But the Kushayb case has underlined the limitations of the International Criminal Court’s reach. For all its ambitions, the founders gave limited powers to the permanent court whose mandate is to try the worst crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression.
The court depends on a government’s political will and cooperation to allow serious investigations, which require access to archives and police and government records, and sometimes to do forensic work in prisons and graveyards. And the court has no police to enforce its arrest warrants.
Karim Khan, who took over as the court’s chief prosecutor last year, joined his predecessor in chiding the Security Council for sending the Sudan case to the court 17 years ago without providing political muscle or financial help to support the necessary work. Investigations in Darfur were halted some eight years ago after a prosecutor said all potential means of access were blocked in Sudan.
Still, lawyers familiar with the Kushayb case appear confident that it can lead to a conviction because the defendant is accused of having been present in the area where and when killings took place and investigators have had access to hundreds of victims in refugee camps across the Sudanese border in Chad. The indictment against Mr. Kushayb says that he “is alleged to have personally participated in some of the attacks against civilians’’ in at least four towns.
Experts say, however, that it will be harder to connect all the dots needed to hold Mr. al-Bashir, the former president, and his two top lieutenants accountable for their suspected crimes because such a prosecution, especially one that takes place a great distance from the atrocities, typically requires documents, orders, testimony from insiders, intercepts and other evidence that can be difficult and time consuming to obtain.
Even if Mr. al-Bashir and his former lieutenants were to arrive at the court unexpectedly, it would take time to put them on trial because their cases were halted,