AUSTRALIAN lawyer Melinda Taylor believes her detention in Libya for more than three weeks shows that Saif al-Islam, the son of deceased dictator Muammar Gaddafi, cannot “be tried in an independent and impartial manner in Libyan courts.”
Ms Taylor, who spoke publically for the first time from The Hague since her release on Tuesday, said her actions were “fully consistent with [her] legal obligations” and the “code of professional conduct for counsels”.
She revealed that on the first day in detention she informed Libyan authorities if they had any concerns with the International Criminal Court team, they had the right to file a complaint in accordance with ICC procedures.
“I explicitly informed the authorities ... I had full immunity from arrest, detention or any other investigative action taken against me, and that measures taken by the Libyans in that regard would violate international law,” she said.
Advertisement
She also said the Libyan authorities "seized documents which were covered by legal professional privilege and ICC protective orders".
Ms Taylor added that irrespective of her personal conduct, “the rights of my client, Mr Saif al-Islam, were irrevocably prejudiced during my visit to Zintan”.
Ms Taylor was detained on June 7 and released three weeks later by rebels who accused her and her three colleagues of endangering national security.
She thanked the Australian foreign Minister Bob Carr, Australian Ambassador designate to Libya David Ritchie, the ICC, the Australian media for “maintaining the focus” and the public for their “heartfelt support”.
This caused a bit of a stir about a month ago when this shit started. Basically, from what I read, it sounds like Libyan authorities arrested Ms Taylor and IIRC several of her colleagues, who were the defence counsel for Gaddafi's son. There were accusations of 'espionage' but they didn't seem too convincing. And given that she and her colleagues were released, I doubt the claims were that serious (I do remember Libya making noise that Taylor had some kind of miniature camera in her possession; which, my first thought was, 'So what?').
Anyway did this flew under the radar for everyone else or is there anything in foreign news about this?
Basically the problem exists in how the ICC is formed. It only has jurisdiction in situations where the nation where the offense took place cannot prosecute it effectively itself, or refuses to. The ICC assigned Saif al-Islam lawyers, these people, who the Libyans don't recognize as his lawyers, so they didn't give them any protections. The Libyans say they can try Saif to international standards; his ICC-assigned lawyers say they can't, so he must be moved to the Hague. The Libyans refuse to move him, since they basically say the claim they can't try him is bullshit.
Complicating the issue is the fact that the Libyans don't directly hold him. The western rebel alliance against Qaddafi holds him, and refuses to hand him over to the central government. They were also the people who actually detained these lawyers, and have no connection to the central government and are currently in something of a standoff with it, basically keeping Saif as a hostage to try and get the constitution written in the way they want.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
I have heard it said the Libyans did guarantee the same level of protection as diplomatic immunity to the ICC lawyers. However from what Duchess pointed out, if its differing Libyan factions involved, one faction may simply not bother to keep the promises made by a different faction.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
