The belief that heinous crimes cannot be forgiven anywhere on earth came to reality on November 5, 2006, when a sentence was passed by an Iraqi Court on Saddam Hussein.
Indeed, the crucial moment has arrived in which Cameroon and America must embrace and support the International Criminal Court (ICC), for, as Kofi Annan said in an Address Before the International Bar Association at its Fifth Anniversary, "there can be no global justice …unless the worst of crimes - crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes are subject to the law."
Only when the individual perpetrators of such horrible crimes are held accountable for their actions can true justice be said to exist within the international community.
It would be a sad commentary indeed if, as this year comes to a close, Cameroon, like its best friend, the United States, chooses not to join the vast majority of the international community in the implementation of an effective system of international justice.
The ICC - unlike the International Court of Justice, which resolves quarrels between countries - will punish individuals who commit the despicable acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Despite the fierce opposition of the United States to the ICC Statute, United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, cut short a mission to Latin America to attend the signing ceremony and declared that the establishment of a permanent ICC was a "giant step toward universal human rights".
Before focusing on Cameroon's concerns with the ICC statute, it is worthwhile to quickly examine those provisions that the United States find uncomfortable. Ambassador Scheffer, who represented the United States in Rome, contends that the ICC jurisdiction over non-party States violates fundamental principles of international law.
Further, the US points out that not only are US soldiers stationed in foreign countries a risk, but that the overly broad jurisdiction of the ICC exposes military personnel serving in peacekeeping operations outside of the US to prosecutions.
The US government and military justify their hostilities towards the ICC's jurisdiction on the grounds that American peacekeepers stationed overseas, as representatives of the World's only remaining superpower, could become vulnerable to prosecution before a politicised court the US is not a party to.
The US contends this violates the international law principle that a treaty can not be applied to the State that is not a party to it.
Upon closer examination of the ICC Statute, many of the concerns of the US are unfounded because of the manner in which the ICC Statute was written and the safeguards contained within it.
First, the US argument that Article 12 violates international law because treaties can not be enforced against those States that are not a party to them is clearly wrong. Although, technically, the Rome Treaty allows for a defendant to be from a non-party
State that has not ratified the treaty, the 1949 Geneva Convention previously gave foreign courts permission to undertake prosecutions in international wars and current international law allows a State in custody of a suspect to try that person on charges of genocides, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Against this backdrop, it is hard to discern the intention of the US and Cameroon. International law is made from the behaviours of States. That is why individual States are "legally permitted to prosecute and punish these indefensible crimes wherever, and by whomever, they are committed.
Universal jurisdiction is the idea that some crimes are so universally barbaric that those who commit such crimes are enemies of all people and allows that jurisdiction be based solely on securing custody of the perpetrator."
In sum, the decision of the US and Cameroon not to ratify the Statute establishing a permanent ICC is a result of flawed legal analysis, limited views and lack of vision on the part of the respective government officials.
It is not too late, though, for the two friends to reconsider their position. The Biya administration should re-evaluate its arguments concerning the ICC and, then, actively support the ICC by joining Lesotho, South Africa, Nigeria and a host of other African countries that have already ratified the Statute.
At this moment in history, the US should be leading the international community in wiping away the impunity that States and individuals have enjoyed during the twentieth century by vesting the ICC with the resources, dollars and political support it will need to bring those who transgress international law to justice.
Tambe Tiku,Human Rights Advocate
Comments