Dr Payam Akhavan is professor of law at the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He was the chief legal advisor for the Government of Uganda to the International Criminal Court before it issued warrants in 2005 against the LRA top leadership. Rosebell Kagumire interviewed him. Excerpts: -

When were you a legal advisor to the Ugandan government regarding the LRA case at the International Criminal Court?

I became legal advisor to the Ugandan government before they forwarded the Lord's Resistance Army rebels' case to International Criminal Court in 2003 and I went on until 2005.

Considering that once a state has involved the ICC there is almost no turning back, how easy was it for you to persuade the Ugandan government to move forward on the case?

Considering this was the first case before the ICC, there was some uncertainty on the Ugandan government side as well as the ICC about how this case would work in practice. There was no previous experience to look at in determining the outcome. It took some days of discussion but the Ugandan government understood well that it was in the interest of the people of Uganda to internationalise the LRA case through an ICC referral.

I think it was apparent that involving the ICC was an effective way of engaging the western powers who had ignored the situation in northern Uganda. In the post 9/11 climate, most governments were focused on other parts of the world, not in Northern Uganda. I am sure that if there was a connection between Joseph Kony and Al Qaeda, the situation would have been different!

This was the basic thinking behind the LRA referral: to internationalise the issue in order to bring an end to the insurgency and the atrocities.

Do you think involving the ICC was the right thing to do?

Yes, without doubt. The Ugandan government was concerned about the LRA's continuing atrocities. Because the LRA operated from bases in the Sudan, Ugandan forces could not effectively confront the insurgency without international engagement. The ICC referral engaged the Western powers who pressured Sudan to stop harbouring the LRA, or at least to allow Ugandan forces to attack their bases, and this seriously impaired their capability to terrorise northern Uganda and then to retreat into Sudan out of reach of Ugandan forces. So I think the government was wise in pursuing this course of action because it resulted in denying the LRA a safe haven in Sudan from which it could operate.

Why did you step down in 2005?

Once the referral went well and the arrest warrants were issued, I was satisfied that my role had come to an end, at least until there are arrests which may require further involvement to protect the government's interests in the case.

The rebels have been negotiating with the Ugandan government since last year but they still insist that an agreement won't be signed unless the warrants are revoked. How do you weigh the impact of the indictments on the peace process in northern Uganda?

If we hadn't referred the LRA case to the ICC, we wouldn't be talking about the peace talks and the end of the rebellion. It is the very reason why the LRA leaders are seeking immunity. The indictments forced the LRA leaders to look at their fight differently. Once the warrants were in the process, we saw many defections of high ranking LRA officers and gradual decrease in the deadly attacks on civilians in the north.

Also the referral put pressure on Sudan to allow the Ugandan government to pursue the rebels in their hideouts in South Sudan. To me the ICC indictments are not standing in the way of bringing peace to northern Uganda because they brought Joseph Kony and his rebels to the table. The warrants are part of the process of peace-building.

We have to make the victims of the war understand that to have lasting peace there has to be justice and I don't see a strong traditional system to handle the LRA case in Uganda. Although the victims will wait a little longer, northern Uganda has started to experience peace.

What do you make of suggestions to have the indictments revoked?

In principle, if you have referred the case there is no withdrawing. It is not a question of Uganda government deciding to request for the warrants to be revoked. If Joseph Kony and other leaders are left to enjoy immunity, this will set a bad precedent. Other rebels and dictators could easily commit mass killings and crimes against humanity and also get away with it. The victims must be respected and holding the oppressors accountable is one of the ways to show that.

Revoking the LRA warrants should be of great concern to the whole African continent. In future Sudanese government officials could also ask for amnesty. The Sudanese government supported the LRA to commit war crimes, and the same government is fuelling a genocide in Darfur. If Uganda gets the indictments revoked, this will have grave effects on international law. It will be very hard to hold Sudan responsible for all these crimes.

How do you think LRA case should proceed?

The International Criminal Court and the UN should look at the circumstances in Uganda and find the best way to proceed. The LRA case is unique in a way. True there is need to take-peace building in northern Uganda into account when dealing with this case. [But] I believe it is not necessary that the warrants be immediately executed. The ICC should stay the warrants until circumstances are okay to effect them.