On the recent arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, a lesson in style from Minister Crosetto

While in these hours we are witnessing, at least in theory, the entry into force, in Lebanon, of the "ceasefire" between the Israeli army and Hezbollah, the controversies do not stop after the recent and, in some ways, historic, decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber I of International Criminal Court of 21 November last, to grant the request of its chief prosecutor regarding, in particular, the issuing of an arrest warrant against the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as the head of the armed wing of Hamas, Mohammed Deif.

In the world, as in our country, various and contrasting reactions have been unleashed and, among the negative ones, some have actually been over the top, well beyond what could be defined as "judicial criticism".

At the Italian level, the one who provided a lesson in style, at least in the opinion of the writer, was the Minister of Defence, Guido Crosetto, who, while criticising the merits of the measure in question, equally stated that, in any case, if necessary, Italy will respect the decision of the Court of The Hague.

The owner of Via XX Settembre, the day after the decision in question, in fact stated¹: "I think it is a wrong sentence, which puts the Israeli president and the Israeli defense minister on the same level with the leader of the attackers, the one who organized and led the shameful attack that massacred women, men, girls and kidnapped people in Israel, which is where the war started. They are two completely different things", adding that "On the one hand, there is a terrorist act committed by a terrorist organization that deeply affects defenseless citizens, on the other hand, there is a country that, following this act, goes and tries to eradicate a criminal terrorist organization. Then, if we want to judge how Israel moved in Gaza, how much force was necessary to use, how much collateral damage, which makes sense to call in this way with innocent victims, how many thousands there were and how many red lines were crossed, that's another matter.".

To then conclude by stating that "I don't think the International Criminal Court should have intervened with this three-way ruling. That said, if they were to arrive in Italy we should arrest them because we respect international law."

The right combination of "judicial criticism" and, in any case, respect for the provision of a Court which - it is worth remembering - Italy has not only adhered to, but has also seen the drafting of the relevant Statute hosted, which took place in 1998, right in its capital, Rome..

This is unlike other declarations, released by some national and international figures who, on the contrary, in addition to crying scandal (which, in itself, would be, as mentioned, completely legitimate, since everyone is free to criticize even a judicial provision) have also manifested, on the part of those who issued them, the firm will not to respect, when necessary, the content; in some cases, even leaving one to foresee the application of fines - you read that right, yes - against the magistrates of The Hague, or, again, resulting in real insults, which saw the Court accused of anti-Semitism or of being "a political plaything at the service of extremists who want to undermine the security and stability of the Middle East”, up to the evocation of “a new Dreyfus trial”.

In short, a discrediting of the authority of a body such as the one in the comment is very inappropriate (and this is a euphemism) and dangerous.

In this light, we must once again give bitter praise to the Chief Prosecutor himself at the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who, once again (the first time he had been forced to do so on the very day after the request for the arrest warrants in question), had to point out that if someone were to, in fact, exceed the limit, going so far as to hinder or impede the work of the Court, he could be forced to activate the procedure referred to in art. 70 of the Statute of the aforementioned (International Criminal Court): “It is critical at this moment that my Office and all parts of the Court, including its independent judges, are permitted to conduct their work with full independence and impartiality. I insist that all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence the officials of this Court must cease immediately. My Office will not hesitate to act pursuant to article 70 of the Rome Statute if such conduct continues”.

As already mentioned in some previous contributions here², this article, titled "Crimes against the administration of justice", states that:

"1. The Court will exercise its jurisdiction over the following crimes committed against the administration of justice, when committed intentionally:

a) bear false witness, despite the obligation to tell the truth assumed in application of the art. 69.1;

b) present evidence that the party knows to be false or falsified;

(c) bribing witnesses, obstructing or hindering the free attendance or testimony of a witness, taking retaliatory measures against a witness for his or her testimony, or destroying or falsifying evidence or obstructing the collection of such evidence;

d) obstruct, intimidate or bribe an official of the Court with a view to coercing or persuading him not to perform, or to perform improperly, his duties;

e) retaliate against an official of the Court for duties performed by that or another official;

f) solicit or accept unlawful compensation as an officer or agent of the Court in connection with your official duties.

2. The principles and procedures governing the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction over violations referred to in this article will be those provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The conditions for providing international cooperation to the Court in relation to the proceedings referred to in this article are those given by the legislation of the State addressed.

3. If convicted, the Court may impose a prison sentence not exceeding five years or a fine, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, or both.

4. (a) States Parties extend the provisions of their criminal law punishing offenses against the integrity of their investigative and judicial proceedings to offenses against the administration of justice referred to in this article committed in their territory or by their nationals;

(b) upon request of the Court, whenever it deems appropriate, the State Party will submit the case to its competent authorities for criminal prosecution. The competent national authorities will deal with such cases diligently and dedicate sufficient resources to enable them to be carried out efficiently.".

It should be remembered, to return to the arrest warrants in question, that:

1. they were requested by the investigating body, i.e. the Chief Prosecutor of the Court, who acted on the basis of the circumstantial sources collected (and which, moreover, concern "only" the facts committed from October 2023 until May of this year);

2. that this man, in his work, was supported by a group of jurists of international standing;

3. that, on this request, another judicial body then ruled, which, evidently, found the request to be well-founded.

In any case, it must be remembered that any person investigated and, subsequently, possibly accused, even when faced with International Criminal Court, must be considered innocent until a definitive ruling to the contrary has been issued, including, therefore, the recipients of the arrest warrants in question.