Limits to Holding Tyrants Accountable Re "Arab Uprisings Point Up Flaws in Global Court" (front page, July 8): There are indeed flaws in the procedure for bringing dictators who commit crimes against their own people to justice in the International Criminal Court, as there are in any procedure that mixes law with politics. But universal jurisdiction, which is not confined to cases brought at the I.C.C., holds that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators, as "enemies of humanity," should be subject to trial anywhere in the world. A number of countries, including Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and Australia, have already enacted laws based on this concept, which have been upheld by their courts. Universal jurisdiction is too important a principle to be written off because of faltering baby steps in the first stage of its implementation. PETER WEISS V.P., Center for Constitutional Rights New York, July 8, 2012 The "flaws" highlighted by the failure to hold Arab dictators to account are not the International Criminal Court's, but those of the same governments - China, Russia and the United States - that, in their refusal to join the court, perpetuate the inequality of global power. As a judicial institution operating in a political world, the I.C.C. is only as strong as the support states give it. In the long run, the court's credibility depends on its ability to prosecute anyone, regardless of position or nationality, who commits grave crimes. That's what the rule of law means. JAMES A. GOLDSTON Executive Director Open Society Justice Initiative New York, July 8, 2012 A key factor in accounting for the Security Council's restraint on the question of Yemen, as opposed to Libya, is that in Yemen there was an agreement for a transfer of power, which didn't erase the violent repression and loss of life that preceded it, but at least held out the promise that the violence would end. As part of due diligence, the Security Council may have looked for advice to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, whose envoy helped work out the transfer-of-power agreement. Given his endorsement of the agreement, the Council could conclude that the provision under which the outgoing president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and those who served under him were granted "immunity from law and judicial prosecution" was acceptable. But the secretary general seems to have disregarded the guidelines issued to United Nations envoys by his predecessor, Kofi Annan, under which the United Nations must not be associated with amnesties for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. On that basis, the United Nations envoy in the negotiations that led to the 1999 Lomé Agreement to end the violence in Sierra Leone reserved the United Nations" position with regard to the "absolute and free pardon" for the monstrous Foday Sankoh, leader of the Revolutionary United Front. Without this reservation it would have been difficult for the United Nations and the government of Sierra Leone to create the Special Court that recently imprisoned Charles Taylor of Liberia for 50 years. The writer was United Nations under secretary general from 1999 to 2007. Your article describes the International Criminal Court's lack of jurisdiction in the 73 countries that have not yet ratified its statute, except when the Security Council assigns it a case. But that is exactly what the Clinton administration intended, as it sought to check European and Latin governments" enthusiasm for a court and a prosecutor with universal reach. In the end, President Bill Clinton did sign the court statute, disproving the article's contention that "constitutional issues" have been the roadblock to American ratification. Senator Jesse Helms forthrightly identified the real fear for the right: that top American officials could be held accountable for aggressive use of military power. JEFFREY LAURENTI Senior Fellow, Century Foundation New York, July 9, 2012