Few world leaders pay for their crimes

(UPDATE) THE International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as the world's foremost tribunal for prosecuting war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

However, despite its mission, no sitting world leader has ever been arrested by the ICC. Some have been indicted, but many remain free due to the court's reliance on member states for enforcement.

Notably, major world powers such as the United States, Russia, and China are not signatories to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. This means these nations are not legally bound to cooperate with the court, making the enforcement of arrest warrants against their leaders or officials extremely difficult.

Indicted while in power

Omar al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, was the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC. The court issued arrest warrants for him in 2009 and 2010, accusing him of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Despite international condemnation, al-Bashir continued to travel freely, even visiting ICC member states without being apprehended. He remained in power until 2019 when he was ousted and arrested by Sudanese authorities. However, to this day, he has not been transferred to The Hague.

Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia, became the most high-profile world leader to be indicted by the ICC when an arrest warrant was issued against him in 2023. He was accused of war crimes related to the ongoing war in Ukraine, specifically the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Given that Russia is not a member of the ICC and that Putin has significant global influence, his arrest remains highly unlikely unless he travels to a country willing to enforce the warrant.

Muammar Gaddafi, the longtime ruler of Libya, was indicted in 2011 for crimes against humanity committed during the Libyan Civil War. His regime brutally cracked down on protests and opposition forces, leading to thousands of deaths. Before he could be arrested or stand trial, Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces later that year, evading international justice.

Arrested after leaving power

Slobodan Milosevic, the former leader of Serbia and Yugoslavia, was arrested in 2001 and extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes committed in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. Though not prosecuted by the ICC, his case set a precedent for bringing former leaders to justice. His trial, however, ended without a verdict when he died in custody in 2006.

Laurent Gbagbo, the former president of Ivory Coast, was arrested in 2011 after a violent post-election crisis that left thousands dead. He was transferred to the ICC to face charges of crimes against humanity. After years of trial, he was acquitted in 2019 and allowed to return to his country, highlighting the complexities and challenges of proving international criminal cases.

Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, was one of the few leaders successfully convicted for war crimes. Arrested in 2006, he was tried by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (not the ICC) for his role in fueling the brutal civil war in Sierra Leone. In 2012, he was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison, making him one of the few former heads of state to be held accountable for international crimes.

The ICC's ongoing struggle for enforcement

While the ICC has issued multiple arrest warrants for sitting and former leaders, most remain at large due to the court's lack of enforcement power. The ICC relies on its 124 member states to arrest fugitives, but political considerations often prevent action. As seen with al-Bashir and Putin, diplomatic and strategic interests can override international justice.

Duterte's arrest and the path to justice

Former president Rodrigo Duterte has now joined the list of world leaders facing an ICC arrest warrant. The court issued the warrant following its investigation into the thousands of extrajudicial killings linked to Duterte's controversial "war on drugs." The ICC's findings suggest that systematic abuses were committed under his leadership, potentially constituting crimes against humanity.

Duterte, who has long dismissed the ICC's authority, has repeatedly argued that the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, rendering the ICC powerless over him. However, legal experts and the court itself maintain that the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.

Following his arrest, Duterte would likely undergo a lengthy judicial process. Initially, he would be detained by Philippine authorities — should they comply with the ICC's warrant.

Once transferred to The Hague, he would go through pre-trial proceedings, during which judges would determine if there is sufficient evidence for a full trial. If the case proceeds, Duterte would face prosecution before a panel of judges, with witness testimonies and documentary evidence presented against him.

If convicted, Duterte could face a prison sentence, with the ICC typically handing down terms ranging from decades to life imprisonment.

However, the process could take years, with the possibility of appeals and delays due to political maneuvering by his supporters. The arrest and prosecution of a former leader of a sovereign nation would also be a significant test of the ICC's ability to enforce international law and hold powerful figures accountable.

Backed by 125 member states, the jurisdiction seeks to prosecute individuals responsible for the world's gravest crimes when countries are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.

The wheels of international justice grind slowly, as evidenced by the court's low conviction rate.

However, it's not all about the final judgment, experts say.

The mere fact of pursuing alleged perpetrators of atrocities sends a message that the international community is determined to fight impunity.

Since it began work in 2002, the ICC has opened 32 cases for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and offenses against the administration of justice.

Fourteen of them, or roughly 40 percent, are ongoing, in most cases because the suspects are still at large.

Without a police force, the Hague-based court is unlikely to catch them soon.

Of the 60 arrest warrants issued since 2002, only 21 had been carried out before Duterte's arrest.

The ICC relies on states to apprehend suspects.

But the incentive for them to cooperate is low because the court has "nothing to offer in return, except a commitment to seeing justice served," former ICC adviser Pascal Turlan said.

Some member states also defy its authority by, for instance, refusing to hand over suspects.

"When states don't like what the ICC does, they don't often cooperate," said Nancy Combs, professor of law at William & Mary Law School in the United States.

ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah stressed that the court's role is not to go after all suspected war criminals but to "encourage nations to deal with their own cases."