» 
Arabic Bulgarian Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Malagasy Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Vietnamese
Arabic Bulgarian Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Malagasy Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Vietnamese

definitions - International_Criminal_Court

International Criminal Court (n.)

1.Set up under the Rome Statute in 1998, the International Criminal Court is a permanent institution. Not to be confused with the International Criminal Tribunal or the International Court of Justice.

International Criminal Court

1.Set up under the Rome Statute in 1998, the International Criminal Court is a permanent institution. Not to be confused with the International Criminal Tribunal or the International Court of Justice.

   Advertizing ▼

definition (more)

definition of Wikipedia

analogical dictionary

International Criminal Court (n.)


   Advertizing ▼

Wikipedia

International Criminal Court

                   
International Criminal Court
Cour pénale internationale (French)
States Parties (dark green)  and states that have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute (orange)
States Parties (dark green) and states that have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute (orange)
Seat The Hague, Netherlands
Working languages English and French
Statute in force for 120 states
from 1 July 2012: 121 states
Leaders
 -  President Song Sang-Hyun
 -  Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda
Establishment
 -  Rome Statute adopted 17 July 1998 
 -  Entered into force 1 July 2002 
Website
www.icc-cpi.int
  The ICC in The Hague

The International Criminal Court (commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt)[1] is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot, until at least 2017,[2] exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).[3][4]

It came into being on 1 July 2002—the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force[5]—and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[6] The Court's official seat is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[7]

As of April 2012, 121 states[8] are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, nearly all of Europe and roughly half the countries in Africa.[9] The Statute will enter into force for its 121st state party, Guatemala, on 1 July 2012.[9] A further 32 countries[8], including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute[9]; one of them, Côte d'Ivoire, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction.[10] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty.[11] Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[9][12] 41 United Nations member states[8] have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.[13][14] The Palestinian National Authority, which neither is nor represents a United Nations member state, has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.[15] On 3 April 2012, the ICC Prosecutor declared himself unable to determine that Palestine is a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute.[16]

In June 2010, two amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were adopted by the Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda. The first amendment criminalizes the use of certain kinds of weapons in non-international conflicts whose use was already forbidden in international conflicts.[17] It is in force in no state party but will enter into force for its first ratifying state, San Marino, on 26 September 2012 and its second ratifying state, Liechtenstein, on 8 May 2013.[18] The second amendment specifies the crime of aggression.[2] It is in force in no state party but will enter into force for its first ratifying state, Liechtenstein, on 8 May 2013.[19] However, the Court will only have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression after it enters into force for 30 states parties and after the Assembly of States Parties has voted in favour of allowing the Court to have jurisdiction after 1 January 2017.

The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in three cases, viz. if the accused is a national of a state party, if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party or if a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[20] It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[21][22] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.[23]

To date, the Court has opened investigations into seven situations in Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; the Republic of Kenya; the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.[24] Of these seven, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and two were begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire[25]).

It has publicly indicted 28 people, proceedings against 22 of whom are ongoing. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 19 individuals and summonses to nine others. Five individuals are in custody; one of them has been found guilty (with an appeal possible) while four of them are being tried. Nine individuals remain at large as fugitives (although one is reported to have died). Additionally, two individuals have been arrested by national authorities, but have not yet been transferred to the Court. Proceedings against six individuals have finished following the death of two and the dismissal of charges against the other four.

As of May 2012, the Court's first trial, the Lubanga trial in the situation of the DR Congo, has ended with the accused found guilty on 14 March 2012.[26] Sentencing and reparations are to be discussed at a later stage. The Katanga-Chui trial regarding the DR Congo was concluded in May 2012; the judgment is pending. The Bemba trial regarding the Central African Republic is ongoing. A fourth trial chamber, for the Banda-Jerbo trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, has been established. There are a fifth and a sixth trial upcoming in the Kenya situation, namely the Ruto-Sang and the Muthaura-Kenyatta trials for which a single Trial Chamber is responsible.[27] The confirmation of charges hearing in the Gbagbo case in the Côte d'Ivoire situation is scheduled to start on 13 August 2012.

Contents

  History

The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of war crimes was first made during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 by the Commission of Responsibilities. The issue was addressed again at conference held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations on 1–16 November 1937, but no practical results followed. The United Nations states that the General Assembly first recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind committed during World War II in 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals.[4] At the request of the General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two statutes by the early 1950s but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.[28]

Benjamin B. Ferencz, an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, later became a vocal advocate of the establishment of an 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 argued for the establishment of such an international court.[29]

The idea was revived in 1989 when A. N. R. Robinson, then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, proposed the creation of a permanent international court to deal with the illegal drug trade.[28][30] While work began on a draft statute, the international community established ad hoc tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established in 1994, further highlighting the need for a permanent international criminal court.[31]

In June 1989, motivated in part by an effort to combat drug trafficking, Trinidad and Tobago resurrected a pre-existing proposal for the establishment of an ICC and the UN GA asked that the ILC resume its work on drafting a statute.In June 1989, motivated in part by an effort to combat drug trafficking, Trinidad and Tobago resurrected a pre-existing proposal for the establishment of an ICC and the UN GA asked that the ILC resume its work on drafting a statute.[32] The conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia as well as in Rwanda in the early 1990s and the mass commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide led the UN Security Council to establish two separate temporary ad hoc tribunals to hold individuals accountable for these atrocities, further highlighting the need for a permanent international criminal court.

In 1994, the ILC presented its final draft statute for an ICC to the UN GA and recommended that a conference of plenipotentiaries be convened to negotiate a treaty and enact the Statute.[33] 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 UN GA created the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of the ICC to prepare a consolidated draft text. From 1996 to 1998, six sessions of the UN Preparatory Committee were held at the United Nations headquarters in New York, in which NGOs provided input into the discussions and attended meetings under the umbrella of the NGO Coalition for an ICC (CICC). In January 1998, the Bureau and coordinators of the Preparatory Committee convened for an Inter-Sessional meeting in Zutphen, the Netherlands to technically consolidate and restructure the draft articles into a draft.

Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, United States, and Yemen.[34]

The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11 April 2002, when the number of countries that had ratified it reached sixty.[5] The Statute legally came into force on 1 July 2002,[5] and the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after that date.[6] The first bench of 18 judges was elected by an Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the inaugural session of the Court on 11 March 2003.[35] The Court issued its first arrest warrants on 8 July 2005,[36] and the first pre-trial hearings were held in 2006.[37]

During a Review Conference of the International Criminal Court Statute in Kampala, Uganda, two amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were adopted on 10 and 11 June 2010. The second amendment concerns the definition of the crime of aggression.

  States parties

As of April 2012, 121 states[8] are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, nearly all of Europe and roughly half the countries in Africa.[9] The Statute will enter into force for its 121st state party, Guatemala, on 1 July 2012.[9] A further 32 countries[8], including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute[9]; one of them, Côte d'Ivoire, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction.[10] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty.[11] Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[9][12] 41 United Nations member states[8] have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.[13][14] The Palestinian National Authority, which neither is nor represents a United Nations member state, has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.[15] On 3 April 2012, the ICC Prosecutor declared himself unable to determine that Palestine is a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute.[16]

  Palestinian Authority

In January 2009, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court received an official communication from the Minister of Justice of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Ali Kashan, which expressed the PA's readiness to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC over “the territory of Palestine.”[38] The PA's declaration purported to invoke Article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute, which specifically enables "a state which is not a party to this Statute" to request that the ICC exercise its jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis with respect to an alleged crime on that state’s territory or involving its nationals.

In April 2012, the ICC rejected the request. "International arenas are routinely hijacked for political purposes, but today’s decision was markedly different," said Anne Herzberg, legal adviser for NGO Monitor.[39][40] According to the Jerusalem Post, "had the ICC accepted the PA’s recognition of its jurisdiction, it would have also tacitly accepted its statehood."[41]

  Jurisdiction

  Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the Court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the "most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole": the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The Statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression.[3] The crime of genocide is unique because the crime must be committed with 'intent to destroy'. Crimes against humanity are specifically listed prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.[42] The Statute provides that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.[3][4]

In June 2010, the ICC's first review conference in Kampala, Uganda adopted amendments defining "crimes of aggression" and expanding the ICC's jurisdiction over them. The ICC will not be allowed to prosecute for this crime until at least 2017.[43] Furthermore, it expanded the term of war crimes for the use of certain weapons in an armed conflict not of an international character.

Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the Court's limited resources.[4] India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction included as war crimes but this move was also defeated.[44] India has expressed concern that "the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community."[44]

Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of 'war crimes' goes beyond that accepted under customary international law.[45]

  Territorial jurisdiction

During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[46] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:

  • where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
  • where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
  • where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[20]

  Temporal jurisdiction

The Court's jurisdiction does not apply retroactively: it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date on which the Rome Statute entered into force). Where a state becomes party to the Rome Statute after that date, the Court can exercise jurisdiction automatically with respect to crimes committed after the Statute enters into force for that state.[6]

  Complementarity

The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if:

"(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court."[21]

Article 20, paragraph 3, specifies that, if a person has already been tried by another court, the ICC cannot try them again for the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

"(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice."[22]

  Structure

The ICC is governed by an Assembly of States Parties.[47] The Court consists of four main organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.[48]

  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.[49] Each state party has one vote and "every effort" has to be made to reach decisions by consensus.[49] If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by vote.[49] 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 in New York or The Hague, and may also hold special sessions where circumstances require.[49] Sessions are open to observer states and non-governmental organisations.[50]

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.[47][49] 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".[51]

The states parties cannot interfere with the judicial functions of the Court.[52] Disputes concerning individual cases are settled by the Judicial Divisions.[52]

In 2010, Kampala, Uganda hosted the Assembly's Rome Statute Review Conference.[53]

  Presidency

  Philippe Kirsch, President of the Court from 2003 to 2009

The Presidency is responsible for the proper administration of the Court (apart from the Office of the Prosecutor).[54] 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.[55] The current President is Sang-Hyun Song, who was elected on 11 March 2009.[56]

  Judicial Divisions

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.[57] Judges are elected to the Court by the Assembly of States Parties.[57] They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for re-election.[57] All judges must be nationals of states parties to the Rome Statute, and no two judges may be nationals of the same state.[58] 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”.[58]

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".[59] Any request for the disqualification of a judge from a particular case is decided by an absolute majority of the other judges.[59] A judge may be removed from office 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.[51] The removal of a judge requires both a two-thirds majority of the other judges and a two-thirds majority of the states parties.[51]

  Office of the Prosecutor

The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions.[23] It is headed by the Chief Prosecutor, who is assisted by one or more Deputy Prosecutors.[48] The Rome Statute provides that the Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently;[60] 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.[23]

The Prosecutor may open an investigation under three circumstances:[23]

  • 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".[60] Requests for the disqualification of prosecutors are decided by the Appeals Chamber.[60] 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.[51] 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”.[61] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”.[62]

As of 16 June 2003, the Prosecutor has been Luis Moreno Ocampo of Argentina, who was elected by the Assembly of States Parties on 21 April 2003[63] for a term of nine years.[23]

At the tenth session of the Assembly of States Parties, the then-Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of Gambia was elected as the new Prosecutor on 12 December 2011. She will take her office on 16 June 2012.[64]

  Registry

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court.[65] 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”.[65] The Registry is headed by the Registrar, who is elected by the judges to a five-year term.[48] The current Registrar is Silvana Arbia, who was elected on 28 February 2009.

  Headquarters, offices and detention unit

The official seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[7][66]

The Court is currently housed in interim premises on the eastern edge of The Hague.[67] It intends to construct the ICC Permanent Premises in the Alexanderkazerne, to the north of The Hague.[67][68] The land and financing for the new construction have been provided by the Netherlands,[69] and architects schmidt hammer lassen have been retained to design the project.[69]

The ICC also maintains a liaison office in New York[70] and field offices in places where it conducts its activities.[71] As of 18 October 2007, the Court had field offices in Kampala, Kinshasa, Bunia, Abéché and Bangui.[71]

The ICC's detention centre comprises twelve cells on the premises of the Scheveningen branch of the Haaglanden Penal Institution, The Hague.[72] Suspects held by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are held in the same prison and share some facilities, like the fitness room, but have no contact with suspects held by the ICC.[72] The detention unit is close to the ICC's future headquarters in the Alexanderkazerne.[73]

As of March 2012, the detention centre houses one person convicted by the court, Thomas Lubanga, and five suspects: Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Jean-Pierre Bemba, Laurent Gbagbo and also former Liberian President Charles Taylor. Taylor was tried under the mandate and auspices of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, but his trial was held at the ICC's facilities in The Hague because of political and security concerns about holding the trial in Freetown.[74][75] (On April 26, 2012, Taylor was convicted on 11 charges.)

The ICC does not have its own witness protection program, but rather must rely on national programs to keep witnesses safe.[76]

  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.[77] A majority of the 3 judges present, as triers of fact, may reach a decision, which must include a full and reasoned statement.[78] Trials are supposed to be public, but proceedings are often closed, and such exceptions to a public trial have not been enumerated in detail.[79] In camera proceedings are allowed for protection of witnesses or defendants as well as for confidential or sensitive evidence.[80] 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.[81] 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 are, such as fines.[82]

  Rights of the accused

The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,[83] and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during investigations.[84] These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against him or her; the right to have a lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to examine the witnesses against him or her.

Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient. According to the Heritage Foundation "Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers."[85] The Human Rights Watch argues that the ICC standards are sufficient, saying, “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including "presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy".[86]

According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference and who voted against adoption of the treaty, "when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, 'Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?' And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test."[87]

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.[88][89] The OPCD also helps to safeguard the rights of the accused during the initial stages of an investigation.[90] 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.[91]

The trial court procedures are similar to the US Guantanamo military commissions.[92][93]

  Victim participation and reparations

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.[94][95] 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 this balance between retributive and restorative justice that will enable the ICC, not only to bring criminals to justice but also to help the victims themselves obtain justice.

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."[96] Article 68 sets out procedures for the "Protection of the victims and witnesses and their participation in the proceedings."[97] The Court has also established an Office of Public Counsel for Victims, to provide support and assistance to victims and their legal representatives.[98] Article 79 of the Rome Statute establishes a Trust Fund to make financial reparations to victims and their families.[99]

  Participation of victims in proceedings

The Rome Statute contains provisions which enable victims to participate in all stages of the proceedings before the Court.

Hence victims may file submissions before the Pre-Trial Chamber when the Prosecutor requests its authorisation to investigate. They may also file submissions on all matters relating to the competence of the Court or the admissibility of cases.

More generally, victims are entitled to file submissions before the Court chambers at the pre-trial stage, during the proceedings or at the appeal stage.

The rules of procedure and evidence stipulate the time for victim participation in proceedings before the Court. They must send a written application to the Court Registrar and more precisely to the Victims' Participation and Reparation Section, which must submit the application to the competent Chamber which decides on the arrangements for the victims' participation in the proceedings. The Chamber may reject the application if it considers that the person is not a victim. Individuals who wish to make applications to participate in proceedings before the Court must therefore provide evidence proving they are victims of crimes which come under the competence of the Court in the proceedings commenced before it. The Section prepared standard forms and a booklet to make it easier for victims to file their petition to participate in the proceedings.

It should be stipulated that a petition may be made by a person acting with the consent of the victim, or in their name when the victim is a child or if any disability makes this necessary.

Victims are free to choose their legal representative who must be equally as qualified as the counsel for the defence (this may be a lawyer or person with experience as a judge or prosecutor) and be fluent in one of the Court's two working languages (English or French).

To ensure efficient proceedings, particularly in cases with many victims, the competent Chamber may ask victims to choose a shared legal representative. If the victims are unable to appoint one, the Chamber may ask the Registrar to appoint one or more shared legal representatives. The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section is responsible for assisting victims with the organisation of their legal representation before the Court. When a victim or a group of victims does not have the means to pay for a shared legal representative appointed by the Court, they may request financial aid from the Court to pay counsel. Counsel may participate in the proceedings before the Court by filing submissions and attending the hearings.

The Registry, and within it the Victims' Participation and Reparation Section, has many obligations with regard to notification of the proceedings to the victims to keep them fully informed of progress. Thus, it is stipulated that the Section must notify victims, who have communicated with the Court in a given case or situation, of any decisions by the Prosecutor not to open an investigation or not to commence a prosecution, so that these victims can file submissions before the Pre-Trial Chamber responsible for checking the decisions taken by the Prosecutor under the conditions laid down in the Statute. The same notification is required before the confirmation hearing in the Pre-Trial Chamber to allow the victims to file all the submissions they require. All decisions taken by the Court are then notified to the victims who participated in the proceedings or to their counsel. The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section has wide discretion to use all possible means to give adequate publicity to the proceedings before the Court (local media, requests for co-operation sent to Governments, aid requested from NGOs or other means).

  Reparation for victims

For the first time in the history of humanity, an international court has the power to order an individual to pay reparation to another individual; it is also the first time that an international criminal court has had such power.

Pursuant to article 75, the Court may lay down the principles for reparation for victims, which may include restitution, indemnification and rehabilitation. On this point, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has benefited from all the work carried out with regard to victims, in particular within the United Nations.

The Court must also enter an order against a convicted person stating the appropriate reparation for the victims or their beneficiaries. This reparation may also take the form of restitution, indemnification or rehabilitation. The Court may order this reparation to be paid through the Trust Fund for Victims, which was set up by the Assembly of States Parties in September 2002.

To be able to apply for reparation, victims have to file a written application with the Registry, which must contain the evidence laid down in Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section prepared standard forms to make this easier for victims.[100] They may also apply for protective measures for the purposes of confiscating property from the persons prosecuted.

The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section is responsible for giving all appropriate publicity to these reparation proceedings to enable victims to make their applications. These proceedings take place after the person prosecuted has been declared guilty of the alleged facts.

The Court has the option of granting individual or collective reparation, concerning a whole group of victims or a community, or both. If the Court decides to order collective reparation, it may order that reparation to be made through the Victims' Fund and the reparation may then also be paid to an inter-governmental, international or national organisation.

  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 (pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt) without their consent, and this is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[101] 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.[102] 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.[103] 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.[104] Also, there is an obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, which stems from the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I,[105] which reflects the absolute nature of IHL.[106] Although the wording of the Conventions might not be precise as to what steps have to be taken, it has been argued that it at least requires non-party states to make an effort not to block actions of ICC in response to serious violations of those Conventions.[103] In relation to co-operation in investigation and evidence gathering, it is implied from the Rome Statute[107] 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.[103] Taking into account the experience of the ICTY (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.[103] 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.[108]

  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.[109] Article 16 of the Rome Statute allows the Security Council to prevent the Court from investigating or prosecuting a case,[110] 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”.[111] 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.[109]

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.[112][113] 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".[114] However, the United Nations[115] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[116] maintain that granting amnesty to those accused of war crimes and other serious crimes is a violation of international law.

  Criticisms

Some UN member states, such as China and India, are critical of the Court.[117][118]

  Checks and balances

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”.[61] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”.[62]

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.[91]

  Rights of the accused

Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient. According to the Heritage Foundation "Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers."[85] The Human Rights Watch argues that the ICC standards are sufficient, saying, “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including "presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy".[86]

According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference and who voted against adoption of the treaty, "when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, 'Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?' And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test."[87]

In some common law systems, such as the United States, the right to confront one's accusers is traditionally seen as negatively affected by the lack of an ability to compel witnesses and the admission of hearsay evidence.[119][120]

  Limitations

Limitations exist for the ICC. The 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.

  Relationships

  United Nations

  The UN Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC

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. Because the ICC cannot look into anything that happened before its establishment in 2002, it cannot be said that the ICC is functionally independent from the UN. 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.[110] 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.[121]

The Court cooperates with the UN in many different areas, including the exchange of information and logistical support.[122] The Court reports to the UN each year on its activities,[122][123] 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”.[124][125]

  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.[126] 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 different countries.[127] 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.[126] 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.[126] 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 ascribe 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[127]

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.[126] 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.[126] 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 many time 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.[126] 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.[126] 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, an in upholding due-process standards and defense 'equality of arms' and so implicitly set an agenda for the future evolution of the ICC."[126] 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 have national representatives to it 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."[126] 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."[126] 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.

  Finance

  Contributions to the ICC's budget, 2008

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:[128] 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,[129] and the Assembly of States Parties has approved a budget of €90,382,100 for 2008[128] and €101,229,900 for 2009.[130] As of September 2008, the ICC’s staff consisted of 571 persons from 83 states.[131]

  Investigations

Map of countries where the ICC is currently investigating situations.
  ICC investigations
Green: Official investigations (Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), Kenya, Libya, and Côte d`Ivoire)
Light red: Ongoing preliminary examinations (Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Nigeria, and South Korea)
Dark red: Closed preliminary examinations (Palestine, Iraq, and Venezuela)
The Court has received complaints about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries, but, currently, the Prosecutor of the Court has opened investigations into seven situations in Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; the Republic of Kenya; the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.[24] Of these seven, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and two were begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire[25]).


Key:
      Official investigation
      Authorization to open investigation requested
      Preliminary examination ongoing
      Preliminary examination closed

Situation Referred by Referred on Investigation
announced
Status File no. Ref.
Democratic Republic of the Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo 02004-04-1616 April 2004 02004-06-2323 June 2004 Case(s) begun ICC-01/04 [132]
Uganda Uganda 02003-12-1616 December 2003 02004-07-2929 July 2004 Case(s) begun ICC-02/04 [133]
Central African Republic Central African Republic 02005-01-077 January 2005 02007-05-2222 May 2007 Case(s) begun ICC-01/05 [134]
Darfur, Sudan UN Security Council 02005-03-3131 March 2005 02005-06-066 June 2005 Case(s) begun ICC-02/05 [135]
Republic of Kenya Pre-Trial Chamber II 02010-03-3131 March 2010 02010-03-3131 March 2010 Case(s) begun ICC-01/09 [136]
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya UN Security Council 02011-02-2626 February 2011 02011-03-033 March 2011 Case(s) begun ICC-01/11 [137]
Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Pre-Trial Chamber III 02011-10-033 October 2011 02011-10-033 October 2011 Case(s) begun ICC-02/11 [138]
Colombia 2006 Ongoing (phase 3) [139]
Iraq 2006 Concluded [140]
Venezuela 2006 Concluded [141]
Afghanistan 2007 Ongoing (phase 2b) [142]
Georgia 02008-08-1414 August 2008 Ongoing (phase 3) [143]
Palestine 02009-01-2222 January 2009 Ongoing (phase 2a) [144] [145]
Guinea 02009-10-1414 October 2009 Ongoing (phase 3) [146]
Honduras 02009-11-1818 November 2009 Ongoing (phase 2b) [147]
Nigeria 02009-11-1818 November 2009 Ongoing (phase 2b) [148]
Republic of Korea 02010-12-066 December 2010 Ongoing (phase 2b) [149]

The Office of the Prosecutor applies different phases to any preliminary examination. Every examination is started with an initial review (phase 1). It is followed by clarifications of jurisdiction, namely temporal, territorial and personal jurisdiction (phase 2a) on one hand and subject-matter jurisdiction (phase 2b) on the other hand. After resolving this, the issue of admissibility (phase 3) and interests of justice (phase 4) complete the procedure.[150]

Summary of investigations[note 1] and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court
Situation Publicly indicted Ongoing procedures Procedures finished, due to ... PTC TCs
Not before court Pre-Trial Trial Appeal Death Acquittal Conviction
[note 2] [note 3] [note 4] [note 5] [note 6] [note 7] [note 8] [note 9]
Democratic Republic of the Congo 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 II I, II
Uganda 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 II
Central African Republic 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 II III
Darfur, Sudan 7 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 II IV
Kenya 6 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 II V
Libya 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 I
Côte d'Ivoire 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I
Total 28 11 7 4 0 2 4 0

Notes

  1. ^ A situation is listed here if it was referred to the ICC by the government of a state or by the United Nations Security Council or if an investigation was authorized by a Pre-Trial Chamber.
  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 either charges not confirmed or acquitted in trial or on appeal. If charges were not confirmed, the Prosecutor may again seek a confirmation with fresh evidence.
  8. ^ Pre-Trial Chamber currently in charge
  9. ^ Trial Chambers currently in charge
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 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
In ICC custody, convicted; sentencing hearing before Trial Chamber I to be held on 13 June 2012 [151] [152]
Bosco Ntaganda 22 August 2006 3 Fugitive [153]
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 In ICC custody, trial before Trial Chamber II concluded; judgment to be delivered [154] [155]
Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui 6 July 2007 3 6 6 February 2008
11 February 2008
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] [156] [157]
Northern Uganda
Investigation article
Joseph Kony 8 July 2005 12 21 Fugitive [158]
Vincent Otti 11 21 Fugitive, reportedly died in 2007 [158] [159]
Raska Lukwiya 1 3 Proceedings finished; died on 12 August 2006 [158]
Okot Odhiambo 3 7 Fugitive
Dominic Ongwen 3 4 Fugitive
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
began
22 November 2010
In ICC custody, trial before Trial Chamber III ongoing [160]
Darfur, Sudan
Investigation article
Ahmed Haroun 27 April 2007 20 22 Fugitive [161]
Ali Kushayb 22 28 Fugitive
Omar al-Bashir 4 March 2009
12 July 2010
3 5 2 Fugitive [162]
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] [163]
Abdallah Banda 27 August 2009
(summons)
3 17 June 2010 8 December 2010
confirmed 7 March 2011
Trial Chamber constituted Appearing voluntarily, charges confirmed, trial before Trial Chamber IV to begin [164]
Saleh Jerbo 3
Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein 1 March 2012 7 6 Fugitive [165]
Republic of Kenya
Investigation article
William Ruto 8 March 2011
(summons)
4 7 April 2011 1-8 September 2011
confirmed 23 January 2012
Trial Chamber constituted Appearing voluntarily, charges confirmed, trial before Trial Chamber V to begin [166]
Joshua Sang 4
Henry Kosgey 4 1-8 September 2011
dismissed 23 January 2012
Proceedings finished with charges dismissed [note 6] [166]
Francis Muthaura 8 March 2011
(summons)
5 8 April 2011 21 September–5 October 2011
confirmed 23 January 2012
Trial Chamber constituted Appearing voluntarily, charges confirmed, trial before Trial Chamber V to begin [167]
Uhuru Kenyatta 5
Mohammed Hussein Ali 5 21 September–5 October 2011
dismissed 23 January 2012
Proceedings finished with charges dismissed [note 6] [167]
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Muammar Gaddafi 27 June 2011 2 Proceedings finished; died on 20 October 2011 [168]
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi 2 Arrested on 19 November 2011, in custody of Libyan authorities [168] [169]
Abdullah Senussi 2 Arrested on 16 March 2012, in custody of Mauritanian authorities, to be extradited to Libya [168] [170]
Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Laurent Gbagbo 23 November 2011 4 30 November 2011
5 December 2011
to begin
13 August 2012
In ICC custody, pre-trial phase before Pre-Trial Chamber I ongoing [171] [172]

Notes

  1. ^ A situation is listed here if it was referred to the ICC by the government of a state or by the United Nations Security Council or if an investigation was authorized by a Pre-Trial Chamber.
  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. ^ a b c d 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."

  Notes and references

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ a b "Resolution RC/Res.6: The crime of aggression" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 10 June 2010. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf. Retrieved 13 March 2011. 
  3. ^ a b c Article 5 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  4. ^ a b c d United Nations Department of Public Information, December 2002. The International Criminal Court. Accessed 5 December 2006.
  5. ^ a b c Amnesty International (11 April 2002). "The International Criminal Court – A Historic Development in the Fight for Justice". Retrieved 20 March 2008.
  6. ^ a b c Article 11 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  7. ^ a b Article 3 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  8. ^ a b c The sum of (a) states parties, (b) signatories and (c) non-signatory United Nations member states is 194. This number is one more than the number of United Nations member states (193). This is due to the Cook Islands being a state party but not a United Nations member state.
  9. ^ a b c d United Nations Treaty Database entry regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
  10. ^ ICC press release on Côte d'Ivoire's acception of jurisdiction. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
  11. ^ The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18. Accessed 23 November 2006.
  12. ^ John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. US Department of State. Accessed 23 November 2006.
  13. ^ China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
  14. ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
  15. ^ "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2009-01-21. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4-C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  16. ^ ICC Prosecutor's update on the situation in Palestine. 3 April 2012. Retrieved 12 April 2012.
  17. ^ "Resolution RC/Res.5: Amendments to article 8 of the Rome Statute" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2010-06-10. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.5-ENG.pdf. Retrieved 2011-03-13. 
  18. ^ "Chapter XVIII, Penal Matters 10.a: Amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collections. 2011-03-13. http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10-a&chapter=18&lang=en. Retrieved 2011-09-27. 
  19. ^ "Chapter XVIII, Penal Mattters 10.b: Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2011-03-13. http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10-b&chapter=18&lang=en. Retrieved 2011-03-13. 
  20. ^ a b Articles 12 & 13 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  21. ^ a b {{cite web |title=Article 17 | Rome Statute |url=http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm |publisher=Untreaty.un.org |accessdate= 20 March 2008{{
  22. ^ a b "Article 20 | Rome Statute". Untreaty.un.org. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm. Retrieved 20 March 2008. 
  23. ^ a b c d e International Criminal Court. Office of the Prosecutor. Accessed 21 July 2007.
  24. ^ "All Situations". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Situations/. Retrieved 2011-05-20. 
  25. ^ It should be noted that in the case of Côte d'Ivoire a referral by a state party was not possible as Côte d'Ivoire is not a state party to the Rome Statute.
  26. ^ "War crimes court finds Lubanga guilty in landmark ruling". Af.reuters.com. 14 March 2012. http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E8EE0ZA20120314. 
  27. ^ Decision constituting Trial Chamber V and referring to it the case of The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang. ICC Presidency. 29 March 2012. Retrieved 29 March 2012.
  28. ^ a b Dempsey, Gary T. (16 July 1998). "Reasonable Doubt: The Case Against the Proposed International Criminal Court". Cato Institute. Retrieved 31 December 2006.
  29. ^ "Benjamin B Ferencz, Biography". 9 January 2008. Archived from the original on 9 January 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080109011136/http://www.benferencz.org/bio.html. Retrieved 1 March 2011. 
  30. ^ International Criminal Court (20 June 2006). "Election of Mr Arthur N.R. Robinson to the Board of Directors of the Victims Trust Fund". Retrieved 3 May 2007.
  31. ^ Coalition for the International Criminal Court. "History of the ICC". Retrieved 31 December 2006.
  32. ^ "History of the ICC". Retrieved 04 June 2012.
  33. ^ "Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, 1994". Retrieved 04 June 2012.
  34. ^ Scharf, Michael P. (August 1998). "Results of the Rome Conference for an International Criminal Court". American Society of International Law. Retrieved 4 December 2006.
  35. ^ Coalition for the International Criminal Court. "Judges and the Presidency". Retrieved 5 December 2006.
  36. ^ [dead link] International Criminal Court (14 October 2005). "Warrant of Arrest Unsealed Against Five LRA Commanders". Retrieved 5 December 2006.
  37. ^ International Criminal Court (9 November 2006). "Prosecutor Presents Evidence That Could Lead to First ICC Trial". Retrieved 5 December 2006.
  38. ^ "Averting Palestinian Unilateralism" (PDF). http://www.jcpa.org/text/Palestinian_State_ICC.pdf. Retrieved 1 March 2011. 
  39. ^ International Criminal Court prosecutor rejects Palestinian attempt to recognize jurisdiction[dead link]
  40. ^ "Prosecutor Rejects Palestinian Recognition of ICC". Abcnews.go.com. 2011-09-07. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-rejects-palestinian-recognition-icc-16061773. Retrieved 2012-06-20. 
  41. ^ Paraszczuk, Joanna. "ICC: No Cast Lead probe as PA not a state". Jpost.com. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=264638. Retrieved 2012-06-20. 
  42. ^ Tamfuh Y.N Wilson (July 2008). "THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: CREATION, COMPETENCE, AND IMPACT IN AFRICA.". African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies 3 (2). ISSN 1554-3897. http://www.umes.edu/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=18494. Retrieved 26 June 2011. 
  43. ^ Official records of the Review Conference. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  44. ^ a b Dilip Lahiri, 17 July 1998. Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Embassy of India, Washington, D.C. Accessed 31 December 2006.
  45. ^ Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang. "China's Attitude Towards the ICC" in Journal of International Criminal Justice, July 2005.
  46. ^ Elizabeth Wilmshurst, 1999. ‘Jurisdiction of the Court’, p. 136. In Roy S Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. ISBN 90-411-1212-X.
  47. ^ a b International Criminal Court. Assembly of States Parties. Accessed 2 January 2008.
  48. ^ a b c International Criminal Court. Structure of the Court, ICC website. Accessed 16 June 2012
  49. ^ a b c d e Article 112 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  50. ^ Amnesty International, 11 November 2007. Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2 January 2008.
  51. ^ a b c d Article 46 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  52. ^ a b Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Assembly of States Parties. Accessed 2 January 2008.
  53. ^ Uganda to host Rome Statute Review Conference, Hague Justice Portal
  54. ^ International Criminal Court. The Presidency. Accessed 21 July 2007.
  55. ^ Article 38 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  56. ^ International Criminal Court, 11 March 2009. Judge Song (Republic of Korea) elected President of the International Criminal Court; Judges Diarra (Mali) and Kaul (Germany) elected First and Second Vice-Presidents respectively. Accessed 11 March 2009.
  57. ^ a b c International Criminal Court. Chambers. Accessed 21 July 2007.
  58. ^ a b Article 36 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  59. ^ a b Article 41 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  60. ^ a b c Article 42 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  61. ^ a b US Department of State, 30 July 2003. Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S. Government's Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC). Accessed 31 December 2006.
  62. ^ a b Henry A. Kissinger. “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction”. Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001, p. 95. Accessed 31 December 2006.
  63. ^ International Criminal Court, 24 April 2003. Election of the Prosecutor. Accessed 21 July 2007.
  64. ^ The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute opens its tenth session. ICC. 14 December 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2011.
  65. ^ a b International Criminal Court. The Registry. Accessed 21 July 2007.
  66. ^ 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: Headquarter Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the Host StatePDF (2.23 MB). Accessed 1 June 2008.)
  67. ^ a b Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2006. Building – ICC Premises. Accessed 18 June 2007.
  68. ^ Assembly of States Parties, 14 December 2007. Resolution: Permanent premisesPDF (323 KB). Accessed 20 March 2008.
  69. ^ a b "ICC – Permanent Premises". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/exeres/c0bf504b-5ca8-4b1a-bb69-15c62a15ef8f.htm. Retrieved 19 February 2012. 
  70. ^ International Criminal Court, January 2007. Socorro Flores Liera Head of the Liaison Office to the UN. Accessed 10 June 2008.
  71. ^ a b International Criminal Court, 18 October 2007. The Registrar Inaugurates the ICC Field Office in Bangui. Accessed 10 June 2008.
  72. ^ a b Emma Thomasson, 28 February 2006. ICC says cells ready for Uganda war crimes suspects. Reuters. Accessed 18 June 2007.
  73. ^ International Criminal Court, 18 October 2005. Report on the future permanent premises of the International Criminal Court: Project PresentationPDF (537 KB), p. 23. Accessed 18 June 2007.
  74. ^ BBC News, 20 June 2006. Q&A: Trying Charles Taylor. Accessed 11 January 2007.
  75. ^ Alexandra Hudson, 31 May 2007. "Warlord Taylor's home is lonely Dutch prison". Reuters. Accessed 27 July 2007.
  76. ^ "US Department of State Cable, 10NAIROBI11, Kenya: Inadequate Witness Protection Poses Painful Dilemma". Wikileaks.ch. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/01/10NAIROBI11.html. Retrieved 5 March 2011. 
  77. ^ Schabas, William A. (2011). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-521-15195-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=9Awa7ghw5Q4C&pg=PA302. 
  78. ^ Schabas 2011, p. 322.
  79. ^ Schabas 2011, pp. 303–304.
  80. ^ Schabas 2011, p. 304.
  81. ^ Schabas 2011, p. 312.
  82. ^ Schabas 2011, p. 316.
  83. ^ Article 66 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  84. ^ 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. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  85. ^ a b Brett D. Schaefer (9 January 2001). "Overturning Clinton's Midnight Action on the International Criminal Court". The Heritage Foundation. Accessed 23 November 2006.
  86. ^ a b Human Rights Watch. "Myths and Facts About the International Criminal Court". Accessed 31 December 2006.
  87. ^ a b CNN (2 January 2000). Burden of Proof transcript. Accessed 31 December 2006.
  88. ^ Katy Glassborow (21 August 2006). "Defending the Defenders". Global Policy Forum. Accessed 3 May 2007.
  89. ^ International Criminal Court. "Rights of the Defence". Accessed 3 May 2007.
  90. ^ International Criminal Court, 2005. Report of the International Criminal Court for 2004. Accessed 3 May 2007.
  91. ^ a b Stephanie Hanson (17 November 2006). Africa and the International Criminal Court. Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed 23 November 2006.
  92. ^ Shawcross, William (2012). Justice and the Enemy: From the Nuremberg Trials to Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. PublicAffairs. p. 120. ISBN 978-1-58648-975-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=4u6Lbns7mSoC&pg=PA120. 
  93. ^ The New Zealand Law Journal. Butterworths. 2003. p. 468. "Nevertheless, most of the procedures of these commissions are not inconsistent with the procedures of other international criminal tribunals including the newly established International Criminal Court at The Hague." 
  94. ^ International Criminal Court. Victims and witnesses. Accessed 22 June 2007.
  95. ^ Ilaria Bottigliero (April 2003). "The International Criminal Court – Hope for the Victims". 32 SGI Quarterly. pp. 13–15. Accessed 24 July 2007.
  96. ^ Article 43(6) of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  97. ^ Article 68 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  98. ^ International Criminal Court, 17 October 2006. Report on the activities of the CourtPDF (151 KB). Accessed 18 June 2007.
  99. ^ International Criminal Court. Trust Fund for Victims. Accessed 22 June 2007.
  100. ^ "ICC – Forms". Icc-cpi.int. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Victims/Reparation/Forms.htm. Retrieved 1 March 2011. 
  101. ^ "Article 34" (PDF). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations. 1969. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf. Retrieved 30 October 2011. 
  102. ^ Article 85 (5)(a) of the Rome Statute. Accessed 30 October 2008.
  103. ^ a b c d 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. http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/review-861-p87/$File/irrc_861_Wenqi.pdf. 
  104. ^ Article 25 of the UN Charter. Accessed 30 October 2008.
  105. ^ Article 89 of Additional Protocol I from 1977. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
  106. ^ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. the United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 114, para. 220.
  107. ^ Article 99 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 30 October 2008.
  108. ^ Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
  109. ^ a b Anthony Dworkin (December 2003). "Introduction" in The International Criminal Court: An End to Impunity? Crimes of War Project. Accessed 18 September 2007.
  110. ^ a b Article 16 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  111. ^ Article 53 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  112. ^ Tim Cocks (30 May 2007). "Uganda Urges Traditional Justice for Rebel Crimes". Reuters. Accessed 31 May 2007.
  113. ^ Alasdair Palmer (14 January 2007). "When Victims Want Peace, Not Justice". The Sunday Telegraph. Accessed 15 January 2007.
  114. ^ Alena Skodova (12 April 2002). "Czech Parliament Against Ratifying International Criminal Court". Radio Prague. Accessed 11 January 2007.
  115. ^ See, for example, Kofi Annan (4 October 2000). Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, para. 22. Accessed 31 December 2006.
  116. ^ 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.
  117. ^ China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
  118. ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
  119. ^ Carlan, Philip E.; Nored, Lisa S.; Downey, Ragan A. (2011). An Introduction to Criminal Law. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-4496-4721-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=8-tPwZyNWzkC&pg=PA24. 
  120. ^ Maffei, Stefano (2006). The European Right to Confrontation in Criminal Proceedings: Absent, Anonymous and Vulnerable Witnesses. pp. 222–225. ISBN 978-90-76871-64-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=MKtc97DINKoC&pg=PA222. 
  121. ^ "Abadir M. Ibrahim, The International Criminal Court in Light of Controlling Factors of the Effectiveness of International Human Rights Mechanisms, 7 Eyes on the International Criminal Court (2011)." (PDF). http://www.americanstudents.us/Eyes7/Public/Eyes%20on%20the%20ICC%207.1%20full%20volume%20preview.pdf. Retrieved 4 November 2011. 
  122. ^ a b International Criminal Court, 1 February 2007. UN Secretary-General visits ICC. Accessed 1 February 2007.
  123. ^ International Criminal Court, August 2006. Report of the International Criminal Court for 2005–2006PDF (68.5 KB). Accessed 14 May 2007.
  124. ^ Negotiated Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United NationsPDF (130 KB). Accessed 23 November 2006.
  125. ^ Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 12 November 2004. Q&A: The Relationship Agreement between the ICC and the UNPDF (64.8 KB). Accessed 23 November 2006.
  126. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Schiff, Benjamin (2008). Building the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. 
  127. ^ a b "About the Coalition". Coalition for the International Criminal Court. http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=coalition. 
  128. ^ a b "Resolution ICC-ASP/6/Res.4" (PDF, 323 KB). Part III – Resolutions and recommendations adopted by the Assembly of States Parties. International Criminal Court. 14 December 2007. Archived from the original on 9 April 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080409070948/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/asp/ICC-ASP-6-20_Vol.I_Part_III_English.pdf. 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" 
  129. ^ "Report on programme performance of the International Criminal Court for the year 2007" (PDF, 309 KB). Assembly of States Parties, Seventh Session. International Criminal Court. 26 May 2008. Archived from the original on 25 June 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080625052327/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/asp/ICC-ASP-7-8_English.pdf. Retrieved 30 October 2011. 
  130. ^ 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). "Resolution ICC-ASP/7/Res.1" (PDF). Part III – Resolutions adopted by the Assembly of States Parties. International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/III.pdf. Retrieved 30 October 2011. 
  131. ^ "Report on the activities of the Court" (PDF). Assembly of States Parties, Seventh Session. The Hague: International Criminal Court. 29 October 2008. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP7/ICC-ASP-7-25%20English.pdf. Retrieved 30 October 2011. 
  132. ^ ICC information page on the situation in the DR Congo. Retrieved 27 February 2011
  133. ^ ICC information page on the situation in Uganda. Retrieved 27 February 2011
  134. ^ ICC information page on the situation in the CAR. Retrieved 27 February 2011
  135. ^ ICC information page on the situation in Darfur. Retrieved 27 February 2011.
  136. ^ ICC information page on the situation in Kenya
  137. ^ ICC information page on the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Retrieved 7 March 2011.
  138. ^ ICC information page on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  139. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Colombia". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Colombia/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  140. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Iraq". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Iraq/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  141. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Venezuela". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Venezuela/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  142. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Afghanistan". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Afghanistan/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  143. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Georgia". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Georgia/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  144. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Palestine". http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Palestine/. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  145. ^ While the Prosecutor has declared himself unable to determine that Palestine is a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute in his Update on the situation of 3 April 2012, he has not determined that Palestine is not a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute, either. He explicitly stated that authorities like the United Nations General Assembly or the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute could determine whether or not Palestine qualifies as a "state" for the purposes of the Statute. Consequently, in his Weekly briefing of 3 April 2012, he refers to the situation regarding Palestine as being in "phase 2a".
  146. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Guinea". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Guinea/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  147. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Honduras". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Honduras/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  148. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Nigeria". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Nigeria/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  149. ^ "Communications, Referrals and and Preliminary Examinations: Republic of Korea". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Korea/. Retrieved 2011-02-26. 
  150. ^ OTP Weekly Briefing. 17 October 2011. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  151. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Lubanga case. Retrieved 30 April 2012.
  152. ^ Order fixing the date for the sentencing hearing. ICC Trial Chamber I. 24 April 2012. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  153. ^ "ICC-01/04-02/06 | Case  The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda". Situations and Cases. International Criminal Court. 2008-04-28. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Situations/Situation+ICC+0104/Related+Cases/ICC+0104+0206/ICC+0104+0206.htm. Retrieved 2011-10-30. 
  154. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Katanga-Chui case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  155. ^ ICC Trial Chamber II to deliberate on the case against Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. ICC Press release. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
  156. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Mbarushimana case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  157. ^ Mbarushimana case: ICC Appeals Chamber rejects the Prosecution’s appeal. ICC. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
  158. ^ a b c ICC case information sheet on the Kony et al. case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  159. ^ Vincent Otti is confirmed dead. New Vision. 22 November 2007. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
  160. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Bemba case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  161. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Haroun-Kushayb case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  162. ^ ICC case information sheet on the al-Bashir case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  163. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Abu Garda case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  164. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Banda-Jerbo case. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  165. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Hussein case. Retrieved 1 March 2012.
  166. ^ a b ICC case information sheet on the Ruto-Sang case. Retrieved 30 April 2012.
  167. ^ a b ICC case information sheet on the Muthaura-Kenyatta case. Retrieved 30 April 2012.
  168. ^ a b c ICC case information sheet on the Gaddafi-Senussi case. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
  169. ^ Gaddafi's son 'captured in Libya'. BBC Online. Retrieved 19 November 2011.
  170. ^ Mauritania agrees to extradite Senussi: Libya vice PM. AFP. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
  171. ^ ICC case information sheet on the Gbagbo case. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  172. ^ Decision on the "Requête de la Défense en report de l'audience de confirmation des charges prévue le 18 juin 2012". ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I. 12 June 2012. Retrieved 12 June 2012.

  Further reading

  External links

   
               

 

All translations of International_Criminal_Court


sensagent's content

  • definitions
  • synonyms
  • antonyms
  • encyclopedia

Dictionary and translator for handheld

⇨ New : sensagent is now available on your handheld

   Advertising ▼

sensagent's office

Shortkey or widget. Free.

Windows Shortkey: sensagent. Free.

Vista Widget : sensagent. Free.

Webmaster Solution

Alexandria

A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !

Try here  or   get the code

SensagentBox

With a SensagentBox, visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent.com. Choose the design that fits your site.

Business solution

Improve your site content

Add new content to your site from Sensagent by XML.

Crawl products or adds

Get XML access to reach the best products.

Index images and define metadata

Get XML access to fix the meaning of your metadata.


Please, email us to describe your idea.

WordGame

The English word games are:
○   Anagrams
○   Wildcard, crossword
○   Lettris
○   Boggle.

Lettris

Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but different content. Each square carries a letter. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words (left, right, up, down) from the falling squares.

boggle

Boggle gives you 3 minutes to find as many words (3 letters or more) as you can in a grid of 16 letters. You can also try the grid of 16 letters. Letters must be adjacent and longer words score better. See if you can get into the grid Hall of Fame !

English dictionary
Main references

Most English definitions are provided by WordNet .
English thesaurus is mainly derived from The Integral Dictionary (TID).
English Encyclopedia is licensed by Wikipedia (GNU).

Copyrights

The wordgames anagrams, crossword, Lettris and Boggle are provided by Memodata.
The web service Alexandria is granted from Memodata for the Ebay search.
The SensagentBox are offered by sensAgent.

Translation

Change the target language to find translations.
Tips: browse the semantic fields (see From ideas to words) in two languages to learn more.

last searches on the dictionary :

1964 online visitors

computed in 0.250s

I would like to report:
section :
a spelling or a grammatical mistake
an offensive content(racist, pornographic, injurious, etc.)
a copyright violation
an error
a missing statement
other
please precise:

Advertize

Partnership

Company informations

My account

login

registration

   Advertising ▼

States' Responses to the International Criminal Court: Methods and Techniques fo (167.9 USD)

Commercial use of this term

CHINA A COUNTY COURT CRIMINAL JUDGMENT OF STEALING CRIME 1956 (9.99 USD)

Commercial use of this term

CHINA A VINTAGE COUNTY COURT CRIMINAL JUDGMENT OF CRIME OF ADULTERY 1954 (15.99 USD)

Commercial use of this term

The International Criminal Court and the Balkan Crisis: The Capture and Indictme (124.15 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Trial Justice: The International Criminal Court and the Lord's Resistance Army ( (18.91 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Trial Justice: The International Criminal Court and the Lord's Resistance Army (4.53 USD)

Commercial use of this term

The United States and the International Criminal Court (3.97 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Building the International Criminal Court (6.51 USD)

Commercial use of this term

CHINA A COUNTY COURT CRIMINAL JUDGMENT OF A 26 YEARS OLD MAN CRIME OF RAPE 1957 (9.99 USD)

Commercial use of this term

From Rome to Kampala: The U.S. Approach to the 2010 International Criminal Court (4.75 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Bringing Power to Justice?: The Prospects of the International Criminal Court (S (5.21 USD)

Commercial use of this term

An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (4.6 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Rough Justice : The International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics... (25.09 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Selected Basic Documents Related to the International Criminal Court 9292271245 (4.48 USD)

Commercial use of this term

An Independent Defence Before the International Criminal Court (79.66 USD)

Commercial use of this term

The International Criminal Court: Global Politics and the Quest for Justice (Ide (21.63 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Justice for Victims Before the International Criminal Court - Moffet, Luke (154.78 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Politicizing the International Criminal Court: The Convergence of Politics, Et.. (1.99 USD)

Commercial use of this term