If you’re looking to know about icc international criminal court ? then, read this article to know about icc international criminal court

All You Need to Know ICC International Criminal Court

1. Introduction

Established in 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) aims to bring criminal charges against individuals who have committed grave international offenses such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. It prevents people from committing serious political crimes and provides justice to the victims of atrocities. The Court convened for the first time on July 1, 2002, following the receipt of over sixty ratifications. The Hague in the Netherlands serves as its headquarters. The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes cases involving people, whereas the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considers cases involving conflicts between States. The offenses that happened after July 1, 2002, and were either committed in the state that ratified the agreement or by citizens of that state, fall under the jurisdiction of the Court.

However, the Court has encountered difficulties since its founding and has not been able to win over the main powers, such as China, the United Nations, Russia, etc. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is becoming more necessary than its founders had thought, and its mission is becoming more daunting as human rights issues continue to escalate quickly. Few nations in the Middle East or Asia ratified the Rome Statute, despite the pact being highly lauded and having been signed by almost 140 nations by the time it went into effect.

Additionally, by 2002, the United States had threatened to remove its troops from UN peacekeeping operations unless its citizens—military and civilian—were spared from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC). China, Russia, and the United States have also refused to proceed. Still, more than a hundred nations had ratified the pact in the five years after its initial meeting. The Assembly of States Parties, which regulates
the International Criminal Court, is composed of representatives from each of the member nations.

The Rome Statute is an international treaty that governs the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is the first permanent international criminal court in history. When necessary, it conducts investigations and holds trials for those accused of the most serious crimes that the world community finds worrisome, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and aggression. The International Criminal Court (ICC) seeks to hold offenders accountable for their crimes and to contribute to the prevention of future crimes.

However, the court has been under fire from a variety of quarters since its founding and has failed to secure the support of powerful nations like China, Russia, and the United States. Two nations have left the court, and other African governments have expressed dissatisfaction over the prosecutions’ tendency to target their continent. President Donald Trump’s administration saw a hardening of American resistance to the ICC; nevertheless, despite the Biden administration’s more accommodative stance, tensions still exist. According to some observers, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is still relevant today despite facing enormous obstacles because of its ongoing investigations into the wars in the Palestinian territories and Ukraine.

2. FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT

The International Criminal Court (ICC) seeks to put an end to impunity and bring those guilty of horrible crimes against humanity to justice.
It also seeks to stop crimes from occurring by ensuring that justice is administered properly.
Instead of taking the role of national courts, the ICC seeks to enhance them.
It is regulated by the Rome Statute, an international law. The Statute became operative in July of 2002.
About 900 employees from about 100 countries work for the Court.
There are two working languages for it: French and English. The official languages of the country are Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, French, and English.
Up to now, the ICC has heard 28 cases.
India does not have an ICC membership.
Voting is the last resort and only occurs when decisions cannot be reached by consensus. Each member party is only allowed one vote.
It serves as a court of last resort and aims to supplement national courts, not to displace them.
The prosecutor’s office, which has been led by British lawyer and former UN assistant secretary-general Karim A.A. Khan since 2021, looks into the court.

3. ORIGIN OF THE COURT

The Nuremberg Trials, the first international war crimes tribunal, were started by the Allied forces to bring high-ranking Nazi leaders to justice following World War II. Governments did not come together in favor of creating a permanent court to convict people of the most heinous crimes in history until the 1990s. The United Nations had established ad hoc international criminal courts to address war crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, but many experts in international law saw these tribunals as ineffective and insufficient. In 1989, Trinidad & Tobago asked a UN delegation to investigate the possibility of setting up a permanent court. In the years that followed, these initiatives garnered support, particularly in Europe and Africa. 2011 saw the adoption by the European Union of a legally enforceable stance supporting the International Criminal Court.

The UN General Assembly ratified the International Criminal Court’s foundation treaty during a meeting in Rome in July 1998. Following its ratification by over sixty nations, the Rome Statute came into effect in July 2001.

4. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

With field offices throughout many nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is headquartered in The Hague, a city in the Netherlands that is home to numerous international organizations. The Office of the Prosecutor, headed by Gambian attorney Fatou Bensouda, conducts the court’s investigation work. The Court has eighteen judges, each of whom was chosen by the member states and hails from a different member nation. The International Criminal Court mandates that its members work toward having a gender-balanced bench and that each of the UN regions be represented on the court. The terms of office for judges and prosecutors are set for nine years, and they are not renewable. The Court’s two Vice Presidents and President are chosen from among its judges, and they are in charge of running the Court’s operations down the registry. According to international law, the court has jurisdiction over the following types of crimes:

4.1. GENOCIDE

A national, ethnic, racial, or religious group is specifically intended to be destroyed, either whole or in part, and this can be achieved by the use of lethal force or other methods such as seriously injuring group members physically or psychologically. A national, ethnic, racial, or religious group may be destroyed whole or in part by any of the following crimes, which are collectively referred to as “genocide” for this statute:

The act of murdering group members;
(a) Inflicting significant physical or psychological injury on group members;

(b) Intentionally subjecting the collective to circumstances of existence designed to cause its whole or partial physical annihilation;

(d) Dragging group members’ kids to join a different group.

4.2. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has the authority to try cases involving crimes against humanity, which are defined as grave offenses carried out in the course of a massive assault on any civilian population. Any of the following actions, whether carried out as a part of a broad or planned attack against any civilian population and with knowledge of the attack, are considered “crimes against humanity” for
this statute:

(A) homicide (A course of action comprising the repeated commission of the actions mentioned in paragraph 1 against any civilian population is referred to as an “attack directed against any civilian population,” as long as it is done by or in support of a State or organizational policy).

(B) eradication (involves the deliberate infliction of living circumstances, such as denying someone access to food and medication, to wipe off a portion of a population).

(C) Labor in slavery (denotes the use of any or all of the authority about the ownership of a person, including the use of that authority in the course of human trafficking, with a focus on women and children in particular).

(D) People being deported or displaced without their will (signifies the forcible removal of the affected parties from the territory in which they are legally present, without justification allowed by international law, by expulsion or other forceful measures).

(E) Deprivation of bodily liberty by imprisonment or other harsh measures that contravene core principles of international law (implies intentionally causing great pain or suffering, either mental or physical, to someone who is in the accused’s custody or control; nevertheless, torture does not include pain or suffering that is solely a result of, incidental to, or inherent in legal punishment).

(F) The act of torture (is the forcible pregnancy of a woman who is being held illegally to change the ethnic makeup of any community or commit other serious crimes under international law. This term will not in any manner be construed as modifying national pregnancy legislation).

(G) Any other incidence of sexual violence of similar severity, including rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, and forced sterilization (is the deliberate and serious denial of basic rights in violation of international law based on the group or collectivity’s identity)

(H) Persecution of any identifiable group or collectivity about any act mentioned in this paragraph or any crime falling under the Court’s jurisdiction based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender grounds as defined in paragraph 3; or any other grounds that are generally acknowledged as illegal under international law;
I Persons who are compelled to vanish (refers to the arrest, detention, or kidnapping of individuals by a State or political organization, or with their consent, support, or cooperation, and the subsequent refusal to acknowledge this deprivation of freedom or to provide information about the whereabouts or fate of those individuals, to remove them from the protection of the law for an extended period).

(J) An apartheid-related offense;

(K) Additional cruel actions of a similar nature that purposefully cause extreme pain or grave harm to one’s bodily, mental, or emotional state.

4.3. WAR CRIMES

The use of child soldiers for the murder or torture of people, whether civilians or prisoners of war, is considered a war crime and constitutes a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions in the framework of an armed conflict. When a war crime is carried out widely or as part of a plan, program, or strategy, it comes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). “War crimes” as used in this Statute refers to:

(a) Serious violations of the applicable Geneva Conventions, which are defined as any of the following actions taken against individuals or property that is covered by the relevant Geneva Convention:

(b) Other flagrant transgressions of the established framework of international law about the rules and norms applicable in international armed conflict, namely any of the following acts:

(c) When an armed conflict is not international, there are grave breaches of Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. These breaches include any of the following actions carried out against individuals who are not actively involved in hostilities, such as members of the armed forces who have given up their weapons and those who are rendered hors de combat due to illness, injuries, detention, or other circumstances:

(d) Events involving internal unrest and tensions, such as riots, isolated and intermittent acts of violence, or other similar actions, are not covered by paragraph 2(c), which only applies to armed conflicts that are not international.

(e) Other grave transgressions of the norms and rules that apply to armed conflicts that are not international, as defined by the framework of established international law, namely any of the following actions:

(f) Because paragraph 2(e) only covers armed conflicts that are not international in scope, it does not apply to internal disputes and disturbances like riots, sporadic and isolated acts of violence, or other similar actions. It applies to armed conflicts that occur on a state’s territory when there is an ongoing war between armed organizations that are organized or between such groups and governmental authorities.

4.4. CRIMES OF AGRESSION

In terms of aggression, as of 2018, the ICC may bring criminal charges against persons for this offense when the UN Security Council has submitted the case, on the Prosecutor’s initiative, or in response to a State Party’s request, subject to certain restrictions. Any national or act of aggression against the territory of a UN Member State may be prosecuted by the ICC upon referral by the Security Council. Only crimes of aggression committed by citizens of, or on the territory of, State Parties to the Rome Statute that have ratified or accepted the Kampala Amendments (which add the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute) may be investigated by the Court in the absence of a referral from the UN Security Council. Forty-one states had accepted the “Kampala Amendments” as of January 20, 2022.

It has been disputed since the Rome Statute’s creation whether the ICC is qualified to trial anyone for the crime of aggression. The description of the offense, changes to the legislation, and how the court would determine its jurisdiction over such crimes were all addressed in the resolution that was enacted during the 2010 Review Conference in Kampala. As of July 17, 2018, the ICC was able to prosecute cases involving crimes of aggression thanks to the ratification of 30 States. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was granted jurisdiction over crimes of aggression by a resolution passed by the Assembly of States Parties in December 2017.

5. INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

5.1. INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION

Unless he or she concludes that there is no reasonable cause to continue under this statute, the prosecutor is required to launch an inquiry after evaluating the evidence that has been made available to them. If the Prosecutor decides to open an inquiry, they will take into account:
(a) There is a plausible basis to suspect that a crime falling under the purview of the court has been or is being committed based on the information at the prosecutor’s disposal;

(b) By article 17, the case is or would be admissible.

(c) Despite the seriousness of the offense and the concerns of the victims, there are good grounds to think that conducting an inquiry will not further the goals of justice.

The prosecutor must notify the Pre-Trial Chamber if, after considering all relevant circumstances, they conclude that there is no justifiable basis to move on, and they base their decision only on subparagraph (c) above.

2. Should the Prosecutor determine after an inquiry that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges because
(a) There is insufficient evidence, either legally or factually, to request a warrant or summons by Article 58;

(b) According to Article 17, the case is inadmissible; or

(c) Considering all the relevant facts, such as the seriousness of the alleged crime, the victims’ interests, the age or disability of the

accused offender, and their involvement in the alleged crime, a prosecution is not in the interests of justice;
The Prosecutor is required to notify the Pre-Trial Chamber, the State submitting a referral under Article 14, or the Security Council in a case under Article 13, paragraph (b), of the conclusions reached and the rationale behind them.

3. (a) The Pre-Trial Chamber may examine a decision made by the Prosecutor under paragraphs 1 or 2 not to continue and may ask the Prosecutor to reevaluate that decision at the request of the State making a referral under article 14 or the Security Council under article 13, paragraph (b).

(b) Furthermore, if the Prosecutor decides not to continue based only on paragraphs 1 (c) or 2 (c), the Pre-Trial Chamber may, on its initiative, examine that decision. Under such circumstances, the Prosecutor’s decision will only take effect if it is approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

all trial phases and to take the place of a Trial Chamber member who 4. Based on fresh facts or information, the prosecutor is free to reevaluate at any point whether to launch an inquiry or prosecute.

5.1.1. DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE PROSECUTOR CONCERNING INVESTIGATIONS

1. The prosecutor will:

(a) To ascertain the truth, broaden the scope of the inquiry to encompass all pertinent facts and evidence that may be used to determine criminal liability under this statute; in the process, investigate both circumstances that implicate and exonerate the subject equally;

(b) Take the necessary steps to ensure the thorough investigation and prosecution of crimes falling under the Court’s jurisdiction; in the process, respect the rights and individual circumstances of victims and witnesses, taking into account their age, and gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, and health as well as the nature of the crime, particularly if it involves sexual violence, gender violence, or violence against children; and

2. The Prosecutor may carry out investigations within a State’s borders:

(a) In compliance with Part 9’s guidelines; or

(b) By article 57, paragraph 3 (d), as permitted by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

3. The Attorney General could:

(a) Gather and review supporting documentation;

(b) Ask witnesses, victims, and those under investigation to appear and be questioned;

(c) Request assistance from any State or international body or arrangement in line with its mission and/or area of competence;

(d) Make any agreements or arrangements that may be required to ensure the participation of a State, intergovernmental organization, or individual and that do not conflict with this Statute;

(e) Consent to keep secret any papers or information obtained by the Prosecutor for the exclusive use of creating new evidence, and to refrain from disclosing such material at any point during the proceedings, unless allowed by the source; and

(f) Implement or request the implementation of the appropriate procedures to guarantee information confidentiality, personal safety, or evidence preservation.

5.1.2. RIGHTS OF A PERSON DURING AN INVESTIGATION

Regarding an inquiry conducted by this statute, an individual
(a) Will not be forced to confess to a crime or to implicate oneself;

(b) Won’t endure any kind of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, nor will it be exposed to duress, coercion, or threats thereof;

(c) Must receive the free assistance of a qualified interpreter and any translations required to satisfy fairness standards if the question is asked in a language other than one in which the respondent is fluent; and

(d) Shall not be arbitrarily detained or arrested, and shall not be deprived of his or her freedom unless in compliance with the processes and grounds specified by this Statute.

2. In addition, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual has committed a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction and that individual is going to be questioned by the Prosecutor or by national authorities in response to a request made under Part

3, that individual shall be made aware of the following rights before being questioned:

(a) To be made aware, before being questioned, that there is reason to suspect that the person has committed a criminal under the Court’s jurisdiction;

(b) To keep quiet, without letting such silence affect one’s assessment of guilt or innocence;

(c) The right to choose the legal representation that best suits their needs, or if they lack such representation, the right to have legal representation provided to them, in any situation where the interests of justice so dictate, without their having to pay for it if they lack the financial means to do so; and

(d) Unless the subject has willingly forfeited the right to counsel, to be questioned in the presence of legal representation .

5.2. ROLE OF THE PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER ABOUT A UNIQUE INVESTIGATIVE OPPORTUNITY

1. (a) The prosecutor should notify the Pre-Trial Chamber if the prosecutor believes that an investigation offers a special chance to get testimony or a statement from a witness, or to investigate, gather, or test evidence that would not be accessible later for a trial.

(b) In that instance, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, at the Prosecutor’s request, take any necessary action to guarantee the effectiveness and integrity of the proceedings and, in particular, to safeguard the defense’s rights.

(c) The Prosecutor shall give the pertinent information to the person who has been arrested or has shown up in response to a summons in connection with the investigation mentioned in subparagraph (a), unless the Pre-Trial Chamber directs otherwise, so that the person may be heard on the subject.

2. The actions mentioned in 1 (b) of the paragraph might be:

(a) Making suggestions or directives on protocols should be adhered to;

(b) Giving the order for the proceedings to be documented;

(d) Granting permission for legal representation to appear on behalf of an individual who has been arrested or appeared in court upon a summons; alternatively, if no arrest or appearance has occurred yet or legal representation has not yet been assigned, designating an alternate legal representative to attend and represent the defense;

(e) Choosing one of its members or, in an emergency, another judge of the Pre-Trial or Trial Division to oversee and provide directives or suggestions concerning the gathering and preserving of evidence and the interrogation of witnesses;

(f) Executing any further measures that may be required to gather or safeguard evidence.

3. (a) If the Pre-Trial Chamber believes that measures under this article are necessary to preserve evidence that the Prosecutor believes is crucial to the defense during the trial but the Prosecutor has not requested them, it will first confer with the Prosecutor to determine whether there is a valid reason why the Prosecutor has not requested the measures. After consulting with other parties, the Pre-Trial Chamber may decide to pursue these actions on its own if it determines that the Prosecutor’s omission to request them was unwarranted.

(b) The Prosecutor may file an appeal against a decision made by the Pre-Trial Chamber to act independently under this paragraph. There will be a prompt hearing on the appeal.

4. Article 69 will control the admissibility of evidence maintained or gathered for trial under this article, or the record thereof, and the Trial Chamber will decide how much weight to give it during the trial.

5.2.1. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE PRE TRIAL CHAMBER

1. The Pre-Trial Chamber will carry out its duties in compliance with this article’s requirements unless expressly stated otherwise in this Statute.

2. (a) The majority of the judges in the Pre-Trial Chamber must concur with any orders or decisions made under articles 15, 18, 19, 54, paragraph 2, 61, paragraph 7, and 72.
(b) Unless specifically specified differently in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence or by a majority of the Pre-Trial Chamber, a single judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber may perform the duties outlined in this Statute in all other circumstances.

3. Apart from its other responsibilities as stipulated by this statute, the Pre-Trial Chamber has the authority to:
(a) Grant any orders and warrants that may be necessary for the conduct of an inquiry upon the Prosecutor’s request;

(b) Issue such orders, including those outlined in Article 56, or request cooperation under Part 9 as may be required to support an individual who has been arrested or appeared in response to a summons under Article 58 to help them prepare for their defense;

(c) When required, provide provisions for the safety and privacy of witnesses and victims, the preservation of evidence, the defense of those who have been detained or summoned to appear in court, and the security of information related to national security;

(d) If, whenever possible and taking into account the opinions of the State in question, the Pre-Trial Chamber has determined in that case that the State is manifestly unable to carry out a request for cooperation because it lacks any authority or component of its judicial system competent to carry out the request for cooperation under Part 9, then (d) Authorize the Prosecutor to take specific investigative steps within the territory of a State Party without having secured the cooperation of that State under Part 9.

(e) If an arrest warrant or summons has been issued by article 58, and after taking into account the quality of the evidence and the parties’ rights as stipulated in this statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, get the assistance of the States by article 93, paragraph 1 (k), to take protective measures for forfeiture, specifically for the ultimate benefit of victims.

5.2.2. INSURANCE BY THE PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER OF A WARRANT OF ARREST OR A SUMMONS TO APPEAR

Upon receipt of an application from the prosecutor and examination of the evidence or other material provided, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, at any point following the start of the inquiry, issue an arrest warrant for an individual if it is convinced that:

(a) If there are solid indications that the subject of the court’s authority has committed a crime, hence
(b) It seems like the individual has to be taken into custody:

2. The prosecutor’s application must include the following:

(a) The individual’s name and any other pertinent identifying details;

(b) A precise mention of the offenses that the accused person is claimed to have committed and that fall under the court’s jurisdiction;

(d) An overview of the data supporting the evidence and any other details that justify the conviction that the subject of the crimes committed those offenses; and

(e) The basis for the prosecutor’s belief that the defendant needs to be arrested.

3. The following information must be in the arrest warrant:

(a) The individual’s name and any other pertinent identifying details;

(b) a detailed mention of the offenses that are under the court’s jurisdiction and for which an arrest is requested; and

(c) An accurate synopsis of the events that are said to have led to those offenses.4. Until the court issues a different order, the arrest warrant will remain valid.

5. The Court may ask for either a provisional arrest or the person’s arrest and surrender by Part 9 based on the warrant for arrest.

6. To add or change the offenses included in the arrest warrant, the prosecutor may ask the Pre-Trial Chamber to make the modifications. If it is convinced that there are good reasons to think that the defendant committed the amended or new offenses, the Pre-Trial Chamber will change the warrant accordingly.

7. Rather than asking for an arrest warrant, the prosecutor might file an application asking the Pre-Trial Chamber to issue a summons to appear for the defendant. If the Pre-Trial Chamber determines that there are sufficient grounds to believe that the accused person committed the alleged crime and that a summons will guarantee their appearance, it will issue the summons, with or without conditions restricting the accused person’s liberty (apart from detention, if allowed by national law), requiring them to appear. The summons is expected to include:

(a) The individual’s name together with any other pertinent identifying details;

b) The day the individual is expected to appear, as mentioned;

(c) A precise mention of the offenses that the accused party is claimed to have committed while under the court’s jurisdiction; then

(d) A succinct summary of the events that are said to have occurred during the offense.
The individual will get the summons issued to them.

5.3. ARREST PROCEEDINGS IN THE CUSTODIAL STATE

1. In line with its legal system and Part 9’s requirements, a State Party that receives a request for a provisional arrest or arrest and surrender must act quickly to place the subject under custody.

2. A person who has been arrested must be brought before the appropriate court authorities in the state where they are being held as soon as possible. They will then follow that state’s laws in determining whether or not:
(a) The individual for whom the warrant is valid;

(b) The individual was taken into custody using the correct procedure; and

3. The individual who has been arrested is entitled to request temporary release from custody, subject to surrender, from the appropriate authorities in the state where they are being held.

4. When deciding whether to grant any such application, the custodial state’s competent authority will take into account the seriousness of the alleged crimes, urgent and extraordinary circumstances that warrant an interim release, and the existence of the safeguards that are required to guarantee the custodial state’s ability to fulfill its obligation to turn the individual over to the court. The responsible authority of the State in custody shall not have the competence to determine whether the arrest warrant was lawfully issued in compliance with Article 58, paragraph 1(a) and (b).

5. Any request for an interim release must be reported to the Pre-Trial Chamber, which will thereafter advise the appropriate body in the State where the prisoner is being held. When making a judgment, the responsible authority in the state where the person is being held must fully take into account all suggestions, including those regarding actions to keep the individual from escaping.

6. Should the individual be granted provisional release, the Pre-Trial Chamber has the right to ask for regular updates on the interim release’s progress.

7. The individual will be brought to the Court as soon as feasible after the custodial State orders their surrender.

5.4. INITIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

1. After an individual surrenders to the Court, or appears before the Court on their own volition or in response to a summons, the Pre-Trial Chamber will confirm that the individual has been informed of the offenses against which they are accused, as well as their rights under this statute, including the ability to request temporary release until their trial.

2. The applicant for interim release until trial may be the subject of an arrest warrant. The defendant will stay in custody if the Pre-Trial Chamber determines that the requirements outlined in Article 58, paragraph 1, are satisfied. Should the Pre-Trial Chamber not be satisfied, the individual may be released, subject to certain restrictions.

3. At any point, at the Prosecutor’s or the individual’s request, the Pre-Trial Chamber may revisit its decision on the person’s release or incarceration. It must do so biannually. If it is convinced that the circumstances have changed, it may, after such review, revise its decision regarding detention, release, or terms of release.

4. A person cannot be unfairly held before trial because of an unjustifiable delay on the part of the Prosecutor, as long as the Pre-Trial Chamber makes sure of it. The Court will think about releasing the individual, with or without restrictions, if such a delay happens.

5. To ensure that someone who has been freed shows up, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, if required, issue an arrest warrant.

5.5. CONFIRMATION OF THE CHARGES BEFORE TRIAL

1. Subject to the terms of paragraph 2, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall convene a hearing to confirm the charges on which the Prosecutor wants to pursue a trial within a reasonable period following the person’s surrender or voluntary appearance before the Court. The accused party, the prosecutor, and their legal representatives must all be present at the hearing.

2. To confirm the charges on which the prosecutor plans to pursue a trial, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, at the prosecutor’s request or on its initiative, arrange a hearing in the accused person’s absence if the accused person has:

(a) Refused to exercise their right to be present; or
(b) Has fled or is missing and every effort has been made to bring him or her before the court, to tell them of the charges against them and that a hearing to confirm those charges will take place.
When the Pre-Trial Chamber concludes that it is in the best interests of justice, then the individual shall be represented by legal counsel.

3. The individual must, in the period allotted before the hearing,
(a) Receive a copy of the charge sheet that the prosecutor plans to use to put the defendant on trial; and
(b) Know what evidence the prosecutor plans to present during the hearing.
Orders about information disclosure for the hearing’s objectives may be issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

4. The Prosecutor may carry out additional investigation and revise or drop any charges before the hearing. Before the hearing, the individual must be given a fair amount of notice of any changes to or withdrawals from the charges. Should charges be withdrawn, the Prosecutor is required to inform the Pre-Trial Chamber of the grounds behind the withdrawal.

5. The prosecutor must provide enough evidence at the hearing to prove that there are good reasons to think the accused individual committed each chargeable offense. If witnesses are anticipated to testify at trial, the prosecutor does not have to summon them; instead, they can rely on summary or documentary evidence.

6. During the hearing, the individual may:
(a) Refute the accusations;
(b) Contest the evidence that the prosecutor has provided; and
(c) Provide proof.

7. The Pre-Trial Chamber will decide whether there is enough evidence to establish reasonable suspicion that the accused individual committed each of the charges based on the hearing. In light of its conclusion, the Pre-Trial Chamber will:

(a) Confirm the charges for which it has concluded that there is adequate evidence, and then transport the accused individual to a trial chamber so that the charges can be tried;
(b) refuse to provide more evidence for charges for which it has concluded there is not enough;
(c) Call a break in the proceedings and ask the Prosecutor to look into:

8. If the Prosecutor presents new evidence to support their request for confirmation of a charge, they are not prohibited from doing so if the Pre-Trial Chamber fails to confirm it.

9. The Prosecutor may modify the accusations with the Pre-Trial Chamber’s approval and after giving the accused notice, provided that the charges are verified but the trial has not yet started. A hearing under this article to confirm the charges must be convened if the prosecutor wants to substitute more serious charges or add more charges. The Prosecutor may drop the charges once the trial has started with the Trial Chamber’s approval.

10. Any previously issued warrant will no longer be valid for any charges that the prosecutor has dropped or that the Pre-Trial Chamber has not confirmed.

11. Following confirmation of the charges in line with this article, the Presidency will establish a Trial Chamber. This Chamber will be in charge of conducting any further proceedings and may utilize any Pre-Trial Chamber function that applies and is pertinent to those proceedings, subject to paragraph 9 and article 64, paragraph 4.

6. THE TRIAL

6.1. TRIAL IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED

1. The trial will take place with the accused in attendance.

2. Should the accused, who is in the courtroom, persist in interfering with the proceedings, the Trial Chamber has the authority to remove the accused and arrange for him or her to watch the trial and provide legal advice from a distance, utilizing telecommunications technology if necessary. Only in extreme cases, after all other reasonable options have failed, and for the shortest amount of time strictly necessary, may such actions be utilized.

6.2. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE TRIAL CHAMBER

1. This statute, as well as the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, shall govern the Trial Chamber’s exercise of the duties and authority described in this article.

2. It is the responsibility of the Trial Chamber to make sure that a trial is quick, fair, and conducted with complete respect for the accused’s rights as well as for the safety of witnesses and victims.

3. The Trial Chamber designated to handle a matter that is assigned for trial in line with this Statute shall:

(a) Hold meetings with the parties and implement any procedures that are required to enable the fair and efficient administration of the proceedings;

(b) Choose the language or languages that will be utilized during the trial; and

(c) Allow for the revelation of records or information that has not been previously disclosed, subject to any other applicable requirements of this statute, sufficiently ahead of the trial’s start to allow for proper trial preparation.
4. The Trial Chamber may refer preliminary matters to the Pre-Trial Chamber or, if needed, to an additional Pre-Trial Division judge to ensure the efficient and equitable operation of the Pre-Trial Division.

5. The Trial Chamber may, if necessary, order the joinder or severance of charges about several accused persons upon notice to the parties.
As needed, the Trial Chamber may take the following actions to carry out its duties either before or during a trial:
Perform any duties assigned to the Pre-Trial Chamber by Article 61, paragraph 11;

(b) Obtain, if required, the aid of States as allowed in this Statute to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses as well as the production of documents and other evidence;

(d) Direct that more evidence be produced, beyond that which the parties have previously gathered before the trial or offered during it;

(e) Assure victim, witness, and accused protection; and

(f) Make rulings on any further pertinent issues.

7. There will be a public trial. However, the Trial Chamber may decide that, in light of unique circumstances, some procedures must take place in closed session to fulfill the requirements outlined in Article 68 or to safeguard sensitive or private material that will be admitted into evidence.

8. (a) The Trial Chamber is required to have read the charges that the Pre-Trial Chamber had previously verified to the accused at the start of the trial. The Trial Chamber must ensure that the accused is aware of the seriousness of the allegations against them. It will provide him or her the chance to enter a not-guilty plea or to admit guilt in line with Article 65.

(b) During the trial, the presiding judge has the authority to provide instructions for how the procedures should be carried out, including making sure they are unbiased and fair. The parties may present evidence in line with the provisions of this Statute, subject to any instructions from the presiding judge.

9. The Trial Chamber will have the authority, among other things, upon a party’s request or of its initiative, to:
(a) Make decisions on the relevance or admissibility of evidence; and
(b) Make every effort to keep the hearing proceeding in an orderly manner.

10. The Trial Chamber will see to it that the Registrar keeps and preserves a thorough record of the trial that fairly depicts the events.

6.3. PROCEEDINGS ON AN ADMISSION OF GUILT

1. By article 64, paragraph 8 (a), if the accused admits guilt, the Trial Chamber shall ascertain whether:
(a) The defendant is aware of the nature of admitting guilt and its repercussions;
(b) The accused willingly makes the admission following adequate discussion with defense counsel; and
(c) The case facts found in: provide evidence in favor of the admission of guilt.

2. The Trial Chamber will consider the admission of guilt and any additional evidence as establishing all the essential facts needed to prove the crime to which the admission of guilt relates, and it may convict the accused of that crime if it is satisfied that the matters mentioned in paragraph 1 are established.

3. The Trial Chamber may order that the trial be continued under the standard trial procedures allowed by this statute and may remit the case to another Trial Chamber if it is not satisfied that the matters mentioned in paragraph 1 are established. In such an instance, the Trial Chamber will consider the admission of guilt as not having been made.

4. In cases where the Trial Chamber determines that a more thorough presentation of the case’s facts is necessary for the sake of justice, particularly the interests of the victims, the Trial Chamber may:

(a) Ask the prosecutor to provide further evidence, such as witness testimony; or
(b) Direct that the trial proceed by the standard trial procedures outlined in this statute; in the event of such an order, it will treat the admission of guilt as not having occurred and may transfer the matter to a different Trial Chamber.

5. The Prosecutor and the defense may have negotiations about changing the accusations, admitting guilt, or the appropriate sentence, but these discussions are not legally binding on the court.

6.4. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

1. Until someone is proven guilty in court and compliance with the relevant legislation, they will all be considered innocent.

2. The burden of proof is with the prosecutor to establish the accused’s guilt.

3. The Court must be persuaded of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to find them guilty.

6.5. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

1. The accused shall have the right, in determining the outcome of any accusation, to a public hearing, taking into account the requirements of this Statute, to a fair trial that is conducted impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(a) To be quickly and thoroughly informed in a language that the accused is fluent in on the type, cause, and content of the charge;

(b) To have enough time and space to prepare the defense and to speak openly and in confidence with the accused’s chosen attorney;

(d) Subject to paragraph 2 of article 63, the accused shall be allowed to attend the trial, present their case in person, or use a legal representation of their choice; the accused shall be informed of this right if none is provided, and the accused shall have the right to have legal representation assigned by the Court in any instance where the interests of justice so demand, without cost to the accused if they are unable to pay for it;

(e) Examining the witnesses against him or her or having them questioned, as well as securing the presence and questioning of witnesses on their behalf under the same circumstances as those applying to the witnesses against them. Along with raising defenses, the accused may also introduce additional evidence that is acceptable under

(f) If any court proceedings or documents submitted to the court are not in a language that the accused fully understands and speaks, to have the help of a qualified interpreter and any translations required to satisfy the standards of justice, at no cost to them;

(g) The right to stay silent and not be forced to testify or admit guilt, with the decision of guilt or innocence being made without taking this into account;

(h) To provide an untrusted written or verbal declaration in support of themselves; and

(i) Not to have placed any onus of rebuttal or reversal of the burden of proof on him or her.

2. As soon as it is practical, the prosecutor shall, in addition to any other disclosure allowed by this statute, reveal to the defense any evidence that is under his or her possession or control and that the prosecutor believes demonstrates or tends to demonstrate the accused’s innocence, lessens the accused’s guilt, or may call into question the reliability of prosecution testimony. If there is any uncertainty about how this paragraph should be applied, the Court will make the decision.

6.6. PROTECTION OF THE VICTIMS AND WITNESSES AND THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS

1. The Court will take the necessary actions to safeguard the security, bodily and mental health, privacy, and dignity of witnesses and victims. When making this determination, the Court will consider all pertinent circumstances, such as age, gender as defined in Article 7, paragraph 3, and health, as well as the specifics of the offense, including but not limited to instances of violence against minors or sexual or gender-based abuse. These actions will be taken by the prosecutor, especially while looking into and prosecuting such acts. These actions must not violate the accused’s rights to a fair trial or be detrimental to their rights.

2. The Chambers of the Court may conduct any portion of the proceedings in camera or permit the presenting of evidence by electronic or other special methods as an exception to the Article 67 concept of public hearings. This is done to safeguard victims, witnesses, or an accused party. Unless the court orders a different course of action, these steps will specifically be undertaken in cases involving victims of sexual assault or children who are witnesses or victims, taking into account all relevant facts, including the victim’s or witness’s opinions.

3. When the victims’ interests are at stake, the court will allow them to voice their opinions and have their concerns taken into consideration at any point during the proceedings that the court deems appropriate. This must be done in a way that respects the accused’s rights to a fair trial and does not interfere with those rights. In compliance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the victims’ attorneys may raise these opinions and concerns when the court deems it suitable.

4. By Article 43, paragraph 6, the Victims and Witnesses Unit may provide advice to the Prosecutor and the Court about suitable security plans, counseling, and support.

5. The Prosecutor may, for any proceedings held before the start of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary of it in cases where the disclosure of such information or evidence by this Statute may seriously jeopardize the security of a witness or his or her family. The execution of such measures must not conflict with the accused’s rights to a fair trial or in a way that would be detrimental to them.

6. A state has the right to request the required actions to be done to safeguard sensitive or secret information as well as its employees or agents.

6.7. EVIDENCE

1. In compliance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, every witness must provide an oath on the veracity of the testimony they will be providing before testifying.

2. A witness must testify in person during a trial unless their evidence is restricted by the guidelines in Article 68 or the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Subject to this statute and in compliance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Court may also allow the inclusion of documents or written transcripts, as well as the delivery of viva voce (oral) or recorded evidence by a witness using video or audio technology. These actions must not violate or be detrimental to any rights.

3. Article 64 allows the parties to provide evidence that is pertinent to the case. The Court will have the power to request the production of any evidence that it deems required to establish the truth.

4. In compliance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Court may determine whether any evidence is relevant or admissible, considering among other things the evidence’s probative value and any potential harm to a fair trial or impartial assessment of a witness’s testimony.

5. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulate that the Court is required to uphold and honor confidentiality rights.

6. While taking judicial notice of facts that are generally known, the Court will not demand evidence of them.

7. Data gathered via violating this statute or globally acknowledged human rights will not be permitted to be admitted if:

(a) If the evidence’s trustworthiness is seriously doubted due to the infringement;
(b) The integrity of the proceedings would be severely harmed and contradicted by the evidence’s admission.

8. The Court is not allowed to make decisions about the applicability of a State’s national law when determining the admissibility or relevance of evidence gathered by that State.

6.8. OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

1. When knowingly committed, the following offenses against the Court’s administration of justice shall fall within its jurisdiction:

(a) Giving a false statement when required to declare the truth by article 69, paragraph 1;

(b) Providing evidence that the person is aware is fabricated or false;

(c) Corruptly coercing a witness, impeding or disrupting their presence or testimony, taking revenge on a witness for their testimony, or damaging, tampering with, or interfering with the gathering of evidence;

(d) Interfering with, threatening, or corruptly influencing a Court official with the intention of compelling or convincing the official to carry out, or carry out, their responsibilities inappropriately or improperly;

(e) Taking offense at a Court official because of the official’s or another official’s performance of duty;

(f) Seeking or receiving a bribe while serving as a court official in the course of their employment.

2. The rules of procedure and evidence must define the guidelines and processes that the Court will follow while exercising its jurisdiction over offenses covered by this article. Under this article, the domestic legislation of the requesting State shall control the terms and circumstances of providing international assistance to the Court concerning its proceedings.

3. If found guilty, the court may impose a fine in line with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a period of imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both.

4. (a) Every State Party must expand the scope of its criminal legislation to include offenses against the administration of justice mentioned in this article that are committed on its soil or by one of its citizens, and to include offenses against the integrity of its own investigative or judicial process;
(b) The State Party shall forward the case to its appropriate authorities for prosecution upon request from the Court and whenever it thinks fit. These authorities will handle these issues with the utmost care and allocate enough funds to allow them to be handled successfully.

6.9. SANCTIONS FOR MISCONDUCT BEFORE THE COURT

penalties for wrongdoing in front of the court

1. If someone is in front of the court and engages in misconduct, such as intentionally disrupting its proceedings or disobeying its orders, the court has the authority to punish them administratively rather than imprison them. Examples of such measures include fines, temporary or permanent expulsion from the courtroom, and other similar penalties outlined in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

2. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence shall regulate the procedures regulating the application of the measures outlined in paragraph 1.

6.10. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

1. This article is applicable in any situation where a state believes that the publication of its information or documents would jeopardize its interests in terms of national security. Article 56, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 61, paragraph 3, article 64, paragraph 3, article 67, paragraph 2, article 68, paragraph 6, article 87, paragraph 6, and article 93 are among the cases that fall under this category. Cases that arise at any other point in the proceedings where such disclosure may be in question also fall under this category.

2. This article will also be applicable in cases where an individual who has been asked to provide information or evidence has declined to do so or has reported the matter to the state because it would jeopardize the national security interests of that state, and that state has confirmed that it believes that disclosure would jeopardize those interests.

3. This article in no way affects the applicability of Article 73 or the confidentiality obligations outlined in paragraphs 3(e) and (f) of Article 54.

4. A State has the right to intervene to obtain a resolution of the matter by this article if it discovers that information or documents belonging to the State are being, or are likely to be, disclosed at any point during the proceedings and it believes that disclosure would jeopardize its national security interests.

5. The State will take all reasonable steps, in cooperation with the prosecution, the defense, the Pre-Trial Chamber, or the Trial Chamber, as applicable, to try to settle the dispute amicably if it believes that information disclosure will jeopardize its national security interests. These actions might consist of:

(a) A request that is clarified or modified;

(b) A finding made by the Court about the evidence or information sought, or whether the evidence—while relevant—could or has been acquired from a source other than the State that is being asked for;

(d) An agreement on the terms and circumstances that would allow the assistance to be given, such as the provision of redactions or summaries, restrictions on disclosure, use of in-camera or ex parte proceedings, or other protective measures allowed by the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

6. The State shall notify the Prosecutor or the Court of the specific reasons for its decision after making every effort to resolve the issue cooperatively. If the State determines that there are no circumstances or means by which the information or documents could be provided or disclosed without endangering its national security interests, it shall also provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for that determination, unless doing so would inevitably compromise the State’s national security interests.

7. Subsequently, the Court may take the following measures if it finds that the evidence is pertinent and required to demonstrate the accused’s guilt or innocence:
(a) In cases where the State has invoked the reason for refusal mentioned in Article 93, paragraph 4, and disclosure of the information or document is requested in response to a request for cooperation under Part 9 or the conditions outlined in paragraph 2:
(b) Under all other conditions:

6.11. THIRD PARTY INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS

When a State Party is asked by the Court to produce documents or information that it has in its care, custody, or control that a State, intergovernmental organization or international organization confided in it, it is required to obtain the original party’s permission before disclosing such materials. If the source of the information or document is a State Party, it must either agree to its disclosure or agree to work with the Court to settle the disclosure dispute, by article 72’s guidelines. Should the original author not be a State Party and decline to provide permission for disclosure, the asked State must notify the Court that it is unable to give the information or document due to an earlier confidentiality agreement with the original author.

6.12. REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECISION

1. Throughout the trial and all of the judges’ deliberations, all of the Trial Chamber’s judges must be present. On an individual basis, the Presidency may appoint one or more substitute judges to attendis unable to continue serving.

2. The Trial Chamber’s assessment of the evidence and the full proceedings will serve as the foundation for its conclusion. The ruling cannot go beyond the details of the charges, including any amended charges, or the facts and circumstances stated in the charges. Only the evidence presented and deliberated upon during the trial may serve as the foundation for the Court’s conclusion.

3. The judges will try to reach a unanimous conclusion; if not, a majority of the judges will make the final call.

4. The Trial Chamber’s discussions will remain confidential.

5. The judgment must be in writing and include a thorough and well-reasoned summary of the Trial Chamber’s conclusions and findings based on the evidence. There will only be one ruling from the Trial Chamber. The majority and minority opinions will be included in the Trial Chamber’s ruling if there is no unanimity. The judgment, or a summary of it, will be read aloud in public.

6.13. REPARATIONS TO VICTIM

1. The principles of restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation for victims, as well as reparations to them, should be established by the Court. Because of this, the Court shall identify the guiding principles in its decision-making process and may, at its discretion, specify the nature and degree of any harm, loss, or injury to victims, either at their request or on its initiative in extraordinary cases.
2. A conviction may result in an order from the Court that directs the offender to pay suitable reparations to the victims, including restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation.
When it makes sense, the Court may mandate that the Trust Fund mentioned in Article 79 be used to pay the restitution award.

3. The Court may invite and shall consider submissions from or on behalf of the convicted individual, victims, other interested parties, or interested States before making an order under this article.

4. In using its authority under this article, the Court may, following a conviction for a crime committed within the Court’s jurisdiction, decide whether seeking measures under Article 93, paragraph 1 is required to give effect to an order the Court may issue under this article.

5. A State Party shall apply the provisions of article 109 to this article to give effect to a decision made under it.

6. This item does not contain any language that might be construed as impairing victims’ rights under domestic or international law.

6.14. SENTENCING

1. In the case of a conviction, the Trial Chamber will determine the proper punishment by taking into account all relevant arguments and evidence from the trial that may affect the sentencing.

2. The Trial Chamber may, on its initiative and at the request of the Prosecutor or the accused, hold a further hearing to hear any further evidence or submissions relevant to the sentence, according to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, except in situations where article 65 applies and before the trial is concluded.

3. In cases where paragraph 2 is applicable, any representations made by article 75 will be considered both at the extra hearing mentioned in paragraph 2 and, if required, during any subsequent hearing.

4. The accused must, if at all possible, be present when the punishment is delivered in public.

7. PENALTIES

7.1. APPLICABLE PENALTIES

If someone is found guilty of an offense listed in Article 5 of this statute, the court may, subject to Article 110, impose one of the following punishments on them:

(a) A term of imprisonment that cannot go beyond a maximum of 30 years; or
(b) A sentence of life in prison, if the egregiousness of the offense and the particulars of the guilty individual warrant it.

2. The Court may furthermore mandate: in addition to incarceration
(a) A fine determined by the standards outlined in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) The confiscation of any money, goods, or other assets that were obtained from the crime, whether directly or indirectly, without affecting the rights of legitimate third parties.

7.2. DETERMINATION OF THE SENTENCE

1. The severity of the offense and the particular circumstances of the guilty party should be considered by the Court in imposing the punishment, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

2. The amount of time that was previously spent in detention according to a court order should be subtracted by the court when imposing an imprisonment term. Any time that would have otherwise been spent in custody due to actions that preceded the offense may be subtracted by the court.

3. The court will impose a sentence for each offense that a person has been found guilty of, as well as a combined sentence that specifies the entire amount of time they will spend behind bars. This time frame will not be less than the maximum punishment that has been imposed on an individual basis and will not surpass 30 years in jail or a life sentence by Article 77, paragraph 1 (b).

7.3. TRUST FUND

1. By resolution of the Assembly of States Parties, a Trust Fund will be created for the benefit of victims and their families of crimes falling under the purview of the Court.

2. Money and other assets seized by the Court through penalties or forfeiture may be ordered to be transferred to the Trust Fund.

3. The Assembly of States Parties will set the management standards for the Trust Fund.

4. TEN KEY FACTS ABOUT THE LEGAL PROCESS

In addition to the previously mentioned salient characteristics, some fundamentals are as follows:

1. If a person commits a crime while under the age of eighteen, the ICC will not bring charges against them.

2. A preliminary investigation must take into account factors including jurisdiction, seriousness, complementarity, adequate evidence, and the interests of justice before a prosecutor opens an investigation.

3. The prosecutor is required to provide and gather evidence that is both damning and exonerating throughout the investigation.

4. Before being found guilty, the accused would be deemed innocent. For the Prosecutor, the burden of proof is on.

5. The prosecutor’s responsibility is to provide the defendant with all relevant information in a language that they fully understand throughout the Pre-Trial, Trial, and Appeals stages of the proceedings. With teams of interpreters and translators at work, the ICC proceedings are conducted in multiple languages.

6. A case may be sent to trial by pre-trial judges who have the authority to issue arrest warrants and who must make sure that sufficient evidence is produced.

7. The defendant is referred to as a suspect rather than an accused during the Pre-Trial phase, which occurs before a case is committed to trial. The defendant is referred to as the accused after the matter moves on to trial since the charges have been verified by then.

8. Trial judges hear testimony from the defense, the prosecution, and the attorneys for the victims before rendering a conviction, imposing a sentence, and determining whether to provide reparations if a defendant is found guilty.

9. Appeals from the prosecution or defense are decided by judges who hear appeals.

10. If new evidence is presented by the prosecutor, a case that has been closed without a guilty conviction may be reopened.

9. HOW IS IT FUNDED?

Around $160 million was the ICC’s yearly budget in 2017. Member nations provide the vast majority of the money. Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France made up the countries with the most donations in 2017. Additional financing may be approved by the UN General Assembly in circumstances when the Security Council refers cases to the Court. Several nations and multinational organizations also provide voluntary contributions. According to several analysts, ICC is too costly.

10. ORGANS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The following organs will make up the Court:
(a) The office of President;
(b) Three divisions: Trial, Appeals, and Pre-Trial;
(c) The Prosecutor’s Office;
(c) The List of Entries.

10.1. THE PRESIDENCY

1. An absolute majority of the judges will elect the President, as well as the First and Second Vice Presidents. They will each hold office for three years or until the conclusion of their tenure as judges, whichever comes first. They will have one chance to run for office again.

2. In the case that the President is unable or unable to serve, the First Vice-President will assume the President’s duties. In the case that neither the President nor the First Vice-President can serve or are disqualified, the Second Vice-President will assume the President’s duties.

3. The Presidency, which will be made up of the President and the First and Second Vice Presidents, will be in charge of:

(a) The efficient operation of the Court, excluding the Prosecutor’s Office; and
(b) The additional duties granted to it in compliance with this statute.

4. In carrying out its duties under paragraph 3(a), the Presidency will collaborate with the Prosecutor on any issues of shared interest and seek their approval.

10.2. CHAMBERS

1. The Court will divide itself into the sections listed in Article 34, paragraph (b), as soon as feasible following the election of the judges. Four judges and the President will make up the Appeals Division. Six judges or more will make up the Trial Division, and six judges or more will make up the Pre-Trial Division. To ensure that each division has an adequate mix of experience in both international law and criminal law and procedure, the assignment of judges to divisions will be determined by the nature of the tasks to be carried out by each division as well as the credentials and experience of the judges elected to the Court. Pre-trial and Trial Division judges will be mostly made up of those with criminal trials.

2. (a) Chambers will oversee the Court’s judicial operations in each division.
(b) Every judge in the Appeals Division will make up the Appeals Chamber;
(c) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent more than one Trial Chamber or Pre-Trial Chamber from being established concurrently where it is necessary for the effective administration of the Court’s business.

3. (a) Judges appointed to the Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions will remain there for a term of three years, or until any cases whose hearings have already started in the relevant division are finished.
(b) Appeals Division judges are appointed to the division for the duration of their terms in office.

4. Judges designated for the Appeals Division may only hold positions within that division. Nothing in this article, however, will prevent judges from the Trial Division from temporarily being attached to the Pre-Trial Division or vice versa, should the Presidency determine that doing so is necessary for the effective management of the Court’s workload. The only restriction is that a judge who has presided over a case during its pre-trial phase will never be qualified to sit in the Trial Chamber hearing that case.

10.3. THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR

1. The Prosecutor’s Office will function autonomously as a distinct branch of the Court. It will be in charge of taking in referrals and any verified information on offenses under the Court’s jurisdiction, reviewing it, and carrying out inquiries and prosecutions in front of the Court. An employee of the Office is not permitted to ask for or follow orders from outside parties.

2. The prosecutor will serve as the office’s chief executive. About the personnel, infrastructure, and other resources of the Office, the Prosecutor will have complete control over management and operations. Assisting the Prosecutor will be one or more Deputy Prosecutors, who are empowered to perform any duties assigned to them by this statute. Different ethnicities should be represented by the prosecutor and deputy prosecutor. Full-time service will be provided by them.

3. Having a strong moral foundation, being exceptionally skilled, and having a great deal of real-world experience in the prosecution or trial of criminal cases are requirements for both the prosecutor and the deputy prosecutor. They must speak at least one of the Court’s working languages fluently and with great proficiency.

4. The members of the Assembly of States Parties shall elect the Prosecutor by secret ballot, with a majority vote. The Prosecutor will offer a list of applicants, and the Deputy Prosecutors will be chosen in the same manner. Three applicants will be put up by the prosecutor for each open deputy prosecutor post. If a shorter duration is agreed upon during their election, the Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutors will serve nine-year terms and are not eligible for reappointment.

5. Neither the prosecutor nor a deputy prosecutor may take part in any activity that might jeopardize their ability to carry out their prosecuting duties or erode public trust in their impartiality. They are not allowed to work in any other professional capacity.

6. At their request, the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor may be excused by the Presidency from participating in a specific case.

7. In any case where their objectivity might be legitimately questioned for any reason, neither the prosecutor nor a deputy prosecutor may take part. They will be excluded from a case under this paragraph if, among other things, they have previously participated in that matter in any capacity before the Court or in a connected criminal case involving the subject of the investigation or prosecution at the federal level.

8. The Appeals Chamber will make the decision on any issue about the Prosecutor’s or a Deputy Prosecutor’s disqualification.
(a) The subject of an investigation or prosecution may, at any time, request that the prosecutor or a deputy prosecutor be removed from office for the reasons outlined in this article;
(b) The right to offer remarks on the subject shall belong to the Prosecutor or the Deputy Prosecutor, as applicable;

9. The Prosecutor is required to designate advisors who possess legal knowledge on certain matters, such as violence against minors and sexual and gender-based abuse.

10.4. THE REGISTRY

1. Without affecting the Prosecutor’s duties and authority under Article 42, the Registry will be in charge of the non-judicial parts of the Court’s management and operations.

2. The Registrar, who will serve as the Court’s chief administrative official, will oversee the Registry. The President of the Court will have the last say on how the Registrar performs their duties.

3. The Deputy Registrar and the Registrar must be exceptionally skilled individuals with great moral integrity, as well as fluency in at least one of the court’s working languages.

4. With the Assembly of States Parties’ suggestion taken into consideration, the judges will choose the Registrar by an absolute majority in a secret ballot. Should the necessity emerge and based on the Registrar’s suggestion, the judges will choose a Deputy Registrar in the same way.

5. The Registrar will serve as the office’s full-time representative, hold office for a term of five years, and be eligible to run again once. If chosen on the condition that the Deputy Registrar be called upon to serve as needed, the Deputy Registrar shall serve for a term of five years, or for a shorter period as determined by an absolute majority of the judges.

6. A Victims and Witnesses Unit must be established by the Registrar inside the Registry. For witnesses, victims who come before the court, and other people who are in danger due to the testimony provided by such witnesses, this Unit shall offer, in conjunction with the Office of the Prosecutor, protection measures and security arrangements, counseling, and other relevant support. Trauma specialists, particularly those with experience in trauma connected to sexual assault cases, will be employed by the Unit.

11. LIMITATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Given that it lacks a police force or other independent enforcement organization, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is dependent on help from other countries. The ICC is losing credibility, selecting cases inconsistently, and is incapable of taking on difficult matters.
The United States of America is publicly endorsing those who violate human rights and concealing them by retaliating against war crimes investigators, claims Human Rights Watch, an international nongovernmental organization. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has the authority to issue harsh punishments of life imprisonment or up to 30 years in jail when the crime committed is so heinous.The United States of America will impose sanctions on investigators from the International Criminal Court (ICC) who may have committed war crimes while working with the United States of America and its allies starting in 2020.
The judges and ICC prosecutors have too few checks and balances on their power.
The ICC has been charged with serving as a weapon of Western imperialism and with favoring wealthy nations over weaker ones.
Sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel investigating potential war crimes committed by US forces and their allies were approved by the US in 2020.
The USA directive had been duly noted by the United Nations.
The United States’ decision was deemed a cause for grave worry by the European Union.
As noted by the global NGO Human Rights Watch, the United States of America is openly supporting those who violate and conceal human rights violations by criminalizing war crimes investigators.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not allowed to execute prisoners; instead, it can sentence them to severe jail sentences of up to 30 years or life, depending on how serious the case is. Because it can only address crimes committed after July 1, 2002, the day the 1998 Rome Statute went into effect, the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks retrospective jurisdiction.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is automatically authorized to hear cases only in cases that are referred to it by the United Nations Security Council, occur on the territory of a state that has signed the treaty, or are committed by citizens of such a state.
The effectiveness of the court has been called into doubt due to procedural and substantive shortcomings that cause delays and irritation.
It also struggles with a lack of funding and human resources.

12. WHAT CASES HAS ICC OPENED?

More than forty people have been detained by the ICC; they are all citizens of African nations. Out of the sixteen individuals arrested at The Hague, eight have been found guilty of crimes and four have been found not guilty. Cases of civil wars and other hostilities that have raged in these countries have been referred to by the governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Mali, and the Central African Republic.

The UN Security Council sent the first case to the ICC in 2005 due to alleged atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur area. The UN Security Council referred to matters about purported crimes in Libya once again in 2011. Furthermore, in Kenya in 2010, Georgia in 2016, Ivory Coast in 2011, and Burundi in 2017, the prosecutor’s office launched many suo motu inquiries. Preliminary investigations have been initiated by the ICC in 10 nations, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ukraine, Columbia, and Venezuela.

13. HIGH PROFILE CASES

Muammar Gaddafi , the Security Council forwarded Libya’s situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) due to claims that the Libyan leader was responsible for the deaths of unarmed people during the Arab Spring Protests. In June 2011, the Court issued arrest warrants for Qaddafi, his brother-in-law, and his son. However, Qaddafi fled and was assassinated before he could be found. The son of Colonel Qaddafi, Saif al-Islam, is still at large.

Omar al-Bashir: The International Criminal Court (ICC) charged the first-term president of Sudan on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed in the Darfur area of Sudan. Mass executions and the deportation of members of ethnic groups are alleged to have been planned by him. After receiving promises from international leaders that they wouldn’t turn him in, Bashir fled the country and escaped imprisonment. Amidst anti-government demonstrations in April 2019, the Sudanese military deposed Bashir and put him under custody; nonetheless, they declared that they would not deport him. Al Bashir may come before the ICC, according to recent signals from Sudan.

Uhuru Kenyatta: In 2010, there was unrest that claimed over a thousand lives. The International Criminal Court (ICC) launched an inquiry into this incident. Kenyatta was identified as a suspect in crimes against humanity and war, along with five other prominent political figures. While Kenyatta was running partner for another ICC suspect, William Ruto, when he won the president in 2013, the probe went on. The ICC dismissed the accusations against Ruto in 2016 and against Kenyatta in 2014. The prosecutor’s office also asserted that the case was unsuccessful due to witness manipulation and the uncooperative Kenyan government.

14. CRITICISM OF THE COURT

There are usually two types of criticism. Some people think that because the court doesn’t have enough power, it can’t effectively and efficiently prosecute war crimes. Others believe it lacks enough due process and other safeguards against political bias, and that its excessive prosecutorial authority endangers state sovereignty. The credentials of judges have also been a topic of discussion. Although there is conflicting evidence to support this theory, others fear that the possibility of international justice may make war criminals less likely to turn themselves in, thus extending hostilities. Even the court’s supporters have acknowledged its inadequacies. A few examples have also brought up difficult moral and legal issues, such as the responsibility of former child soldiers who were coerced into serving and were harmed in the process.

Several powerful nations agree with US grievances. China and India claim that going to court would violate their sovereignty, hence they choose not to go. Analysts point out that if both nations joined, they may be the subject of inquiries.

Following the court’s classification of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea as an occupation, Moscow withdrew its signature from the treaty in 2016, and it is unclear whether Moscow would participate in the court’s war crimes probe in Ukraine. The Israeli government informed the ICC in 2021 that it would not acknowledge the court’s jurisdiction to look into claims of war crimes committed in Palestinian territory.

“We will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right of self-defense,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in April 2024. Israel does not have a membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC), but any of its leaders might face arrest if they go to any ICC member nation and are the subject of an ICC arrest warrant.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been criticized by some African countries for focusing too much on the continent. Though recent investigations into the Palestinian territories, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Venezuela seem to be expanding the court’s jurisdiction, the majority of the more than two dozen cases the court has heard have involved alleged crimes in African states. In 2016, the African Union supported a mass withdrawal plan spearheaded by Kenya; nonetheless, the vote was mainly symbolic.

In Kenya and other countries, the court continues to enjoy widespread public support. Many African governments’ resistance to the ICC, according to CFR’s Gavin, “is not necessarily aligned with the desire of many Africans for fairness and accountability.”

Hope this article: icc international criminal court was useful to you, feel free to share it in your circle, if you have any doubts ask it in the comment section, if you’re seeking for legal advice then feel free to connect with top 10 criminal lawyers in bangalore for better clarity in handling your legal problem.