Tagged: Iraq

ICC Opens Another Preliminary Examination – Burundi

Fatou Bensouda, the ICC’s Prosecutor, announced in her statement that a preliminary examination has been initiated into Burundi on-going crisis, allegedly involving more than 430 persons killed, at least 3,400 people arrested, and over 230,000 Burundians forced to seek refuge. As reported in an earlier post, the Prosecutor has been watching the ongoing situation in Burundi since early 2015, commenting on the then-upcoming election, fulfilling the OTP’s early warning function and preemptively calling for peace and cease of violence. It appears however, that her prevention efforts within Burundi, a State Party to the Rome Statute, unfortunately fell short because about a year later, she is initiating a preliminary examination.

Preliminary examination may be initiated by the Prosecutor, referral from a State Party or Security Council, or a 12(3) declaration by a State that is not a Party to the Rome Statute. In this case, the Prosecutor exercised its vested authority to begin examination. The purpose of such examination is to review and assess information available so far to determine whether a reasonable basis to proceed with investigation exists. Article 53(1) of Rome Statute requires Prosecutor to consider issues of jurisdiction (often focusing on the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction), admissibility (comprising of both complementarity and gravity determination often focusing on the domestic prosecutorial and investigative efforts) and overall interest of justice.

Not every preliminary examination leads to authorization to investigate. In situations of Honduras, Republic of Korea, and the Vessels of Comoros, the Court found no reasonable basis to proceed with investigation, as required by art. 53(1), and concluded its preliminary examinations without prejudice, leaving the possibility to re-open examination available should additional information and evidence surface. On the other hand, in situations of Libya, Ivory Coast, Mali, Georgia, and CAR II, for example, the Court moved forward, finding reasonable basis to proceed and securing pre-trial chamber’s authorization to open investigation in these situations.

The ICC has seven open preliminary examinations at this time, making Burundi the eighth one. Three situations, Palestine, Ukraine and Iraq, are currently in Phase 2 – having the Court consider subject-matter jurisdiction. Four situations, Afghanistan, Colombia, Guinea, and Nigeria, have moved to Phase 3 – having the Court consider issues of admissibility. The Court issues reports on its preliminary examination conclusions each year sharing its findings in each situation and ensuring so the much needed transparency.

Related Readings:

ICC Annual Summary: Reports on 2014 Preliminary Examination Activities

To follow up on our previous post, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its December 2, 2014 press release published its annual Report on Preliminary Examination Activities conducted between Nov. 1, 2013 and Oct. 31, 2014. “Preliminary Examination” is a process by which the ICC determines whether a situation referred to it meets the legal criteria established by the Rome Statute to warrant investigation by the Prosecutor.

As the annual report explains in its introduction,

preliminary examination of a situation by the Office may be initiated on the bases of: a) information sent by individuals or groups, States, [IGOs], or [NGOs]; b) a referral from a State Party or the Security Council; or c) a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court lodges pursuant to article 12(3) by a State which is not a Party to the Statute.

Article 53(1)(a)-(c) establishes that the Office shall consider jurisdiction, admissibility and the interest of justice when determining whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation. The preliminary examination is an independent analysis of facts and information available. The ‘reasonable basis’ standard has been defined by Pre-Trial Chamber II to require that “there exists a sensible or reasonable justification for a belief that a crime falling within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed.”

During this past year, the ICC conducted preliminary examination in eleven situations: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Iraq, Nigeria, Republic of North Korea, Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Colombia, and Ukraine. In three situations the preliminary examination has been concluded. The Court found reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the Situation in the Central African Republic II and announced the opening of new investigation. Two situations (Republic of North Korea and Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece, and Cambodia) were closed because the Prosecutor did not find reasonable basis to proceed with investigation. 

There are eight situations remaining in the preliminary examination stages. Five (Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, and Nigeria) situations are in the third phase of examination when the Office considers admissibility by looking at the complementarity and gravity principle articulated in article 17. Three (Honduras, Iraq, and Ukraine) situations are in the second phase when the Office considers jurisdiction (temporal, either territorial or personal, and material).

With respect to the situation in Ukraine, the annual report outlines the Office’s activities since the situation was referred to the Court via article 12(3) declaration and it states that it focused on “gathering available information from reliable sources in order to assess whether the alleged crimes fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court.” The Office requested information from the Government of Ukraine, from representatives of Ukrainian civil society, delegation of members of the Ukrainian Parliamentary Committee on the Rule of Law and Justice, and the Office also conducted a mission in Kiev. The Office concludes that it will continue to

gather, verify, and analyse” information to determine whether “there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court have been committed during the Maidan event in Ukraine.