| 2010 01 22 'In defence of Justice Richard Goldstone by Former Chief Justice Chaskalson and George Bizos...' |
|
IN DEFENCE OF JUDGE RICHARD GOLDSTONE BY FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE ARTHUR CHASKALSON AND GEORGE BIZOS, COUNSEL IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION UNIT OF THE LEGAL RESOURCES CENTRE We are concerned about the attacks made on the integrity of Justice Richard Goldstone following the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict. Richard Goldstone was the head of the mission, but there were three other members. The other members were: The mandate of the mission, whose report was unanimous, was to enquire into whether there were any violations of International Law (which would include international humanitarian law and international human rights law) by both the government and army of Israel and by Hamas which was in control of the Gaza strip. The mission interpreted its mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the region at the centre of its concerns regarding the protection to which they were entitled under International Law. The mission determined that it was required to consider any actions by all parties that may have constituted violations of International Human Rights Law or International Humanitarian Law. The mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel ("paragraph 11 page 14 of the report"). The mission found that both Israel and Hamas committed violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. It is not our intention to express a view on whether the findings of the commission were correct or not. Views differ on this. Our concern is that Judge Goldstone, an eminent South African judge, has been accused of bias, dishonesty and improper motives in being party to the report of the mission. For instance, Jack Shapiro in the SA Jewish Report 30 October 2009 wrote: "Goldstone became a Nationalist Party judge. In those days only "Nat Boeties" became judges. Did this start the ball rolling? Was this the start of a new career for him? A world personal ambition?" This theme was also advanced in scurrilous emails which were widely circulated attacking his integrity. We have known Richard Goldstone as a friend for more than fifty years, and have followed his career as a colleague at the Bar, as a Judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division, as a Judge of the Appellate Division, and as a Justice of the Constitutional Court Our answer to the rhetorical question is an emphatic "No". He was the founding chairperson of Nicro an organisation to look after prisoners that have been released; he exercised his power as a judge (not often used by other judges) to visit prisoners in jail; he insisted on seeing political prisoners indefinitely detained to hear their complaints; to intervene for a doctor to be allowed to see them and where possible to make representations that their release be considered. After the release of Nelson Mandela he played an important role in persuading his colleagues on the bench to accept the inevitable changes that were likely to take place in the political and judicial structures. Some who have criticised him say that as a Jew he ought not to have accepted a mandate to enquire into the events in Gaza. We do not agree. Religion and ethnicity are irrelevant to the capacity to judging with integrity. Others, ask why he has shown no concern about human rights violations that have been and are being committed elsewhere in the world. This was not part of his mandate as head of the fact finding mission. But his career, from the time he was chairman of the Wits SRC campaigning against the exclusion of black students, to the present time, shows a long commitment to the protection of human rights and a concern for their protection in all parts of the world. He is a member of the boards of Physicians for Human Rights, the International Center for Transitional Justice, the Salzburg Global Seminar, and the Center for Economic and Social Rights. He is a Director of the American Arbitration Association. He chairs the advisory boards of the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation and the Brandeis University Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life. In April 2004, he was appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Independent International Committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, to investigate the Iraq Oil for Food program. He is co-chair of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association. He chaired a UN Committee to advise the United Nations on appropriate steps to preserve of the archives and legacy of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. From 15 August 1994 to September 1996 he served as the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, a post he accepted at the request of President Nelson Mandela, who considered it an important affirmation of the post apartheid South African judiciary. He was the chairperson of a high level group of international experts that met in Valencia, Spain, and drafted a Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities for the Director General of UNESCO (the Valencia Declaration). From August 1999 until December 2001 he was the chairperson of the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo. He is a director of the American Arbitration Association. And from 1999 to 2003 he served as a member of the International Group of Advisers of the International Committee of the Red Cross. He has received many prestigious awards in recognition of his commitment to human rights and humanitarian law. One trenchant critic of the Report, Moshe Halbertal, has said: "a mere denunciation of the report will not suffice. Israel must establish an independent investigation into the concrete allegations that the report makes. By clearing up these issues, by refuting what can be refuted, and by admitting wrongs when wrongs were done, Israel can establish the legitimacy of its self-defense in the next round, as well as honestly deal with its own failures." That is a more appropriate critical response to the report of the mission, than the vituperative attacks on Justice Goldstone's integrity by some of those who disagree with the missions report. |