Over at Opinio Juris, Julian Ku highlights an important passage in the ICC pre-Trial Chamber’s recent approval to investigate crimes against humanity in Kenya. The opposing judge highlights that going ahead would:
… broaden the scope of possible ICC intervention almost indefinitely. This might turn the ICC, which is fully dependent on State cooperation, in a hopelessly overstretched, inefficient international court, with related risks for its standing and credibility. Taken into consideration the limited financial and material means of the institution, it might be unable to tackle all the situations which could fall under its jurisdiction with the consequence that the selection of the situations under actual investigation might be quite arbitrary to the dismay of the numerous victims in the situations disregarded by the Court who would be deprived of any access to justice without any convincing justification [emphasis added].
This is an important statement considering the difficult position the ICC already finds itself in. For more highlights follow the link to Ku’s post. Here’s a short article in the Daily Nation (Kenya) and from UN News:
[Kaul] concluded that there was no reasonable basis to believe that the crimes in Kenya were committed in an attack against a civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a policy stemming from a State or an organization, which he said was required by Article 7 of the Statute.
But, really, what are Kenyans to do? The courts are corrupt; the police would never offer adequate protection, easily bribed; Kibaki and Odinga will repeat the same buy-votes-incite-violence methodology in the next elections; the TJRC is a joke. If this is not the ICC’s place [in this particular case] to step in and protect those harmed by a State where there exists no other legal recourse or protection, who’s is it?