fanger, et al,
So that is very interesting.
Who issued an arrest warrant?
Former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni was granted diplomatic immunity by the British government during a visit to the UK this week to avoid possible arrest over alleged war crimes.
The Zionist Union politician was attending the Fortune Most Powerful Women International Summit in London, where she spoke on the Israeli political climate and the future of Israel and Palestine.
Livni was able to qualify for legal immunity by arranging meetings with British officials, exploiting a legal loophole that protects Israelis on official visits to the UK.
Ex-Israeli foreign minister avoids Gaza war crimes arrest thanks to UK diplomatic immunity RT UK
scared of being tried?
(COMMENT)
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has not indicted anyone since November 2013. And the ICC has not issued a warrant based on an indictment since that time. Second, what UN report are you talking about? Are you talking about the UNHRC Report? There has been no international criminal investigative report issued relative to Israel-Palestine issues.
Most Respectfully,
R
We have a system whereby a private summons can be brought. So if the court decides that there is a case to answer they issue the summons and the paid police serves it on the individual. There is no powers of arrest involved and the individual can ignore the summons if they wish, but the case can proceed without the defendant. Neo Marxists and islamonazis have tried to use it before to implicate Jewish politicians in war crimes and failed. This is why the islamonazis claim that Jewish politicians have been found guilty of war crimes, when the truth is they were summonsed to answer charges brought privately. The costs of such cases are bourne by ambulance chasers and the insurance companies. The UK government have closed the loophole allowing such cases to be brought and no win no fee lawyers are after changing the law back.
(COMMENT)
In this system, what does the prosecutor have to prove to the court in order to win a case. In the case of a War Crime in the ICC, they must prove the
elements to the offense:
Article 8 (2) (a) (i) War crime of willful killing
Elements
1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.31
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.32, 33
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.34
Footnotes:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 The term “killed” is interchangeable with the term “caused death”. This footnote applies to all elements which use either of these concepts.
32 This mental element recognizes the interplay between articles 30 and 32. This footnote also applies to the corresponding element in each crime under article 8 (2) (a), and to the element in other crimes in article 8 (2) concerning the awareness of factual circumstances that establish the status of persons or property protected under the relevant international law of armed conflict.
33 With respect to nationality, it is understood that the perpetrator needs only to know that the victim belonged to an adverse party to the conflict. This footnote also applies to the corresponding element in each crime under article 8 (2) (a).
34 The term “international armed conflict” includes military occupation. This footnote also applies to the corresponding element in each crime under article 8 (2) (a).
Under this system, if the charge is brought and they fail to prove the case, what is the penalty for the frivolous accuser?
Most Respectfully,
R
