I was under the impression that there is a judicial principle of avoiding double jeopardy. The Israeli Supreme Court (the same court that is fighting against demolition of Palestinian homes) has investigated the Sabra and Shatila incidents and found no criminal culpability in Sharon or any in the IDF chain of command (quite naturally, since not a single Israeli soldier was involved, the Phalangists took revenge for earlier massacres of Lebanese Christians by the Palestinians expelled from Jordan, normal "blood feud" in that part of the world, unfortunately). If the principle of double jeopardy is not honored, we create a situation where a suspect can be tried and tried again until one finally find a jurisdiction where he is found guilty. There is no international legal precedence of bringing before the international court a suspect already investigated or indicted and tried for the same "crimes".
On the other hand, the Belgian court is doing itself great disservice and diminishes its own stature by not bringing to trial a legion of Belgian colonialists that till the 1960 murdered black people in the Congo and executed Patrice Lumumba. Why is not the Belgian court calling to Justice Saddam Hussein for using gas against his own citizens and against Iranian troops. Why is not the court bringing to trial those Syrian commanders (Assad the father is no longer available...) that murdered 20,000 of their own innocent civilians at Hamma? Why is that court silent on the current ongoing murders in Algeria, where is the outrage? That court, is simply yielding to political pressures rather than Judicial principles.
Zeev
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
