[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 164 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               ESTABLISHING A SYRIAN WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL?

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, November 18, 2013

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the two-year-old Syrian civil 
war has produced increasingly horrific human rights violations, 
including summary executions, torture and rape. Most recently, both 
government and rebel forces have targeted medical and humanitarian aid 
personnel. Snipers are reportedly targeting pregnant women and 
children. Since the Syrian civil war began, more than 100,000 people 
have been killed and nearly seven million people have been forced to 
leave their homes. By December of this year, it is estimated that 
neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq could see as 
many as 3.5 million Syrian refugees.
   Those who have perpetrated human rights violations among the Syrian 
government, the rebels and the foreign fighters on both sides of this 
conflict must be shown that their actions will have serious 
consequences.
   H. Con. Res. 51, introduced on September 9th, calls for the creation 
of an international tribunal that would be more flexible and more 
efficient than the International Criminal Court to ensure 
accountability for human rights violations committed by all sides. This 
hearing will examine the diplomatic, political, legal and logistical 
issues necessary for the establishment of such a court. Today's hearing 
will examine controversial issues such as sovereignty, the ICC versus 
ad hoc regional tribunals and the sponsorship of such a tribunal.
   Perhaps the most famous war crimes tribunals were the Nuremburg and 
Tokyo trials--the post-World War II trials of Axis military officers 
and government functionaries responsible for almost unimaginable crimes 
against humanity. The Cold War rivalry between the United States and 
the former Soviet Union prevented the international cooperation 
necessary for war crimes tribunals to be convened by the United 
Nations. After the end of that international political conflict, there 
have been three particularly notable international tribunals to hold 
accountable those guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity: in the 
former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and in Sierra Leone.
   Each of these tribunals has achieved a level of success that has 
escaped the International Criminal Court. The Yugoslavia tribunal has 
won 69 convictions, the Rwanda tribunal has won 47 convictions and the 
Sierra Leone tribunal has won 16 convictions. Meanwhile, the ICC--
costing about $140 million annually--has thus far seen only one 
conviction.
   The ICC process is distant and has no local ownership of its justice 
process. It is less flexible than an ad hoc tribunal, which can be 
designed to fit the situation. The ICC requires a referral. In the case 
of the President and Deputy President of Kenya, it was Kenya itself 
that facilitated the referral. That is highly unlikely in the case of 
Syria. Russia in the UN Security Council would likely oppose any 
referral of the Syria matter to the ICC, but might be convinced to 
support an ad hoc proceeding that focuses on war crimes by the 
government and rebels--one that allows for plea bargaining for 
witnesses and other legal negotiations to enable such a court to 
successfully punish at least some of the direct perpetrators of 
increasingly horrific crimes. And Syria, like the United States, never 
ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, which raises legitimate 
concerns about sovereignty with implications for our country which this 
panel will also address.
   There are issues that must be addressed for any Syria war crimes 
tribunal to be created and to operate successfully. There must be 
sustained international will for it to happen in a meaningful way. An 
agreed-upon system of law must be the basis for proceedings. An agreed-
upon structure, a funding mechanism and a location for the proceedings 
must be found. There must be a determination on which and how many 
targets of justice will be pursued. A timetable and time span of such a 
tribunal must be devised. And there are even more issues that must be 
settled before such an ad hoc tribunal can exist.
   David Crane, one of today's witnesses, has suggested five potential 
mechanisms for a Syrian war crimes tribunal: An ad hoc court created by 
the United Nations; a regional court authorized by a treaty with a 
regional body; an internationalized domestic court; a domestic court 
comprised by Syrian nationals within a Syrian justice system; or the 
ICC.
   Each of these first four models have some benefits--some more than 
others. The ICC can be ruled out, and a domestic court in the near 
future seems highly unlikely. However, we are not here today to decide 
which of these models will be chosen. Rather, our objective in a 
hearing I held last month was to promote the concept of a Syria war 
crimes tribunal whatever form it eventually takes.
   Again, those who are even now perpetrating crimes against humanity 
must be told that their crimes will not continue with impunity. Syria 
has been called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. According to the 
World Health Organization, an epidemic of polio has broken out in 
northern Syria because of declining vaccination rates. One might 
reasonably also consider it the worst human rights crisis in the world 
today. Therefore, the international community owes it to the people of 
Syria and their neighbors to do all we can to bring to a halt the 
actions creating these crises for Syria and the region.
   At last month's hearing, we assembled a distinguished panel to 
discuss the pros and cons of creating and sustaining a Syrian war 
crimes tribunal. This was not an academic exercise. We must understand 
the difficulties of making accountability for war crimes in Syria a 
reality. Therefore, we must understand the challenges involved so that 
we can meet and overcome them and give hope to the terrorized people of 
Syria. Their suffering must end, and the beginning of that end could 
come through the results of last month's proceeding.

                          ____________________