentence. Dominc Ongwen has always denied the charges brought against him, claiming to be the first victim of child abduction.

Is an appeal trial possible in the Dominc Ongwen case?

Dominic Ongwen, a senior commander of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, looks on at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

Dominic Ongwen, will he see his sentence reduced or canceled, this is in any case the subject of the appeal lodged by defense lawyers with the International Criminal Court. ICC judges are due in a hearing to hear the arguments of the ex-chief of the Lord's Resistance Army sentenced to 25 years in prison in May 2021 for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

He was notably found guilty of rape, sexual slavery and enlistment of child soldiers. He was also convicted of forced pregnancy, a first for the ICC, created in 2002 to judge the worst atrocities committed in the world.

The judges will decide whether an appeal trial should take place. For the defense, there were legal, factual and procedural errors. Dominic Ongwen faced life imprisonment. But the ICC ruled, after a long and complex trial, that the extreme suffering endured by the child soldier at the time of his abduction by the LRA should lead to a lenient sentence. Dominc Ongwen has always denied the charges brought against him, claiming to be the first victim of child abduction.
Previous Post Next Post