By Uri Binnun
April 4, 2023
(Krzyżowa, Poland) Today, three major trials were held at the Model International Criminal Court (MICC). First, the trial of Friedrich Flick – a Nazi businessman accused of using slave labor in his factories during World War II. Next, the court held the trial of Slobodan Prajlak, a Croat general who allegedly commanded the destruction of the famous Old Bridge in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, a historical cultural heritage site. Lastly, the court turned to the case of Simon Bikindi, a powerful Rwandan Hutu musician, whose songs were alleged to incite the violence that resulted in the further murder of the Tutsi.
In my view, the job of the MICC is to deliver justice when countries cannot bring it on their own. However, the MICC must work within legal frameworks, and it must uphold the highest measures of fairness and dignity in the legal procedure. These measures mean that a person who committed despicable atrocities may be judged innocent, due to lack of evidence, a bad prosecution, or even a legal loophole. This view leads us to a problem: since the moral authority of the court depends on the trust of the people, can the MICC conduct a fair trial and deliver justice where it belongs?
I believe that today’s trial showed the public that, despite all of its flaws, we can still trust the MICC. Many people, and myself included, argued against the lack of transparency, against the defense’s questionable arguments, and so on. Some of those concerns might well be true, and the legal system is far from being perfect. Despite that, we must remember that the MICC functions in a complex ecosystem filled with political and economic interests. Despite being an imperfect institution, I believe the court will deliver a good measure of justice within its limitations.