International Criminal Court

Not to be confused with the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt)^[2] is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. It is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states. While praised as a major step towards justice,^[3] and as an innovation in international law and human rights,^[4] the ICC has faced a number of criticisms from governments and civil society, including objections to its jurisdiction, accusations of bias, Eurocentrism and racism,^[5] questioning of the fairness of its case-selection and trial procedures, and doubts about its effectiveness.

International Criminal Court Cour pénale internationale (French) المحكمة الجنائية الدولية (Arabic) 国际刑事法院 (Chinese) Международный уголовный суд (Russian) Corte Penal Internacional (Spanish)
Official logo
Parties and signatories of the Rome Statute   State party   Signatory that has not ratified   State party that subsequently withdrew its membership   Signatory that subsequently withdrew its signature   Not a state party, not a signatory
Seat	The Hague, Netherlands
Working languages	English French
Official languages^[1]	6 languages Arabic Chinese English French Russian Spanish
Member states	123
Leaders
• President	Piotr Hofmański
• First Vice-President	Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza
• Second Vice-President	Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua
• Prosecutor	Karim Ahmad Khan
• Registrar	Peter Lewis
Establishment
• Rome Statute adopted	17 July 1998
• Entered into force	1 July 2002
Website www.icc-cpi.int

History

 

The premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC moved into this building in December 2015.

The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 following the First World War by the Commission of Responsibilities.^[6] The issue was addressed again at a conference held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations in 1937, which resulted in the conclusion of the first convention stipulating the establishment of a permanent international court to try acts of international terrorism. The convention was signed by 13 states, but none ratified it and the convention never entered into force.^{[citation needed]}

Following the Second World War, the allied powers established two ad hoc tribunals to prosecute Axis leaders accused of war crimes. The International Military Tribunal, which sat in Nuremberg, prosecuted German leaders while the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo prosecuted Japanese leaders. In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly first recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind prosecuted after the Second World War.^[7] At the request of the General Assembly, the International Law Commission (ILC) drafted two statutes by the early 1950s but these were shelved during the Cold War, which made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.^[8]

Benjamin B. Ferencz, an investigator of Nazi war crimes after the Second World War, and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, became a vocal advocate of the establishment of international rule of law and of an international criminal court. In his first book published in 1975, entitled Defining International Aggression: The Search for World Peace, he advocated for the establishment of such a court.^[9] Another leading proponent was Robert Kurt Woetzel, a German-born professor of international law, who co-edited Toward a Feasible International Criminal Court in 1970 and created the Foundation for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in 1971.^[10]

Formal proposal and establishment

In June 1989, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, A. N. R. Robinson, revived the idea of a permanent international criminal court by proposing the creation of tribunal to address the illegal drug trade.^[8][11] In response, the General Assembly tasked the ILC with once again drafting a statute for a permanent court.^[12] While work began on the draft, the United Nations Security Council established two ad hoc tribunals in the early 1990s: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, created in 1993 in response to large-scale atrocities committed by armed forces during Yugoslav Wars, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, created in 1994 following the Rwandan genocide. The creation of these tribunals further highlighted to many the need for a permanent international criminal court.^[13]

In 1994, the ILC presented its final draft statute for the International Criminal Court to the General Assembly and recommended that a conference be convened to negotiate a treaty that would serve as the Court's statute.^[14] To consider major substantive issues in the draft statute, the General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, which met twice in 1995. After considering the Committee's report, the General Assembly created the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of the ICC to prepare a consolidated draft text. From 1996 to 1998, six sessions of the Preparatory Committee were held at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, during which NGOs provided input and attended meetings under the umbrella organisation of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC). In January 1998, the Bureau and coordinators of the Preparatory Committee convened for an Inter-Sessional meeting in Zutphen in the Netherlands to technically consolidate and restructure the draft articles into a draft.

Finally, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing the treaty to serve as the Court's statute. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to seven, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.^[15] Israel's opposition to the treaty stemmed from the inclusion in the list of war crimes "the action of transferring population into occupied territory".^[16]

Following 60 ratifications, the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 and the International Criminal Court was formally established.^[17] The first bench of 18 judges was elected by the Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the inaugural session of the Court on 11 March 2003.^[18] The Court issued its first arrest warrants on 8 July 2005,^[19] and the first pre-trial hearings were held in 2006.^[20] The Court issued its first judgment in 2012 when it found Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo guilty of war crimes related to using child soldiers.^[21]

In 2010, the states parties of the Rome Statute held the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda.^[22] The Review Conference led to the adoption of two resolutions that amended the crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court. Resolution 5 amended Article 8 on war crimes, criminalizing the use of certain kinds of weapons in non-international conflicts whose use was already forbidden in international conflicts. Resolution 6, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Statute, provided the definition and a procedure for jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.^[23]

Operation of the Court

The ICC began operations on 1 July 2002, upon the entry into force of the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty that serves as the court's charter and governing document. States which become party to the Rome Statute become members of the ICC, serving on the Assembly of States Parties, which administers the court. As of March 2022, there are 123 ICC member states; 42 states have neither signed nor become parties to the Rome Statute.^[24]

Intended to serve as the "court of last resort", the ICC complements existing national judicial systems and may exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals.^[25] It lacks universal territorial jurisdiction and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.

The ICC has four principal organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. The President is the most senior judge chosen by his or her peers in the Judicial Division, which is composed of eighteen judges and hears cases before the Court. The Office of the Prosecutor is headed by the Prosecutor, who investigates crimes and initiates criminal proceedings before the Judicial Division. The Registry is headed by the Registrar and is charged with managing all the administrative functions of the ICC, including the headquarters, detention unit, and public defense office. The ICC employs over 900 personnel from roughly 100 countries and conducts proceedings in English and French.^[26]

The ICC held its first hearing in 2006, concerning war crimes charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese warlord accused of recruiting child soldiers; his subsequent conviction in 2012 was the first in the court's history. The Office of the Prosecutor has opened twelve official investigations and is conducting an additional nine preliminary examinations. A total of 46 individuals have been indicted in the ICC, including Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, former President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi, President Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast and former Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Opposition to the Court

The George W. Bush administration signed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, (informally referred to as The Hague Invasion Act), to signify the United States' opposition to any possible future jurisdiction of the court or its tribunals.^[27][28] During the administration of Barack Obama, US opposition to the ICC evolved to "positive engagement", although no effort was made to ratify the Rome Statute.^[29] The subsequent Donald Trump administration was considerably more hostile to the Court, similar to the Bush administration threatening prosecutions and financial sanctions on ICC judges and staff in US courts as well as imposing visa bans in response to any investigation against American nationals in connection to alleged crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. in Afghanistan. The threat included sanctions against any of over 120 countries which have ratified the Court for cooperating in the process.^[30] Following the imposition of sanctions on 11 June 2020 by the Trump administration, the court branded the sanctions an "attack against the interests of victims of atrocity crimes" and an "unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of law". The UN also regretted the effect sanctions may have on trials and investigations underway, saying its independence must be protected.^[31][32]

In October 2016, after repeated claims that the court was biased against African states, Burundi, South Africa and the Gambia announced their withdrawals from the Rome Statute.^[33] However, following Gambia's presidential election later that year, which ended the long rule of Yahya Jammeh, Gambia rescinded its withdrawal notification.^[34] A decision by the High Court of South Africa in early 2017 ruled that the attempted withdrawal was unconstitutional, as it had not been agreed by Parliament, prompting the South African government to inform the UN that it was revoking its decision to withdraw.^[35]

In November 2017, Fatou Bensouda advised the court to consider seeking charges for human rights abuses committed during the War in Afghanistan such as alleged rapes and tortures by the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency, crime against humanity committed by the Taliban, and war crimes committed by the Afghan National Security Forces.^[36] John Bolton, National Security Advisor of the United States, stated that ICC Court had no jurisdiction over the US, which did not ratify the Rome Statute. In 2020, overturning the previous decision not to proceed, senior judges at the ICC authorized an investigation into the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.^[37] However, in June 2020, the decision to proceed led the Trump administration to power an economic and legal attack on the court. "The US government has reason to doubt the honesty of the ICC. The Department of Justice has received substantial credible information that raises serious concerns about a long history of financial corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels of the office of the prosecutor", Attorney General William Barr said. The ICC responded with a statement expressing "profound regret at the announcement of further threats and coercive actions." "These attacks constitute an escalation and an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of law and the Court's judicial proceedings", the statement said. "They are announced with the declared aim of influencing the actions of ICC officials in the context of the court's independent and objective investigations and impartial judicial proceedings."^[38]

Following the announcement that the ICC would open a preliminary investigation on the Philippines in connection to its escalating drug war, President Rodrigo Duterte announced on 14 March 2018 that the Philippines would start to submit plans to withdraw, completing the process on 17 March 2019. The ICC pointed out that it retained jurisdiction over the Philippines during the period when it was a state party to the Rome Statute, from November 2011 to March 2019.^[39]

On 30 September 2020, prominent United States human rights lawyers announced that they would sue Trump and his Administration—including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, attorney general William Barr, and OFAC director Andrea Gacki, and the departments they head—on the grounds that Trump's Executive Order 13928 order had gagged them, violating their right to free speech and impeding their work in trying to obtain justice on behalf of victims of war crimes. One of the plaintiffs, Diane Marie Amann, stated that, as a result of sanctions against the chief prosecutor at the ICC, she herself risked having her family assets seized if she continued to work for children who are bought and sold by traffickers, killed, tortured, sexually abused and forced to become child soldiers.^[40]

On January 4, 2021, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in New York City issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration from imposing criminal or civil penalties against ICC personnel and those who support the court's work, including the plaintiffs.^[41]

Structure

The ICC is governed by the Assembly of States Parties, which is made up of the states that are party to the Rome Statute.^[42] The Assembly elects officials of the Court, approves its budget, and adopts amendments to the Rome Statute. The Court itself, however, is composed of four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.^[43]

State parties

Main article: States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

As of November 2019^[update], 123 states^[44] are parties to the Statute of the Court, including all the countries of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and roughly half of Africa.^[45][46] Burundi and the Philippines were member states, but later withdrew effective 27 October 2017^[47] and 17 March 2019,^[48] respectively.^[45][46] A further 31 countries^[44] have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.^[45][46] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from "acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty.^[49] Four signatory states—Israel,^[50] Sudan,^[51] the United States^[52][53] and Russia^[54]—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute.^[45][46]

Forty-one additional states^[44] have neither signed nor acceded to the Rome Statute. Some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.^[55][56] Ukraine, a non-ratifying signatory, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction for a period starting in 2013.^[57]

Assembly of States Parties

The Court's management oversight and legislative body, the Assembly of States Parties, consists of one representative from each state party.^[58] Each state party has one vote and "every effort" has to be made to reach decisions by consensus.^[58] If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by vote.^[58] The Assembly is presided over by a president and two vice-presidents, who are elected by the members to three-year terms.

The Assembly meets in full session once a year, alternating between New York and The Hague, and may also hold special sessions where circumstances require.^[58] Sessions are open to observer states and non-governmental organizations.^[59]

The Assembly elects the judges and prosecutors, decides the Court's budget, adopts important texts (such as the Rules of Procedure and Evidence), and provides management oversight to the other organs of the Court.^[42][58] Article 46 of the Rome Statute allows the Assembly to remove from office a judge or prosecutor who "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or "is unable to exercise the functions required by this Statute".^[60]

The states parties cannot interfere with the judicial functions of the Court.^[61] Disputes concerning individual cases are settled by the Judicial Divisions.^[61]

In 2010, Kampala, Uganda hosted the Assembly's Rome Statute Review Conference.^[62]

Organs of the Court

The Court has four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Division, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.

Presidency

Main article: Presidency of the International Criminal Court

 

Song Sang-hyun was President of the Court from 2009 to 2015.

The Presidency is responsible for the proper administration of the Court (apart from the Office of the Prosecutor).^[63] It comprises the President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents—three judges of the Court who are elected to the Presidency by their fellow judges for a maximum of two three-year terms.^[64]

As of March 2021, the President is Piotr Hofmański from Poland, who took office on 11 March 2021, succeeding Chile Eboe-Osuji. His first term will expire in 2024.^[65]

Judicial Divisions

Main article: Judges of the International Criminal Court

The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the Court, organized into three chambers—the Pre-Trial Chamber, Trial Chamber and Appeals Chamber—which carry out the judicial functions of the Court.^[66] Judges are elected to the Court by the Assembly of States Parties.^[66] They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for re-election.^[66] All judges must be nationals of states parties to the Rome Statute, and no two judges may be nationals of the same state.^[67] They must be "persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices".^[67]

The Prosecutor or any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a judge from "any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground".^[68] Any request for the disqualification of a judge from a particular case is decided by an absolute majority of the other judges.^[68] Judges may be removed from office if "found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or is unable to exercise his or her functions.^[60] The removal of a judge requires both a two-thirds majority of the other judges and a two-thirds majority of the states parties.^[60]

Office of the Prosecutor

Main article: Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

 

ICC prosecutors Fatou Bensouda and Luis Moreno Ocampo, with Estonia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Urmas Paet, in 2012

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions.^[69] It is headed by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who is assisted by one or more Deputy Prosecutors.^[43] The Rome Statute provides that the Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently;^[70] as such, no member of the Office may seek or act on instructions from any external source, such as states, international organisations, non-governmental organisations or individuals.^[69]

The Prosecutor may open an investigation under three circumstances:^[69]

• when a situation is referred to him or her by a state party;
• when a situation is referred to him or her by the United Nations Security Council, acting to address a threat to international peace and security; or
• when the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises him or her to open an investigation on the basis of information received from other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations.

Any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a prosecutor from any case "in which their impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground".^[70] Requests for the disqualification of prosecutors are decided by the Appeals Chamber.^[70] A prosecutor may be removed from office by an absolute majority of the states parties if he or she "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or is unable to exercise his or her functions.^[60] However, critics of the Court argue that there are "insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges" and "insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses".^[71] Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief ICC prosecutor, stressed in 2011 the importance of politics in prosecutions: "You cannot say al-Bashir is in London, arrest him. You need a political agreement."^[72] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor "has virtually unlimited discretion in practice".^[73]

As of 16 June 2012, the Prosecutor has been Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, who had been elected as the new Prosecutor on 12 December 2011.^[74] She has been elected for nine years.^[69] Her predecessor, Luis Moreno Ocampo of Argentina, had been in office from 2003 to 2012.

On Friday, 12 February 2021, British barrister Karim Khan was selected in a secret ballot against three other candidates to replace the current lead prosecutor Fatou Bensouda as the new prosecutor. His nine-year term will start on 16 June 2021. While he was a British barrister, Khan headed the United Nations’ special investigative team when it looked into Islamic State crimes in Iraq. At the ICC, he has been a lead defense counsel on cases from Kenya, Sudan and Libya.^[75]

Policy Paper

A Policy Paper is a document published by the Office of the Prosecutor occasionally where the particular considerations given to the topics in focus of the Office and often criteria for case selection are stated.^[76] While a policy paper does not give the Court jurisdiction over a new category of crimes, it promises what the Office of Prosecutor will consider when selecting cases in the upcoming term of service. OTP's policy papers are subject to revision.^[77]

The five following Policy Papers have been published since the start of the ICC:

• 1 September 2007: Policy Paper on the Interest of Justice^[78]
• 12 April 2010: Policy Paper on Victims' Participation^[79]
• 1 November 2013: Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations^[80]
• 20 June 2014: Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes^[81]
• 15 September 2016: Policy paper on case selection and prioritisation^[82]
• 15 November 2016: Policy on Children^[83]

Environmental crimes

On the Policy Paper published in September 2016 it was announced that the International Criminal Court will focus on environmental crimes when selecting the cases.^[84] According to this document, the Office will give particular consideration to prosecuting Rome Statute crimes that are committed by means of, or that result in, "inter alia, the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land".^[85]

This has been interpreted as a major shift towards the environmental crimes^[86][87] and a move with significant effects.^[88][89]

Registry

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court.^[90] This includes, among other things, "the administration of legal aid matters, court management, victims and witnesses matters, defence counsel, detention unit, and the traditional services provided by administrations in international organisations, such as finance, translation, building management, procurement and personnel".^[90] The Registry is headed by the Registrar, who is elected by the judges to a five-year term.^[43] The previous Registrar was Herman von Hebel, who was elected on 8 March 2013.^[91] The current Registrar is Peter Lewis, who was elected on 28 March 2018.^[92]

Jurisdiction and admissibility

The Rome Statute requires that several criteria exist in a particular case before an individual can be prosecuted by the Court. The Statute contains three jurisdictional requirements and three admissibility requirements. All criteria must be met for a case to proceed. The three jurisdictional requirements are (1) subject-matter jurisdiction (what acts constitute crimes), (2) territorial or personal jurisdiction (where the crimes were committed or who committed them), and (3) temporal jurisdiction (when the crimes were committed).

Process

The process to establish the Court's jurisdiction may be "triggered" by any one of three possible sources: (1) a State party, (2) the Security Council or (3) a Prosecutor. It is then up to the Prosecutor acting ex proprio motu ("of his own motion" so to speak) to initiate an investigation under the requirements of Article 15 of the Rome Statute. The procedure is slightly different when referred by a State Party or the Security Council, in which cases the Prosecutor does not need authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber to initiate the investigation. Where there is a reasonable basis to proceed, it is mandatory for the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation. The factors listed in Article 53 considered for reasonable basis include whether the case would be admissible, and whether there are substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice (the latter stipulates balancing against the gravity of the crime and the interests of the victims).^[93]

Subject-matter jurisdiction requirements

The Court's subject-matter jurisdiction means the crimes for which individuals can be prosecuted. Individuals can only be prosecuted for crimes that are listed in the Statute. The primary crimes are listed in article 5 of the Statute and defined in later articles: genocide (defined in article 6), crimes against humanity (defined in article 7), war crimes (defined in article 8), and crimes of aggression (defined in article 8 bis) (which is not yet within the jurisdiction of the Court; see below).^[94] In addition, article 70 defines offences against the administration of justice, which is a fifth category of crime for which individuals can be prosecuted.

Genocide

Article 6 defines the crime of genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".^[95] There are five such acts which constitute crimes of genocide under article 6:^[96]

1. Killing members of a group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The definition of these crimes is identical to those contained within the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.

Crimes against humanity

Article 7 defines crimes against humanity as acts "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack".^[97] The article lists 16 such as individual crimes:^[98]

1. Murder
2. Extermination
3. Enslavement
4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population^[99]
5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty
6. Torture
7. Rape
8. Sexual slavery
9. Enforced prostitution
10. Forced pregnancy
11. Enforced sterilization
12. Sexual violence
13. Persecution
14. Enforced disappearance of persons
15. Apartheid
16. Other inhumane acts

War crimes

Article 8 defines war crimes depending on whether an armed conflict is either international (which generally means it is fought between states) or non-international (which generally means that it is fought between non-state actors, such as rebel groups, or between a state and such non-state actors). In total there are 74 war crimes listed in article 8.^[98] The most serious crimes, however, are those that constitute either grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which only apply to international conflicts,^[98] and serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which apply to non-international conflicts.^[100]

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:^[98]

1. Willful killing
2. Torture
3. Inhumane treatment
4. Biological experiments
5. Willfully causing great suffering
6. Destruction and appropriation of property
7. Compelling service in hostile forces
8. Denying a fair trial
9. Unlawful deportation and transfer
10. Unlawful confinement
11. Taking hostages

There are seven crimes which constitute serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to non-international armed conflicts:^[98]

1. Murder
2. Mutilation
3. Cruel treatment
4. Torture
5. Outrages upon personal dignity
6. Taking hostages
7. Sentencing or execution without due process

Additionally, there are 56 other crimes defined by article 8: 35 that apply to international armed conflicts and 21 that apply to non-international armed conflicts.^[98] Such crimes include attacking civilians or civilian objects, attacking peacekeepers, causing excessive incidental death or damage, transferring populations into occupied territories, treacherously killing or wounding, denying quarter, pillaging, employing poison, using expanding bullets, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and conscripting or using child soldiers.^[101]

Crimes of aggression

Article 8 bis defines crimes of aggression. The Statute originally provided that the Court could not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agreed on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it could be prosecuted.^[7][102] Such an amendment was adopted at the first review conference of the ICC in Kampala, Uganda, in June 2010. However, this amendment specified that the ICC would not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction of the crime of aggression until two further conditions had been satisfied: (1) the amendment has entered into force for 30 states parties and (2) on or after 1 January 2017, the Assembly of States Parties has voted in favor of allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction. On 26 June 2016 the first condition was satisfied^[103] and the state parties voted in favor of allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction on 14 December 2017.^[104] The Court's jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of aggression was accordingly activated on 17 July 2018.^[104]

The Statute, as amended, defines the crime of aggression as "the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations."^[105] The Statute defines an "act of aggression" as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations."^[106] The article also contains a list of seven acts of aggression, which are identical to those in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 of 1974 and include the following acts when committed by one state against another state:^[107]

1. Invasion or attack by armed forces against territory
2. Military occupation of territory
3. Annexation of territory
4. Bombardment against territory
5. Use of any weapons against territory
6. Blockade of ports or coasts
7. Attack on the land, sea, or air forces or marine and air fleets
8. The use of armed forces which are within the territory of another state by agreement, but in contravention of the conditions of the agreement
9. Allowing territory to be used by another state to perpetrate an act of aggression against a third state
10. Sending armed bands, groups, irregulars, or mercenaries to carry out acts of armed force

Offences against the administration of justice

Article 70 criminalizes certain intentional acts which interfere with investigations and proceedings before the Court, including giving false testimony, presenting false evidence, corruptly influencing a witness or official of the Court, retaliating against an official of the Court, and soliciting or accepting bribes as an official of the Court.^[108]

Territorial or personal jurisdiction requirements

For an individual to be prosecuted by the Court either territorial jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction must exist. Therefore, an individual can only be prosecuted if he or she has either (1) committed a crime within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or (2) committed a crime while being a national of a state that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Territorial jurisdiction

The territorial jurisdiction of the Court includes the territory, registered vessels, and registered aircraft of states which have either (1) become party to the Rome Statute or (2) accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a declaration with the Court.^[109]

In situations that are referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council, the territorial jurisdiction is defined by the Security Council, which may be more expansive than the Court's normal territorial jurisdiction.^[110] For example, if the Security Council refers a situation that took place in the territory of a state that has both not become party to the Rome Statute and not lodged a declaration with the Court, the Court will still be able to prosecute crimes that occurred within that state.

Personal jurisdiction

The personal jurisdiction of the Court extends to all natural persons who commit crimes, regardless of where they are located or where the crimes were committed, as long as those individuals are nationals of either (1) states that are party to the Rome Statute or (2) states that have accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a declaration with the Court.^[109] As with territorial jurisdiction, the personal jurisdiction can be expanded by the Security Council if it refers a situation to the Court.^[110]

Temporal jurisdiction requirements

Temporal jurisdiction is the time period over which the Court can exercise its powers. No statute of limitations applies to any of the crimes defined in the Statute.^[111] However, the Court's jurisdiction is not completely retroactive. Individuals can only be prosecuted for crimes that took place on or after 1 July 2002, which is the date that the Rome Statute entered into force.^[112] If a state became party to the Statute, and therefore a member of the Court, after 1 July 2002, then the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction prior to the membership date for certain cases.^[113] For example, if the Statute entered into force for a state on 1 January 2003, the Court could only exercise temporal jurisdiction over crimes that took place in that state or were committed by a national of that state on or after 1 January 2003.

Admissibility requirements

To initiate an investigation, the Prosecutor must (1) have a "reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed", (2) the investigation would be consistent with the principle of complementarity, and (3) the investigation serves the interests of justice.^[114]

Complementarity

The principle of complementarity means that the Court will only prosecute an individual if states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Therefore, if legitimate national investigations or proceedings into crimes have taken place or are ongoing, the Court will not initiate proceedings. This principle applies regardless of the outcome of national proceedings.^[115] Even if an investigation is closed without any criminal charges being filed or if an accused person is acquitted by a national court, the Court will not prosecute an individual for the crime in question so long as it is satisfied that the national proceedings were legitimate. However, the actual application of the complementarity principle has recently come under theoretical scrutiny.^[116][115]

Gravity

The Court will only initiate proceedings if a crime is of "sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court".^[117]

Interests of justice

The Prosecutor will initiate an investigation unless there are "substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice" when "[t]aking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims".^[118] Furthermore, even if an investigation has been initiated and there are substantial facts to warrant a prosecution and no other admissibility issues, the Prosecutor must determine whether a prosecution would serve the interests of justice "taking into account all the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and the age or infirmity of the alleged perpetrator, and his or her role in the alleged crime".^[119]

Individual criminal responsibility

The Court has jurisdiction over natural persons.^[120] A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court is individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with the Rome Statute.^[121] In accordance with the Rome Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person: Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;^[122] Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;^[123] For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;^[124] In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose.^[125] In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;^[126] Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions^[127]

Procedure

Trial

Trials are conducted under a hybrid common law and civil law judicial system, but it has been argued the procedural orientation and character of the court is still evolving.^[128] A majority of the three judges present, as triers of fact in a bench trial, may reach a decision, which must include a full and reasoned statement.^[129] Trials are supposed to be public, but proceedings are often closed, and such exceptions to a public trial have not been enumerated in detail.^[130] In camera proceedings are allowed for protection of witnesses or defendants as well as for confidential or sensitive evidence.^[131] Hearsay and other indirect evidence is not generally prohibited, but it has been argued the court is guided by hearsay exceptions which are prominent in common law systems.^[132] There is no subpoena or other means to compel witnesses to come before the court, although the court has some power to compel testimony of those who chose to come before it, such as fines.^[133]

Rights of the accused

The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,^[134] and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during investigations.^[135] These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against them; the right to have a lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to examine the witnesses against them.

To ensure "equality of arms" between defence and prosecution teams, the ICC has established an independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD) to provide logistical support, advice and information to defendants and their counsel.^[136][137] The OPCD also helps to safeguard the rights of the accused during the initial stages of an investigation.^[138] However, Thomas Lubanga's defence team say they were given a smaller budget than the Prosecutor and that evidence and witness statements were slow to arrive.^[139]

Victim participation

One of the great innovations of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence is the series of rights granted to victims.^[140][141] For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims have the possibility under the Statute to present their views and observations before the Court.

Participation before the Court may occur at various stages of proceedings and may take different forms, although it will be up to the judges to give directions as to the timing and manner of participation.

Participation in the Court's proceedings will in most cases take place through a legal representative and will be conducted "in a manner which is not prejudicial or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial".

The victim-based provisions within the Rome Statute provide victims with the opportunity to have their voices heard and to obtain, where appropriate, some form of reparation for their suffering. It is the aim of this attempted balance between retributive and restorative justice that, it is hoped, will enable the ICC to not only bring criminals to justice but also help the victims themselves obtain some form of justice. Justice for victims before the ICC comprises both procedural and substantive justice, by allowing them to participate and present their views and interests, so that they can help to shape truth, justice and reparations outcomes of the Court.^[142]

Article 43(6) establishes a Victims and Witnesses Unit to provide "protective measures and security arrangements, counseling and other appropriate assistance for witnesses, victims who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses."^[143] Article 68 sets out procedures for the "Protection of the victims and witnesses and their participation in the proceedings."^[144] The Court has also established an Office of Public Counsel for Victims, to provide support and assistance to victims and their legal representatives.^[145]

The ICC does not have its own witness protection program, but rather must rely on national programs to keep witnesses safe.^[146]

Reparations

Victims before the International Criminal Court can also claim reparations under Article 75 of the Rome Statute. Reparations can only be claimed when a defendant is convicted and at the discretion of the Court's judges.^[147] So far the Court has ordered reparations against Thomas Lubanga.^[148] Reparations can include compensation, restitution and rehabilitation, but other forms of reparations may be appropriate for individual, collective or community victims. Article 79 of the Rome Statute establishes a Trust Fund to provide assistance before a reparation order to victims in a situation or to support reparations to victims and their families if the convicted person has no money.^[149]

Co-operation by states not party to Rome Statute

One of the principles of international law is that a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for third states without their consent, and this is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.^[150] The co-operation of the non-party states with the ICC is envisioned by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to be of voluntary nature.^[151] However, even states that have not acceded to the Rome Statute might still be subjects to an obligation to co-operate with ICC in certain cases.^[152] When a case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council all UN member states are obliged to co-operate, since its decisions are binding for all of them.^[153] Also, there is an obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, which stems from the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I,^[154] which reflects the absolute nature of international humanitarian law.^[155]

In relation to co-operation in investigation and evidence gathering, it is implied from the Rome Statute^[156] that the consent of a non-party state is a prerequisite for ICC Prosecutor to conduct an investigation within its territory, and it seems that it is even more necessary for him to observe any reasonable conditions raised by that state, since such restrictions exist for states party to the Statute.^[152] Taking into account the experience of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (which worked with the principle of the primacy, instead of complementarity) in relation to co-operation, some scholars have expressed their pessimism as to the possibility of ICC to obtain co-operation of non-party states.^[152] As for the actions that ICC can take towards non-party states that do not co-operate, the Rome Statute stipulates that the Court may inform the Assembly of States Parties or Security Council, when the matter was referred by it, when non-party state refuses to co-operate after it has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the Court.^[157]

Amnesties and national reconciliation processes

It is unclear to what extent the ICC is compatible with reconciliation processes that grant amnesty to human rights abusers as part of agreements to end conflict.^[158] Article 16 of the Rome Statute allows the Security Council to prevent the Court from investigating or prosecuting a case,^[159] and Article 53 allows the Prosecutor the discretion not to initiate an investigation if he or she believes that "an investigation would not serve the interests of justice".^[160] Former ICC president Philippe Kirsch has said that "some limited amnesties may be compatible" with a country's obligations genuinely to investigate or prosecute under the Statute.^[158]

It is sometimes argued that amnesties are necessary to allow the peaceful transfer of power from abusive regimes. By denying states the right to offer amnesty to human rights abusers, the International Criminal Court may make it more difficult to negotiate an end to conflict and a transition to democracy. For example, the outstanding arrest warrants for four leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are regarded by some as an obstacle to ending the insurgency in Uganda.^[161][162] Czech politician Marek Benda argues that "the ICC as a deterrent will in our view only mean the worst dictators will try to retain power at all costs".^[163] However, the United Nations^[164] and the International Committee of the Red Cross^[165] maintain that granting amnesty to those accused of war crimes and other serious crimes is a violation of international law.

Facilities

Headquarters

International Criminal Court
General information
Status	Completed
Type	Office
Location	The Hague, Netherlands
Coordinates	52°6′20″N 4°19′4″E / 52.10556°N 4.31778°E / 52.10556; 4.31778Coordinates: 52°6′20″N 4°19′4″E / 52.10556°N 4.31778°E / 52.10556; 4.31778
Construction started	Autumn 2012
Opened	December 2015
Technical details
Floor area	52,000 m^2 (560,000 sq ft)
Design and construction
Architect(s)	schmidt hammer lassen
Developer	Combination Visser & Smit Bouw and Boele & van Eesteren ('Courtys')
Website
http://www.icc-permanentpremises.org

The official seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.^[166][167]

The Court moved into its first permanent premises in The Hague, located at Oude Waalsdorperweg 10, on 14 December 2015.^[168] Part of The Hague's International Zone,^[169] which also contains the Peace Palace, Europol, Eurojust, ICTY, OPCW and The Hague World Forum, the court facilities are situated on the site of the Alexanderkazerne, a former military barracks, adjacent to the dune landscape on the northern edge of the city. The ICC's detention centre is a short distance away.

Development

The land and financing for the new construction were provided by the Netherlands.^[170] In addition, the host state organised and financed the architectural design competition which started at the end of 2008.

Three architects were chosen by an international jury from a total of 171 applicants to enter into further negotiations. The Danish firm schmidt hammer lassen were ultimately selected to design the new premises since its design met all the ICC criteria, such as design quality, sustainability, functionality and costs.^[171]

Demolition of the barracks started in November 2011 and was completed in August 2012.^[172] In October 2012 the tendering procedure for the General Contractor was completed and the combination Visser & Smit Bouw and Boele & van Eesteren ("Courtys") was selected.^[173]

Architecture

The building has a compact footprint and consists of six connected building volumes with a garden motif. The tallest volume with a green facade, placed in the middle of the design, is the Court Tower that accommodates three courtrooms. The rest of the building's volumes accommodate the offices of the different organs of the ICC.^[174]

Exterior

Lobby (rendering)

Typical courtroom (rendering)

Provisional headquarters, 2002–2015

 

The former (provisional) headquarters of the ICC in The Hague, in use until December 2015

Until late 2015, the ICC was housed in interim premises in The Hague provided by the Netherlands.^[175] Formerly belonging to KPN, the provisional headquarters were located at Maanweg 174 in the east-central portion of the city.

Detention centre

Main article: People detained by the International Criminal Court § Detention centre

The ICC's detention centre accommodates both those convicted by the court and serving sentences as well as those suspects detained pending the outcome of their trial. It comprises twelve cells on the premises of the Scheveningen branch of the Haaglanden Penal Institution, The Hague, close to the ICC's headquarters in the Alexanderkazerne.^[176][177]

Suspects held by the former International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were held in the same prison and shared some facilities, like the fitness room, but had no contact with suspects held by the ICC.^[176]

Other offices

The ICC maintains a liaison office in New York^[178] and field offices in places where it conducts its activities.^[179] As of 18 October 2007, the Court had field offices in Kampala, Kinshasa, Bunia, Abéché and Bangui.^[179]

Finance

Top 10 contributions as of 31 December 2020^[180]

No.	Country	Contributions €	Percent %
1	Japan	24,311,100	16.3
2	Germany	16,193,649	10.9
3	France	12,566,339	8.4
4	United Kingdom	12,143,931	8.2
5	Italy	8,793,501	5.9
6	Brazil	8,255,791	5.6
7	Canada	7,269,812	4.9
8	South Korea	6,258,761	4.2
9	Australia	5,876,461	4.0
10	Spain	5,706,356	3.8
Others		41,350,083	27.8
Total		148,725,784	100.0

The ICC is financed by contributions from the states parties. The amount payable by each state party is determined using the same method as the United Nations:^[181] each state's contribution is based on the country's capacity to pay, which reflects factors such as a national income and population. The maximum amount a single country can pay in any year is limited to 22% of the Court's budget; Japan paid this amount in 2008.

The Court spent €80.5 million in 2007.^[182] The Assembly of States Parties approved a budget of €90.4 million for 2008,^[181] €101.2 million for 2009,^[183] and €141.6 million for 2017.^[184] As of April 2017^[update], the ICC's staff consisted of 800 persons from approximately 100 states.^[184]

Trial history to date

 

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir of Sudan over alleged war crimes in Darfur.^[185]

To date, the Prosecutor has opened investigations in fourteen situations: Afghanistan; Burundi; two in the Central African Republic; Côte d'Ivoire; Darfur, Sudan; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Georgia; Kenya; Libya; Mali; Uganda; Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine and Venezuela.^[186][187] Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor is conducting preliminary examinations in six situations: Colombia; Guinea; Nigeria; the Philippines; Ukraine and Bolivia.^[188]

The Court's Pre-Trial Chambers have publicly indicted 50 people. Proceedings against 20 are ongoing: 14 are at large as fugitives, one is the pre-trial phase and five are on trial. Proceedings against 30 have been completed: two are serving sentences, seven have finished sentences, four have been acquitted, seven have had the charges against them dismissed, three have had the charges against them withdrawn, and seven have died before the conclusion of the proceedings against them.

Thomas Lubanga,^[189] Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui were tried by the ICC. Lubanga and Katanga were convicted and sentenced to 14 and 12 years imprisonment, respectively, whereas Chui was acquitted.^[190]

The judgment of Jean-Pierre Bemba was rendered in March 2016. Bemba was convicted on two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes. This marked the first time the ICC convicted someone of sexual violence as they added rape to his conviction.^[191] Bemba's convictions were overturned by the Court's Appeal Chamber in June 2018.^[192] The Court refused to compensate Bemba for losses suffered by him during his 10 years of imprisonment. It has been argued that this decision raises important questions about the court's present powers.^[193]

Trials in the Ntaganda case (DR Congo), the Bemba et al. OAJ case and the Laurent Gbagbo-Blé Goudé trial in the Côte d'Ivoire situation are ongoing. The Banda trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, was scheduled to begin in 2014 but the start date was vacated.

Charges against Ugandan Dominic Ongwen and Malian Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi have been confirmed;^[194] as of March 2020 both were awaiting their trials.

On 6 July 2020, two Uyghur activist groups filed a complaint with the ICC calling for it to investigate PRC officials for crimes against Uyghurs including allegations of genocide.^[195][196] The ICC does not have the necessary jurisdiction for this in the absence of a referral from the UN Security Council, as the PRC is not a party to the Rome Statute.

Investigations and preliminary examinations

Main article: International Criminal Court investigations

 

ICC investigations and examinations, as of March 2022
Green: Official investigations (Uganda, DR Congo, Central African Republic I + II, Darfur (Sudan), Kenya, Libya, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Georgia, Burundi, Afghanistan, Palestine, Venezuela I, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Philippines, Ukraine)
Orange: Authorization to open investigation requested (none at present)
Light red: Ongoing preliminary examinations (Nigeria, Guinea, Venezuela II)
Dark red: Closed preliminary examinations that have not resulted in an investigation (Colombia, Iraq, Honduras, South Korea, Comoros (registered vessels), Gabon, Bolivia)

Currently, the Office of the Prosecutor has opened investigations in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Darfur, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Libya, Uganda, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine and Venezuela.^[197] Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor conducted preliminary examinations in situations in Bolivia, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq / the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Georgia, Honduras, South Korea, Ukraine and Venezuela.^[198][199] Preliminary investigations were closed in Gabon; Honduras; registered vessels of Comoros, Greece, and Cambodia; South Korea; and Colombia on events since 1 July 2002.^[198]

Key:
  Investigation
  Investigation pending authorization
  Preliminary examination ongoing
  Preliminary examination closed

Situation	Referred by	Referred on	Preliminary examination on	Investigation on	Current status^[A]	Ref(s).
Democratic Republic of the Congo	Democratic Republic of the Congo	19 April 2004	16 July 2003	23 June 2004	Investigation (phase 1)	^[202]^[203]^[204]
Côte d'Ivoire	—	—	1 October 2003	3 October 2011	Investigation (phase 1)	^[205]^[206]
Uganda	Uganda	16 December 2003	16 December 2003	29 July 2004	Investigation (phase 1)	^[207]^[208]
Colombia	—	—	30 June 2004	—	Preliminary examination closed on 28 October 2021	^[209]^[210]
Central African Republic I	Central African Republic	7 January 2005	7 January 2005	22 May 2007	Investigation (phase 2)	^[211]^[212]^[213]
Darfur, Sudan	United Nations Security Council	31 March 2005	1 April 2005	6 June 2005	Investigation (phase 1)	^[214]^[215]
Iraq / United Kingdom	—	—	9 February 2006	—	Preliminary examination closed on 9 December 2020^[B]	^[217]
Venezuela	—	—	9 February 2006	—	Preliminary examination closed on 9 February 2006	^[218]
Afghanistan	—	—	2007	5 March 2020	Investigation (phase 1)	^[219]^[220]
Kenya	—	—	5 February 2008	31 March 2010	Investigation (phase 1)	^[221]^[222]
Georgia	—	—	20 August 2008	27 January 2016	Investigation (phase 2)	^[223]^[224]^[225]
Palestine^[C]	—	—	22 January 2009	—	Preliminary examination closed on 3 April 2012	^[226]
Guinea	—	—	14 October 2009	—	Preliminary examination closed on 29 September 2022	^[227]^[228]
Honduras	—	—	18 November 2009	—	Preliminary examination closed on 28 October 2015	^[229]
Nigeria	—	—	18 November 2010	—	Investigation pending authorization	^[230]
South Korea	—	—	6 December 2010	—	Preliminary examination closed on 23 June 2014	^[231]
Libya	United Nations Security Council	26 February 2011	28 February 2011	3 March 2011	Investigation (phase 1)	^[232]^[233]^[234]
Mali	Mali	18 July 2012	18 July 2012	16 January 2013	Investigation (phase 1)	^[235]^[236]
Registered vessels^[D]	Comoros	14 May 2013	14 May 2013	—	Preliminary examination closed on 2 December 2019^[E]	^[238]
Central African Republic II	Central African Republic	30 May 2014	7 February 2014	24 September 2014	Investigation (phase 2)	^[240]^[213]
Ukraine^[F]	Albania et al.	2 March 2022	25 April 2014	2 March 2022	Investigation (phase 1)	^[230]^[242]
Palestine	Palestine	22 May 2018	16 January 2015	3 March 2021	Investigation (phase 1)	^[243]^[244]
Burundi	—	—	25 April 2016	25 October 2017	Investigation (phase 1)	^[245]
Gabon	Gabon	21 September 2016	29 September 2016	—	Preliminary examination closed on 21 September 2018	^[246]
Philippines	—	—	8 February 2018	15 September 2021	Investigation (phase 1)	^[247]^[248]
Venezuela I^[G]	Argentina et al.	27 September 2018	8 February 2018	3 November 2021	Investigation (phase 1)	^[230]^[250]
Bangladesh / Myanmar	—	—	18 September 2018	14 November 2019	Investigation (phase 1)	^[251]^[252]
Venezuela II^[G]	Venezuela	13 February 2020	17 February 2020	—	Preliminary examination (phase 2)	^[230]^[249]
Bolivia	Bolivia	4 September 2020	9 September 2020	—	Preliminary examination closed on 14 February 2022	^[253]
Notes The Office of the Prosecutor processes preliminary examinations through different phases. Every communication is first given an initial assessment to determine if it is sufficiently serious and if it falls within the Court's jurisdiction (phase 1). If it does, the Office begins a preliminary examination by first considering whether the alleged crimes fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court (phase 2). If the Office is satisfied that all the jurisdictional requirements are met, it then focuses on issues of admissibility by considering complementarity and the gravity of the alleged crimes (phase 3). If there are no admissibility concerns, the Office then considers the interests of justice and decides whether or not to begin a formal investigation (phase 4).^[200] Onece a formal investigation is opened, it is also processed through different phases. It is first processed through an "investigation phase" (phase 1), in which the Office determines the scope of its caseload, and then through a "prosecution phase" (phase 2), in which the Office completes the caseload.^[201] The preliminary examination of the situation in Iraq / the United Kingdom was initially closed on 9 February 2006, but was reopened on 13 May 2014.^[216] A new preliminary investigation of the situation in Palestine was opened on 16 January 2015 and proceeded to a full investigation 3 March 2021. The preliminary examination relates to registered vessels of the Comoros, Greece and Cambodia. The Prosecutor previously closed the preliminary examination of the situation on registered vessels of the Comoros, Greece and Cambodia on 6 November 2014, but reconsidered her decision following a request by the Pre-Trial Chamber on 29 November 2017 and revised the final decision on 2 December 2019.^[237]^[238]^[239] Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom jointly referred the situation in Ukraine on 2 March 2022. Following the start of the investigation, Japan and North Macedonia also referred the situation.^[241] Argentina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru jointly referred the situation in Venezuela I on 27 September 2018. Venezuela referred the situation in Venezuela II on 13 February 2020. In a statement, the Prosecutor noted that the two referrals "appear to overlap geographically and temporally" but further noted that such a statement "should not prejudice a later determination on whether the referred scope of the two situations is sufficiently linked to constitute a single situation."^[249]

Summary of investigations^{[note 1]} and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court (not including reparations proceedings)

Situation	Publicly indicted	Ongoing procedures				Procedures finished, due to ...				PTC	TCs
		Not before court	Pre-Trial	Trial	Appeal	Death	Inadmissibility	Acquittal etc.	Conviction
		^[note 2]	^[note 3]	^[note 4]	^[note 5]	^[note 6]	^[note 7]	^[note 8]		^[note 9]	^[note 10]
Democratic Republic of the Congo	6	1 Mudacumura	0	0	0	0	0	2 Chui, Mbarushimana	3 Katanga, Lubanga, Ntaganda	I
Uganda	5	2 Kony, Otti	0	1 Ongwen	0	2 Lukwiya, Odhiambo	0	0	0	II	IX Ongwen
Central African Republic I	5	0	0	0	5 Bemba (main case); Kilolo, Babala, Mangenda, Arido + Bemba (OAJ)	0	0	0	0	II	III Bemba VII Bemba et al.
Darfur, Sudan	7	3 Haroun, al-Bashir, Hussein	1 Banda	1 Kushayb	0	1 Jerbo	0	1 Abu Garda	0	II	I Kushayb IV Banda
Kenya	9	3 Barasa, Gicheru, Bett	0	0	0	0	0	6 Kosgey, Ali, Muthaura, Kenyatta, Ruto, Sang	0	II
Libya	5	1 S. Gaddafi	0	0	0	3 M. Gaddafi, Khaled, Werfalli	1 Senussi	0	0	I
Côte d'Ivoire	3	1 S. Gbagbo	0	2 L. Gbagbo, Blé Goudé	0	0	0	0	0	I	I L. Gbagbo-Blé Goudé
Mali	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 al-Mahdi	I	VIII al-Mahdi
Central African Republic II	1	0	1 Yekatom^[254]	0	0	0	0	0	0	II
Georgia	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	I
Burundi	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	III
Total	41	14	1	4	5	4	1	9	3

Notes

1. A situation is listed here if an investigation was begun by the Prosecutor.
2. Indicted but has not yet appeared before the Court.
3. Indicted and has had at least first appearance; trial has not yet begun.
4. Trial has begun but has not yet been completed.
5. Trial has been completed and verdict delivered but appeal is pending.
6. Indicted but died before the trial and/or appeal (where applicable) was concluded.
7. Indicted but case was held inadmissible.
8. Indicted but either charges not confirmed or withdrawn or proceedings terminated or acquitted. If charges were not confirmed or withdrawn or if proceedings were terminated, the Prosecutor may again prosecute with fresh evidence.
9. Pre-Trial Chamber currently in charge
10. Trial Chambers currently in charge; once proceedings have moved to the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber designation will be removed here.

Overview on cases currently active before the ICC (excludes cases against fugitives and reparations proceedings)

Between initial appearance and beginning of confirmation of charges hearing	Between beginning of confirmation of charges hearing and beginning of trial	Between beginning of trial and judgment	Between trial judgment and appeals judgment
			Bemba
			Bemba-Kilolo-Babala-Mangenda-Arido
			al-Mahdi
		Ntaganda
		L Gbagbo-Blé Goude
		Ongwen
	Banda

Detailed summary of investigations^{[note 1]} and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court

Situation	Individuals indicted ^[note 2]	Indicted^[note 3] ^[note 4]					Transfer to ICC Initial appearance ^[note 5]	Confirmation of charges hearing Result	Trial Result	Appeal hearings Result	Current status	Ref.
		Date	G	CAH	WC	OAJ
Democratic Republic of the Congo Investigation article	Thomas Lubanga Dyilo	10 February 2006	—	—	3	—	17 March 2006 20 March 2006	9-28 November 2006 confirmed 29 January 2007	26 January 2009 – 26 August 2011 convicted 14 March 2012 sentenced 10 July 2012	19–20 May 2014 verdict and sentence confirmed 1 December 2014	Convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment; decision final; reparations regime established; ICC-related sentence served (after 14 years)	^[255]
	Bosco Ntaganda	22 August 2006 13 July 2012	—	3	7	—	22 March 2013 26 March 2013	10-14 February 2014 confirmed 9 June 2014	2 September 2015 - 30 August 2018 convicted 8 July 2019 sentenced 7 November 2019	Verdict and sentence confirmed 30 March 2021	Convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment; decision final; in ICC custody; release between 2033 and 2043	^[256]^[257]^[258]
	Germain Katanga	2 July 2007	—	3	6	—	17 October 2007 22 October 2007	27 June–18 July 2008 confirmed 26 September 2008	24 November 2009 – 23 May 2012 convicted 7 March 2014 sentenced 23 May 2014	Appeals by Prosecution and Defence discontinued	Convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment; decision final; reparations regime established; ICC-related sentence served (after 8 years, 4 months); remained in custody of DRC authorities due to other charges	^[259] ^[260] ^[261]
	Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui	6 July 2007	—	3	6	—	6 February 2008 11 February 2008		24 November 2009 – 23 May 2012 acquitted 18 December 2012	21 October 2014 acquittal confirmed 27 February 2015	Acquitted; decision final	^[262]
	Callixte Mbarushimana	28 September 2010	—	5	6	—	25 January 2011 28 January 2011	16-21 September 2011 dismissed 16 December 2011			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed, released ^[note 6]	^[263] ^[264]
	Sylvestre Mudacumura	13 July 2012	—	—	9	—					Not in ICC custody, reportedly died on 17/18 September 2019	^[265] ^[266]
Uganda Investigation article	Joseph Kony	8 July 2005	—	12	21	—					Not in ICC custody	^[267]
	Okot Odhiambo		—	3	7	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Raska Lukwiya		—	1	3	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Vincent Otti		—	11	21	—					Not in ICC custody, reportedly died in 2007
												^[268]
	Dominic Ongwen		—	3	4	—	21 January 2015 26 January 2015	21–27 January 2016 confirmed 23 March 2016	6 December 2016 – 12 March 2020 convicted 4 February 2021 sentenced 6 May 2021	14-18 February 2022	Convicted and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment; appeal verdict pending	^[269]
Central African Republic	Jean-Pierre Bemba	23 May 2008 10 June 2008	—	3	5	—	3 July 2008 4 July 2008	12-15 January 2009 confirmed 15 June 2009	22 November 2010 – 13 November 2014 convicted 21 March 2016 sentenced 21 June 2016	9-16 January 2018 acquitted 8 June 2018	Acquitted; decision final	^[270]
		20 November 2013	—	—	—	2	23 November 2013 27 November 2013	in writing confirmed 11 November 2014	29 September 2015 – 2 June 2016 convicted 19 October 2016 sentenced 22 March 2017 partially re-sentenced upon appeal 17 September 2018	Verdicts modified and re-sentencing partially remanded to Trial Chamber 8 March 2018 re-sentencing confirmed 27 November 2019	Convicted and sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 USD; decision final; sentence served	^[271] ^[272]
	Aimé Kilolo Musamba		—	—	—	2	25 November 2013 27 November 2013				Convicted and sentenced to a fine of 30,000 USD; decision final
	Fidèle Babala Wandu		—	—	—	2					Convicted and sentenced to six months of imprisonment; decision final; sentence served
	Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo		—	—	—	2	4 December 2013 5 December 2013				Convicted and sentenced to eleven months of imprisonment; decision final; sentence served
	Narcisse Arido		—	—	—	2	18 March 2014 20 March 2014				Convicted and sentenced to eleven months of imprisonment; decision final; sentence served
Darfur, Sudan Investigation article	Ahmed Haroun	27 April 2007	—	20	22	—					Not in ICC custody	^[273]^[274]^[275]
	Ali Kushayb		—	22	28	—	9 June 2020 15 June 2020	24-26 May 2021 confirmed 9 July 2021	5 April 2022 –		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber I ongoing
	Omar al-Bashir	4 March 2009 12 July 2010	3	5	2	—					Not in ICC custody	^[276]
	Bahr Idriss Abu Garda	7 May 2009 (summons)	—	—	3	—	18 May 2009	19-29 October 2009 dismissed 8 February 2010			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed ^[note 6]	^[277]
	Abdallah Banda	27 August 2009 (summons) 11 September 2014 (warrant of arrest)	—	—	3	—	17 June 2010	8 December 2010 confirmed 7 March 2011			At large under warrant of arrest, previously appeared voluntarily, charges confirmed, trial before Trial Chamber IV to begin	^[278]
	Saleh Jerbo	27 August 2009 (summons)	—	—	3	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein	1 March 2012	—	7	6	—					Not in ICC custody	^[279]
Kenya Investigation article	William Ruto	8 March 2011 (summons)	—	4	—	—	7 April 2011	1-8 September 2011 confirmed 23 January 2012	10 September 2013 – 5 April 2016 (terminated)		Proceedings terminated with no prejudice to re-prosecution, appeal possible	^[280]
	Joshua Sang		—	4	—	—
	Henry Kosgey		—	4	—	—		1-8 September 2011 dismissed 23 January 2012			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed ^[note 6]
	Francis Muthaura	8 March 2011 (summons)	—	5	—	—	8 April 2011	21 September – 5 October 2011 confirmed 23 January 2012			Proceedings finished with confirmed charges withdrawn before trial	^[281]
	Uhuru Kenyatta		—	5	—	—
	Mohammed Hussein Ali		—	5	—	—		21 September – 5 October 2011 dismissed 23 January 2012			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed ^[note 6]
	Walter Barasa	2 August 2013	—	—	—	3					Not in ICC custody	^[282]
	Paul Gicheru	10 March 2015	—	—	—	6	3 November 2020 6 November 2020	confirmed 15 July 2021	15 February 2022 – 27 June 2022		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber III finished, awaiting verdict	^[283]
	Philip Kipkoech Bett		—	—	—	4					Not in ICC custody	^[284]
Libya Investigation article	Muammar Gaddafi	27 June 2011	—	2	—	—					Proceedings finished due to death	^[285]
	Saif al-Islam Gaddafi		—	2	—	—					Not in ICC custody
	Abdullah Senussi		—	2	—	—					Proceedings finished with case held inadmissible
	Al-Tuhamy Mohamed Khaled	18 April 2013	—	4	3	—					Proceedings finished due to death	^[286]^[287]
	Mahmoud al-Werfalli	15 August 2017 4 July 2018	—	—	7	—					Proceedings finished due to death	^[288]
Ivory Coast	Laurent Gbagbo	23 November 2011	—	4	—	—	30 November 2011 5 December 2011	19–28 February 2013 confirmed 12 June 2014	28 January 2016 – 15 January 2019 acquitted 15 January 2019	Acquittal confirmed 31 March 2021	Acquitted; decision final	^[289]
	Charles Blé Goudé	21 December 2011	—	4	—	—	22–23 March 2014 27 March 2014	29 September – 2 October 2014 confirmed 11 December 2014
	Simone Gbagbo	29 February 2012	—	4	—	—					Proceedings finished with charges withdrawn	^[290]
Mali Investigation article	Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi	18 September 2015	—	—	1	—	26 September 2015 30 September 2015	1 March 2016 confirmed 24 March 2016	22–24 August 2016 convicted and sentenced 27 September 2016		Convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment upon guilty plea; in ICC custody; reparations regime established; if conviction and sentence stand, release between 2021 and 2024	^[291] ^[292]
	Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz	27 March 2018	—	4	4	—	31 March 2018 4 April 2018	8–17 July 2019 confirmed 30 September 2019	14 July 2020 –		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber X ongoing	^[293]
Central African Republic II	Alfred Yekatom	11 November 2018	—	6	7	—	17 November 2018 23 November 2018	19 September 2019 – 11 October 2019 confirmed 11 December 2019	16 February 2021 –		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber V ongoing	^[294]
	Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona	7 December 2018	—	7	9	—	23 January 2019 25 January 2019
	Maxime Mokom	10 December 2018	—	9	13	—	14 March 2022 22 March 2022	scheduled to begin 31 January 2023			In ICC custody, confirmation of charges hearing to begin	^[295]
Georgia											Investigation initiated	^[296]
Burundi											Investigation initiated	^[297]
Afghanistan Investigation article											Investigation initiated	^[298]
Bangladesh/Myanmar											Investigation initiated	^[299]
Palestine Investigation article											Investigation initiated	^[300]
Ukraine Investigation article											Investigation initiated	^[301]

Notes

1. A situation is listed here if the Prosecutor of the Court has opened an investigation.
2. Obviously, only persons who are publicly indicted are listed. The Court can issue an indictment under seal.
3. If not otherwise noted, the indicted is wanted by warrant of arrest.
4. The International Criminal Court does currently not have jurisdiction regarding the crime of aggression. An amendment to the Rome Statute to expand the ICC's jurisdiction towards that crime is currently in the process of ratification. Under no circumstances will the Court be able to actually exercise jurisdiction before 1 January 2017.
5. If there was a warrant of arrest, the dates of transfer to the International Criminal Court (in italics) and of the initial appearance are given. In case of a summons to appear, only the date of the initial appearance is given.
6. According to Article 61 (8) of the Rome Statute, "where the Pre-Trial Chamber declines to confirm a charge, the Prosecutor shall not be precluded from subsequently requesting its confirmation if the request is supported by additional evidence."

Relationships

United Nations

 

The UN Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC in 2005.

Unlike the International Court of Justice, the ICC is legally independent from the United Nations. However, the Rome Statute grants certain powers to the United Nations Security Council, which limits its functional independence. Article 13 allows the Security Council to refer to the Court situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court's jurisdiction (as it did in relation to the situations in Darfur and Libya, which the Court could not otherwise have prosecuted as neither Sudan nor Libya are state parties). Article 16 allows the Security Council to require the Court to defer from investigating a case for a period of 12 months.^[159] Such a deferral may be renewed indefinitely by the Security Council. This sort of an arrangement gives the ICC some of the advantages inhering in the organs of the United Nations such as using the enforcement powers of the Security Council, but it also creates a risk of being tainted with the political controversies of the Security Council.^[302]

The Court cooperates with the UN in many different areas, including the exchange of information and logistical support.^[303] The Court reports to the UN each year on its activities,^[303][304] and some meetings of the Assembly of States Parties are held at UN facilities. The relationship between the Court and the UN is governed by a "Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations".^[305][306]

Nongovernmental organizations

During the 1970s and 1980s, international human rights and humanitarian Nongovernmental Organizations (or NGOs) began to proliferate at exponential rates. Concurrently, the quest to find a way to punish international crimes shifted from being the exclusive responsibility of legal experts to being shared with international human rights activism.

NGOs helped birth the ICC through advocacy and championing for the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity. NGOs closely monitor the organization's declarations and actions, ensuring that the work that is being executed on behalf of the ICC is fulfilling its objectives and responsibilities to civil society.^[307] According to Benjamin Schiff, "From the Statute Conference onward, the relationship between the ICC and the NGOs has probably been closer, more consistent, and more vital to the Court than have analogous relations between NGOs and any other international organization."

There are a number of NGOs working on a variety of issues related to the ICC. The NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court has served as a sort of umbrella for NGOs to coordinate with each other on similar objectives related to the ICC. The CICC has 2,500 member organizations in 150 countries.^[308] The original steering committee included representatives from the World Federalist Movement, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Parliamentarians for Global Action, and No Peace Without Justice.^[307] Today, many of the NGOs with which the ICC cooperates are members of the CICC. These organizations come from a range of backgrounds, spanning from major international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, to smaller, more local organizations focused on peace and justice missions.^[307] Many work closely with states, such as the International Criminal Law Network, founded and predominantly funded by the Hague municipality and the Dutch Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs. The CICC also claims organizations that are themselves federations, such as the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH).

CICC members subscribe to three principles that permit them to work under the umbrella of the CICC, so long as their objectives match them:

• Promoting worldwide ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC
• Maintaining the integrity of the Rome Statute of the ICC, and
• Ensuring the ICC will be as fair, effective and independent as possible^[308]

The NGOs that work under the CICC do not normally pursue agendas exclusive to the work of the Court, rather they may work for broader causes, such as general human rights issues, victims' rights, gender rights, rule of law, conflict mediation, and peace.^[307] The CICC coordinates their efforts to improve the efficiency of NGOs' contributions to the Court and to pool their influence on major common issues. From the ICC side, it has been useful to have the CICC channel NGO contacts with the Court so that its officials do not have to interact individually with thousands of separate organizations.

NGOs have been crucial to the evolution of the ICC, as they assisted in the creation of the normative climate that urged states to seriously consider the Court's formation. Their legal experts helped shape the Statute, while their lobbying efforts built support for it. They advocate Statute ratification globally and work at expert and political levels within member states for passage of necessary domestic legislation. NGOs are greatly represented at meetings for the Assembly of States Parties, and they use the ASP meetings to press for decisions promoting their priorities.^[307] Many of these NGOs have reasonable access to important officials at the ICC because of their involvement during the Statute process. They are engaged in monitoring, commenting upon, and assisting in the ICC's activities.

The ICC often depends on NGOs to interact with local populations. The Registry Public Information Office personnel and Victims Participation and Reparations Section officials hold seminars for local leaders, professionals and the media to spread the word about the Court.^[307] These are the kinds of events that are often hosted or organized by local NGOs. Because there can be challenges with determining which of these NGOs are legitimate, CICC regional representatives often have the ability to help screen and identify trustworthy organizations.

However, NGOs are also "sources of criticism, exhortation and pressure upon" the ICC.^[307] The ICC heavily depends on NGOs for its operations. Although NGOs and states cannot directly impact the judicial nucleus of the organization, they can impart information on crimes, can help locate victims and witnesses, and can promote and organize victim participation. NGOs outwardly comment on the Court's operations, "push for expansion of its activities especially in the new justice areas of outreach in conflict areas, in victims' participation and reparations, and in upholding due-process standards and defense 'equality of arms' and so implicitly set an agenda for the future evolution of the ICC."^[307] The relatively uninterrupted progression of NGO involvement with the ICC may mean that NGOs have become repositories of more institutional historical knowledge about the ICC than its national representatives, and have greater expertise than some of the organization's employees themselves. While NGOs look to mold the ICC to satisfy the interests and priorities that they have worked for since the early 1990s, they unavoidably press against the limits imposed upon the ICC by the states that are members of the organization. NGOs can pursue their own mandates, irrespective of whether they are compatible with those of other NGOs, while the ICC must respond to the complexities of its own mandate as well as those of the states and NGOs.

Another issue has been that NGOs possess "exaggerated senses of their ownership over the organization and, having been vital to and successful in promoting the Court, were not managing to redefine their roles to permit the Court its necessary independence."^[307] Additionally, because there does exist such a gap between the large human rights organizations and the smaller peace-oriented organizations, it is difficult for ICC officials to manage and gratify all of their NGOs. "ICC officials recognize that the NGOs pursue their own agendas, and that they will seek to pressure the ICC in the direction of their own priorities rather than necessarily understanding or being fully sympathetic to the myriad constraints and pressures under which the Court operates."^[307] Both the ICC and the NGO community avoid criticizing each other publicly or vehemently, although NGOs have released advisory and cautionary messages regarding the ICC. They avoid taking stances that could potentially give the Court's adversaries, particularly the US, more motive to berate the organization.

Criticisms

African accusations of Western imperialism

The ICC has been accused of bias and as being a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.^{[309][310][311][312]} This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African leaders due to an alleged disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa, while it claims to have a global mandate; until January 2016, all nine situations which the ICC had been investigating were in African countries.^{[313][314][315]}

The prosecution of Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta (both charged before coming into office) led to the Kenyan parliament passing a motion calling for Kenya's withdrawal from the ICC, and the country called on the other 33 African states party to the ICC to withdraw their support, an issue which was discussed at a special African Union (AU) summit in October 2013.

Though the ICC has denied the charge of disproportionately targeting African leaders, and claims to stand up for victims wherever they may be, Kenya was not alone in criticising the ICC. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited Kenya, South Africa, China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, Qatar and several other countries despite an outstanding ICC warrant for his arrest but was not arrested; he said that the charges against him are "exaggerated" and that the ICC was a part of a "Western plot" against him. Ivory Coast's government opted not to transfer former first lady Simone Gbagbo to the court but to instead try her at home. Rwanda's ambassador to the African Union, Joseph Nsengimana, argued that "It is not only the case of Kenya. We have seen international justice become more and more a political matter." Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni accused the ICC of "mishandling complex African issues". Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, at the time AU chairman, told the UN General Assembly at the General debate of the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly: "The manner in which the ICC has been operating has left a very bad impression in Africa. It is totally unacceptable."

African Union (AU) withdrawal proposal

Main article: States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court § Withdrawal

South African President Jacob Zuma said the perceptions of the ICC as "unreasonable" led to the calling of the special AU summit on 13 October 2015. Botswana is a notable supporter of the ICC in Africa.^[316] At the summit, the AU did not endorse the proposal for a collective withdrawal from the ICC due to lack of support for the idea.^[317] However, the summit did conclude that serving heads of state should not be put on trial and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred. Ethiopian formerly Foreign Minister Tedros Adhanom said: "We have rejected the double standard that the ICC is applying in dispensing international justice."^[318] Despite these calls, the ICC went ahead with requiring William Ruto to attend his trial.^[319] The UNSC was then asked to consider deferring the trials of Kenyatta and Ruto for a year,^[320] but this was rejected.^[321] In November, the ICC's Assembly of State Parties responded to Kenya's calls for an exemption for sitting heads of state^[322] by agreeing to consider amendments to the Rome Statute to address the concerns.^[323]

On 7 October 2016, Burundi announced that it would leave the ICC, after the court began investigating political violence in that nation. In the subsequent two weeks, South Africa and Gambia also announced their intention to leave the court, with Kenya and Namibia reportedly also considering departure. All three nations cited the fact that all 39 people indicted by the court over its history have been African and that the court has made no effort to investigate war crimes tied to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[324][325] However, following Gambia's presidential election later that year, which ended the long rule of Yahya Jammeh, Gambia rescinded its withdrawal notification.^[326] The High Court of South Africa ruled on 2 February 2017 that the South African government's notice to withdraw was unconstitutional and invalid.^[327] On 7 March 2017 the South African government formally revoked its intention to withdraw;^[328] however, the ruling ANC revealed on 5 July 2017 that its intention to withdraw stands.^[329]

Supporters of criminalizing ecocide argue that it would shift the ICC's priorities away from Africa, since most environmental degradation is caused by States and corporations in the Global North.^[330]

Criticism by the United States government

The United States Department of State argues that there are "insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges" and "insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses".^[71] The current law in the United States on the ICC is the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA), 116 Stat. 820. The ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court." This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act",^[331][332] because the freeing of U.S. citizens by force might be possible only through military action.

On 10 September 2018, John R. Bolton, in his first major address as U.S. National Security Advisor, reiterated that the ICC lacks checks and balances, exercises "jurisdiction over crimes that have disputed and ambiguous definitions," and has failed to "deter and punish atrocity crimes". The ICC, said Bolton, is "superfluous" given that "domestic judicial systems already hold American citizens to the highest legal and ethical standards." He added that the U.S. would do everything "to protect our citizens" should the ICC attempt to prosecute U.S. servicemen over alleged detainee abuse in Afghanistan. In that event, ICC judges and prosecutors would be barred from entering the U.S., their funds in the U.S. would be sanctioned and the U.S. "will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans", Bolton said. He also criticized Palestinian efforts to bring Israel before the ICC over allegations of human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.^[333]

ICC responded that it will continue to investigate war crimes undeterred.^[334]

On 11 June 2020, Mike Pompeo and U.S. President Donald Trump announced sanctions on officials and employees, as well as their families, involved in investigating alleged crimes against humanity committed by US armed forces in Afghanistan.^[335] This move was widely criticized by human rights groups.^[336] The United States ordered sanctions against the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and the ICC's head of Jurisdiction, Complementary, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochok for an investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Afghanistan since 2003.^[337] The sanctions were subsequently lifted by Antony Blinken in April 2021.^[338]

OPCD

Concerning the independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD), Thomas Lubanga's defence team say they were given a smaller budget than the Prosecutor and that evidence and witness statements were slow to arrive.^[139]

Impartiality

Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that the ICC's prosecutor team takes no account of the roles played by the government in the conflict of Uganda, Rwanda or Congo. This led to a flawed investigation, because the ICC did not reach the conclusion of its verdict after considering the governments' position and actions in the conflict.^[339]

Unintentional consequences

Research indicates that prosecutions of leaders who are culpable of international crimes in the ICC makes them less likely to peacefully step down, which can prolong conflicts and incentivize them to make continued use of mass violence.^[340][341] It is also argued that justice is a means to peace: "As a result, the ICC has been used as a means of intervention in ongoing conflicts with the expectation that the indictments, arrests, and trials of elite perpetrators have deterrence and preventive effects for atrocity crimes. Despite these legitimate intentions and great expectations, there is little evidence of the efficacy of justice as a means to peace".^[342]

State cooperation

That the ICC cannot mount successful cases without state cooperation is problematic for several reasons. It means that the ICC acts inconsistently in its selection of cases, is prevented from taking on hard cases and loses legitimacy.^[343] It also gives the ICC less deterrent value, as potential perpetrators of war crimes know that they can avoid ICC judgment by taking over government and refusing to cooperate.^[343]

Questioning the true application of the principle of complementarity

The fundamental principle of complementarity of the ICC Rome Statute is often taken for granted in the legal analysis of international criminal law and its jurisprudence. Initially the thorny issue of the actual application of the complementarity principle arose in 2008, when William Schabas published his influential paper.^[344] However, despite Schabas' theoretical impact, no substantive research was made by other scholars on this issue for quite some time. In June 2017, Victor Tsilonis advanced the same criticism which is reinforced by events, practices of the Office of the Prosecutor and ICC cases in the Essays in Honour of Nestor Courakis. His paper essentially argues that the Αl‐Senussi case arguably is the first instance of the complementarity principle's actual implementation eleven whole years after the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.^[345]

On the other hand, in 2017, Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda invoked the principle of complementarity in the situation between Russia and Georgia in the Ossetia region.^[346] Moreover, following the threats of certain African states (initially Burundi, Gambia and South Africa) to withdraw their ratifications, Bensouda again referred to the principle of complementarity as a core principle of ICC's jurisdiction and has more extensively focused on the principle's application on the latest Office of The Prosecutor's Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016.^[347]

Some advocates have suggested that the ICC go "beyond complementarity" and systematically support national capacity for prosecutions.^[348] They argue that national prosecutions, where possible, are more cost-effective, preferable to victims and more sustainable.

Jurisdiction over corporations

There is a debate on whether the ICC should have jurisdiction over corporations that violate international law.^[349] Supporters argue that corporations can and do commit human rights violations,^[350] such as war crimes linked to raw materials in conflict zones.^[351] Critics argue that prosecuting corporations would compromise the principle of complementarity,^[352] that it would give corporations excessive power under international law, or that it would compromise voluntary initiatives by companies.^[350] John Ruggie has argued that jurisdiction of corporations under international law should be limited to international crimes, while Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli of La Sabana University argues that it should cover all human rights violations.^[353]

Despite its lack of jurisdiction, the ICC announced in 2016 that it would prioritize criminal cases linked to land grabbing, illegal resource extraction, or environmental degradation caused by corporate activity.^[354] The proposed crime of ecocide would have jurisdiction over corporations as well as governments.^[330]

See also

• List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court
• Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court
• Crimes against humanity
• International Court of Justice
• Legal Tools (database on International Criminal Law)
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
• Rule of law
• War crimes

References

1. . Archived from the original on 3 March 2013. Retrieved 25 November 2012. The official languages of the ICC are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish and the working languages are currently English and French
2. International Criminal Court is sometimes abbreviated as ICCt to distinguish it from several other organisations abbreviated as ICC. However, the more common abbreviation ICC is used in this article.
3. "International Criminal Court | Definition, History, Purpose, & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
4. Dancy, Geoffrey Thomas (14 May 2021). "The hidden impacts of the ICC: An innovative assessment using Google data". Leiden Journal of International Law. 34 (3): 729–747. doi:10.1017/S0922156521000194. ISSN 0922-1565. S2CID 236571212.
5. Allo, Awol. "The ICC's problem is not overt racism, it is Eurocentricism". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
6. "Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties." The American Journal of International Law 14, no. 1/2 (1920): 95-154. doi:10.2307/2187841.
7. United Nations Department of Public Information, December 2002. The International Criminal Court 5 December 2006 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 5 December 2006.
8. Dempsey, Gary T. (16 July 1998). "Reasonable Doubt: The Case Against the Proposed International Criminal Court" 28 December 2006 at the Wayback Machine. Cato Institute. Retrieved 31 December 2006.
9. . 9 January 2008. Archived from the original on 9 January 2008. Retrieved 1 March 2011.
10. Julius Stone and Robert K. Woetzel (Eds.), Toward a feasible International Criminal Court (Geneva: World Peace Through Law Center, 1970), p. xiv.
11. . International Criminal Court. 20 June 2006. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 11 April 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 3 May 2007.
12. ^[Usurped!]. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
13. Coalition for the International Criminal Court. ^[Usurped!]. Retrieved 31 December 2006.
14. "Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, 1994" 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
15. Scharf, Michael P. (August 1998). "Results of the Rome Conference for an International Criminal Court" 15 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine. American Society of International Law. Retrieved 4 December 2006.
16. [1] 30 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine: "Israel has reluctantly cast a negative vote. It fails to comprehend why it has been considered necessary to insert into the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes the action of transferring population into occupied territory. The exigencies of lack of time and intense political and public pressure have obliged the Conference to by-pass very basic sovereign prerogatives to which we are entitled in drafting international conventions, in favour of finishing the work and achieving a Statute on a come-what-may basis. We continue to hope that the Court will indeed serve the lofty objectives for the attainment of which it is being established."
17. Amnesty International (11 April 2002). "The International Criminal Court – A Historic Development in the Fight for Justice" 24 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 20 March 2008.
18. Coalition for the International Criminal Court. "Judges and the Presidency". from the original on 9 December 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2012.
19. International Criminal Court (14 October 2005). "Warrant of Arrest Unsealed Against Five LRA Commanders" 6 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
20. International Criminal Court (9 November 2006). . Archived from the original on 9 July 2007. Retrieved 5 December 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 5 December 2006.
21. "ICC finds Congo warlord Thomas Lubanga guilty". BBC News. 14 March 2012. from the original on 15 October 2014. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
22. "United Nations Treaty Collection". treaties.un.org. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
23. . Parliamentarians for Global Action - Mobilizing Legislators as Champions for Human Rights, Democracy and Peace. Archived from the original on 7 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
24. "The States Parties to the Rome Statute". asp.icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 13 March 2022.
25. "ICC Myths | Coalition for the International Criminal Court". www.coalitionfortheicc.org. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
26. . www.icc-cpi.int. Archived from the original on 18 January 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2022.
27. Roth, Ken, ed. (6 August 2002). ""Hague Invasion Act": Bush Signs a New Law Designed to Intimidate Countries That Ratify the Treaty for the International Criminal Court". Democracy Now!. Retrieved 14 April 2022. On Friday President George Bush signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which will supposedly protect U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court.
28. Marquand, Robert (13 February 2009). "Dutch still wincing at Bush-era 'Invasion of The Hague Act'". World. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 14 April 2022.
29. Landler, Mark (10 September 2018). . The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 September 2018.
30. "US Threatens International Criminal Court". Human Rights Watch. 15 March 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
31. "U.N. regrets Trump move against ICC, says court must be protected". Reuters. 12 June 2020. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
32. Peel, Michael (12 June 2020). "International Criminal Court hits back at US over sanctions". Financial Times. Brussels: FT. Archived from the original on 10 December 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
33. Sieff, Kevin (26 October 2016). "Gambia is the latest African country deciding to pull out of International Criminal Court". Washington Post. from the original on 27 October 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2016.
34. Moore, Jina (27 October 2017). "Burundi Quits International Criminal Court". New York Times. from the original on 9 November 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2018.
35. Onishi, Norimitsu (8 March 2017). . New York Times. Archived from the original on 28 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
36. Corder, Mike (20 November 2017). "ICC prosecutor requests investigation into U.S. military, CIA for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan". The Toronto Star. Associated Press. ISSN 0319-0781. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
37. Bowcott, Owen (5 March 2020). "Senior ICC judges authorise Afghanistan war crimes inquiry". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
38. "Trump targets ICC with sanctions after court opens war crimes investigation". The Guardian. 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
39. "Philippines becomes second country to quit ICC". philstar.com. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
40. Borger, Julian (1 October 2020). "Human rights lawyers sue Trump administration for 'silencing' them". The Guardian.
41. "US Judge Blocks Trump Sanctions Targeting Human Rights Lawyers, War Crimes Tribunal". www.voanews.com. Retrieved 6 January 2021.
42. International Criminal Court. . Archived from the original on 18 January 2008. Retrieved 3 January 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 2 January 2008.
43. International Criminal Court. Structure of the Court 13 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine , ICC website. Retrieved 16 June 2012
44. The sum of (a) states parties, (b) signatories and (c) non-signatory United Nations member states is 195. This number is two more than the number of United Nations member states (193) due to the State of Palestine and Cook Islands being states parties but not United Nations member states.
45. . United Nations Treaty Collection. Archived from the original on 18 January 2011. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
46. "United Nations Treaty Database entry regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. from the original on 23 July 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
47. "Reference: C.N.805.2016.TREATIES-XVIII.10 (Depositary Notification)" (PDF). United Nations. 28 October 2016. (PDF) from the original on 29 October 2016. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
48. "Reference: C.N.138.2018.TREATIES-XVIII.10 (Depositary Notification)" (PDF). United Nations. 19 March 2018. (PDF) from the original on 3 November 2018. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
49. , Article 18. Accessed 23 November 2006.
50. Schindler, Dietrich; Toman, Jirí, eds. (2004). "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents (Fourth Revised and Completed ed.). Brill. p. 1383. ISBN 90-04-13818-8.
51. "Reference: C.N.612.2008.TREATIES-6 (Depositary Notification)" (PDF). United Nations. 27 August 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
52. Bolton, John R. (6 May 2002). "International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan". United States Department of State. from the original on 31 May 2002. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
53. "Annan regrets US decision not to ratify International Criminal Court statute". United Nations. 8 May 2002. from the original on 27 September 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
54. "Reference: C.N.886.2016.TREATIES-XVIII.10 (Depositary Notification)" (PDF). United Nations. 30 November 2016. (PDF) from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
55. Jianping, Lu; Zhixiang, Wang (6 July 2005). . Journal of International Criminal Justice. 3 (3): 608–620. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi056. ISSN 1478-1387. SSRN 915740. Archived from the original on 14 December 2005.
56. Ramanathan, Usha (6 July 2005). (PDF). Journal of International Criminal Justice. 3 (3): 627–634. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi055. ISSN 1478-1387. SSRN 915739. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 May 2006.
57. "Ukraine accepts ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed since 20 February 2014". International Criminal Court. 8 September 2015. from the original on 17 September 2015. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
58. Article 112 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
59. Amnesty International, 11 November 2007. Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court 11 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 2 January 2008.
60. Article 46 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
61. Coalition for the International Criminal Court. ^[Usurped!]. Retrieved 2 January 2008.
62. "Uganda to host Rome Statute Review Conference " The Hague Justice Portal". from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
63. The Presidency 21 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
64. Article 38 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 18 October 2013.
65. New ICC Presidency elected for 2021–2024. ICC press release. 11 March 2021. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
66. International Criminal Court. . Archived from the original on 18 July 2007. Retrieved 21 June 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 21 July 2007.
67. Article 36 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
68. Article 41 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 18 October 2013.
69. International Criminal Court. . Archived from the original on 19 January 2008. Retrieved 21 June 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 21 July 2007.
70. Article 42 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
71. US Department of State, 30 July 2003. "Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S. Government's Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC)". Retrieved 1 January 2007.. Retrieved 31 December 2006.
72. LeBor, Adam (September 2011). Brûlé, Tyler (ed.). "Don't Judge". Monocle. Midori House, London: Winkontent Ltd. 05 (46): 48–49. ISSN 1753-2434. cases are not the same, says Moreno-Ocampo. Arresting a head of state is more than a police matter. "You cannot say al-Bashir is in London, arrest him. You need a political agreement and a broad set of actors."
73. Henry A. Kissinger. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction". Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001, p. 95. Retrieved 31 December 2006.
74. The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute opens its tenth session. ICC. 14 December 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2011.
75. Nichols, Michelle; van den Berg, Stephanie (13 February 2021). "Britain's Karim Khan elected International Criminal Court prosecutor". Reuters. Retrieved 14 February 2021.
76. "Office of the Prosecutor". Icc-cpi.int. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
77. S, Barrie (29 September 2016). "Is the ICC Reconsidering its Policy on the "Interests of Justice"?". Justice in Conflict. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
78. "Policy Paper on the Interest of Justice". Icc-cpi.int. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
79. "Policy Paper on Victims' Participation". Icc-cpi.int. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
80. "Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations". Icc-cpi.int. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
81. "Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes". Icc-cpi.int. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
82. "Policy paper on case selection and prioritisation". Icc-cpi.int. from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
83. "Policy on Children". www.icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
84. Vidal, John; Bowcott, Owen (15 September 2016). "ICC widens remit to include environmental destruction cases". The Guardian. from the original on 20 September 2016. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
85. "Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation" (PDF). Icc-cpi.int. (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2016. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
86. "International court to prosecute environmental crimes in major shift". Reuters.com. 15 September 2016. from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
87. Vidal, John; Bowcott, Owen (15 September 2016). "ICC widens remit to include environmental destruction cases". The Guardian. from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
88. "Is environmental destruction a crime against humanity? The ICC may be about to find out". The Washington Post. from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
89. "CEOs can now be tried in The Hague like war criminals". The Independent. 19 September 2016. from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
90. International Criminal Court. The Registry. Retrieved 21 July 2007.
91. "The registrar". International Criminal Court. from the original on 1 November 2013. Retrieved 17 August 2013.
92. "Peter Lewis elected as ICC Registrar". www.icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
93. Schabas, William A. Introduction to The International Criminal Court.
94. Rome Statute, Article 5.
95. Rome Statute, Article 6.
96. Rome Statute, Articles 6(a)–6(e).
97. Rome Statute, Article 7.
98. "Elements of Crimes" (PDF). ICC. 2011. (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
99. "See especially paras 52-61 for discussion of the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer" (PDF).
100. Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(c).
101. Rome Statute, Article 8.
102. Article 5 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 20 March 2008.
103. "United Nations Treaty Collection". treaties.un.org. Retrieved 20 March 2020.
104. "Crime of Aggression - Amendments Ratification". asp.icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 20 March 2020.
105. Rome Statute, Article 8 bis(1).
106. Rome Statute, Article 8 bis(2).
107. Rome Statute, Articles 8 bis(2)(a)–8 bis(2)(g).
108. Rome Statute, Article 70.
109. Rome Statute, Article 12.
110. Rome Statute, Article 13(b).
111. Rome Statute, Article 29.
112. Rome Statute, Article 11(1).
113. Rome Statute, Article 11(2).
114. Rome Statute, Article 53(1).
115. Rome Statute, Articles 17(a)–17(c).
116. Tsilonis, Victor. "The awakening hypothesis of the complementarity principle" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 12 August 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
117. Rome Statute, Articles 17(d).
118. Rome Statute, Article 53(1)(c).
119. Rome Statute, Article 53(2)(c).
120. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 March 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
121. [2] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(2)
122. [3] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(a)
123. [4] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(b)
124. [5] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(c)
125. [6] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(d)
126. [7] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(e).
127. [8] 21 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(f)
128. Schabas, William A. (2011). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-521-15195-5. from the original on 29 April 2016. Retrieved 23 October 2015.
129. Schabas 2011, p. 322.
130. Schabas 2011, pp. 303–304.
131. Schabas 2011, p. 304.
132. Schabas 2011, p. 312.
133. Schabas 2011, p. 316.
134. Article 66 of the [Rome Statute]. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
135. The rights of persons during an investigation are provided in Article 55. Rights of the accused are provided in Part 6, especially Article 67. See also Amnesty International, 1 August 2000. The International Criminal Court: Fact sheet 9 – Fair trial guarantees 7 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 20 March 2008.
136. Katy Glassborow (21 August 2006). . Archived from the original on 9 May 2007. Retrieved 3 May 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Global Policy Forum. Retrieved 3 May 2007.
137. International Criminal Court. . Archived from the original on 22 April 2007. Retrieved 3 May 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 3 May 2007.
138. International Criminal Court, 2005. Report of the International Criminal Court for 2004 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 3 May 2007.
139. Stephanie Hanson (17 November 2006). Africa and the International Criminal Court 26 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine . Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 23 November 2006.
140. International Criminal Court. . Archived from the original on 2 July 2007. Retrieved 29 June 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Accessed 22 June 2007.
141. Ilaria Bottigliero (April 2003). "The International Criminal Court – Hope for the Victims" 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine. 32 SGI Quarterly. pp. 13–15. Accessed 24 July 2007.
142. Moffett, Luke. "Realising Justice for Victims before the International Criminal Court" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 27 September 2015.
143. Article 43(6) of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 18 October 2013.
144. Article 68 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 18 October 2013.
145. International Criminal Court, 17 October 2006. at the Internet Archive PDF (151 KB). Accessed 18 June 2007.
146. . Wikileaks.ch. Archived from the original on 3 March 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
147. Moffett, Luke (27 June 2014). Justice for Victims Before the International Criminal Court. Routledge. ISBN 9781317910824. from the original on 29 April 2016. Retrieved 26 September 2015.
148. "Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 7 December 2013.
149. International Criminal Court. . Archived from the original on 19 January 2008. Retrieved 29 June 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Accessed 22 June 2007.
150. (PDF). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations. 1969. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
151. Article 87 (5)(a) of the Rome Statute. Retrieved 30 October 2008.
152. Zhu, Wenqi (2006). "On Co-Operation by States Not Party to the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Review of the Red Cross. International Committee of the Red Cross (861): 87–110. (PDF) from the original on 22 November 2008. Retrieved 30 October 2008.
153. Article 25 of the UN Charter 20 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 30 October 2008.
154. Article 89 of Additional Protocol I 10 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine from 1977. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
155. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. the United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 114, para. 220.
156. Article 99 of the Rome Statute. Retrieved 30 October 2008.
157. Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
158. Anthony Dworkin (December 2003). "Introduction" 16 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine in The International Criminal Court: An End to Impunity? Crimes of War Project. Accessed 18 September 2007.
159. Article 16 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 20 March 2008.
160. Article 53 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 20 March 2008.
161. Tim Cocks (30 May 2007). . Archived from the original on 21 February 2008. Retrieved 31 May 2007.. Reuters. Accessed 31 May 2007.
162. Alasdair Palmer (14 January 2007). "When Victims Want Peace, Not Justice" 19 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine. The Sunday Telegraph. Accessed 15 January 2007.
163. Alena Skodova (12 April 2002). "Czech Parliament Against Ratifying International Criminal Court" 20 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Radio Prague. Accessed 11 January 2007.
164. See, for example, Kofi Annan (4 October 2000). Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone 25 May 2006 at the Wayback Machine, para. 22. Accessed 31 December 2006.
165. Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald-Beck, 2005. Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules, pp. 613–614. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80899-6.
166. Article 3 of the Rome Statute 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
167. The legal relationship between the ICC and the Netherlands is governed by a headquarters agreement, which entered into force on 1 March 2008. (See International Criminal Court, 2008: at the Internet Archive PDF (2.23 MB). Retrieved 1 June 2008.)
168. . Archived from the original on 23 February 2016. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
169. . Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
170. "ICC – Permanent Premises". International Criminal Court. Archived from the original on 2 August 2012. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
171. "ICC has signed contract with Danish architect schmidt hammer lassen for the development of permanent premises". Icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
172. "ICC – Timeline". from the original on 16 March 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
173. "ICC Permanent Premises". from the original on 23 January 2015. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
174. "Archived copy" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 22 March 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
175. Zaken, Ministerie van Buitenlandse (28 September 2016). "PR UN, New York - Permanent Representations - The Netherlands at International Organisations". Permanentrepresentations.nl. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
176. Emma Thomasson, 28 February 2006. ICC says cells ready for Uganda war crimes suspects 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine . Reuters. Retrieved 18 June 2007.
177. International Criminal Court, 18 October 2005. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2009. (537 KB), p. 23. Retrieved 18 June 2007.
178. International Criminal Court, January 2007. . Archived from the original on 10 October 2007. Retrieved 11 June 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved 10 June 2008.
179. International Criminal Court, 18 October 2007. . Archived from the original on 29 October 2007. Retrieved 11 June 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Accessed 10 June 2008.
180. "Financial statements of the International Criminal Court for the year ended 31 December 2020" (PDF). Assembly of States Parties, International Criminal Court. 23 July 2021.
181. (PDF). Part III – Resolutions and recommendations adopted by the Assembly of States Parties. International Criminal Court. 14 December 2007. Archived from the original (PDF, 323 KB) on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 30 October 2011. Programme budget for 2008, the Working Capital Fund for 2008, scale of assessments for the apportionment of expenses of the International Criminal Court and financing appropriations for the year 2008
182. (PDF). Assembly of States Parties, Seventh Session. International Criminal Court. 26 May 2008. Archived from the original (PDF, 309 KB) on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
183. Programme budget for 2009, the Contingency Fund, the Working Capital Fund for 2009, scale of assessments for the apportionment of expenses of the International Criminal Court and financing appropriations for the year 2009:
     Assembly of States Parties (21 November 2008). (PDF). Part III – Resolutions adopted by the Assembly of States Parties. International Criminal Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 October 2011. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
184. "The Court Today" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 25 April 2017. (PDF) from the original on 24 June 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
185. "The world's enduring dictators 9 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine". CBS News. 16 May 2011.
186. "ICC to probe Venezuela over alleged crimes against humanity". BBC. 4 November 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
187. "Home".
188. "Home".
189. "The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo - Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute". International Criminal Court. 5 April 2012.
190. "Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and Germain Katanga transferred to the DRC to serve their sentences of imprisonment". International Criminal Court. 19 December 2015. from the original on 4 November 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
191. Kevin Sieff (21 March 2016). "In historic ruling, international court cites rape in war crimes conviction of ex-Congo official". The Washington Post.
192. "Jean-Pierre Bemba's war crimes conviction overturned". The Guardian. 8 June 2018.
193. "The ICC's rejection of Bemba's compensation claim points to need for reform".
194. "Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen". www.icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
195. Simons, Marlise (6 July 2020). "Uighur Exiles Push for Court Case Accusing China of Genocide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on 10 July 2020. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
196. Kuo, Lily (7 July 2020). "Exiled Uighurs call on ICC to investigate Chinese 'genocide' in Xinjiang". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. from the original on 8 July 2020. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
197. "Situations under investigation". ICC. Archived from the original on 28 December 2021. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
198. "Preliminary examinations". ICC. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
199. "Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, concerning referral from the Gabonese Republic". ICC. 29 September 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016.
200. "Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations" (PDF). ICC. 1 November 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
201. "Policy on Situation Completion" (PDF). ICC. 15 June 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
202. "Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC" (PDF). ICC. 16 July 2003. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
203. "ICC - Prosecutor receives referral of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo". ICC. 19 April 2004. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
204. "ICC - The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens its first investigation". ICC. 23 June 2004. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
205. "The Statement of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo in relation to Cote D'Ivoire". ICC. 22 June 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
206. "ICC-02/11: Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire" (PDF). ICC. 3 October 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
207. "ICC - ICC Holds Seminar with Ugandan Judicial Authorities". ICC. 26 October 2005. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
208. "ICC - Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens an investigation into Nothern [sic] Uganda". ICC. 29 July 2004. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
209. "Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (2019)" (PDF). ICC. 5 December 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
210. "ICC Prosecutor, Mr Karim A. A. Khan QC, concludes the preliminary examination of the Situation in Colombia with a Cooperation Agreement with the Government charting the next stage in support of domestic efforts to advance transitional justice". ICC. 28 October 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
211. "ICC - Prosecutor receives referral concerning Central African Republic". ICC. 7 January 2007. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
212. "Prosecutor opens investigation in the Central African Republic". ICC. 22 May 2007. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
213. "The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim A.A. Khan KC, announces conclusion of the investigation phase in the Situation in the Central African Republic". ICC. 16 December 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
214. "ICC - Security Council refers situation in Darfur to ICC Prosecutor". ICC. 1 April 2005. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
215. "The Prosecutor of the ICC opens investigation in Darfur". ICC. 6 June 2007. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
216. "Preliminary examination: Iraq/UK". ICC. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
217. "Situation in Iraq/UK: Final Report" (PDF). ICC. 9 December 2020. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
218. "OTP letter to senders re Venezuela" (PDF). ICC. 9 February 2006. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
219. "Investigation: Afghanistan". ICC. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
220. "Afghanistan: ICC Appeals Chamber authorises the opening of an investigation". ICC. 5 March 2020. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
221. "OTP statement in relation to events in Kenya" (PDF). ICC. 5 February 2008. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
222. "ICC judges grant the Prosecutor's request to launch an investigation on crimes against humanity with regard to the situation in Kenya". ICC. 31 March 2010. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
223. "ICC Prosecutor confirms situation in Georgia under analysis". ICC. 20 August 2008. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
224. "ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I authorises the Prosecutor to open an investigation into the situation in Georgia". ICC. 27 January 2016. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
225. "The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim A.A. Khan KC, announces conclusion of the investigation phase in the Situation in Georgia". ICC. 16 December 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
226. "Update on Situation in Palestine" (PDF). ICC. 3 April 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
227. "Preliminary examination: Guinea". ICC. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
228. "Statement by ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC regarding the opening of the trial related to events of 28 September 2009 in Guinea, signature of Agreement with Transitional Government on complementarity and closure of the Preliminary Examination". ICC. 29 September 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
229. "Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on the conclusion of the preliminary examination into the situation in Honduras". ICC. 28 October 2015. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
230. "Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (2020)" (PDF). ICC. 14 December 2020. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
231. "Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on the conclusion of the preliminary examination of the situation in the Republic of Korea". ICC. 23 June 2014. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
232. "In Swift, Decisive Action, Security Council Imposes Tough Measures on Libyan Regime, Adopting Resolution 1970 in Wake of Crackdown on Protesters". United Nations. 26 February 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
233. "Statement by the Office of the Prosecutor on situation in Libya". ICC. 28 February 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
234. "Statement of the Prosecutor on the opening of the investigation into the situation in Libya" (PDF). ICC. 3 March 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
235. "ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on the Malian State referral of the situation in Mali since January 2012". ICC. 18 July 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
236. "ICC Prosecutor opens investigation into war crimes in Mali: 'The legal requirements have been met. We will investigate'". ICC. 16 January 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
237. "Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on the Situation on registered vessels of the Union of the Comoros et al". ICC. 30 November 2017. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
238. "Preliminary examination: Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia". ICC. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
239. "ICC-01/13: Situation on Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia Notice of Prosecutor's Final Decision under rule 108(3), as revised and refiled in accordance with the Pre-Trial Chamber's request of 15 November 2018 and the Appeals Chamber's judgment of 2 September 2019" (PDF). ICC. 2 December 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
240. "Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on opening a second investigation in the Central African Republic". ICC. 24 September 2014. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
241. "Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan QC, on the Situation in Ukraine: Additional Referrals from Japan and North Macedonia; Contact portal launched for provision of information". ICC. 11 March 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
242. "Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan QC, on the Situation in Ukraine: Receipt of Referrals from 39 States Parties and the Opening of an Investigation". ICC. 2 March 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
243. "Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on the conclusion of the preliminary examination of the Situation in Palestine, and seeking a ruling on the scope of the Court's territorial jurisdiction". ICC. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
244. "Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, respecting an investigation of the Situation in Palestine". ICC. 3 March 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
245. "Investigation: Republic of Burundi". ICC. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
246. "Situation in the Gabonese Republic: Article 5 Report" (PDF). ICC. 21 September 2018. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
247. "Statement of the Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on her request to open an investigation of the Situation in the Philippines". ICC. 14 June 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
248. "Situation in the Philippines: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I authorises the opening of an investigation". ICC. 15 September 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
249. "Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on the referral by Venezuela regarding the situation in its own territory". ICC. 17 February 2020. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
250. "ICC Prosecutor, Mr Karim A.A. Khan QC, opens an investigation into the Situation in Venezuela and concludes Memorandum of Understanding with the Government". ICC. 5 November 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
251. "Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on opening a Preliminary Examination concerning the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh". ICC. 18 September 2018. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
252. "Investigation: Bangladesh/Myanmar". ICC. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
253. "Situation in the Plurinational State of Bolivia: Final Report" (PDF). ICC. 14 February 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
254. "Situation in Central African Republic II: Alfred Yekatom surrendered to the ICC for crimes against humanity and war crimes". www.icc-cpi.int. Retrieved 12 August 2019.
255. ICC case information sheet on the Lubanga case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
256. ICC case information sheet on the Ntaganda case. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
257. Order regarding the hearing scheduled for 29 June - 1 July 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
258. Article 110 (3) of the Rome Statute of the International Court states that "[w]hen the person has served two thirds of the sentence, or 25 years in the case of life imprisonment, the Court shall review the sentence to determine whether it should be reduced. Such a review shall not be conducted before that time." Article 78 (3) of the Rome Statute specifies that "[i]n imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the Court shall deduct the time, if any, previously spent in detention in accordance with an order of the Court. The Court may deduct any time otherwise spent in detention in connection with conduct underlying the crime." The Court's Trial Chamber VI determined in its sentencing decision that the time since 22 March 2013 is to be deducted from the sentence. Thus, Bosco Ntaganda is to be released on or before 22 March 2043. Starting from 22 March 2013, two-thirds of thirty years (twenty years) will elapse on 22 March 2033.
259. ICC case information sheet on the Katanga case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
260. DR Congo to prosecute militia leader Katanga, convicted by ICC. Yahoo News. 18 January 2016. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
261. ICC Presidency approves the prosecution of Mr Germain Katanga by national authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ICC press release. 7 April 2016. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
262. ICC case information sheet on the Chui case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
263. ICC case information sheet on the Mbarushimana case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
264. Mbarushimana case: ICC Appeals Chamber rejects the Prosecution’s appeal. ICC. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
265. ICC case information sheet on the Mudacumura case.. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
266. "DRC army says Rwandan Hutu rebel commander Mudacumura killed". Al Jazeera English. 18 September 2019. from the original on 3 November 2019. Retrieved 3 November 2019.
267. ICC case information sheet on the Kony-Otti case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
268. Vincent Otti is confirmed dead. New Vision. 22 November 2007. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
269. ICC case information sheet on the Ongwen case. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
270. ICC case information sheet on the Bemba case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
271. ICC case information sheet on the Bemba et al. case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
272. [Bemba et al. case: ICC Appeals Chamber confirms re-sentencing decision ICC press release. Released 27 November 2019. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
273. ICC case information sheet on the Haroun-Kushayb case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
274. Kushayb case: Pre-Trial Chamber II makes public a second warrant of arrest and schedules a first appearance on 15 June. ICC press release. Released 11 June 2020.
275. Abd-Al-Rahman Case. Retrieved 18 June 2022.
276. ICC case information sheet on the al-Bashir case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
277. ICC case information sheet on the Abu Garda case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
278. ICC case information sheet on the Banda case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
279. ICC case information sheet on the Hussein case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
280. ICC case information sheet on the Ruto-Sang case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
281. ICC case information sheet on the Kenyatta case. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
282. The Prosecutor v. Walter Osapiri Barasa. ICC information page. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
283. ICC case information sheet on the Gicheru case. Retrieved 23 July 2022.

January 13, 2023