It has been reported that that the Chilcot report into the Iraq war could be used to prosecute British troops at The Hague.
It has been reported by many that that the Chilcot report into the Iraq war could be used to prosecute British troops at The Hague.
According to some newspapers, prosecutors at the International Criminal Court confirmed that they would examine the 2.6 million-word report for evidence of war crimes by British troops.
This is reported by the Times, Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. Former Defence Minister Sir Gerald Howarth called for Britain to leave the ICC if troops are pursued in such a way.
Senior figures from Labour and the Scottish National party are meanwhile considering calls for legal action against Mr Blair if the former prime minister faces severe criticisms from the long-awaited inquiry into the war in Iraq, according to the Guardian.
It is understood however that the legality or illegality of the Iraq war was never a question Sir John Chilcot was asked to deal with in his inquiry.
Lord Robin Butler said:
“What Chilcot was asked to deal with was what happened, not only in the lead-up to the war but during the war and after the war, and what lessons can be learned from it. The legal issue wasn’t actually put to him. His review team wasn’t equipped properly to deal with that issue.”
The Iraq Inquiry, also referred to as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, is a public inquiry into the nation’s role in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced in 2009 by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with an initial announcement that proceedings would take place in private, a decision which was subsequently reversed after receiving criticism in the media and the House of Commons.
The inquiry covered the run-up to the conflict, the subsequent military action and its aftermath with the purpose to establish the way decisions were made, to determine what happened and to identify lessons to ensure that in a similar situation in future, the British government is equipped to respond in the most effective manner.
The inquiry heard evidence from a variety of witnesses, such as politicians, including several cabinet ministers at the time of the invasion; senior civil servants, including lawyers and intelligence chiefs; diplomats, mostly composed of British ambassadors to Iraq and the United States; and high-ranking military officers including former Chiefs of the General Staff and Chiefs of the Defence Staff as well as senior operational commanders.