International Court May Convict Arroyo,
Leader of International Lawyers Group Says

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) last Aug. 19 at the University of the Philippines (UP) Cine Adarna of human rights violations. In this interview Hakan Karakus – president of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) and one of the judges of the IPT – said that the IPT participants are committed to inform the international community of the verdict. While it is possible for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to also decide along the same line, the trial may not push through given the Philippine government’s refusal to ratify the Rome statute.

BY AUBREY SC MAKILAN
Bulatlat

Last Aug. 19, the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) found President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” of human rights violations. If Arroyo were to be tried in the International Criminal Court (ICC), Hakan Karakus (Turkey), one of the judges of the IPT, said that the decision may still be the same. The possibility, however, of Arroyo’s case being tried at the ICC would depend on the country’s acceptance of the ICC’s jurisdiction. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye denied as early as 2002 that the Macapagal-Arroyo administration’s stand against the ICC is in compliance with the U.S. administration’s refusal to ratify the Rome Statute establishing the ICC. In the past, Bunye also stressed that the Arroyo administration’s stand is not due to the threats from the U.S. to withdraw military aid to countries which will support the ICC. At present, the Philippines has not yet ratified the Rome Statute. As of July 1, 2003, 90 states, or around half of the states around the world, have done so.

IAPL president Hakan Karakus Photo by Aubrey Makilan

Turkey’s Karakus may be the most silent among the three IPT judges, but this does not mean he is indifferent to human rights violations. In fact, his silence was mainly due to his limited command of the English language. Clearly, as may be gleaned from this interview, he has more to say as president of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL), a lawyers’ group that focuses on the human rights situation and people’s struggles. Prof. Sebnem Korur Fincanci, a forensic doctor of the Turkish Medical Association, one of the IPT’s international jurors, served as his interpreter.

What are the limitations of being a people’s lawyer?

To be a lawyer means to be a part of the system. You can only struggle as much as the system permits you. You have limits and boundaries. That’s the most challenging part. However, it is important for you to be successful in some of your struggles. You can sometimes go beyond the boundaries but not much because that is how the system works.

I have been more free in prison when I was being tortured because I did not use the means and opportunities of the system. Working as a lawyer, I have to use the instruments of the system.

There are several bases of struggles and there are different steps. All of these steps should have their own instruments of struggle. So to be a lawyer is to struggle on a legal basis. But there may be other bases and organizational work to do but we cannot disregard the legal basis to struggle even if it has limitations. And to work in behalf of the people is very important.

Have you been part of other IPTs before?

I should have worked for the Korean tribunal held in the United States in 2002 but I was not able to get a visa. The U.S. embassy did not give any answer. I do not know why they refused to grant me a visa. The tribunal was to try Korean occupation and human rights violations by the U.S., along with 16 other countries in the 1950s.

What were your observations of the recently concluded IPT?

The tribunal was well-organized and successful. It is not of course a legal procedure but it has political basis and it was successful in this regard. The international solidarity mission was well-planned and the teams have very good documentation. To share all these information with the international team and afterwards reaching a conclusion was important.

The judges were very prominent people. Irene Fernandez and Lennox Hinds have the power of representing the people. The judges, prosecutors and the jurors’ composition was well-designed. The proceeding was powerful.

We are familiar with such kinds of cases. I have also experienced these kinds of violations myself. The cases were all striking and important. For me, the abduction and the killing of Eden Marcellana and Eddie Gumanoy were striking. But the girl who witnessed her father’s torture was most striking because a child seeing the torture of his or her parents is a great violence.

I also want to raise an important issue. The testimony of these children in front of many people is a  violence in itself. The children are badly affected while they give testimonies in this kind of proceeding so I stopped the girl’s testimony. I asked to cut the girl’s testimony short because she was in a bad situation. She was crying and I think that we were late to cut it short. It is important to first have the testimony together with a psychologist in a confidential manner. Maybe this can be video-recorded and afterwards shown in this proceeding instead of having children themselves testify.

Why does the IPT believe that President Macapagal-Arroyo committed crimes against humanity?

I totally agree with the verdict, mainly because of systemic characteristics of the crimes. The violations are very clear. The evidence showed the violations together with the government’s culpability and the targets of such violations. There was also proof of the social inequality related to human rights violations.

What would be next move after this IPT?

There are several plans for each person or organization that attended the IPT. Each will take the case to their own organization, raise the issue, conduct discussions and try to inform other people and governments about the Arroyo administration. The case shall be discussed in all countries.

Can President Macapagal-Arroyo be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity?

In order for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be indicted in the International Criminal Court, the country should ratify the Rome Statute. But of course Macapagal-Arroyo is guilty of all these human rights violations. The tribunal has decided. Afterwards it is our mission, all of the international bodies, to take the case to the international community.

If she were tried by a conventional court, what would have been the appropriate punishment?

In this tribunal, we applied the international conventions of the law to this case so we did not have a trial different from the international law. If the case were taken to the international court, then the decision wouldn’t change because we were objective, we have the evidence, and we conducted the trial according to international law. So the ICC would most probably decide in the same way.

In the [conventional] international criminal court, those responsible will be isolated. They will be resigned from their positions. And if they were convicted, they will be exiled to another country but not in detention. In this kind of international tribunals, the governments responsible for the crimes are exhibited in front of the eyes of the community that they are guilty.

According to the Rome Statute, Macapagal-Arroyo should be exiled from the Philippines. She cannot live in the Philippines anymore because of human rights violations.

In Turkey, it is difficult to sue the president. The law prohibits this kind of trial. There is a need for a rebellion, like a military attack, to put on trial people for human rights violations. For instance, Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was hanged after a military coup. The latter overthrew the democratic government of Turkey.

What are your views on terrorism?

All nations have class struggles. Imperialists and the bourgeoisie use terrorism as a rogue for the struggle of people. While they associate the people’ struggle with terrorism, they also use organized terrorist attacks for quelling the people’s struggle.

For example, they use events like Al Qaida-related or the London subway attack to accuse the people for their struggle. And they support these “terroristic” activities in order to blame people for their struggle.

Terrorism for me is the government’s violations. The government authorities are the real terrorists.

There are national liberation movements. These kinds of movements cannot be evaluated as terrorist activities as long as they are not against civilian people. Even if they are against armed forces, they cannot be called terrorists because they are national movements for freedom. Bulatlat

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2004 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.