ICC rejects Australia's 'unfounded' challenge to probing Israeli war crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected Australia's demand that the tribunal halt an investigation into war crimes committed by the Israeli regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

According to Press TV, the court said on Saturday Australia's argument that the court has no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation is "misled and unfounded." 

Under the Israeli lobbying, the Australian government in February filed a request to intervene in proceedings at the ICC, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to conduct an investigation because Palestine was "not a state".

ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda dismissed the challenge as she chastised "misinformation and smear campaigns" which she said would not change facts about the conduct of the court.

"Fact: my Office is executing its mandate concerning Palestine situation with utmost professionalism, independence and objectivity in strict conformity with the Rome Statute. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is simply misled and unfounded," Bensouda tweeted. 

Dismissing Australia's argument that the ICC's jurisdiction did not extend to the Palestinian territories, the office of the prosecutor said Canberra had not formally challenged Palestine’s right to be a party to the court before.

At the end of April, Bensouda issued a legal brief stating that Palestine is considered a state.

Israeli, American, Australian and European officials, among others, have spoken out against the move by Bensouda. Zionist regime is not a member of the Rome Statute and has not accepted ICC jurisdiction.

In December, Bensouda announced that a five-year preliminary examination of the “situation in the state of Palestine” had found sufficient evidence of war crimes committed by Israel to proceed with a full investigation.

“I am satisfied that war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East al-Quds, and the Gaza Strip,” she said.

“There are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

ME