According to the Danish website Information for the first time in history, NATO, the world’s mighty military alliance dragged into court, accused of causing civilian casualties. "It is a matter that raises some serious questions that NATO refuses to answer," said Fred Abrahams by Human Rights Watch.
He is currently investigating a number of civilian casualties in Libya War, including the case of the bombing of al-Hamedi family, which has brought the forthcoming trial. Khaled al-Hamedi requires 100,000 euro in compensation for the loss of six relatives, including his wife and their two children.
The lawsuit, initiated by the district court in Brussels in the autumn, could have important implications for NATO's way of waging war in the future. Human Rights Watch is aware of the recent information has emerged that it was possibly Danish fighter who threw the bomb that killed a total of 13 civilians in Khaled al-Hamedis household. Precisely the question of who actually can be held responsible for a bombing carried out under a centrally planned NATO operation, will be crucial during the upcoming trial. Is it an individual pilot, who has released the bomb load to be held accountable, or is it the responsible manager for the aircraft, the group of officers who have designated the target, the leader of Operation Unified Protector or a completely different? "It is in any case hypocritical not to investigate the attack, which allegedly has cost civilian lives - in an operation that was aimed to protect the Libyan civilian population," said Abrahams.
Though the issue of civilian casualties during the Libyan war was downplayed during the ongoing bombing there were some protesting voices especially after NATO attacked the Libyan television following the “tradition” of Yugoslavian war, resulting to a statement release by the the U.N. press office saying that “The Secretary-General is deeply concerned by reports of the unacceptably large number of civilian casualties as a result of the conflict in Libya.” Diplomats said that Ban’s team of close advisers received several phone calls from Western diplomats who took offense at Ban’s statement, pressing him to clarify the next day that “of course recognizes and appreciates NATO efforts to avoid civilian casualties.”
The issue was brought up recently by the New York Times article In Strikes on Libya by NATO, an Unspoken Civilian Toll. Conducting an on-ground examination the paper wrote that it “found credible accounts of dozens of civilians killed by NATO in many distinct attacks. The victims, including at least 29 women or children, often had been asleep in homes when the ordnance hit”.
On January, the Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya published a report in which there is a chapter (p. 41) titled “Potential Violations Committed by Third States Engaged in Hostilities Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1973”. Though that the Mission observes that NATO destroyed targets “in a manner proportionate to the task” it clarifies that this is not a “a comment on the legitimacy of classifying such targets as military objectives”. Despite that “rebel officials stated that the attacks resulted in zero casualties” mainly due to warnings of NATO prior to the attacks , the Mission “finds it difficult to believe that such strikes – which often completely destroyed multi-story buildings – consistently resulted in zero casualties, including of military personnel. In this regard, the Mission was struck by two observations: first, the deep appreciation among National Transitional Council, Local Councils, and members of the opposition forces regarding NATO’s role in the conflict, and second, an apparent desire to ‘protect’ NATO, or avoid any direct or indirect criticism”. This fits well with HRW Abrahams’ statement: “It’s crystal clear that civilians died in NATO strikes, but this whole campaign is shrouded by an atmosphere of impunity” and by NATO’s and the Libyan authorities’ mutually congratulatory statements”.
The Mission was informed that Gaddafi forces had used civilian sites as weapons storage or military communications facilities, and that this usage formed the basis of their classification as military objectives.
However “a number of targeted sites visited by the Mission which failed to reveal the reported military presence played key roles in civilian life, including schools, colleges, and a regional food warehouse”. “Following on-site investigations, the Mission was unable to find any convincing physical evidence demonstrating that these sites had been used for military purposes. These sites included a number of schools in Zliten, a Zliten-region food warehouse, the house of Khaled El-Hamedi (our emphasis), and the Office of the Administrative Controller in Tripoli”.
According to the International Court of Justice rules “civilians and civilian objects at all times be distinguished from combatants and military objectives. Under no circumstances may civilians or civilian objects be directly targeted.civilian object may, by its nature or use, be transformed into a military objective; however, to be classified as such, the otherwise-civilian object must be making “an effective contribution to military action.” “.
Referring to a strike that killed “57-59 persons, including 10 combatants in the trucks and approximately 47 civilians”, the Mission notes that missiles fired from an aerial platform are typically fired ‘eyes-on’. This means that, at the time of firing, NATO forces should have had the target area under visual observation” concluding that “that these reports raise significant questions concerning the events surrounding this incident, which should be addressed and further investigated in an open and transparent manner, to ensure both past and future compliance with international law”.
On July 3, the Voltaire Network published an article, describing the bombing of Hamedis’ house titled “The Sorman massacre”. Hamedis being president of the International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR) which is set to bring relief to victims of natural catastrophes and armed conflicts and is very active in Algeria, Iran, Sudan and Palestine, had received the medal of courage from the hands of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. and also decorated by Mahmoud Abbas.
The Al-Hamedi family house bombed by NATO.
According to the article, Hamedis hold a ceremony ahead of his brother coming wedding, who was fighting along Gaddafi’s forces. Allegedly, one of his guests turned to be a spy that was twitting coordinates to NATO pretending that he contacted friends. During the night of 19 to 20 June 2011, Hamedis was returning to his home when heard the hissing of missiles and their explosions: “The spy had placed markers in each house, including the children’s bedrooms. The missiles were dropped a few seconds apart. The grand-parents had time to get out of their house before it was destroyed. It was already too late to rescue the children and grand-children. When the last missile hit their house, the Marshall had the instinctive reaction to shield his wife with his body. They had just stepped out of the door when they were flung fifteen meters away by an explosion. But they survived”. Twelve people died, among them his beloved wife and the the child she was bearing.
Khaled Al-Hamedi on the grave of his wife and children.
The first hearing in Hamedis case against NATO is scheduled for 17 September. In the longer term Khaled al-Hamedi also intends to take legal action against NATO before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, probably together with relatives of several other Libyan victims.
The incident is also reported by HRW's report titled "Unacknowledged Deaths. Civilian Casualties in NATO’s Air Campaign in Libya" (page 39). Although that on the day of the attack, NATO said in a media statement that the compound was “a command and control node which was directly involved in coordinating systematic attacks on the Libyan people”, satellite imagery of the el-Hamedi farm from May 27, 2011, three weeks before the attack, revealed no signs of military activity. Lastly, HRW was unable to confirm the claim that el-Khweldi el-Hamedi and his son Khaled had served as commanders for pro-Gaddafi forces in western Libya.
No comments:
Post a Comment