Office of Prosecutor of International Criminal Court welcomes Germany's arrest of Libyan suspect
The statement continued: ''A Libyan national, Mr El Hishri was arrested in the context of the Office's ongoing investigation in the Situation in Libya. The Office looks forward to Mr El Hishri's transfer to the ICC in due course.
On the basis of its independent and impartial investigation, the Office alleges that Mr El Hishri, a senior official of the armed group Special Deterrence Forces, known as SDF / RADA, is criminally responsible for numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Libya, in or near Mitiga Prison, from around February 2015 to, at least, early 2020. During that time, Mr El Hishri was one of the most senior officials of Mitiga Prison, where thousands of persons were detained for prolonged periods. The Office filed an application for a warrant for his arrest on 3 April 2025.
In the warrant of arrest it issued on 10 July 2025, Pre-Trial Chamber I agreed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr El Hishri is criminally responsible for crimes including murder, torture, rape and sexual violence.
The arrest of Mr El Hishri is an important development in the Office's efforts to seek accountability in the Situation in Libya, particularly for crimes in detention facilities, in accordance with its renewed strategy under UN Security Council resolution 1970 (2011) and Libya's declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction with respect to alleged crimes in its territory from 2011 to the end of 2027. In recent reports to the UN Security Council, the Office had identified the arrest and trial of a suspect in this situation in 2025 as a key priority. In coordination with the Registry, we have now taken a key step towards realising this priority.
The Office has identified crimes committed in detention facilities as a key line of investigation. It has been able to effectively implement this strategic approach through the excellent work of the Libya Unified Team, under the guidance and leadership of Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan. The Office is grateful to Registry partners who have effectively supported the arrest, in close coordination with the OTP's newly-established Tracking and Information Fusion Section.
This is an important moment. We can now look towards the first judicial proceedings in the Libya situation before the Court. The Prosecution stands ready for Mr El Hishri's trial at the ICC.
Finally, and most importantly, the Office wishes to thank all the victims and witnesses from Libya who have stepped forward to cooperate in the investigation. Their strength, courage and commitment make these important developments possible.
The Office's investigation in the Situation in Libya continues. The work is proceeding across multiple lines of inquiry, including more action with respect to crimes in detention facilities. In pursuing further accountability in this situation, the Office continues to rely on the partnership of national authorities, regional and international organisations, and the communities affected by Rome Statute crimes. ''
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: Two in every five phones thefts across Europe happen in the UK as government battles to get to grips with rise in county lines snatcher gang chaos
Two in every five phone thefts across Europe happen in the UK, new figures claim, as the government attempts to grapple with county line gangs turning to phone snatching. And harrowing figures show London is at the centre of the snatching chaos, with one in every six phones nabbed across the continent happening in the capital, according to American insurance firm, SquareTrade. After surveying data across its 12 European markets, it found despite Brits only accounting for 10 percent of their customers on the continent, they made up 39 percent of all phone loss claims. Nearly half of phone theft in the UK happened in London, according to the gadget insurance firm, with Birmingham following in second place. Phone snatching incidents also occurred more frequently in summer months and Christmas, aligning with busier travel months, shopping periods as well as festivals. Britain has become 'leading country for missing devices in Europe', the company told The Times, with claims of phone theft has quadrupling since June 2021. Latest statistics from the Crime Survey for England and Wales also indicated 'theft from a person' rose by half in the last year to 483,000 incidents, with the most common object snatched in the category being mobile phones. In 2024, 70,371 phones were stolen in London alone, and in 2020, around 20,000 phone thefts were reported, however, due to a lack of reporting from victims, the figures are likely to be higher. Last September, the Home Office promised to crackdown on phone thefts by increasing patrols in the most at risk areas, while adding Operation Opal, the national police intelligence unit, would also be honing in on crooks. Phone thefts are estimated to cost Londoners and its visitors at least £ 70million, according to the Metropolitan Police. The mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan was also accused by City Hall Conservatives of 'virtually ignor[ing the problem, even though he remained adamant he was continuing to support the force with 'record funding' to tackle the epidemic. The most stolen devices were iPhones, SquareTrade reported, with claims on average totalling to £1,200. The iPhone 15 Pro Max was the most commonly stolen device, with the iPhone 16 Pro Max coming in second place, followed by the Galaxy S24 Ultra. Kevin Gillan, the managing director, of Square TradeEurope, told The Times: 'July creates a perfect storm — festivals, holidays, and crowded spaces increase the risk of theft. London is especially vulnerable, and the UK now leads Europe in phone theft claims.' It comes as county lines gangs have turned to snatching phones instead of dealing drugs to feed a growing £70m a year epidemic. Gang members are grooming vulnerable young people to steal mobiles on Britain's streets due to unprecedented overseas demand and softer sentences for those who are caught. Stolen phones are being shipped abroad in bulk and sold around the world, a police chief warned, with some 80 per cent of the 80,000 phones stolen every year in London ending up overseas. A Mail investigation tracked down a phone stolen from an estate agent on the capital's famous Baker Street across the globe to a high-rise block in Hong Kong, where it sat alongside hundreds of thousands of other handsets. And a police chief in charge suggested the likes of Apple and Google had the gift to stop the trade by making a phone worthless after being taken. At least 230 phones were stolen every day on average in the UK last year - twice as many as five years ago and rising all the time. London is the epicentre, making up roughly 75 per cent of phone thefts, but it is clear the problem is nationwide, with every major force recording thousands of stolen phones every year.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sentence before verdict: Trump's attack on Obama is straight out of Alice in Wonderland
Almost every American knows that in our legal system, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent. The burden is on the government to overcome that presumption and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those simple but powerful maxims were once a source of national pride. They distinguished the United States from countries where government officials and political leaders branded the opponents guilty before they were charged with a crime or brought to trial. In Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, the Alice-in-Wonderland world of 'sentence first-verdict afterwards' came to life in infamous show trials. Those trials lacked all the requisites of fairness. Evidence was manufactured to demonstrate the guilt of the regime's enemies. Show trials told the story the government wanted told and were designed to signal that anyone, innocent or not, could be convicted of a crime against the state. So far, at least, this country has avoided Stalinesque show trials. But the logic of the show trial was very much on display this week in the Oval Office. In a now-familiar scene, during a meeting with the Philippines president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Donald Trump went off script. He turned a reporter's question about the unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal into an occasion to say that former president Barack Obama had committed 'treason' by interfering in the 2016 presidential election. 'He's guilty,' Trump asserted, 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Speaking after the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president said: 'Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Republican congressmen and senators, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who investigated allegations of Obama's involvement five years ago, found nothing to support them. But none of that mattered to the president on Tuesday. As Trump put it: 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' Not hiding his motives, Trump said: 'It's time to start after what they did to me.' Guilt first. Charges, trials and other legal niceties come later. This is American justice, Donald Trump-style. He wants no part of the long and storied tradition in which presidents kept an arms-length relationship with the justice department and did not interfere with its decisions about whether and whom to prosecute for crimes. What Trump said about Obama is, the New York Times notes, 'a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history'. Putting one of his predecessors on trial also would take some of the sting out of Trump's own dubious distinction of being the only former president to have been convicted of a felony. Some may be tempted to write off the president's latest Oval Office pronouncements as an unhinged rant or only an effort to distract attention from Trump's Epstein troubles. But that would be a mistake. A recent article by the neuroscientist Tali Sharot and the law professor Cass Sunstein helps explain why. That article is titled: 'Will We Habituate to the Decline of Democracy?' Sharot and Sunstein argue that America is on the cusp of a dangerous moment in its political history. They say that we can understand why by turning to neuroscience, not to political science. Neuroscience teaches us that 'people are less likely to respond to or even notice gradual changes. That is largely due to habituation, which is the brain's tendency to react less and less to things that are constant or that change slowly.' In politics, 'when democratic norms are violated repeatedly, people begin to adjust. The first time a president refuses to concede an election, it's a crisis. The second time, it's a controversy. By the third time, it may be just another headline. Each new breach of democratic principles … politicizing the justice system … feels less outrageous than the last.' Americans must resist that tendency. To do so, Sharot and Sunstein argue, we need 'to see things not in light of the deterioration of recent years but in light of our best historical practices, our highest ideals, and our highest aspirations'. In the realm of respect for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, we can trace those practices, ideals and aspirations back to 1770, when John Adams, a patriot, practicing lawyer and later the second president of the United States, agreed to defend British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Adams did so because he believed that everyone, no matter how reprehensible their act, was entitled to a defense. That principle meant that people needed to learn to withhold judgment, to respect evidence and to hear both sides of a story before making up their minds. That was a valuable lesson for those who would later want to lead our constitutional republic, as well as for its citizens. The trial of the British soldiers turned out, as the author Christopher Klein writes, to be 'the first time reasonable doubt had ever been used as a standard'. Fast forward to 1940, and the memorable speech of the attorney general, Robert Jackson, to a gathering of United States attorneys. What he said about their role might also be said about the president's assertions about Obama. Jackson observed that US attorneys had 'more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America'. A prosecutor, he explained, 'can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations … The prosecutor can order arrests … and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.' Sound familiar? The president is not a prosecutor, but since he has returned to power, President Trump has behaved and encouraged those in the justice department to ignore Jackson's warnings that a prosecutor should focus on 'cases that need to be prosecuted' rather than 'people that he thinks he should get'. Targeting people, not crimes, means that the people prosecuted will be those who are 'unpopular with the predominant or governing group' or are 'attached to the wrong political views, or [are] personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself'. Jackson restated a long-cherished American ideal, namely that those with the power to ruin lives and reputations should seek 'truth and not victims' and serve 'the law and not factional purposes'. Since then, presidents of both parties, in even the most controversial cases and those involving allies or opponents, have heeded Jackson's warnings. They have said nothing about pending cases, let alone announcing that it's time 'to go after' people. But no more. The justice department seems ready and willing to do the president's bidding, even though there is no evidence that President Obama did anything wrong in regard to the 2016 election. In addition, he may have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did in his official capacity. Trump's attack on the 'traitorous' Obama may be predictable. But it should not be acceptable to any of us. Sharot and Sunstein get it right when they say, 'To avoid habituating ourselves to the torrent of President Trump's assaults on democracy and the rule of law, we need to keep our best practices, ideals, and aspirations firmly in view what we've done.' We need 'to compare what is happening today not to what happened yesterday or the day before, but to what we hope will happen tomorrow'. To get to that world, it is important to recall the words of John Adams and Robert Jackson and work to give them life again. Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty
The Independent
17 hours ago
- The Independent
International Criminal Court refers Hungary to its oversight body for failing to arrest Netanyahu
A panel of judges at the International Criminal Court reported Hungary to the court's oversight organization for failing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited Budapest in April, saying the move undercut the court's ability to bring suspects to justice. The Israeli leader received a red carpet welcome from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán during a state visit, in defiance of an ICC arrest warrant. Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are accused of crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza. Israel is not a member of the court and staunchly rejects the charges. In a filing released late Thursday, the three-judge panel wrote that 'the obligation to cooperate was sufficiently clear to Hungary' and the failure to arrest Netanyahu 'severely undermines the Court's ability to carry out its mandate.' The ICC has no police force and relies on countries around the world to execute arrest warrants. The court's oversight body, the Assembly of States Parties has limited powers to sanction Hungary. It will consider the next steps during its annual meeting in December. The Hungarian leader, regarded by critics as an autocrat and the EU's most intransigent spoiler in the bloc's decision-making, has defended his decision to not arrest Netanyahu. During the visit, Orbán said his country's commitment to the ICC was ' half-hearted ' and began the process to withdraw Hungary from the court. Orbán signed the Rome Statute, the treaty which created the court, in 2001 during his first term as prime minister. The court dismissed arguments from Hungary that Parliament never incorporated the court's statute into Hungarian law, writing 'it was Hungary's responsibility to ensure that such legislation was in place.' The decision comes as Gaza's population of more than 2 million Palestinians is in a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, now relying largely on the limited aid allowed into the territory. Netanyahu and Gallant are accused of using 'starvation as a method of warfare' by restricting humanitarian aid, and of intentionally targeting civilians in Israel's campaign against Hamas in Gaza. It's the third time in the past year that the court has investigated one of its member states for failing to arrest suspects. In February, judges asked Italy to explain why the country sent a Libyan man, suspected of torture and murder, home on an Italian military aircraft rather than handing him over to the court. In October, judges reported Mongolia to the court's oversight organization for failing to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin when he visited the Asian nation.
