THE

INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT:
THE MOST
IMPORTANT NEW
INSTITUTION FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR
THE 21ST CENTURY

By: Comm. Rene V. Sarmiento (ret.)

 What They Say About the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

“I felt this is the most important new institution for

human rights in the new century.”
- - Mary Robertson, former UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, July 22, 2002

“… the Rome Statute, one of the most ambitious

international legal initiatives in the history of modern
international law …”
 - - HRH Prince Al Hussein, President of the
Assembly of States Parties, at the ICC Inauguration Ceremony,
March 11, 2003

“… this is international lawmaking of historic

proportions.”
  - - Editorial, Times of India, August 1, 1998
 What They Say About the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

“We believe the Rome Statute symbolizes global justice that needs global
adherence by all States to the Statute. It is therefore essential that the
integrity of the Rome Statute must be preserved according to the nature of
the Court, as intended, to be a universal body.”
- - HE Ambassador Sun Suon
Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations,
15 October 22

[The Rome Statute] has several distinctions – its emphasis on individual

criminal responsibility, provision for an independent Prosecutor, provision
for victims to participate and voice their views and the unprecedented level
of gender integration throughout the statute are some of them. In fact, with
regard to gender justice, the statute sets new standards in prosecution of
crimes of gender and sexual violence that national judicial systems can
benefit from.”
 - - Vahida Nainar
Executive Director of the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice,
at the Special Treaty Event to mark 60 ratifications of the Rome Statute,
11 April 2002
 What Judge Raul Pangalangan Say
About The ICC

“The ICC provides a neutral international mechanism by

which to constrain the conduct of war. It criminalizes the grave
breaches banned by international humanitarian law. It shifts
the punishment of grave breaches away from bilateral
commitments between parties. For me, this is the most
important part. They are punished by a tribunal that is both
international and standing. International, not domestic;
standing, not ad hoc. This two-fold combination is very
important. Notice that the past international criminal
tribunals-Nuremberg, Tokyo, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda - were
all ad hoc tribunals created for a specific dispute. Here in Asia,
we have the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia and the
tribunals in East Timor. These were all ad hoc in character.”
 Global Victimization Before The
Rome Statute

During the course of the 20th century, non-

international conflicts, internal conflicts, and
tyrannical regime victimization like genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes, along
with extra-judicial executions and torture have
resulted in more than 170 million deaths.
- - Randolph J. Rummel,
Death By Government (1994)

Genocide: Holocaust In Nazi Germany (6

million Jews; 200,000 Gypsies; 200,000 mentally
or physically disabled patients, Slavic peoples, etc.)
 Few Prosecutions

Despite millions of deaths, there have

been few prosecutions, internationally and
locally, even if ad hoc investigatory
commissions, two ad hoc tribunals for
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, one international
truth commission for El Salvador, national
prosecutions in Argentina and Chile and a
Truth and Reconciliation Commission in
South Africa were created.
- - M. Cherif Bassiouni “Search For Peace And Achieving
Justice: The Need for Accountability (1996)”
 Impediments to Prosecution, Internationally and Nationally

1. No specialized international convention has been

passed.

2. Reluctance on the part of the 185 member States of the

UN to support non-applicability of Statute of Limitations
to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

3. The limited recognition and application of the theory of

the universal jurisdiction of crimes.

4. Absence of an international criminal court, an

accountability mechanism.
 
- - Bassiouni
 Good News

The Rome Statute was adopted on July

17, 1998. Entered into force on July 1,
2002. International Criminal Court
inaugurated on March 11, 2003.

Today 124 countries are States Parties to

the Rome Statute, including the
Philippines.
 States Parties

34 – African States
28 – Latin America and Caribbean States
25 – Western Europe and other States
19 – Asia-Pacific
18 – Eastern Europe
 4 Crimes Within The ICC’s Jurisdiction

1. Crime of Genocide (acts committed with intent to

destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or
religious group);

2. Crimes Against Humanity (widespread or systematic

attack against any civilian population: murder, torture,
rape, forced pregnancy, sexual slavery, enforced
prostitution, enforced disappearance of persons, etc.);

3. War crimes (when committed as part of a plan or policy

like willful killing, torture, willfully causing great
suffering, etc.);

4. The Crime of Aggression (invasion, military

occupation, annexation by use of force, blockade of the
ports or coasts.
 10 Pr inc iples of Cr iminal law in t he
Rome St at ut e
 

1. Principle of Legality (nullum crimen sine lege)

2. Principle of Complementarity
3. Principle of Universal Jurisdiction of Crimes
4. Principle of Individual Responsibility
5. Principle of Irrelevance of Official Capacity
6. Principle of Non-Applicability of Statute of
Limitations
7. Principle of Command Responsibility
8. Principle of Non-retroactivity ratione personae
9. Principle of Non-Applicability of Death
Penalty
10. Principle of Non bis in idem (Against Double Jeopardy)
 How Doe s the ICC Diff e r From
Ot he r Cour t s
 

1. A permanent autonomous court. Not a

judicial organ of the UN.
2. Tries individuals not disputes between
States.
 How A Case Is R ef e r re d t o t he ICC
For Inve st igat ion

1. By any State Party

2. By UN Security Council
3. By Individuals or Organizations
 S tructu re o f th e
Int ern at ion al Crimin a l C ou rt

Organs of the Court:

1. The Presidency
2. Appeals Division, Trial Division and
Pre-Trial Division
3. The Office of the Prosecutor
4. The Registry
 Office of the Prosecutor
1. Prosecutor
2. Deputy Prosecutor/s
3. Staff
 The Registry
1. Registrar
2. Deputy Registrar
 Inve st igat ion And Prose c ution

1. Initiation of an investigation

2. Duties and Powers of the Prosecutor

3. Rights of persons during an investigation

4. Warrant of Arrest or a Summon to appear

5. Arrest Proceedings and detention in the

custodial State

6. Arrangements for surrender

 Rule s of Proc edure And Evide nce

1. Presumption of Innocence
2. Rights of the Accused
3. Protection of victims and witnesses
4. Undertaking as to the truthfulness of
evidence
5. Testimony in person or viva voce or video

or audio technology
 Ju d icia l Pro ceed in g

1. Trial
2. Place of Trial
3. Trial in the presence of the accused
4. Sentencing (Penalties)
5. Appeal and Revision
a) Appeal against decision of acquittal
or conviction or against sentence
b) Revision of conviction and sentence
c) Compensation to an arrested or
convicted person
6. Where Sentences are served
7. Reparations to Victims
8. Trust Fund for Victims
 C a ses Bro ug ht Bef ore The IC C

1. Prosecutor vs. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

(Congolese)
Status: Dyilo convicted 
2. Prosecutor vs. Germain Katanga (Congolese)
Status: Katanga convicted
3. Prosecutor vs. Bosco Ntaganda (Res
Congolese)
Status: Trial Ongoing
4. Prosecutor vs. Callixte Mbarushimana (Hutu
Rwandan)
Status: Mbarushimana acquitted
5. Prosecutor vs. Mathiue Njudjolo Chui
(Congolese)
Status: Chui is at large. Warrant of arrest
 C a ses Bro ug ht Bef ore The IC C

6. Prosecutor vs. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi (Libyan)

Status: On May 31, 2013, the Pre-Trial
Chamber I
rejected the challenge to the admissibility of the

case against Gaddafi. Appeals Chamber

affirmed
the decision.
7. Prosecutor vs. Almad Al Faqui Al Mahdi
(Mali)
Status: Hearing scheduled on March 1, 2016
8. Prosecutor vs. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
(Central African Republic)
Status: Trial done. Judgment set on March 21,
 C a ses Bro ug ht Bef ore The IC C

10. Prosecutor vs. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashin

(President of Sudan)
Status: Warrant of arrest issued.
11.  Prosecutor vs. Abdel Raheem Muhammad
Hussein
(Sudan)
Status: Warrant of arrest issued.
12. Prosecutor vs. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Norrain
(Sudan)
Status: Voluntary appearance. No trial date
scheduled.
13. Prosecutor vs. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua
Arap Sang (Kenya)
Status: Not in ICC Custody.
14. Prosecutor vs. Uhuru Mulgai Kenyatta (President
 Sit ua tion s Un der I nv es tiga tio n

1. Afghanistan
2. Columbia
3. Nigeria
4. Guinea
5. Iraq
6. Ukraine
7. Palestine

 
 PHILIPPIN ES

1. R. A. 9851, July 27, 2009. An Act

Penalizing Crimes Against IHL Genocide
and Other Crimes Against Humanity,
Organizing Jurisdiction, Designating
Special Courts, And For Related
Purposes.

2. Mamasapano Incident

 
 Th e I C C an d Pros pects f or Peace/A Les s Vio len t Wo rld

1. Helps in awareness-building
2. Deterrence
3. Builds a culture of accountability, not
impunity
4. Rehabilitation of the society and of the victims
5. Reconciliation within the society

PEACE BE WITH YOU!