Talk:Luis Moreno Ocampo

Current Event.

The current event stated here is the asking of the arrest warrant by Moreno-Ocampo, to the Sudanese president in reason for the Darfur conflict. This is occurring right at this moment. Thanks, just wanted to clear things up. --Doctor Foci Whom 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War, Recent Events

It seems to me that the allegations of war crimes committed during the Iraq invasion and the Prosecutor's response to those allegations is given far too much attention in this article. A similar debate has taken place on the ICC discussion page. Much more attention can be given to actual prosecutions that are taking place and the controversy surrounding the recent conduct of the Prosecutor re: disclosure of exculpatory evidence. If anybody has a view I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, i will make some additions and subtractions over the next few days. Thestoneofprogress (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I doubt anyone will ever come to this article looking for information about the ICC and the Iraq War, but if they do they can just follow the link at the bottom of the page that says "The ICC and the 2003 invasion of Iraq". Polemarchus (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The sexual harassment affair

This is irresponsible, dishonest, and a blatant violation of the spirit of our policy regarding living people. The sexual misconduct allegation was investigated by a panel of judges and they found that it was "manifestly unfounded". Not a single reliable source has ever disputed this finding, as far as I can tell. But an anonymous editor has deleted the judges' finding and replaced it with the accusation, which was unfounded. I don't see how this could be anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead our readers.

There is a scandal here. Moreno-Ocampo abused his power when he dismissed an employee he had a personal conflict with. But the ILO ruling doesn't suggest that he was guilty of sexual misconduct, and neither should we. Polemarchus (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The deletion is more than irresponsible. Firstly the judges were not tasked with making a full investigation, only with reviewing the evidence. Secondly it is not true that the finding has been disputed. It was for instance disputed in a highly competent legal analysis published by the Hague Justice Portal. The allegations remain relevant and no full investigation has ever been made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.24.2 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your relationship with Christian Palme? Polemarchus (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. I know him, but more importantly I have studied the case in detail. It's obvious, as it was for the ILOAT, that the allegations in the complaint were facutally correct and that the facts have never been as such disputed.

Your editing of this text is highly biased and not correct. The ILO Administrative Tribunal did not just find that the complainant's rights had been infringed, but also that the ICC allegations that the complaint had been made "maliciously" and "falsely" were wrong. The ILOAT found that the complaint had been made on reasonable grounds and in doing this the judges of the Tribunal (three highly experienced judges from Canada, France and New Zealand) noted in their considerations that: "The recorded telephone conversation that occurred two days after the alleged event indicated that the journalist was distressed. And in that conversation, she indicated unambiguously that the Prosecutor "took [her] keys" and that she had consented to sexual intercourse "to get out of [the situation]", in this throwing serious doubts over the internal ICC whitewash.

This can only be resolved in the following way:

1. the complainan'ts name should not be mentioned. It is irrelevant.

2. details of the case with links to the complaint, media reports and the ILOAT judgment should be included

3. the quote above from the ILOAT judgment must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.231.142 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your personal relationship with Christian Palme is clearly relevant here. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. (Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and, in particular, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.) If you are Christian Palme, this would be a good time to mention it.

Most of what you've written above is untrue. The ICC judges investigated Palme's allegation. They interviewed the alleged victim and she "unambiguously denied" the allegation, so the judges concluded that it was manifestly unfounded.[1]

The ILO accepted this, and nothing in their ruling suggests that they thought the ICC judges' investigation was a whitewash. However, the ILO disagreed with the Prosecutor's contention that Palme's allegation was made with "malicious intent". The ILO held that Palme had made his complaint in good faith, as he had reason to believe that the complaint was true. The complaint was made in good faith, but it turned out to be manifestly unfounded nonetheless. This is not a contradiction. You seem to be inferring that, because the ILO agreed that Palme had acted in good faith, they were casting doubt on the ICC judges' ruling that the allegation was unfounded. This inference is illogical. If you want to claim the investigation was a whitewash, find a reliable, published source that says so, don't read stuff into the ILO judgment that just isn't there.

To address your specific suggestions:

1. I don't understand why you want Palme's name removed. He is, after all, an innocent victim in this, and his name was reported in the media. Do you think the article is unfair on him or are you concerned about his privacy? I don't particularly care whether we mention his name or not, but it's much more readable than "the complainant".

2. We already link to the complaint, the ILOAT judgment and a media report which is critical of Moreno-Ocampo's actions. What other reliable sources do you think we need to include?

3. It would be irresponsible to include too many details about the alleged sexual misconduct when we know that the alleged victim has "unambiguously denied" the allegation. Find a reliable, published source that says this incident actually happened, and then we can talk about which details to include.

Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact what you write is mostly untrue. There was no investigation of the complaint. The Rome Statute for the ICC, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Regulations of the Court are very specific about this. Only the ASP, Assembly of States Parties, (or the Bureau of the ASP) can investigate the Prosecutor. The Presidencys' only task is to evaluate the evidence. Given that they had two conflicting statements from the victim, one statement on the recording, made two days after the incident, (THE VERACITY OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN CONTESTED) where she, while crying desperately, said Moreno-Ocampo took her keys and that she agreed to sexual intercourse to be able to leave his hotel room, and one statement made shen she was interviewed by the panel of judges 18 months later where she apparently denied that the incident had taken place, the Presidency decided to reject the complaint. It should be noted that it is not known what the victim precisely said to the panel since the full report of the panel remains confidential. What this in fact means is that there has been no investigation and that there are conflicting bodies of evidence. This was recognised by the ILOAT when they specifically included the following in their considerations of the case: "The recorded telephone conversation that occurred two days after the alleged event indicated that the journalist was distressed. And in that conversation, she indicated unambiguously that the Prosecutor "took [her] keys" and that she had consented to sexual intercourse "to get out of [the situation]". This is the reliable published source that you are looking for. Another source that corroborates this is the legal analysis published by the Hague Justice Portal (http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/Commentaries%20PDF/Anonymous_Lubanga_EN.pdf), written by a former legal adviser of the ICC judiciary, which rightly points out (on page 10) that:

"In addition, the Administrative Tribunal noted one point: objectively, the original complaint was not unfounded (an observation which the panel of three judges appointed by the Presidency of the Court itself could have made). First, the Administrative Tribunal noted, in accordance with the Disciplinary Advisory Board, that the employee did not have malicious intentions when he brought his complaint before the Presidency.34 Secondly, the Tribunal pointed out that neither the Disciplinary Advisory Board nor the panel of three judges reviewed the precise allegations put forward by the employee."

The analyst also pointed out that:

"But the judgement also leads to further questions about the Court in general and in particular about the conclusions of the panel of three judges: how did the judges on this panel convince themselves that the complaint was unfounded? In addition, in seeking to destroy the evidence, wasn’t the Presidency trying to ‘hush up’ the affair? Clearly, beyond the allegations of reprehensible behaviour, it is surprising to see such solidarity between the Presidency and the Chambers, the two Court organs which shape the institution as a whole."

This is a reliable source clearly questioning the decision by the Presidency and gives further weight to the argument that the evidence in favour of the complaint should also be included in the article, preferably by quoting a reliable source such as the ILOAT judgment.

You further claim that: "nothing in (the ILOAT) ruling suggests that they thought the ICC judges' investigation was a whitewash". The opposite is in fact the case, which is precisely the point of the legal analysis on the Hague Justice Portal.

The complainant's name must be removed from the article (and also from the title of this string: there is no "Christian Palme affair", only a "Moreno-Ocampo affair"). As the text stands now it infers that the complainanat had made the complaint knowing that it was unfounded. This is grossly unacceptable and actually sides with the ICC OTP.

Finally the piece should be given it's own subtitle, like it had in the earlier version.

If you are serious about trying to reach consensus these are minimum requirements that must be met. Otherwise it's obvious that you have no intention to try to reach consensus, but only wants to push your own biased and one sided view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.24.2 (talk • contribs)

Can I ask anonymous users 130.238.24.2 (Uppsala University) and 213.112.231.142 (Stockholm) if they are the same person using different computers or two different people? I would assume the same from the writing style, but we all know what assuming does... - BanyanTree 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume they're the same person, since 213.112.231.142 answered the question I asked 130.238.24.2 about his relationship with Christian Palme. ("This is irrelevant. I know him, but more importantly I have studied the case in detail.")

Anonymous, I take your point about how a reader might have inferred that Palme made his complaint knowing that it was unfounded. How's this?

Your repeated claim that "there was no investigation of the complaint" is complete nonsense. The three judges listened to the audio recording and interviewed both Moreno-Ocampo and the alleged victim, both of whom unambiguously denied the allegation. What more could an investigator do?

The only evidence for the allegation was the recorded telephone call. The person who made the claim in the telephone call later changed her story and denied the incident ever happened. The judges were apparently satisfied that the claims made in the telephone call were untrue.

The "highly competent legal analysis" you refer to is just an anonymous online commentary. How do you know it was written by a written by a "former legal adviser of the ICC judiciary"? Funny how all the people focusing on this alleged incident are anonymous, and they're all based in Stockholm. Polemarchus (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: there was no investigation. The panel of judges and the presidency only has one task: to decide whether the complaint is a) anonymous and/or b) unfounded. See Regulation 121 of the Regulations of the Court. The article as it stands now is false and biased in favour of the ICC. It excludes the findings of the ILOAT as regards the complaint being not unfounded. It is a disgusting, terrible and useless piece aimed at exonerating and protecting Moreno-Ocampo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.24.2 (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[undent]

You may think the article's "disgusting, terrible and useless", but it reflects our policy on living people:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

If you want to suggest that Moreno-Ocampo committed sexual misconduct, find a reliable, published source that says so. If you want to claim that the investigation was a whitewash, cite a reliable source that says so — don't ask us to read between the lines of the ILO ruling. There are plenty of reliable legal experts out there who hate Luis Moreno-Ocampo, if there's any truth to these allegations it shouldn't be too hard to find someone who's willing to say so.

But in the absence of reliable sources, don't keep editing the article to imply that the sexual misconduct allegation was well-founded. Wikipedia's not the place to settle personal scores. Polemarchus (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On a supporting note, I should point out that the document that the anon quotes from extensively above has the initial footnote "For personal reasons, the author of this article does not wish to reveal his or her name. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Hague Justice Portal Editorial Board." An anonymous document without organizational backing probably has slightly less credibility than a random blog, which at least has a stable author. I think there is a decent chance that the author of that document is connected to the anonymous editor here, especially as 130.238.24.2 notes that the document's author is a "former legal adviser of the ICC judiciary", which is detail that doesn't seem to appear anywhere in that document. - BanyanTree 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

potential COI on allegations section

Since COI seems to have become a concern again, I should point out my previous post to WP:COIN, which I'll copy below. Note that one of the IPs I mention has joined the recent discussion above. - BanyanTree 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Luis Moreno-Ocampo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The bio subject, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has recently been in the news for apparent inappropriate sexual advances towards a subordinate. The relevant wiki content has been continually expanded and tweaked, with references, by a number of accounts and IPs. One of the first Mark Klamberg (talk · contribs) added shares a name with the author of an article he uses as a citation, where he is described as "Doctoral candidate in international law at Stockholm University, previously law clerk at the ICC trial division in the Hague." He has not reappeared since I warned him of the apparent COI. The only editors who have touched the article since are all IPs: 83.226.141.18 (talk · contribs), which resolves to Stockholm, 130.238.24.2 (talk · contribs), which resolves to Uppsala University in Sweden, 77.241.128.134 (talk · contribs), Stockholm, 130.237.176.2 (talk · contribs), Stockholm University, and 79.138.174.66 (talk · contribs), Stockholm. Given that there is indeed a well-reported incident and the wiki content is pretty well-cited, I have limited myself to moving the content out of the lede to a new section, but I would appreciate another pair of eyes to re-evaluate given the BLP concerns and apparent COI and agenda-driven editing. Thanks, BanyanTree 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Uppsala University. Guess where Christian Palme works now?[2] Polemarchus (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TV Show

Moreno-Ocampo was the "host" (aka Judge) in a (sort of reality) TV Show called "Forum: La corte del pueblo" (Forum: People's Court). I think that should be mentioned in the article. dariopy (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)