On June 2, 2012,
an Egyptian court sentenced former President Hosni Mubarak to life in prison
for being an accomplice in the killing of unarmed demonstrators during the
protests in the “Arab Spring.” The significance of this verdict in terms of
human rights from an international standpoint lies in the fact that the
accountability on a ruler was accomplished by his own citizens—meaning the
country’s own court. Lest the International Criminal Court be reckoned as
coming up short in terms of being able to arrest and convict sitting or former
rulers of states, the verdict from Egypt says, in effect, there is an alternative. Governments can fortify the independence
of their respective judiciaries such that public officials can be held
accountable domestically. Under this scenario, the ICC would be of value to the
world particularly if it could be fortified to step in where states do not have
court systems strong enough to arrest and try a current or former ruler. In
other words, we ought not forget the alternative of national courts when we
bemoan the weaknesses of the ICC.
The full essay is at "Mubarak Convicted in Egypt."
