Jordan, Greece, Italy, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, and other States Parties to the Rome Statute; allow the regime of Bashar al-Assad to commit deportations and forced displacement on its territory, do they betray their homelands ?! A question awaits an answer from the leaders and peoples of those countries and their prosecutors.

On the other hand, the International Criminal Court moved to defend Bangladesh the State party to the Rome Statute, and did not move to defend those countries mentioned above and other States Parties to the Rome Statute; Is the Court defending the Assad regime ?!

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that the Court would exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh, at a hearing on 6 September 2018, composed of Judge Peter Kocaks, Judge Mark Perrin de Breshambut and Judge Ryan Adelaide Sufi Alabini-Gansu Where it made a majority decision.

Although Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute, Bangladesh is a party to it, although Bangladesh has not requested or referred to the International Criminal Court to exercise its jurisdiction. The legal basis for the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court was Article 12 (2-a) of the Rome Statute, declaring its jurisdiction accordingly on the basis that Bangladesh was a State party to the Statute, and on whose territory elements of the deportation and forced displacement offenses had been committed, thereby making the Criminal Court International is competent to examine the deportation and displacement of Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh.

"
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber has ruled that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh.Although Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute, Bangladesh is a party, although Bangladesh has not requested or dissolved the ICC. To exercise its competence
"


It is worth mentioning here that Article 12 of the Rome Statute, which concerns the preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction, provides as follows:
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thus accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the offenses referred to in article 5.

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States is a Party to this Statute, or accept the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3.
(A) The State in whose territory the conduct in question occurred, or the State of registration of the ship or aircraft if the offense was committed on board a ship or aircraft.
(B) The State of which the accused person is a national.

3. If the admission of a State not party to this Statute is required by paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration deposited with the Registrar of the Court, accept the Court's exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to the offense in question. The midwife shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.

It is understood that this judgment was made at the request of the Prosecutor pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Statute, which states that: “The Prosecutor may request the Court to issue a decision on the question of jurisdiction or admissibility. The referring authority pursuant to article 13, as well as the victims, may also make observations to the Court.

The Prosecutor of the Court stated: “Although forced acts committed by the alleged deportation of Rohingya have occurred in the territory of Myanmar (a State not party to the Statute), the Court may nevertheless exercise its jurisdiction, because one element of this offense (outside the borders) Signed on the territory of Bangladesh (a State party to the Statute). "

This is exactly what the situation of the Syrian people is measured in. It must be applied, first of all, to the Syrian people. Although the Syrian Arab Republic is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the elements of the crimes of deportation and displacement - or Forcible transfer of the Syrian people - occurred in countries that are party to this Regulation in accordance with Article 12 (2-a) thereof.

The most important of these countries, which are members of the crimes of deportation and forced displacement, which is a party to the Rome Statute: the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Jordan), which has a direct border with Syria; the number of Syrians deported and forcibly displaced in Jordan reached about two million people. The elements of these crimes have also spread to other States, each party to the Rome Statute, for example: Greece, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Denmark, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, etc.

Deportation and forcible displacement of the Syrian people are crimes of public information known to all, to which article 69, paragraph 6, of the Rome Statute applies, and which does not require proof of that status. However, the ICC has not acted to defend all those States parties to the Rome Statute, on whose territory elements of the deportation and forced displacement offenses, as the Court did with Bangladesh.

According to the Pre-Trial Chamber of the Court, in the Bangladeshi case “it has the authority to hear the Prosecutor's request concerning the Rohingya people, under article 119 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as in accordance with the principle of non-authorization or competence. Jurisdiction (Kompetenz Kompetenz-a), a well-established principle of international law that any international court has the right to determine its jurisdiction.

"
Forcible deportation and forced displacement of the Syrian people are crimes of general information known to all, to which article 69, paragraph 6, of the Rome Statute applies, and which does not require proof of that status. However, the ICC has not acted to defend all those States Parties to the Rome Statute, on whose territory elements of the deportation and forced displacement offenses have been committed, as the Court has done with Bangladesh.
"


Furthermore, in the light of the fact that Myanmar is not a party to the Statute, the Chamber noted that: “While the Court has an objective international legal personality, its jurisdiction must be determined by the limits of the Statute”.

With regard to the central issue contained in the Prosecutor's application for the Bangladeshi case, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court decided: “First: Article 7 (1-d) of the Statute contains two separate offenses (forced transfer and deportation); and secondly, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction If an element of the offense mentioned in article 5 of the Statute or part of that offense is committed in the territory of a State Party to the Statute, under article 12 (2a) of the Statute.

The Chamber ruled on that basis that the Court had jurisdiction over the crime of deportation allegedly committed against members of the Rohingya people. The reason is that one element of this crime (outside the border) occurred on the territory of a State party to the Statute (Bangladesh). The Chamber further found that the Court may also exercise jurisdiction over any other offense under article 5 of the Statute, such as crimes against humanity such as persecution and / or other inhumane acts.

The result is that:
First: As a matter of law first with the judicial precedent of the International Criminal Court (for the crimes of deportation and forced displacement of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh), the International Criminal Court shall exercise its mandate. Signed on the territory of several States Parties to the Rome Statute, in accordance with article 12 (2-a) of the Statute.

This precedent also provides for the above-mentioned jurisprudence, without having to transmit or request such States to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; the most important of these are: Jordan, Greece, Italy, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Denmark and the Kingdom. United, Belgium, Canada. However, it appears that the International Criminal Court does not wish to defend States parties to the Rome Statute, on whose territory elements of the deportation and forced displacement offenses have been signed, although in the case of Bangladesh.

This is a concealed defense by the Court - particularly its Prosecutor - of the regime and crimes of Bashar al-Assad.This prosecutor has not resolved the Syrian case of deportation and forced displacement to the Pre-Trial Chamber to adjudicate the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Second: If the States Parties to the above-mentioned Rome Statute, to which the Syrians had resorted, referred the crimes of deportation and forced displacement to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute, and on the basis of Article 12 (2) of the Statute. The Rome Statute, pursuant to the precedent also referred to above; the court would have been forced to exercise its jurisdiction, but those countries did not do in order not to hold the criminal regime of Assad !! Are the leaders of those countries betray their countries so ?! A question awaits an answer from the leaders and peoples of those countries and their prosecutors.

"
If the States Parties to the above-mentioned Rome Statute referred to by the Syrians referred the crimes of refoulement and forced displacement to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute and on the basis of Article 12 (2) of the Rome Statute And, pursuant to the jurisprudence of Bangladesh; the court would have been forced to exercise its jurisdiction, but those countries did not do in order not to hold the criminal Assad regime !! Are the leaders of those countries betray their countries so ?!
"


Third: The peoples of these States are legally entitled (States Parties to the Rome Statute on whose territory elements of the deportation and forced displacement offenses) make allegations with the Prosecutor / Prosecutor of each State (in accordance with the judicial system of each State), concerning the existence of two offenses committed on the territory of The Attorney General / Prosecutor, as outlined above, requesting the investigation and requesting the political leadership of his country (an executive authority obliged to comply with the orders of its national judiciary) to refer the latter to the ICC, to intervene on the basis of a legal principle of “judicial inadequacy” and investigation And erase Meh those crimes.

Fourth: States that are not parties to the Rome Statute, on whose territory the offenses of deportation and forced displacement have occurred, in accordance with article 12 (2-a), which provides for a State Party to the Rome Statute, or a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, and in accordance with paragraph 3 For example, Turkey, a State not party to the Rome Statute, has the right to declare its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in accordance with article 12, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute.

It can therefore refer to / or request the International Criminal Court and its Prosecutor to investigate the crimes of forced deportation and displacement that occurred on its territory, as a result of the regime's criminalization of the Syrian people, in accordance with Article 12 (2) (a) and the case law referred to above. This also applies to Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt, and every country not party to the Rome Statute to which the Syrians emigrated because of the deportation and forced displacement crimes.

Note: In the end, it should be noted that the author of the opinion and legal analysis contained herein is a doctor of law, preferring not to be named.