Death, Mrs Kaguta singing and a young Winnie Byanyima smiling: Where are the similarities?










We hope that the new year brings better things for the suffering people of Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda.

Juba Talks

Who is kidding who?

Today's Ugandan newspapers carry pictures of Museveni posing with Kony's mother. Another article reports Kony asking to be tried in Uganda and not by the ICC. Kony appears to even be planning whre he shoul be imprisoned - perhaps Lugore or Luzira. Also Kony asking to meet Uganda Ministers, a request which Walter Ochora is quite eager to organise. What is happening?

LRA Delegates too close to Uganda Government?
Many observers of the Juba Talks are getting increasingly concerned about the warm relationship that has all of a suddent sprang up between the LRA and Uganda Government delegates. Martin Ojul for instance, without hesitation reportedly accepted Dr Rugunda's invitation to the LRA delegates to spend Christmas in Uganda. The two delegations are reportedly also now dining together! This is amidst reports that Martin Ojul has now bought a new house in Nairobi, whilst Okidi Jongomoi, the USA based LRA link on a recent visit to Kampala had a number of meetings with top Uganda Government and military officials. Joseph Kony on the other hand has reportedly been mellowed by his mother's visit, accompanied by Museveni's representative in Gulu, Walter Ochora and Owiny Dollo, a NRM stallwart. What is going on? Many are asking.

Meanwhile, most of the UK based LRA delegates are in London for an alleged break and consultation. It is not clear whether all will be going back to Juba in the new year. Rumours have that the Nairobi based group who are now in control of the talks in their absence would prefer some of the London delegates not to be allowed back. Reports from London say that the delegates have held a number of closed meetings with elders from the war affected areas. Some say a break away group is the offing to executte an alternative plan in case the Nairobi faction sell out the LRA. to the ICC and Uganda Government. Whether this is true remaiins to be seen. Watch this sapce!

What Next?

It is over a month since Juba Talks has communicated. We were in the wilds of Africa. Computer keyboard were no where to be seen. Many facts we collected but we remain with the question of what next with the Juba Talks? LRA militry leadership appear to be at a loss as to who they should trust. Can Kony's mother help? The London based deegation are on a break and consulting with an amalgamation of individuals-but what influence do they have? What has gone wrong is difficult to repair. Shame that the people of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan will continue to face a bleak future for some time to come.

Running Out of Patience with LRA
Increasingly the general public not only in Acholi but across Uganda seem to be running out patience with what is seen as delaying tactics by the LRA Team in Juba. The team recently asked for a break and for time to tour Northern Uganda. Meanwhile some members of the team have been flying in and out of Juba to London, Nairobi, Washington etc apparently to consult and settle personal matters. Recently Yolam Okech was seen in the London Streets and has been soliciting ideas and cotributions to the teams strategy on future development of health services in the war affected areas. Quietly, even supporters of the talks have commented that this is a very ad hoc way of conducting talks that are so vital to the future of the long suffering people of the region. If the team do not have any more ideas they should stop wating time and get the talks completed and agreement signed so that further discusions on development can occur internally in Uganda.

LRA Leadership in a fix
A a short break has allowed Juba Talks Blogspot to to visit East and Central Africa to assess the situation on the ground. A worrying discovery has been the apparent fix that the LRA leadership are in. They appear to be so distrustfull of any external advice such that they are gradually gliding back into their survival instinct mode of 'fight or die'. This is not withstanding the provocations that the Uganda Government forces have also recently made, the alleged masaacre of 41 innocent civilins being one.

A Juba Talks Blogspot contributor recently visited Juba. Clearly, there appeared to be lack of direction particularly on how to deal with the issue of the ICC warants. While our contributor was there, frantic efforts were being made to identify legal experts from abroad. It appeared as if Vincent Otti made contact with a firm of lawyers abroad. It was not clear whether this firm was based in New York, Sweden or London. What was leaked to our contributor however was that a Ugandan lawyer based abroad is actively seeking legal support for the LRA leadership to counter the ICC warrants. However, the LRA leadership is so frightenned of falling into the ICC trap such that they cannot make up their minds whether they should enagage any external legal firm. They prefer to deal with the local legal representatives from Uganda as these do not have the international contact that they fear.

Tension remains high and is building up day by day in Juba. When our contributor was in Juba, the numbers of those people who at the beginning claimed to be part of the LRA negoatiation team had dwindled. While Dr Paito from the UK made a trip out to UK but returned, his colleague Dr Walter Okello was no where to be seen. It wasn't clear whether he had any plans to rejoin the negoatiation team. Rumour has it that he has fallen out of favour with some in the team. Other LRA Juba team members are also apprehensive about their fate in case the Juba talks fail. This is becoming even more of a problem since the hosts, the Government of Southern Sudan, are very upset about the killing of their innocent citizens. If it turns out that it was the LRA, and the talks fail, will the LRA Juba team members be able to exit Sudan? This is the major question that our contributor left the team pondering on.

LRA Juba team break to mark anniversary of Obote's death
The LRA negotiation team have today decided not to attend the talks because they wanted to respect the first anniversary of former President Obote's death. They had previously requested the mediator to adjourn the talks so that both sides could respect the anniversary but the Uganda delegation refused. Meanwhile, the Uganda delegation are spending today discussing the Draft Comprehensive Peace Agreement that the LRA team handed over yesterday. So, whilst a some days ago the alleged military build up and movement on both sides sent out negative signals about the prospects for the talks continuing, both teams appear not to have been derailed in their commitment to carry on with the talks. We hope this is a sign of good things to come for the long suffering people of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan

The Monitor confirms our warning of planned Government military action against the LRA

In our last posting we warned that the LRA and Uganda Government troops were poised for a military showdown in the light of the fledgling Juba peace talks. Today's report in a Ugandan newspaper proves our point RODNEY MUHUMUZA writing in the Daily Monitor under the heading Museveni asks US to back plan B against LRA states:

President Yoweri Museveni has said Uganda will expect
Washington's support to hunt down the LRA's top leadership if
the Juba peace talks do not yield a comprehensive peace
agreement.

At yesterday's State House meeting with Mr John Edwards, the
North Carolina Senator, who was candidate John Kerry's running
mate in the 2004 US presidential race, Mr Museveni hinted that
with the peace talks mired in a circus of generic proposals
between the parties, Plan B may already be in motion.

The Juba peace talks, Museveni said, are only about improving
Joseph Kony's life expectancy and not fixing an insurgency
that has dragged on for nearly two decades.

"The President said that the government of Uganda is
absolutely committed to the Juba talks, but if the LRA does
not show seriousness, then the United States should back
Uganda at the United Nations to hunt for the LRA," a statement
from State House said, adding that "Britain and Uganda will be
co-sponsoring" a resolution to hunt down the LRA's leadership.


Edwards, the statement said, promised to lobby for the passing
of the resolution that would allow for the pursuit,
disarmament and demobilisation of the LRA.

As we here at Juba Talks blogspot warned, the indications are clearly that a miltary showdown is increasingly becoming the next step.This will be very unfortunate and is very much a result, in our view, of the inability of the LRA delegation and the religious, elected and cultural leaders not effectively pushing for the ICC warrants of arrest on Kony, Otii and others to at least be suspended. If this was done, the LRA miltary leadership would have had no other excuse to engage directly in the talks. Secondly, some of the constitutional issues that the LRA delegation have raised, such as creation of a federal system and of two parallel armies are matters that would require a national diologue with a cross representation of the Uganda people. This is a national discussion that could be had after paece has been attained. At this point, the LRA delegation should be pushing for a commitment from the Government that such a national dialogue will be instituted, for example, within a year of the peace agreement being signed. We therefore pray that the LRA delegation do not paly into the hands of Museveni by taking intransigent positions and giving him the excuse to unleash his army. The collateral damage will be the people of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan.

Kony's LRA and Uganda troops prepare for a final show down?

Joseph Kony
As the Juba negotiation stall, a member of the LRA delegation who is currently abroad having taken a break from the talks has confided in us that the LRA is now poised for ‘Plan B’, which is the military option. This is as a result of recent heavy military movement of Uganda Government troops towards Southern Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo. The source also confirmed that President Museveni’s recent arrogant statements made in Gulu indicated that he was preparing the ground for his army to attack the LRA. The decision by the ICC not to suspend the warrants of arrest and the impotency of local elected, religious and cultural leaders to intervene and directly demand this from the ICC directly has not helped the situation. Information that we here at Juba Talks blog are receiving from Northern Uganda indicate that the Ugandan army are confident that the international community will not condemn them if they were to attack the LRA and capture Kony and his fellow indicted commanders. Infact, opinion political opinion particularly in Britain and the United States is in favour of a military option. One Ugandan senior military officer who has recently visited Britain said that they were itching to deal the final military blow to Kony, after which the next stage will be to go for the so called political brains behind the LRA, particularly those allegedly in the diaspora.

ICC Warrants on Uganda Government Army Commanders
As the ICC is now adamant about the warrants and clearly says war crimes must be punished no matter what, the case for bringing those in the Uganda Government army and in leadership position who are responsible for killings in Northern and Eastern Uganda also to be brought to book. What the LRA Juba delegation lack at the moment is the capacity and leadership to co-ordinate and bring such an action about. The so called elders outside the country who the delegation appear to be relying on and frequesntly consulting seem bankrupt of ideas as they cannot even come out in the open and discuss their ideas with those who may be supportive. As the decisive stage of the talks begin, the remaining LRA delegation in Juba is instead wasting its effort demading for the removal of Rugunda and Oryem from the Government delegation because they are not elected Ministers. One may ask what moral authority the LRA delegation have demading this when they themselves do not represent an elected voice or the broad voice of those who for years have been active in the opposition to the Museveni regime in Northern Uganda. Instead of busying themselves organising the visit to the UK of Kizza Besigye, some of the LRA delegation currently in the UK should have been involving a broad section of both Ugandan and non-Ugandan supporters to strenthgthen what those in Juba present in the next round of talks.

Kony and traditional reconciliation? Local leaders must petition International Criminal Court
The Uganda Government has announced its intention to appoint a legal team to advise it on ‘Mato Oput’, the Acholi traditional method of conflict resolution and reconciliation. The alleged intention is to explore how this approach can be used in place of the International Criminal Court. This is a promising development but one would have thought that by now the Government would a clear and well informed position on this as the approach has been flouted for years. What still remains as an obstacle to reaching a comprehensive peace agreement between the LRA and the Uganda Government is the case of the ICC warrants. The Uganda Government is being unreasonable by saying that they will only ask for a review of these warrants once the a comprehensive agreement has been signed. Logically, for the agreement to be signed the key players such as Kony and Otti must be fully engaged and they can’t unless the warrants are at least suspended. Surely, for the sake of peace, can’t the Uganda Government ask for temporary suspension pending a full review after an agreement has been reached? This would be a more constructive way forward.

Leaders such as Norbert Mao, the District Chairman of Gulu, also bear some responsibility for guiding the elders and traditional leaders in the war affected areas of Northern Uganda. Recently he rightly called for the inclusion of elders from Lango and Teso in the negotiations. I would have expected Mao as a lawyer by profession to have gone further and formed a team of lawyers, representatives of the war victims, religious leaders and elders to petition the ICC for a suspension of the warrants of arrest so that the negotiations can be given a chance to progress. Blaming President Museveni about setting deadlines for talks is not sufficient. Mao and other leaders must lead by action, and that action must move to the higher gear of engaging the ICC directly not through the Uganda Government.

MAO BLASTS MUSEVENI ON DEADLINES
BY JOHN MUTO-ONO P’LAJUR
GULU
19th September 2006

GULU LCV Chairman Norbert Mao has blasted President
Yoweri Museveni saying the President was so obsessed
with issuing deadlines for peace, yet peace building
is a human project which is subjected to human
weaknesses and emotions, which require no deadlines.
“You are not going to change human nature. You must
understand to work around it. Peace building takes
time. I am surprised that Museveni is obsessed with
deadlines for peace.”
Mao made the remarks while closing a one-day
consultation meeting on the practicability of
reconciliation on September 18th, 2006 at the GUSCO
Peace Centre Conference Hall in Gulu town. Northern
Uganda Peace Initiative (NUPI) organized the meeting
in conjunction with District Reconciliation and Peace
team (DRPT).
Mao said it was wrong for President Museveni to
continue to issue deadlines in resolving the conflict
in northern Uganda yet he knows that he was dealing
with people with different understandings from his
position on issues.
“If you were a farmer, you cannot say that the seeds
you have planted today must germinate in three days.
You cannot tell your wife that on this day, you must
deliver our baby. Even doctors only estimate the day
on which a mother may deliver her baby.”
He said the conflict in Mozambique took three years of
negotiation to resolve and that the Sudanese were
almost fighting during the protracted negotiations in
Kenya.
“If I had the opportunity, I would advise President
Museveni to avoid this fast-food approach to peace
building. That is not how you build peace.”
President Museveni had issued a September 12th
deadline by which a Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) to end 20 years of war in northern Uganda would
have been signed between government and the Lord’s
Resistance Army (LRA) rebels. The Government of
Southern Sudan is mediating the talks in Juba.
That deadline was extended to September 19th, with
only one agenda out of five being disposed off.
Un-easy truce exists although both sides have issued
alarm warnings of a possible renewal of hostilities,
as talks are yet to resume in Juba.
Mao said many people from other regions, which have
been affected by the war, are now coming to express
interest in participating in the talks as observers.
He said cultural leaders from Lango, Teso, Bunyoro and
West Nile have indicated that they would send their
representatives to join Acholi paramount Chief, Rwot
David Onen-Acana at the talks.
“To avoid people rocking your boat, let them be busy
holding the oar. If you don’t let them, you will
sink.”
Mao also counseled the two sides negotiating in Juba
to be watchful of conflict entrepreneurs who are all
out to make sure the talks doesn’t succeed. He said
such entrepreneur might even donate money for the
peace process, yet they may have different agenda.
He named Mark Thatcher, the son of former British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as such conflict
entrepreneur.
“They sit in their air-conditioned offices and decide
where the next conflict should be. If I were the
president, I would organize the commons to hang such a
man and then I would also be hanged. They can animate
politicians with ambitions and promise heavens.”
Mao said peace building is dangerous, risky and not
for the faint hearted.
“If fact peace builders are more courageous than
warriors.”
He said the current talks have helped demystify the
LRA and its leader Joseph Kony.
“In the past people were questioning if Kony the
person really exists. We have now found out that Kony
is a real human being who needs to be helped. The
people are no longer afraid of the LRA as was the case
in the past.”
Mao also warned Ugandans not to toss so much or
celebrate so much about the signing of a CPA because
the implementation stage of any agreement is the most
difficult.
“This is where most deals fail. Marriage is not the
wedding day where two individuals with different
backgrounds come to live together. Let us avoid
tossing too much at the signing of a CPA.”
The meeting noted that there was great need for
psychosocial counseling of the returnees and the
displaced going back to their homes from the camps.
The Chief of Party of NUPI, Stig Hansaen said Uganda,
with only 30 psychologists, cannot meet the tasks of
counseling in northern Uganda.
“There is a huge request for community counseling. The
30 psychologists are not enough. There is a lot of
disorder created by camp environments. It is
heartbreaking enough. Integrations has been taking
place but it has not taken roots.”
ENDS.

LRA Team consult Garamba and London
As the period for all LRA fighters to assemble at designated positions in Southern Sudan drew to a close, the LRA negotiation team split into two groups, with one headed by Martin Ojul consulting the LRA leadership in the vicinity of Garamba, and the other composed of UK based members frantically briefing key contacts in London. Reports reaching Juba Talks indicate that the last two days saw 3 participants who returned from Juba to London consulting with their supporters in London. The substance of what was discussed is not clear as the consultation was on 'a need to know basis'. There however appears to be some divided opinion between the the team that proceeded to Garamba and those that came to London as to what the next steps should be. A key contact who attended the consultation meeting yesterday in London at which a US based member of the LRA gave a briefing reported to us here at Juba Talks that the London team are experiencing some degree of marginalisation from the talks and therefore require re-enforcement. There are however divided opinions amongst them as to who they need to co-opt onto there team for the next round of talks. Prominent elders from Northern Uganda currently residing in the UK have all along shown reluctance in associating themselves with the team.

Jan Egeland Reports to Security Council


The UN Chief Jan Egeland has reported to the UN Security Council following his tour of Northern Uganda and visit to Juba. From what has been reported, there appears to be no feedback from the UN on the vital stumbling block - the warrants of arrest on Kony and his colleagues. Our view here on Juba Talks is that it is now high time for the elders and leaders from Northern and Eastern Uganda to directly petition the Security Council on behalf of the victims of the war for the warrants at least to be suspended.

Involve all stakeholders in Agenda II-Report
Calls for National Conference
Castigates ICC
BY JOHN MUTO-ONO P”LAJUR
GULU
15th September 2006

THE people of the greater northern Uganda have
recommended that not only the government and the
Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebel should discuss the
next agenda, which deals with Comprehensive Solutions
to the problems afflicting Uganda as a country, when
talks between them resumes in the Southern Sudanese
capital city, Juba.
“For the first time, you are showing practical signs
of unity, the kind of national unity that President
Museveni talked of while mourning former president
Milton Obote last year…. There is no way we can say
that Ugandans are not divided when some people are
referred to as “Opoko mamwa”, (a common reference to
Banyankole). It is a very high time that we go back to
the drawing table so that the Pearl of Africa regains
its lost glory.” Gulu RDC, Col. Walter Ochora-Odoch
said.
He made the remark while closing a one-day
consultation meeting meant to gather local
inputs/views to the Juba talks from councilors
elected, elders and religious leaders from Gulu,
Kitgum, Pader and Amuru districts at the Gulu District
Council hall on September 13th, 2006.
Pader LCV Chairman, Peter Odok W”Oceng, led a15-member
peace mobilization team to mobilize support and gather
opinions on the on going Juba talks from the affected
communities in Teso, Lango, Karamoja, Acholi, Bunyoro
and West Nile sub-regions. Their report is expected to
boost up the chief mediator, Dr. Riek Machar.
The Chairman of the new district of Abim, which was
curved out of Kotido, Norman Ocero, said the military
option have failed to bring peace for the last twenty
years. He said this is the best opportunity ever, for
Ugandans to reconcile with one another.
“Details of agenda two would be discussed by our
mothers when they are n their homes. I hear one party
to the conflict is talking of giving the other “soft
landing.” I was thinking that it is us who are giving
them a soft landing. 20 years of war have not brought
peace.”The LCV Chairman of Amuria, Julius Ocen said the
suffering in the greater north has it bearing on the
nature of the democracy we have in Uganda, which must
be addressed. He said other regions enjoy the weakness
of the greater northern Uganda because they are not
united.
“Others will enjoy our weaknesses because of the
cracks we have on the wall. God is preparing us for a
bigger cake. It is an opportunity to take to lead this
country again. We are heading for victory.” He said.
Masindi LCV Chairman, Stephen Birija proposed the
setting up an independent commission to conduct
enquiries/consultation throughout Uganda for inputs to
discuss agenda two comprehensively. He argues that the
LRA rebellion is just the symptom of a much deeper
political problem we have in Uganda.
“If the solution is arrived at by only two parties in
Juba, then another region may rise up. Rights are not
received on a silver plate but are bargained for. Let
every Ugandan be involved in agenda two, but the
procedures can be agreed on in Juba.”
Kerobino Paul Ojok (Gulu) said there are too many
items on agenda two, which needs another forum for all
Ugandans to contribute. He said such a forum might
delay the peace talks up to July 2007. His Colleague,
Alex Otim, said delegate representing all Ugandans
should discuss agenda two from a neutral country such
as Sudan or South Africa.
“Agenda number two should be discussed in Sudan or any
other country other than Uganda. When it is done in
Uganda, things will not be done in the right way.”
Otim said.
Position on ICC
Many speakers were of the view that President Museveni
did not consult widely when he decided to refer the
conflict in northern Uganda to the ICC, saying that he
would have been advised otherwise. Many of them
appealed to parliament to prevail over the stalemate
concerning the ICC.
“We should let the ICC know that when Museveni
reported the LRA o the ICC, he had not consulted us
who were butchered. We would have told Museveni that
let us try ur own traditional justice. Museveni would
not have taken the LRA to ICC.” Makmot Kitara (Gulu)
said.
“ICC is not a problem because they did not know us in
the first place. The government should write to ICC to
withdraw the case so that we deal with the problem
culturally. We know that our culture works around the
table,” says Alex Otim (Gulu).
“There was no consultations on ICC, otherwise the UPDF
also committed atrocities. For example the 14th UPDF
battalion committed atrocities in Anaka in 1990”,
Komakech F. Innocent (Amuru) said.
“Parliament should take the lead on ICC. The ICC is a
mere convention. We can even withdraw from the
Convention”, Titus Lak Kidega (Pader elder)
“Both sides committed atrocities in the conflict.
Peter Oloya alias Yumbe was killed while in prison,
who will be penalized for his death?’ Betty Kibwota
(Gulu).
“There is nothing wrong with the ICC as an
institution. Sober people made the statue in Rome. The
Acholi community was saying why is the international
community not coming to help us, now they have come
(in the form of ICC). The ICC is independent whose
warrants can only be delayed by the UN Security
Council for a maximum of 24 months,” said Ochora.
Mato Oput
The representative of the Teso sub-region to the
talks, Julius Ocen appealed to cultural leaders and
scholars to document and harmonize traditional justice
systems like the mato oput of the Acholi culture so as
to convince other cultures that ours can actually
work.
“Traditional way of justice must be reflected in
writing. Many do not understand what mato oput is all
about? We need to have it in documentary form for
others to study.” He said.
ENDS

There is a degree of safety in Northern Uganda- says UN chief, Jan Egeland

BY JOHN MUTO-ONO P’LAJUR & ONO COLOMBUS
GULU
11th September 2006.

THE UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian
Affairs And Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland
has declared that there is now a “degree of safety and
security” in Northern Uganda since he first came to
the region in 2003.
He declared that the security situation prevailing now
makes work “easier” and “hope” for the future is
brighter.
“The symbolic nature for me and my colleagues (UN
staffs), staying overnight for the first time ever, in
an internally displaced persons’ camp (IDP), with the
IDPs, shows that things have really changed since I
came here in 2003. Now we have a degree of safety and
security which makes it much easier for us to work and
also hope for the future.”
Egeland declared this during a meeting with
international, national and local media at the UN-OCHA
offices in Gulu on Sunday. He had just returned to
Gulu town from Opit IDP, 32 kilometers east of Gulu
town, where he had gone to spend a night with the
local community.
“I sat all night yesterday (Saturday), in a very
moving experience around a fire place with the
Acholis-displaced people, war victims. We discussed
the future and how to bring peace.”
A journalst who accompanied him to the camp told Daily
Monitor that Egeland sat at wang-oo (bonfire) with the
community, ate local food, drank ordinary water,
bathed in makeshift shelters and slept in one of the
huts in the camp and that the people entertained him
Acholi with Acholi folklores by the bonfire.
“It was a very good experience. No security risks.
Some UN colleagues were snoring. That was the biggest
event of the night. Only a couple of years ago, we
would have been pulled off there, we would have been
kidnapped if we stayed over in such a camp.”
Unicef Country Director, Martin Mugwanja, several UN
agencies operation in the region, national and
international media accompanied the envoy to Opit.
“I wanted to give attention to the plight of the IDPs
because they are living in “totally unacceptable
conditions-very crowded”. Water and sanitation is not
good enough, the health situation is not good enough.
We need more assistance to these people, we need to
help them return home.”
Egeland said he wanted to spend a night at an IPD camp
to tell the international community that the security
situation is “safer now than before.”
“It is safer now than before. Before, I would not be
allowed by my own security people to sleep over. Now
they allowed me to do that and therefore I wanted to
stay overnight.”
UN position on ICC
Egeland told journalists that the reason why the world
body is insisting of execution of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) indictment warrants issued
against the five top LRA commanders, including their
leader Joseph Kony and his deputy Vincent Otti, is
because of the Rwanda genocide where over 800,000
innocent civilians were killed between 1993 and 1994.
“The reason why the ICC indictment is there is
basically because of Rwanda. There is not going to be
impunity for mass violations of human rights.”
He, however, said both the UN and ICC would be
“flexible” depending on the progress and outcome of
the peace talks going on in Juba between Uganda and
the LRA. He said he has already talked to the ICC
chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo and LRA’s Vincent
Otii about that.
“On the other hand, I have spoken to the prosecutor of
the ICC and he says, “of course we can be flexible in
the way you work to reach an agreement. So today
(Sunday), just as an example, I spoke, myself, on
phone for twenty minutes with Vincent Otti on aspects
of the peace process and how to promote the
humanitarian principles in the peace process and how
to ensure that the women and children in LRA camps can
come back home and be integrated into Ugandan
society.”
Otti had earlier vowed, in a telephone interview with
the Kampala based KFM radio station, that no LRA
fighter, women nor children will come out of the bush
unless the ICC arrest warrants are lifted even if
peace agreement is sealed.
Egeland said he had always been very outspoken on the
northern Uganda issues since the beginning and that
all sides of the conflict had not been happy with the
things he speaks. He said the UN is working closely
with Uganda government and the government of Southern
Sudan, which is mediating the talks, to promote the
peace process.
“I had a long talk, three hours’ talk with President
Museveni when I was here only three months ago. I will
have a meeting with the Prime Minister on Monday in
Kampala. I feel we are making progress. The government
have asked us to facilitate this process and so has
the LRA.”
UN needs invitation to political conflicts.
Egeland told journalists that the UN is trying its
best for peace and reconciliation in the Great Lakes
region, including northern Uganda, but that there are
very many things that have peen interconnected. He
said the crisis in northern Uganda has engulfed three
countries at the moments.
“We need invitations from the governments to have a
political mission like we have in Sudan for example.
The other we have in Congo. If we do not have an
invitation for that kind of operation, we are,
however, still working both in the humanitarian area,
development area and we have coordinating offices to
assist informal efforts to promote peace and
reconciliation. And that is what we are doing in
Northern Uganda.”
UN support in Northern Uganda.
THE UN envoy revealed that he was traveling to Juba,
(Monday) to acess the progress of the talks and to
step up efforts of the government of Southern Sudan in
resolving the two-decade long conflict peacefully. He
said the UN has full time people in Juba who are
helping the mediators with logistical support.
He also announced a UN budget of $267million for more
humanitarian relief and recovery now that we have the
best chance to end this war than we have ever had in
the last nineteen years.
“We in the UN will help to do as much as we can to
facilitate an end to the war, to facilitate
reconciliation and to help people return home in
safety and dignity from this over crowded IDP camps”
Egeland appealed to the media, especially American
media, to keep up advocacy for more investments in the
peace, recovery and reconciliation processes and for
the two sides in the conflict to make concessions. He
appealed to the media not to ignore the contributions
of the Acholis in the Diaspora.
‘Make the US Congress keep up their investments in
peace here so that the USA, which is our number one
donor, can give us some more money for recovery and
reconciliation. They should push the two sides to make
concessions. There are also a lot of Acholis in the
Diaspora and they are important too. I say now is not
the time to come with unrealistic demands. Now is the
time to come out and we end the debate.”
ENDS

Riek Machar prevents LRA Juba team from meeting Kony
Since the cessation of hostlities agreement was signed the LRA negotiation team in Juba have been seeking permission from the mediator, Riek Machar to travel to Kony's hide out so that they can update him on the agreement. The Uganda Government team had the opportunity to return to Uganda for a briefing while the LRA have not had similar opporunity. Part of the hold up in the LRA appointing their military representatives on the Cessation of Hostilities Monitoring Team (CHMT) has been attributed to this. It is not clear why Riek Machar is reluctant to allow the team to travel to Kony. Some observers think that Machar feels that such a meeting would result in the hardening of the LRA position. This comes during the time when the ICC have reportedly sent some of their officials to Juba. The ICC has maintained that it will not wave the warrants of arrest for the LRA leaders. Jan Egeland the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs who who has been visiting displaced people's camps in Northern Uganda in the last two days was asked whether he will be requesting the ICC to remove the warrants since the majority view of people in Northern Uganda is asking for that. Egeland seemed quite confident that a peace agreement would be signed in Juba even with the warrants in palce. He stated categorically that the ICC indictment will not prevent a peace settlement being raeched. He will be travelling to Juba in the next few days. The whole approach of Machar, the ICC and Jan Egeland raise a lot of questions. The Juba LRA team are now being forced to rush back into the negotiations and sign an agreement without a propoer consultation with the LRA leadership. Could it be that the LRA Juba team are now being used, perhaps without their knowledge, as a cover for a more sinister action against the LRA leadership? This is an intersting question as one of the ICC officials currently in Juba was overheard enquiring about where the LRA leaders will be once the rest of the LRA soldiers have assembled in the designated points. In the meantime reports that the LRA Juba team demanded 3 million US dollars as part of the negotiation has given ammunition to those who right from the start of the talks have argued that the self selected LRA team are individuals who are looking for personal benefits. This could be a misreading of what may have transpired. The LRA team do not have any funds. It could have been that they presented a budget to enable them to effectively conduct the negoatiations and liaise with appropriate individuals and organisation that would give them the legal and technical support. Now that they remain without such a budget, they are reduced to begging from the mediator.

Vincent Otti's call for ICC warrants to be revoked is late but right
We have argued through this blog right at the beginning of the Juba tallks that a way forward is for the ICC arrest warrants against the LRA commanders to be at laest suspended if not completely revoked in order to build confidence for a paeceful settlement of the the conflict. How can the LRA leadership be expected to come out if they are not sure whether they will be arrested or not? What should be done is an offer of a two-stage process. The first is the suspension of the arrest warrants to allow participation of the key LRA leaders in the second phase of the talks. The second is the revoking of the warrants, only when a comprehensive agreement is reached. If the Uganda Government and the ICC were genuine in their offer this is what they would have offered. The cry that why is Otti raising this at this stage is because they learnt very late that the Rome Stattute actually gave provisions for suspension or revoking of the warrants. Once again this highlights the imporatnce of what we argued through this blog space - the fact that advisors in international law and conflict resolution should have been made available to the LRA leadership right at the beginning. Organisations such as Pax Christi have been throwing thousands of dollars at the LRA. This money would have been better spent hiring them expert advisors rather than trying to buy them out. What a shame!

Vincent Otti's call for ICC warrants to be revoked is late but right
We have argued through this blog right at the beginning of the Juba tallks that a way forward is for the ICC arrest warrants against the LRA commanders to be at laest suspended if not completely revoked in order to build confidence for a paeceful settlement of the the conflict. How can the LRA leadership be expected to come out if they are not sure whether they will be arrested or not? What should be done is an offer of a two-stage process. The first is the suspension of the arrest warrants to allow participation of the key LRA leaders in the second phase of the talks. The second is the revoking of the warrants, only when a comprehensive agreement is reached. If the Uganda Government and the ICC were genuine in their offer this is what they would have offered. The cry that why is Otti raising this at this stage is because they learnt very late that the Rome Stattute actually gave provisions for suspension or revoking of the warrants. Once again this highlights the imporatnce of what we argued through this blog space - the fact that advisors in international law and conflict resolution should have been made available to the LRA leadership right at the beginning. Organisations such as Pax Christi have been throwing thousands of dollars at the LRA. This money would have been better spent hiring them expert advisors rather than trying to buy them out. What a shame!

LRA Plan 'B' means more suffering
Reports in Ugandan newspapers about one of Kony’s brigadiers being captured and indications that some of his men are entering Ituri forest from Garamba come to us as no surprise. This is because even prior to the signing of cessation of hostilities information had filtered out that Kony was desperate to find a way of getting Dominic Ongwen and his fighters who were stuck in Uganda out and into Congo or Southern Sudan. There was also talk about efforts to beef up the numbers of core fighters by an additional 7,000 men. The condition of cessation of hostilities that allowed for the fighters to keep their weapons was God sent to the LRA. Moreover, the freedom given to fighters in Uganda to move and assemble in Southern Sudan and not in Uganda provided a good escape route for those who were trapped. One could argue that the LRA leadership was taking out an insurance policy in case the talks failed. We are however inclined to think that all along the leadership were keen in developing their plan ‘B’, which is the military option. Information filtering through from Juba indicate that even within the LRA delegation there is a split between those who are committed to the talks and those who are for plan ‘B’. It is therefore not surprising that the LRA have up to today not nominated their 2 representatives to oversee the cessation of hostilities. No member of the LRA delegation in Juba has dared to volunteer to be part of this as they are not sure what the position of the military leadership is. Part of the responsibility of being on the cessation of hostilities team includes inspecting and agreeing the proposed assembly sites. No one from the LRA Juba team want to be the ones to agree this in case it turns out to be a trap for the fighters. They would rather the fighters sent their own representatives. This development has clearly exposed the weakness of the LRA Juba delegation. When it comes to key decisions such as this they clearly do not have the power to act. Without this weakness being addressed, the next phase of the negotiations remain a far away dream.

What next for the LRA Juba team?

As the euphoria of the achieving cessation of hostilities dies down both the Uganda Government and LRA negotiation team are coming back to earth in Juba and comtemplating how they deal with implementing what was agreed, while at the same time preparing for the next phase of negotiations. Information that we at Juba Talks have gathered indicate that some in the LRA Juba team have come to the conclusion that perhaps they need some reinforcement to tackle the next phase. Some key member of the team have flown out of Juba with the two-fold purpose of taking a break and scouting for individuals from Europe, America and East Africa who might join the team and strengthen their ability to negotiate the complexities of the next round. Meanwhile, concerns are mounting within some in the LRA ranks over arrangments that they be transported in Uganda army vehicles. Many feel that although Uganda government says it has offered only vehicles and that the drivers will be SPLA soldiers, it is not difficult for Uganda soldiers to simply change into SPLA uniforms. Whether these are well founded fears or not, it was surprising to many to hear reports that the LRA leader, Joseph Kony had appealed to the Uganda government to provide his troops with transportation. The next few weeks are crucial in determining the next steps in Juba. Those in Euorope, America and East Africa who may be approached to help should in our view try to do so. Some sacrifice is required assist the Juba talks irrespective of the unconventional manner in which started. For Kony's fighters we just pray they will not be transported by wolves in sheep's outfit just to be slaughtered.

Uganda Government's acceptance of cessation of hostilities welcome
Yesterday in Juba there was great excitement amongst the Juba Talk delegates and observers while they prepared for the official ceremony announcing the Uganda Government's acceptance of cessation of hostilities. The LRA delegation saw this as a major victory for them, having held ground on this demand. What was however not clear were the conditions attached this, particularly that requiring the LRA to assemble their fighters in areas designated by the Uganda Government. The view within the LRA delegation is that this can only be feasible if it is overseen by a neutral internatiol body otherwise it would be tantamount to surrendering in the hands of the Ugandan army. It was also not yet clear what the response from Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti was. The visit to Juba the previous day by the UN envoy appears to have given the process of negotiation some international credibility. However, the opporunity appears to have been lost as the LRA delegation seem not to have pushed the envoy hard enough regarding a request for the suspension of the International Criminal Court warrants of arrest on Kony and his commanders. This would have encouraged the LRA fighters to gain more confidence in the whole process. As the talks enter a very critical stage, concern remains about the apparently disruptive role that the deputy leader of the LRA delegation Josephine Apira is allegedly playing. She has reportedly fallen out of favour with the mediator, Dr Riek Machar as well as the key person behind the talks, the US based Olal Jongomoi. Apira appears suspicious of Olal's motive and fears he might be part of a scheme to entice the LRA leadership into a trap that will see them handed over to the ICC. Pressure to remove Apira from the delegation is however being resisted by the mediator. It is thought this would be disruptive a divert attention from the substance of the talks, considering that Apira's London based colleagues who she invited over to Juba are likely to back her against the Nairobi based LRA delegates. Our advice is that this is no time for division. Whatever the issues are need to be resolved. Resolving the 20 year suffering of the people of Norrthern Uganda and Southern Sudan must transcend any personality clashes or personal ambitions. The mediator is right in not bending to pressure to remove Apira but must be vigilant and reprimand individuals seen to be stepping out of line.

LRA Position Paper on Ceasefire is spot on

The latest paper by the LRA delegation touches on a number of important issues that we have previously raised here. The matter of an independent ceasefire monitoring team, as well as the withdrawal back into the barracks of all Uganda government soldiers are crucial demands that must not just be dismmissed. The argument by Museveni and suprisingly Salva Kiir that because the LRA do not control any territory the matter of a ceasefire does not apply is plainly wrong. The nature of the LRA insurgency is not conventional but still involves skirmishes in various locations inside and outside Uganda. These obviously involve the exchange of fire. Logic follows therefore that a ceasefire should apply if reasonable basis for a peace agreement is to established. So, the LRA position paper in our view is spot on.

Two members the LRA London Team were detained in Juba

It has emerged that a few weeks ago Dr Walter Oweka and Dr Terence Paito arrived in Juba unexpectedly and were detained for 4 days before the Josphine Apira, the deputy head of the LRA negotiation team came the their rescue. It appears as if the two arrived unannounced to the Juba authorities despite their invitation apparently coming from the deputy head of the delegation. There is presently grave concern about Dr Oweka's health as he reportedly as an injury to his shoulder, suspected to be a fracture. It is not clear whether the injury is linked to his detention. Meanwhile, Peter Odok, former Resident District Commissioner in Gulu has vowed to expose those in Juba who he says are influencing Vincent Otii not to come to the talks. Peter Odok as for long maintained that the brains behind the LRA were in London. His veiled threat apperas to be aimed at the London elements of the LRA delegation in London. This comes in the light of Ugandan President Museveni announcing that if the peace talks fail, Uganda, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo have agreed to storm Kony's LRA base in Garamba. There are suggestions that the ongoing joint military exercise between Uganda, Kenya and armies from the horn of Africa might be in preparation for an assault on Kony

Another one bites the dust
As the third in command for the LRA was buried, not in his ancestral home but in Ajulu Displaced Persons Camp, the irony was clear - even in death the war that he was part of followed Raska Lukwiya to his grave. Some argue that he was a victim because he did not join the LRA willingly but was abducted by Kony. Others to the contrary cast him as a major perpetrator of henious crimes against innocent people. Either way, we will never be able to hear it from him. As Lukwiya was being buried, the LRA delegation in Juba got news of the death of one of its commanders, Reagan Akena, killed by the Ugandan army in Amuru. The delegation were still wearing black arm bands to mourn Raska Lukwiya. The killing of Akena has increased speculations as to whether the Juba talks have provided a good opportunity for the Uganda military to collect more accurate intelligence information that has enabled them within a period of less than a week to deal the LRA two major blows in the field. This cannot be beyond the realm of posibility considering the way people flocked to Garamba and have converging on to Juba through invitation by different players. At this rate of LRA fatality, if for every LRA commander killed the LRA delegation at the talks ask for 3 days of mourning, one wonders whether the talks will ever resume.

UN to rubber stamp LRA surrender?
Indications that the Uganda Government wants the UN to monitor any ceasefire agreement that it reaches with the LRA appears good on the face of it. The main problem however is that the Uganda Government wants first of all to negotiate on its own terms, demanding that the LRA declares its fighters' positions, amount and types of weapons to it and not the UN. This approach is tantamount to asking the UN and the international community to basically rubber stamp and oversee the final stages of the surrender of the LRA. The fact that the Uganda Government is now protesting against the inclusion of religious and elected leaders from Acholi as observers by claiming that they are 'opposition' elements clearly underlines the insincere approach of the Uganda Government to these talks. People of Nortehern Uganda elected their leaders according to their choice. The fact that the leaders they elected, like Mao, Ogenga-Latigo etc are not from Museveni's National Resistance Movement is no excuse for preventing them from playing a role in settling a problem that has affected theit constituents for over 20 years. Moreover, the Government must really be ashamed of trying to exclude the religious leaders who for years have fought for a peaceful settlement to this conflict whilst Government opted for the use of miltary force at the expense of innocent lives.

Raska Lukwiya, indicted LRA Commander dead?
Reports by Uganda Government that its forces killed Raska Lukwiya appear to have thrown Juba Talks in turmoil. The mediator's team still feel they will carry on tomorrow, Monday, but it seems themainly civilain negotiation team of the LRA are in the dark. The LRA High Command itself is in the dark as it tries to establish what really happened. This throws a different light on the negotiations but probably confirms indications that both sides were still poised for a military confrontation as opposed to a settlement in Juba. The circumstances unde which Lukwiya, if at all was killed, needs to be established. Was he pursued as a result of intelligence gathered during the Juba Talks?

Chissano to oversee peace.
We pointed out through this blog spot that the 1992 Mozambique model of negotiations ought to be followed. It is not surprising therefore that former Mozambique President Chissano is being tipped as the UN envoy to oversee this. So far so good. But, will we get to the stage where he has any form of agreement to oversee? We previously posted the section of the Mozambiqe agreement that deals with ceasefire. The arrangment during the Mozambique talks was for a UN team to verify issues, such as location of troops, quantity of ammunitions and guns etc. The Community of Sr Edgidio who hosted these talks in Rome are very much aware of this. In Juba, the Goverment of Uganda is demanding that the LRA provides this information to them. Our view is that this will be a sticking point. It is only proper for such information to be given to a 'neutral' body, as was the case when FRELIMO and RENAMO were settling their Mozambique conflict. Turning to the stalled Juba talks, it appears the intervention of the Salva Kiir, the President of Southern Sudan has brought some pressure to bear on the LRA team, however dysfunctional they may have appeared to be. Whether their 'principals' namely Kony, Otii and the the rest of the military leadership will accept to resume talks without a ceasefire is open to question. Ceasefire or ceasation of hostilities would have given LRA units currently trapped in Uganda to regroup and rejoin their colleagues in DRC/South Sudan. Backing down on the ceasefire/ceasation of hostilities as a pre-requisite for the resumption of the next round of talks is likely to be seen by the military wing of the LRA as a failure by its civilian team in Juba to deliver. We hope that will not be the case.

Concern About London LRA Team
As the leader of the Uganda Government negotiation team leaves Juba for an alleged 'private engagement' in Kampala, his deputy Mr Henry Okello Oryem is left in charge but he has complained about the 'childish behaviour' of the London members of the LRA team. On the face of it this may seem like a negative reaction by Mr Okello Oryem towards people like Dr Walter Oweka with whom he was together in the youth wing of the Uganda People's Democratic Movement based in London under the late Otema Allimadi in the late 1980s. Mr Oryem left London to join Museveni, disappointing most in his London Acholi community. However, Mr Okello Oryem may have a valid point because from the information reaching us the concern extends beyond people in the LRA team that he did not have contact with whilst he was in London. There appears to be some fundamental weakness in the contribution of the London based LRA team members who were expected to have injected more mature, constructive and better articulated arguments at the talks. Reports reaching us indicate that instead emotions appear to be guiding their contributions. These concerns come from relaible sources from within the mediator's team who are now lamenting the imbalance in quality between the two parties. We have argued here all along that the teams, particularly that of the LRA need a more robust back up from independent lawyers and experts in international law and conflict resolution. The Community of St Edgidio who are the main players in these negotiations could fund such a team. Failing this, the Juba talks run the danger of sinking to a low level. We all pray it doesn't.

Mozambique Ceasefire model must be followed in Juba

After the Mozambique independence FRELIMO as the movement that took over power and RENAMO its rival fought a very bitter war. The Community of St Edgidio who are behind the current Juba Talks played a key role in settling this conflict. However, as can be seen from the ceasefire section of the peace agreement reproduced below the UN was the verfying authority to whom both parties submitted details of their arms, ammunition, location etc. A similar principle should be applied to the LRA/UPDF ceasefire. If the UN is nwilling to cooperate because of the ICC warrants of arrest, then they should remove these first. If this is not possible then the African Union must step in and supervise the ceasefire.
============================================================================

General Peace Agreement for Mozambique

Protocol VI (Relating to Ceasefire Only)

On 4 October 1992, the delegation of the Government of the Republic of Mozambique, headed by Armando Emilio Guebuza, Minister of Transport and Communications, and composed of Mariano de Araujo Matsinha, Minister without Portfolio, Aguiar Mazula, Minister of State Administration, Teodato Hunguana, Minister of Labour, Lieutenant-General Tobias Dai, Francisco Madeira, Diplomatic Adviser to the President of the Republic, Brigadier Aleixo Malunga, Colonel Fideles de Sousa, Major Justino Nrepo and Major Eduardo Lauchande, and the delegation of Renamo, headed by Raul Manuel Domingos, Chief of the organization Department, and composed of José de Castro, Chief of the External Relations Department, Agostinho Semende Murrial, Chief of the Information Department, José Augusto Xavier, Director-General of the Internal Administration Department, Major General Herminio Morais, Colonel Fernando Canivete, Lieutenant Colonel Arone Julai and Lieutenant António Domingos, meeting at Rome in the presence of the mediators Mario Raffaelli, representative of the Italian Government and coordinator of the mediators, Jaime Goncalves, Archbishop of Beira, Andrea Riccardi and Matteo Zuppi, of the Community of Sant’ Edigio, and observers from the United Nations and the Governments of the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom and Portugal, took up item 4 of the Agreed Agenda of 28 May 1991, entitled "ceasefire", and agreed as follows:

I Cessation of the armed conflict

1. The cessation of the armed conflict (CAC) is a brief, dynamic and irreversible process of predetermined duration which must be implemented throughout the national territory of Mozambique.

The implementation of the process shall be the responsibility of the Government of the Republic of Mozambique and of Renamo, acting within the framework of the ceasefire Commission (CCF). The CCF is answerable to the CSC, the organ responsible for the overall political supervision of the ceasefire. The CCF shall be composed of representatives of the Government and of Renamo, representatives of countries accepted by them and a representative of the United Nations, who shall preside.

2. The CCF, which shall be structured as stipulated in Protocol IV, paragraph VI.i.2, shall have the following functions:

- to plan, verify and guarantee the implementation of the ceasefire rules; - to set itineraries for the movement of forces, in order to reduce the risk of incidents; - to organize and implement mine-clearing operations;

- to analyse and verify the accuracy of the statistics provided by the Parties on troop strength, arms and military equipment

- to receive, analyse and rule on complaints of possible ceasefire violations;

- to ensure the necessary co-ordination with organs of the United Nations verification system;

- the functions provided for in sections II, III and VI of Protocol IV.

3. The CAC shall begin on E-Day and end on E-Day + 180.

4. The CAC consists of 4 (four) phases:

- ceasefire;

- separation of forces;

- concentration of forces;

- demobilisation.

5. The ceasefire

The Parties agree that:

(a) the ceasefire shall enter into force on E-Day

E-Day is the day on which the General Peace Agreement is adopted by the Assembly of the Republic and incorporated into Mozambican law. The deployment of United Nations personnel in Mozambican territory to verify the ceasefire shall begin the same day;

b) As of E-Day, neither of the Parties shall carry out any hostile act or operation by means of forces or individuals under its control. Accordingly, they may not:

- carry out any kind of attack by land, sea or air;

- organize patrols or offensive manoeuvres;

- occupy new positions;

- lay mines and prevent mine-clearing operations;

- interfere with military communications;

- carry out any kind of reconnaissance operations; - carry out acts of sabotage and terrorism;

- acquire or receive lethal equipment

- carry out acts of violence against the civilian population;

- restrict or prevent without justification the free movement of persons and property;

- carry out any other military activity which, in the opinion of the CCF and the United Nations, might jeopardise the ceasefire.

In performing their functions, the CCF and the United Nations shall enjoy complete freedom of movement throughout the territory of Mozambique;

(c) On E-Day, the United Nations shall begin official verification of compliance with the undertaking described in paragraph (b), investigating any alleged violation of the ceasefire. Any duly substantiated violation shall be reported by the United Nations at the appropriate level;

(d) During the period between the signing of the General Peace Agreement and E-Day, the two Parties agree to observe a complete cessation of hostilities and of the activities described in paragraph (b), in order to allow the United Nations to deploy its personnel in the territory to verify all aspects of the CAC as of E-Day.

6. Separation of forces

The Parties agree that:

(a) The purpose of the separation of forces is to reduce the risk of incidents, to build trust and to allow the United Nations effectively to verify the commitments assumed by the Parties;

(b) The separation of forces shall last 6 (six) days, from E-Day to E-Day + 5;

(c) During this period, the FAM shall proceed to the barracks, bases, existing semi-permanent facilities and other locations listed in annex A;

(d) During the same period, the Renamo forces shall proceed to the locations listed in annex B;

(e) The locations listed in the above-mentioned annexes shall be those agreed to between the Parties and the United Nations no later than 7 (seven) days after the signing of the General Peace Agreement. The lists shall specify the name and site of the 29 assembly and billeting points for the FAM and the 20 such points for the Renamo forces;

(f) Accordingly, by 2400 hours on E-Day + 5, the FAM and the Renamo forces must be in the locations listed in annexes A and B respectively;

(g) All movements shall take place under the supervision and co-ordination of the United Nations. Neither Party may prevent or jeopardise, the movements of the other Party's forces. The United Nations shall supervise all the locations listed in annexes A and B and shall in principle be present 24 hours a day in each of those locations as of E-Day;

(h) During this period of 6 (six) days, no force or individual shall be able to leave assembly and billeting points except to seek medical care or other humanitarian reasons, and then only with the authorisation and under the supervision of the United Nations. In each location, the commander of the troops shall be responsible for maintaining order and discipline and for ensuring that the troops conduct themselves in accordance with the principles and the spirit of this Protocol.

7. Concentration of forces

The Parties agree that:

(a) The concentration of forces shall begin on E-Day + 6 and end on E-Day + 30;

(b) During this period, the FAM shall concentrate in the normal peacetime barracks and military bases listed in annex C;

(c) During the same period, the Renamo forces shall go to the assembly and billeting points listed in annex D;

(d) All movements shall take place under the supervision and co-ordination of the United Nations and shall be subject to the same conditions as those established for the separation of forces;

(e) All the main military facilities of the two Parties which cannot be moved to assembly and billeting points, such as military hospitals, logistical units and training facilities, shall be subject to verification in situ. These locations must also be specified no later than 7 (seven) days after the signing of the General Peace Agreement;

(f) Each assembly and billeting point shall be run by a military commander appointed by the corresponding Party. The military commander is responsible for maintaining the order and discipline of troops, distributing food and ensuring liaison with the organs for the verification and supervision of the ceasefire. In the event of an incident or a ceasefire violation, the military commander must take immediate steps to avoid an escalation and put a stop to the incident or violation. Any incident or violation shall be reported to the senior level of the command structure and to the ceasefire verification and supervision organs;

(g) Arrangements for the security of each assembly and billeting point shall be agreed between the corresponding commander and the CCF, with the knowledge of the United Nations. The military unit stationed in each location shall provide its own security. Each assembly and billeting point shall cover an area with a maximum radius of five kilometres. Individual weapons and the necessary ammunition shall be distributed only to the security staff of assembly and billeting points;

(h) Each location must have the capacity to accommodate at least 1,000 soldiers.

8. Demobilisation

Shall take place as stipulated in section VI of Protocol IV.

9. Formation of the FADM

Shall take place as stipulated in section I of Protocol IV.

10. Miscellaneous provisions.

(a) The Parties agree to the following:

1. To supply the United Nations with complete inventories of their troop strength, arms, ammunition, mines and other explosives on E-Day-6, E-Day, E-Day + 6, E-Day + 30 and, thereafter, every 15 days;

2. To allow the United Nations to verify the aspects and data referred to in the preceding paragraph;

3. As of E-Day + 31, all collective and individual weapons, including weapons on board aircraft and ships, shall be stored in warehouses under United Nations control;

4. (a) As of E-Day + 6, troops shall be able to leave their respective assembly and billeting points only with the authorisation and under the supervision of the United Nations;

(b) As of E-Day, the naval and air force components of the FAM shall refrain from carrying out any offensive operation. They may carry out only such non-hostile missions as are necessary for the discharge of their duties unrelated to the armed conflict. All air force flight plans must be communicated in advance to the United Nations. Aircraft may not, in any case, be armed and may not overfly assembly and billeting points,

(c) The foreign forces currently present in the territory of Mozambique must also respect the agreed ceasefire as of E-Day. In accordance with section II of Protocol IV, on E-Day the Government of the Republic of Mozambique shall communicate to the United Nations and the CSC the plans for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Mozambican territory. These plans shall include the numbers and equipment of such troops. the withdrawal shall begin on E-Day +6 and end on E-Day +30. All movements must be co-ordinated and verified by the CCF;

(d) The Parties agree that, as of E-Day, they shall end all hostile propaganda, both internal and external;

(e) Border control as of E-Day shall be provided by the immigration services and the police.

II. Operational timetable for the ceasefire E-Day:

Entry into force of the ceasefire and beginning of United Nations verification Beginning of the cessation of the armed conflict (CAC) Beginning of the separation of forces phase

E-Day +5: End of the separation of forces phase

E-Day +6: Beginning of the concentration of forces phase Beginning of the withdrawal of foreign forces and contingents from the country

E-Day +30: End of the concentration of forces phase End of the withdrawal of foreign forces and contingents from the country

E-Day +180: End of the demobilisation phase and of the CAC

III. Release of prisoners, except for those being held for ordinary crimes

1. All prisoners who are being held on E-Day, except for those held for ordinary crimes, shall be released by the Parties.

2. The International Committee of the Red Cross, together with the Parties shall agree on the arrangements for and the verification of the prisoner release process referred to in paragraph 1 above.

In witness whereof, the Parties have decided to sign this Protocol.

For the delegation of the Republic of Mozambique: (Signed) Armando Emilio Guebuza

For the delegation of Renamo: (Signed) Raul Manuel Domingos

The Mediators: (Signed) Mario Raffaelli (Signed) Jaime Goncalves (Signed) Andrea Riccardi (Signed) Matteo Zuppi

Sant’ Edigio, Rome, 4 October 1992

Kutesa says ICC last resort
It is interesting that only now Sam Kutesa has openly admited that the ICC is the last resort and that government can request for the suspension of the arrest warrants on Kony and his commanders. He still does not however commit to this. Instead cooperation is going on between the Uganda Government and the Bristish Government to table a resolution at the Security Council to forcefully disarm the LRA. What are these people playing at? Why didn't they table this resolution prior to the Juba Talks? What they should be doing is tabling a resolution to suspend the warrants of arrest while the peaceful negotaitions carry on. This is what the religious and traditional leaders should be pressing for. It is a great shame that the elected MPs from the war affected areas have been noticeable only by their silence during the Juba Talks. This is the time when they should be supporting the call for a resolution to remove the warrants of arrest and provide legal support to the negotiation team as well as the religious and traditional leaders. Forceful disarmament will certainly put the lives of those who are currently in bush whether willfully or against their will in great danger.

YES, JUBA PEACE TALKS BLOGG

Great, and I sincerely do appreciate this humanely action and initiative you have taken. Clearly, we the ordinary people both at home in Uganda and the Diaspora do need to participate in this ongoing Peace talks in Juba – Southern Sudan on regards to the 21 years ongoing GENOCIDE particularly in Acoliland in northern and eastern Uganda!
Although, I do not expect that we could do much, since it seems only the GUNMEN – i . e both the UPDF – NRA/M government troops with the LRA/M rebels would be completel deciding factors lonely, but I feel you have done the right thing otherwise! However, my other concern, is having done your best, one would request that it could have been good when a little bit wider space, which could accomodate more than (1200) one thousand and two hundreds words. With such wider space, I think and hope with some editing works from the bloger, one would feel the missing political points and aspects of the issues on the peace talks table in Juba would be articulated critically by us the ordinary folk from the affected areas and outside on humanitarianism base to add!

Nevertheless, though the LRA/M and the NRA/M negotiators might be very bussy, one would hope they shall have a little time seeing and, or reading the opinions we and others expect them. Once more, great I must say and congratulations for this initiative yours. I would therefore, request to suggest that you would forward the views and perspectives on this Netboard blogg debate to both sides at the negotiating tables in Juba – Southern Sudan. Regards

OCAYA p’Ocure – A Ugandan living in Sweden

'Call Zambia or Tanzania to help' Says JL

I have seen the site of Juba talks.

Please take note of the following:-Almost everything that the the Uganda government is doing is being instructed by the UK government. They are not infavour of N Uganda nor South Sudan having any peace. Its a waste of time puting trusts on ICC or the UK govenment at present. Katwere myero lobo calo TZ, Zambiya, should come to help the civilians caught up in this situation. Myero wa ribwat ki lobo magi wabed calo dul acel/lobo acel kwedgi. Enclosed is the minutes from parliament. Below is minutes of meeting in house of commons.

Notes on meeting in the house of commons 9.02.06
Meeting was organized by All Party Parliamentary Group and Genocide Prevention.
Bob Blizzard (Labour)MP chaired the meeting; David Drew (Labour)MP assistant; 4pm British time - meeting started.

Bob Blizzard visited Koc Goma camp in October 2005 together with David Drew, Paul Rowen, Mark Simmonds and Stephen Carter the coordinator of All Party Parliamentary Group.Bob says out of that visit to the North of Uganda, all the people of Kocgoma responded that they (the British government) should end the war now! They saw people who were brutalized by LRA. However, the local people still had encouraging spirits, welcomed them warmly.The reason why they (UK) now wants the war to end are:-
Reason1 ---IDP condition needs International community's involvement.
Reason2 ---Children sleeping rough
Reason3 ---Integration of abducted children back into the community
Reason4 ---Duration of war now 20 years
-Museveni resisted help to sort war before that is why the war continued.
-Kony has no support from Acoli people/ Acoli leaders
-Peaceful conflict resolution with the LRA was disrupted when Sam Kolo surrendered --himself because he thought he would get killed by Kony.
-International Community should enforce the warrant of LRA in the DRC region.
-Kony may resist arrest.
-Immediate steps need to be done to arrest LRA leader.
-Important that international community should support rehabilitation.
-Paramount chief of Acoli wants reconciliation.
-Economic development of the North should be funded from Kampala
-IDPs should become small towns
Thanks to Christian Aid who accompanied MPs on the visit
***
David Drew(MP):
Little to say - refer to the report
Thanks to Christian Aid
Had opportunity to meet Museveni three times, made point clear to him that we felt that government of Uganda could be doing more. Government of Uganda needs pressure that this should not keep going on any longer. US has satellite and had the opportunity to arrest Kony.In Sudan where LRA has operated for many years - Khartoum government + SPLA should be clear that it is their duty to do more.This is a problem the world has ignored for a long time, ignored too long by International Community Problem needs UN to get involved. Children forcefully kept in this condition.
*****
Tim Raby - Tear Fund co-ordinator of 6 NGOs:
Returned yesterday from a two weeks visit to Uganda. Trip contributing factor
-Foreign Commonwealth Office
-British government
-ICC
UK pledged 15 million pounds to Uganda. British government policy on Uganda has failed. People spend two days to collect water in N Uganda camp. No amount of aid money given will solve Uganda problems. Report of MPs visit to Uganda does not address failure of the Uganda government.Does not address failure to protect
Lack of security in the camps. Uganda government has shown its failure by evidence of refusing to declare N Uganda a disaster area.Thousands of huts in the camps burn down time and time again. The people of Northern Uganda have suffered enough
***
Lord Alan Howard:
There has been cynicism of the conflict in Northern Uganda
Perpetration of the conflict should be shameful to all of us.
Cynicism because it suits the army of Uganda opportunity of corruption.
Cynicism because it suits the government of Uganda because Northern Uganda was supporter of Obote's government.
They said they have no helicopter gunships etc then they were given money - spent it on something else.
Northern Uganda has been neglected by the media with its awful mortality rate
HIV Aids etc
No drugs to people
Increase South development reported but not North of Uganda
UN intervention needed quick
UK needs to insist for UN's intervention
There are many NGOs in N Uganda but less efficient and less effective.
No need for a waste of resources
Museveni always says he did not need it
He always asks for helicopter gunships saying "give it to me and I will finish them all".
Kony has very few fighters
***
Janet (MP):
Connection between Amnesty and ICC
Capacity for reconciliation
Museveni used ICC to warrant Kony in order to wrong foot Khartoum government but not for the benefit of the people of Northern Uganda.
Local people, do they still have faith on Amnesty?
****
Answer from Bob:
Reconciliation not easy but it is working in Acoli, cultural to forgive people.
Amnesty cannot enter into the issue of capturing Kony.
***
Bishop of Winchester;
Visited North Uganda Jan 2006
Wants clarity on issue of land not clear in the report of MPs visit
Condition of camps
Museveni says it will end by end of March after election.
Reconstruction is enormous process.
***

David MP:
Answer: Empty land is to do deals with investors
Large companies can go and buy the lands.
Acoli people can organize themselves over their lands but that is if they are allowed to go to their lands.
Conflict over the lands may arise because sustenance of their lives is by going back to work on their lands.
UPDF are also to blame for brutality.
***
Open question/contribution
Man from reconciliation resource UK
Asked whether amnesty could be given more than 6 months to stay in Uganda rather than say only 6 months at a time.

Janet from (stop the genocide in Northern Uganda):

We from Northern Uganda in the Diaspora have always felt that we have been neglected, but having heard some contribution from some of the people today, at least this gives us indication that there are some of you who care about the situation, and would like to see that people are helped in Northern Uganda.

Condition of the camps are killing people more than the LRAs
People are saying that they do not want to stay in the camps
Men are turning into drinking, the whole culture is being broken down i.e. the respect that we once had, the family structure etc.

There is not a single NGO that distribute soap or salt to people in the camps. People are reduced to eating beans without salt, they wash without soap. The army kill people who attempt to wonder out of camps.(refer to pictures etc)
The people sent a message that if you can help them at all, remove them out of the camps.

This is for humanity's sake.
****
Januna (stop the genocide member)
camps did not start recently, it started in 1986, before LRA issue arose.
he stayed in camp, his father was killed by Uganda soldier in front of him
he was tortured (showing the burns in his hands) by Uganda soldiers
Not every problem is being created by the LRA
The camp was created to punish the Acoli/people of Northern Uganda

Bob says, time up
Bob says, the solution is to arrest Kony
The UN in Congo (DRC) will do this.
Meeting ended 5pm

LRA Pulls Out of Juba Talks
Today the news is that Joseph Kony has pulled out of the Juba talks. This comes as no surprise considering that the ICC warrant is still out on him, Vincent Otti and othe commanders. If the mediators are serious, they should facilitate the suspension of these warrants as Juba Talks has previously advised. Also the matter of the ceasefire needs to be addressed. Any ceasefire must be overseen by a neutral international body.

Juba Talks

Juba Peace Talks and The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC) 1998

1. The ongoing peace talks in Juba between the Government of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) Rebel Movement mark a historic watershed in the 20 year armed conflict that has caused untold suffering to the people of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan. Their Excellencies; General Salva Kirr, the President of South Sudan and his Vice, Lt. Gen Dr Riek Machar deserve to be congratulated for taking the bold step to mediate the talks. For years the call for such third party mediation fell on deaf ears.

2. Thanks also go to the Archbishop of Gulu, His Grace + John Baptist Odama Leader of the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative (ARLPI) and all his colleagues who for many years and often at personal risks to their lives worked tirelessly for a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Not to be forgotten are the Acholi Traditional Elders and Chiefs who have contributed immensely in using traditional methods as alternative ways for dispute settlements. Crucial to all this has been the decision by the LRA and the Government of Uganda to once again have a go at a peaceful settlement amidst voices in some quarters in both camps for a continuation of their belligerency.

3. As the prospects for peace appear to be dawning on the long suffering people of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan, this paper reflects on the ongoing peace talks between the Government of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebel movement.

4. It raises the question about the need to disentangle the quest for lasting peace on the one hand as advocated for by the victims and, from political justice as advocated for by the Government of Uganda and their ICC counterpart. Reaching a sustainable peaceful settlement to the Northern Uganda conflict can only be attained by the full participations of both parties to the conflict without any part having fear of being apprehended if the ICC arrest warrants are not waived.

5. It identifies the need for the Government of Uganda to go the extra mile and request the UN Security Council by way of tabling a motion to suspend the ICC warrant of arrest on Gen. Joseph Kony and his 4 Commanders in view of the new developments in Juba. It further proposes the need for the provision of legal advisors in international law and conflict resolution to the Acholi Religious Leaders and Elders, as well as to the LRA negotiation team.



6. CREDIBILITY OF THE ROME STATUTES OF THE ICC

7. The ICC is a new organ that came into force in 2001 and cannot be used just as a mere political tool by a state party simply to extend her political interests where it failed militarily. Rather, it must be seen to be fair in attempting to equally arbitrate controversial matters which has repercussions far and beyond.

8. The Rome Statutes of the ICC has within its provisions inherent mechanisms which it can independently exercise in order to address the grave concerns of the victims of the conflict in Northern Uganda in the interest of peace and justice. These are stipulated in Part v of the Statutes.

9. Since the inception of the JUBA PEACE INITIATIVES, the ICC has not only re-iterated its resolve to apprehend Gen. Kony and his 4 Commanders, but also gone ahead to issue red alerts to Interpol for the arrest and conveyance of the indicted LRA Leadership. This is despite the fact that the Government appears to be supporting a stay of arrest warrants.

10. What does Rome Statute Say about the Juba Peace Initiatives?

11. The Rome Statute, specifically the provisions of Article 53 1(c); 2(c); 3(a) and 4 which are reproduced below provide an avenue for the suspension of the arrest warrants if the Government of Uganda or the victims so wish:

12. Part v INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION


13. WHO CAN PETITION THE ICC?


14. The Government of Uganda can ask for a review of the ICC decision


15. Although President Museveni extended amnesty to include Kony, The Government of Uganda can invoke Article 53 (3) in order for the Pre-Trial Chamber to review the decision of the Prosecutor not to proceed and may request the prosecutor to reconsider that decision. HAS THE GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA DONE THIS? I do not think so.
16. For example, the New Vision (27th July 2006) reported that:

17. If a deal is reached, the Uganda government has offered to protect Kony from 33 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which he faces before the International Criminal Court.

18. What the Government of Uganda does not say however is that it could have done more if it wanted direct and speedier talks in Juba with Kony and his commanders as originally planned. The main reason why Kony and his top commanders did not travel to Juba was because of the ICC warrants. Immediately prior to the commencement of the Juba talks the Ugandan Minister for Security, Mr Amama Mbabazi travelled to the Hague to meet the ICC Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. The expectation and press reports, which the government did not deny at the time, was that Mr Mbabazi was going to ask for a withdrawal of the warrant of arrest. A statement by the Chief Prosecutor (CC-OTP-20060712-149-En) instead later said:

19. The Uganda Minister for Security, Mr Amama Mbabazi, was here as part of a regular exchange between the Office of the Prosecutor and the Government of Uganda. The Office of the prosecutor was updated on the peace talks currently underway in Southern Sudan. The Government of Uganda did not ask for any withdrawal of the warrants of arrest. The warrants remain in effect.

20. If there was seriousness in providing a 'soft landing' for Kony and his commanders, hence securing peace for the people of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan, the Government of Uganda could have used provisions in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

21. Religious, traditional and elected leaders can ask ICC to suspend arrest warrants

22. ARLPI, the Traditional Leaders and Elected Representatives of the people of Northern and Easter Uganda as victims of the conflict have a direct access to the ICC to request for a suspension of the warrant of arrest in order to enable meaningful peace negotiation if the Government of Uganda is reluctant to fulfil its obligations as stipulated above.

23. In requesting for a suspension of the ICC warrant, the victims can bring action in their own capacity.

24. The ARLPI, Acholi elders and civic leaders who have been championing the case of the victims of the conflict may petition the Pre-Trial Chamber to this effect.

25. Some talk has filtered through about organisations such as the Rome based Community of St. Egidio being key players in providing logistical support for the talks. Whilst this is welcome, one crucial support that can go a long way in facilitating a resolution to the conflict is the provision of a reputable law firm with expertise in international law and conflict resolution to provide the legal back up and guidance in this regard to the religious, traditional and elected leaders on behalf of the victims of the conflict.








26. The LRA leadership are entitled to legal assistance

27. The indicted LRA leadership by virtue of article 55 2. (c) have legal assistance of their choosing … … … or have legal assistance assigned to him or her …… … without payment by the person in any such case if the person does not have sufficient means to pay for it .

28. The main obstacle to direct talks with Kony and the top LRA leadership has been the issue of the ICC warrants. There is no evidence that apart from contact with the Government of South Sudan as the mediator and the LRA negotiation team in Juba, Kony and the LRA leadership have had any expert legal support on conflict resolution or on the ICC case against them

29. In his comment about the Juba talks Professor Mahmood Mamdani (New Vision, 10th July 2006) rightly stated that peace and justice can be understood as:

30. alternative code words: peace for an end to terror, and justice for its continuation.

31. A powerful example that Professor Mamdani gave was that of the end of apartheid in South Africa. He wrote:

32. If an international court had insisted on trying the perpetrators of apartheid in the name of justice it would have only delayed the end of apartheid and the suffering of the South African people, who knows for how long. Let us remember that apartheid did not end with the involvement of an international court of justice, but with a negotiated settlement at Kempton Park.

33. While some may dismiss this by saying that at the time ICC did not exist or by trivialising the conflict in Northern Uganda as bearing no comparison with apartheid in nature or scale, the point being made here is that of a principle which ought to be equally applicable.


34. The point that this highlights is that even with the ICC process, the stipulated legal assistance has not been forthcoming to the LRA leadership. As the argument in this paper is to disentangle the ICC process from the peace negotiation, the suggestion is that legal expert support must be given to the LRA leadership to provide guidance on the Juba talks as well as issues related to the ICC.


35. Recommendations

36. If the Government of Uganda is honest about providing Kony and his commanders with a 'soft landing', it should request through the ICC a meeting of the Security Council to pass a resolution suspending the warrant of arrest foe an indefinite period pending the outcome of the Juba talks with a view to permanently shelving it.

37. The Government of Southern Sudan as the mediator, and the Community of St Egidio must use their good offices to ensure that reputable legal firms are recruited to assist the religious, traditional and elected leaders so that they engage more effectively in the Juba talks and with the ICC.

38. The ARLPI, Acholi Elders and Civic Leaders who have been championing the case of the victims of the conflict petition the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber for a meeting of the Security Council to pass a resolution suspending the warrant of arrest of Kony and his commanders for an indefinite period pending the outcome of the Juba talks.

39. The Government of Southern Sudan as the mediator, and the Community of St Egidio ought to use their good offices to ensure that reputable legal firm separate from the above are recruited to assist LRA leadership to navigate the complexities of Juba talks.














APPENDIX 1


ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT*


PREAMBLE
The States Parties to this Statute,
Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time,
Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity,
Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world,
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,
Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes,
Reaffirming the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular that all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,
Emphasizing in this connection that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State,
Determined to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal Court in relationship with the United Nations system, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,
Emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions,
Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice,
Have agreed as follows

PART 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT

Article 1
The Court
An International Criminal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

Article 2
Relationship of the Court with the United Nations
The Court shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations through an agreement to be approved by the Assembly of States Parties to this Statute and thereafter concluded by the President of the Court on its behalf.

Article 3
Seat of the Court
1. The seat of the Court shall be established at The Hague in the Netherlands ("the host State").

2. The Court shall enter into a headquarters agreement with the host State, to be approved by the Assembly of States Parties and thereafter concluded by the President of the Court on its behalf.
3. The Court may sit elsewhere, whenever it considers it desirable, as provided in this Statute.

Article 4
Legal status and powers of the Court
1. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

2. The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.

PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.


Article 8
War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(iii) Taking of hostages;
(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;
(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.
3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.


Article 9
Elements of Crimes

1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. They shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.
2. Amendments to the Elements of Crimes may be proposed by:
(a) Any State Party;
(b) The judges acting by an absolute majority;
(c) The Prosecutor.
Such amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.

3. The Elements of Crimes and amendments thereto shall be consistent with this Statute.


Article 10

Nothing in this Part shall be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of international law for purposes other than this Statute.


Article 11
Jurisdiction ratione temporis

1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.

Article 12
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.
3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.


Article 13
Exercise of jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

Article 14
Referral of a situation by a State Party

1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.

2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.

Article 15
Prosecutor
1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.

3. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

4. If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.

5. The refusal of the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the investigation shall not preclude the presentation of a subsequent request by the Prosecutor based on new facts or evidence regarding the same situation.

6. If, after the preliminary examination referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Prosecutor concludes that the information provided does not constitute a reasonable basis for an investigation, he or she shall inform those who provided the information. This shall not preclude the Prosecutor from considering further information submitted to him or her regarding the same situation in the light of new facts or evidence.


Article 16
Deferral of investigation or prosecution

No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.


Article 17
Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

Article 18
Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility

1. When a situation has been referred to the Court pursuant to article 13 (a) and the Prosecutor has determined that there would be a reasonable basis to commence an investigation, or the Prosecutor initiates an investigation pursuant to articles 13 (c) and 15, the Prosecutor shall notify all States Parties and those States which, taking into account the information available, would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes concerned. The Prosecutor may notify such States on a confidential basis and, where the Prosecutor believes it necessary to protect persons, prevent destruction of evidence or prevent the absconding of persons, may limit the scope of the information provided to States.
2. Within one month of receipt of that notification, a State may inform the Court that it is investigating or has investigated its nationals or others within its jurisdiction with respect to criminal acts which may constitute crimes referred to in article 5 and which relate to the information provided in the notification to States. At the request of that State, the Prosecutor shall defer to the State's investigation of those persons unless the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, decides to authorize the investigation.

3. The Prosecutor's deferral to a State's investigation shall be open to review by the Prosecutor six months after the date of deferral or at any time when there has been a significant change of circumstances based on the State's unwillingness or inability genuinely to carry out the investigation.

4. The State concerned or the Prosecutor may appeal to the Appeals Chamber against a ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with article 82. The appeal may be heard on an expedited basis.

5. When the Prosecutor has deferred an investigation in accordance with paragraph 2, the Prosecutor may request that the State concerned periodically inform the Prosecutor of the progress of its investigations and any subsequent prosecutions. States Parties shall respond to such requests without undue delay.

6. Pending a ruling by the Pre-Trial Chamber, or at any time when the Prosecutor has deferred an investigation under this article, the Prosecutor may, on an exceptional basis, seek authority from the Pre-Trial Chamber to pursue necessary investigative steps for the purpose of preserving evidence where there is a unique opportunity to obtain important evidence or there is a significant risk that such evidence may not be subsequently available.

7. A State which has challenged a ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber under this article may challenge the admissibility of a case under article 19 on the grounds of additional significant facts or significant change of circumstances.


Article 19
Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court
or the admissibility of a case

1. The Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it. The Court may, on its own motion, determine the admissibility of a case in accordance with article 17.

2. Challenges to the admissibility of a case on the grounds referred to in article 17 or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court may be made by:
(a) An accused or a person for whom a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear has been issued under article 58;
(b) A State which has jurisdiction over a case, on the ground that it is investigating or prosecuting the case or has investigated or prosecuted; or
(c) A State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 12.
3. The Prosecutor may seek a ruling from the Court regarding a question of jurisdiction or admissibility. In proceedings with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility, those who have referred the situation under article 13, as well as victims, may also submit observations to the Court.

4. The admissibility of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court may be challenged only once by any person or State referred to in paragraph 2. The challenge shall take place prior to or at the commencement of the trial. In exceptional circumstances, the Court may grant leave for a challenge to be brought more than once or at a time later than the commencement of the trial. Challenges to the admissibility of a case, at the commencement of a trial, or subsequently with the leave of the Court, may be based only on article 17, paragraph 1 (c).

5. A State referred to in paragraph 2 (b) and (c) shall make a challenge at the earliest opportunity.

6. Prior to the confirmation of the charges, challenges to the admissibility of a case or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court shall be referred to the Pre-Trial Chamber. After confirmation of the charges, they shall be referred to the Trial Chamber. Decisions with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility may be appealed to the Appeals Chamber in accordance with article 82.

7. If a challenge is made by a State referred to in paragraph 2 (b) or (c), the Prosecutor shall suspend the investigation until such time as the Court makes a determination in accordance with article 17.

8. Pending a ruling by the Court, the Prosecutor may seek authority from the Court:
(a) To pursue necessary investigative steps of the kind referred to in article 18, paragraph 6;
(b) To take a statement or testimony from a witness or complete the collection and examination of evidence which had begun prior to the making of the challenge; and
(c) In cooperation with the relevant States, to prevent the absconding of persons in respect of whom the Prosecutor has already requested a warrant of arrest under article 58.
9. The making of a challenge shall not affect the validity of any act performed by the Prosecutor or any order or warrant issued by the Court prior to the making of the challenge.

10. If the Court has decided that a case is inadmissible under article 17, the Prosecutor may submit a request for a review of the decision when he or she is fully satisfied that new facts have arisen which negate the basis on which the case had previously been found inadmissible under article 17.

11. If the Prosecutor, having regard to the matters referred to in article 17, defers an investigation, the Prosecutor may request that the relevant State make available to the Prosecutor information on the proceedings. That information shall, at the request of the State concerned, be confidential. If the Prosecutor thereafter decides to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall notify the State to which deferral of the proceedings has taken place.

Article 20
Ne bis in idem

1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:
(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

Article 21
Applicable law

1. The Court shall apply:
(a) In the first place, this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict;
(c) Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.
2. The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions.

3. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article 22
Nullum crimen sine lege
1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.

Article 23
Nulla poena sine lege
A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute.

Article 24
Non-retroactivity ratione personae
1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.

Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.

2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.

3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;

(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
4. No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.

Article 26
Exclusion of jurisdiction over persons under eighteen
The Court shall have no jurisdiction over any person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged commission of a crime.


Article 27
Irrelevance of official capacity
1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

Article 28
Responsibility of commanders and other superiors
In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court:
(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where:

(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes; and
(ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

(b) With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph (a), a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:

(i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;
(ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and
(iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

Article 29
Non-applicability of statute of limitations
The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.


Article 30
Mental element
1. Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge.

2. For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where:
(a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct;
(b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.
3. For the purposes of this article, "knowledge" means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. "Know" and "knowingly" shall be construed accordingly.

Article 31
Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility
1. In addition to other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute, a person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person's conduct:
(a) The person suffers from a mental disease or defect that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law;
(b) The person is in a state of intoxication that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law, unless the person has become voluntarily intoxicated under such circumstances that the person knew, or disregarded the risk, that, as a result of the intoxication, he or she was likely to engage in conduct constituting a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) The person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which is essential for the survival of the person or another person or property which is essential for accomplishing a military mission, against an imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to the person or the other person or property protected. The fact that the person was involved in a defensive operation conducted by forces shall not in itself constitute a ground for excluding criminal responsibility under this subparagraph;
(d) The conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided. Such a threat may either be:
(i) Made by other persons; or
(ii) Constituted by other circumstances beyond that person's control.
2. The Court shall determine the applicability of the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute to the case before it.

3. At trial, the Court may consider a ground for excluding criminal responsibility other than those referred to in paragraph 1 where such a ground is derived from applicable law as set forth in article 21. The procedures relating to the consideration of such a ground shall be provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.


Article 32
Mistake of fact or mistake of law
1. A mistake of fact shall be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility only if it negates the mental element required by the crime.

2. A mistake of law as to whether a particular type of conduct is a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility. A mistake of law may, however, be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility if it negates the mental element required by such a crime, or as provided for in article 33.

Article 33
Superior orders and prescription of law
1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.

PART 4. COMPOSITION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT

Article 34
Organs of the Court
The Court shall be composed of the following organs:
(a) The Presidency;
(b) An Appeals Division, a Trial Division and a Pre-Trial Division;
(c) The Office of the Prosecutor;
(d) The Registry.

Article 35
Service of judges
1. All judges shall be elected as full-time members of the Court and shall be available to serve on that basis from the commencement of their terms of office.

2. The judges composing the Presidency shall serve on a full-time basis as soon as they are elected.

3. The Presidency may, on the basis of the workload of the Court and in consultation with its members, decide from time to time to what extent the remaining judges shall be required to serve on a full-time basis. Any such arrangement shall be without prejudice to the provisions of article 40.

4. The financial arrangements for judges not required to serve on a full-time basis shall be made in accordance with article 49.

Article 36
Qualifications, nomination and election of judges
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, there shall be 18 judges of the Court.

2. (a) The Presidency, acting on behalf of the Court, may propose an increase in the number of judges specified in paragraph 1, indicating the reasons why this is considered necessary and appropriate. The Registrar shall promptly circulate any such proposal to all States Parties.

(b) Any such proposal shall then be considered at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to be convened in accordance with article 112. The proposal shall be considered adopted if approved at the meeting by a vote of two thirds of the members of the Assembly of States Parties and shall enter into force at such time as decided by the Assembly of States Parties.
(c) (i) Once a proposal for an increase in the number of judges has been adopted under subparagraph (b), the election of the additional judges shall take place at the next session of the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 8, and article 37, paragraph 2;
(ii) Once a proposal for an increase in the number of judges has been adopted and brought into effect under subparagraphs (b) and (c) (i), it shall be open to the Presidency at any time thereafter, if the workload of the Court justifies it, to propose a reduction in the number of judges, provided that the number of judges shall not be reduced below that specified in paragraph 1. The proposal shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in subparagraphs (a) and (b). In the event that the proposal is adopted, the number of judges shall be progressively decreased as the terms of office of serving judges expire, until the necessary number has been reached.
3. (a) The judges shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices.
(b) Every candidate for election to the Court shall:
(i) Have established competence in criminal law and procedure, and the necessary relevant experience, whether as judge, prosecutor, advocate or in other similar capacity, in criminal proceedings; or
(ii) Have established competence in relevant areas of international law such as international humanitarian law and the law of human rights, and extensive experience in a professional legal capacity which is of relevance to the judicial work of the Court;
(c) Every candidate for election to the Court shall have an excellent knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Court.

4. (a) Nominations of candidates for election to the Court may be made by any State Party to this Statute, and shall be made either:
(i) By the procedure for the nomination of candidates for appointment to the highest judicial offices in the State in question; or
(ii) By the procedure provided for the nomination of candidates for the International Court of Justice in the Statute of that Court.
Nominations shall be accompanied by a statement in the necessary detail specifying how the candidate fulfils the requirements of paragraph 3.

(b) Each State Party may put forward one candidate for any given election who need not necessarily be a national of that State Party but shall in any case be a national of a State Party.

(c) The Assembly of States Parties may decide to establish, if appropriate, an Advisory Committee on nominations. In that event, the Committee's composition and mandate shall be established by the Assembly of States Parties.

5. For the purposes of the election, there shall be two lists of candidates:
List A containing the names of candidates with the qualifications specified in paragraph 3 (b) (i); and

List B containing the names of candidates with the qualifications specified in paragraph 3 (b) (ii).
A candidate with sufficient qualifications for both lists may choose on which list to appear. At the first election to the Court, at least nine judges shall be elected from list A and at least five judges from list B. Subsequent elections shall be so organized as to maintain the equivalent proportion on the Court of judges qualified on the two lists.

6. (a) The judges shall be elected by secret ballot at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties convened for that purpose under article 112. Subject to paragraph 7, the persons elected to the Court shall be the 18 candidates who obtain the highest number of votes and a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting.

(b) In the event that a sufficient number of judges is not elected on the first ballot, successive ballots shall be held in accordance with the procedures laid down in subparagraph (a) until the remaining places have been filled.

7. No two judges may be nationals of the same State. A person who, for the purposes of membership of the Court, could be regarded as a national of more than one State shall be deemed to be a national of the State in which that person ordinarily exercises civil and political rights.

8. (a) The States Parties shall, in the selection of judges, take into account the need, within the membership of the Court, for:
(i) The representation of the principal legal systems of the world;
(ii) Equitable geographical representation; and
(iii) A fair representation of female and male judges.
(b) States Parties shall also take into account the need to include judges with legal expertise on specific issues, including, but not limited to, violence against women or children.

9. (a) Subject to subparagraph (b), judges shall hold office for a term of nine years and, subject to subparagraph (c) and to article 37, paragraph 2, shall not be eligible for re-election.

(b) At the first election, one third of the judges elected shall be selected by lot to serve for a term of three years; one third of the judges elected shall be selected by lot to serve for a term of six years; and the remainder shall serve for a term of nine years.

(c) A judge who is selected to serve for a term of three years under subparagraph (b) shall be eligible for re-election for a full term.

10. Notwithstanding paragraph 9, a judge assigned to a Trial or Appeals Chamber in accordance with article 39 shall continue in office to complete any trial or appeal the hearing of which has already commenced before that Chamber.

Article 37
Judicial vacancies
1. In the event of a vacancy, an election shall be held in accordance with article 36 to fill the vacancy.

2. A judge elected to fill a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the predecessor's term and, if that period is three years or less, shall be eligible for re-election for a full term under article 36.


Article 38
The Presidency
1. The President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents shall be elected by an absolute majority of the judges. They shall each serve for a term of three years or until the end of their respective terms of office as judges, whichever expires earlier. They shall be eligible for re-election once.

2. The First Vice-President shall act in place of the President in the event that the President is unavailable or disqualified. The Second Vice-President shall act in place of the President in the event that both the President and the First Vice-President are unavailable or disqualified.

3. The President, together with the First and Second Vice-Presidents, shall constitute the Presidency, which shall be responsible for:

(a) The proper administration of the Court, with the exception of the Office of the Prosecutor; and

(b) The other functions conferred upon it in accordance with this Statute.

4. In discharging its responsibility under paragraph 3 (a), the Presidency shall coordinate with and seek the concurrence of the Prosecutor on all matters of mutual concern.

Article 39
Chambers
1. As soon as possible after the election of the judges, the Court shall organize itself into the divisions specified in article 34, paragraph (b). The Appeals Division shall be composed of the President and four other judges, the Trial Division of not less than six judges and the Pre-Trial Division of not less than six judges. The assignment of judges to divisions shall be based on the nature of the functions to be performed by each division and the qualifications and experience of the judges elected to the Court, in such a way that each division shall contain an appropriate combination of expertise in criminal law and procedure and in international law. The Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions shall be composed predominantly of judges with criminal trial experience.

2. (a) The judicial functions of the Court shall be carried out in each division by Chambers.

(b) (i) The Appeals Chamber shall be composed of all the judges of the Appeals Division;
(ii) The functions of the Trial Chamber shall be carried out by three judges of the Trial Division;
(iii) The functions of the Pre-Trial Chamber shall be carried out either by three judges of the Pre-Trial Division or by a single judge of that division in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

(c) Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the simultaneous constitution of more than one Trial Chamber or Pre-Trial Chamber when the efficient management of the Court's workload so requires.

3. (a) Judges assigned to the Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions shall serve in those divisions for a period of three years, and thereafter until the completion of any case the hearing of which has already commenced in the division concerned.

(b) Judges assigned to the Appeals Division shall serve in that division for their entire term of office.

4. Judges assigned to the Appeals Division shall serve only in that division. Nothing in this article shall, however, preclude the temporary attachment of judges from the Trial Division to the Pre-Trial Division or vice versa, if the Presidency considers that the efficient management of the Court's workload so requires, provided that under no circumstances shall a judge who has participated in the pre-trial phase of a case be eligible to sit on the Trial Chamber hearing that case.

Article 40
Independence of the judges
1. The judges shall be independent in the performance of their functions.

2. Judges shall not engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with their judicial functions or to affect confidence in their independence.

3. Judges required to serve on a full-time basis at the seat of the Court shall not engage in any other occupation of a professional nature.

4. Any question regarding the application of paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be decided by an absolute majority of the judges. Where any such question concerns an individual judge, that judge shall not take part in the decision.

Article 41
Excusing and disqualification of judges
1. The Presidency may, at the request of a judge, excuse that judge from the exercise of a function under this Statute, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

2. (a) A judge shall not participate in any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground. A judge shall be disqualified from a case in accordance with this paragraph if, inter alia, that judge has previously been involved in any capacity in that case before the Court or in a related criminal case at the national level involving the person being investigated or prosecuted. A judge shall also be disqualified on such other grounds as may be provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

(b) The Prosecutor or the person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a judge under this paragraph.

(c) Any question as to the disqualification of a judge shall be decided by an absolute majority of the judges. The challenged judge shall be entitled to present his or her comments on the matter, but shall not take part in the decision.


Article 42
The Office of the Prosecutor
1. The Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently as a separate organ of the Court. It shall be responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. A member of the Office shall not seek or act on instructions from any external source.

2. The Office shall be headed by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor shall have full authority over the management and administration of the Office, including the staff, facilities and other resources thereof. The Prosecutor shall be assisted by one or more Deputy Prosecutors, who shall be entitled to carry out any of the acts required of the Prosecutor under this Statute. The Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutors shall be of different nationalities. They shall serve on a full-time basis.

3. The Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutors shall be persons of high moral character, be highly competent in and have extensive practical experience in the prosecution or trial of criminal cases. They shall have an excellent knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Court.

4. The Prosecutor shall be elected by secret ballot by an absolute majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties. The Deputy Prosecutors shall be elected in the same way from a list of candidates provided by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor shall nominate three candidates for each position of Deputy Prosecutor to be filled. Unless a shorter term is decided upon at the time of their election, the Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutors shall hold office for a term of nine years and shall not be eligible for re-election.

5. Neither the Prosecutor nor a Deputy Prosecutor shall engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with his or her prosecutorial functions or to affect confidence in his or her independence. They shall not engage in any other occupation of a professional nature.

6. The Presidency may excuse the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor, at his or her request, from acting in a particular case.

7. Neither the Prosecutor nor a Deputy Prosecutor shall participate in any matter in which their impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground. They shall be disqualified from a case in accordance with this paragraph if, inter alia, they have previously been involved in any capacity in that case before the Court or in a related criminal case at the national level involving the person being investigated or prosecuted.

8. Any question as to the disqualification of the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor shall be decided by the Appeals Chamber.
(a) The person being investigated or prosecuted may at any time request the disqualification of the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor on the grounds set out in this article;
(b) The Prosecutor or the Deputy Prosecutor, as appropriate, shall be entitled to present his or her comments on the matter;
9. The Prosecutor shall appoint advisers with legal expertise on specific issues, including, but not limited to, sexual and gender violence and violence against children.

Article 43
The Registry
1. The Registry shall be responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court, without prejudice to the functions and powers of the Prosecutor in accordance with article 42.

2. The Registry shall be headed by the Registrar, who shall be the principal administrative officer of the Court. The Registrar shall exercise his or her functions under the authority of the President of the Court.

3. The Registrar and the Deputy Registrar shall be persons of high moral character, be highly competent and have an excellent knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Court.

4. The judges shall elect the Registrar by an absolute majority by secret ballot, taking into account any recommendation by the Assembly of States Parties. If the need arises and upon the recommendation of the Registrar, the judges shall elect, in the same manner, a Deputy Registrar.

5. The Registrar shall hold office for a term of five years, shall be eligible for re-election once and shall serve on a full-time basis. The Deputy Registrar shall hold office for a term of five years or such shorter term as may be decided upon by an absolute majority of the judges, and may be elected on the basis that the Deputy Registrar shall be called upon to serve as required.

6. The Registrar shall set up a Victims and Witnesses Unit within the Registry. This Unit shall provide, in consultation with the Office of the Prosecutor, protective measures and security arrangements, counselling and other appropriate assistance for witnesses, victims who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses. The Unit shall include staff with expertise in trauma, including trauma related to crimes of sexual violence.

Article 44
Staff
1. The Prosecutor and the Registrar shall appoint such qualified staff as may be required to their respective offices. In the case of the Prosecutor, this shall include the appointment of investigators.

2. In the employment of staff, the Prosecutor and the Registrar shall ensure the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity, and shall have regard, mutatis mutandis, to the criteria set forth in article 36, paragraph 8.

3. The Registrar, with the agreement of the Presidency and the Prosecutor, shall propose Staff Regulations which include the terms and conditions upon which the staff of the Court shall be appointed, remunerated and dismissed. The Staff Regulations shall be approved by the Assembly of States Parties.

4. The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, employ the expertise of gratis personnel offered by States Parties, intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations to assist with the work of any of the organs of the Court. The Prosecutor may accept any such offer on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor. Such gratis personnel shall be employed in accordance with guidelines to be established by the Assembly of States Parties.

Article 45
Solemn undertaking
Before taking up their respective duties under this Statute, the judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutors, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar shall each make a solemn undertaking in open court to exercise his or her respective functions impartially and conscientiously.


Article 46
Removal from office
1. A judge, the Prosecutor, a Deputy Prosecutor, the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar shall be removed from office if a decision to this effect is made in accordance with paragraph 2, in cases where that person:
(a) Is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties under this Statute, as provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; or
(b) Is unable to exercise the functions required by this Statute.
2. A decision as to the removal from office of a judge, the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor under paragraph 1 shall be made by the Assembly of States Parties, by secret ballot:
( a) In the case of a judge, by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties upon a recommendation adopted by a two-thirds majority of the other judges;
(b) In the case of the Prosecutor, by an absolute majority of the States Parties;
(c) In the case of a Deputy Prosecutor, by an absolute majority of the States Parties upon the recommendation of the Prosecutor.
3. A decision as to the removal from office of the Registrar or Deputy Registrar shall be made by an absolute majority of the judges.

4. A judge, Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Registrar or Deputy Registrar whose conduct or ability to exercise the functions of the office as required by this Statute is challenged under this article shall have full opportunity to present and receive evidence and to make submissions in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The person in question shall not otherwise participate in the consideration of the matter.


Article 47
Disciplinary measures
A judge, Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Registrar or Deputy Registrar who has committed misconduct of a less serious nature than that set out in article 46, paragraph 1, shall be subject to disciplinary measures, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Article 48
Privileges and immunities
1. The Court shall enjoy in the territory of each State Party such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.

2. The judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutors and the Registrar shall, when engaged on or with respect to the business of the Court, enjoy the same privileges and immunities as are accorded to heads of diplomatic missions and shall, after the expiry of their terms of office, continue to be accorded immunity from legal process of every kind in respect of words spoken or written and acts performed by them in their official capacity.

3. The Deputy Registrar, the staff of the Office of the Prosecutor and the staff of the Registry shall enjoy the privileges and immunities and facilities necessary for the performance of their functions, in accordance with the agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court.

4. Counsel, experts, witnesses or any other person required to be present at the seat of the Court shall be accorded such treatment as is necessary for the proper functioning of the Court, in accordance with the agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court.

5. The privileges and immunities of:
(a) A judge or the Prosecutor may be waived by an absolute majority of the judges;
(b) The Registrar may be waived by the Presidency;
(c) The Deputy Prosecutors and staff of the Office of the Prosecutor may be waived by the Prosecutor;
(d) The Deputy Registrar and staff of the Registry may be waived by the Registrar.
Article 49
Salaries, allowances and expenses
The judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutors, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar shall receive such salaries, allowances and expenses as may be decided upon by the Assembly of States Parties. These salaries and allowances shall not be reduced during their terms of office.

Article 50
Official and working languages
1. The official languages of the Court shall be Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. The judgements of the Court, as well as other decisions resolving fundamental issues before the Court, shall be published in the official languages. The Presidency shall, in accordance with the criteria established by the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, determine which decisions may be considered as resolving fundamental issues for the purposes of this paragraph.

2. The working languages of the Court shall be English and French. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence shall determine the cases in which other official languages may be used as working languages.

3. At the request of any party to a proceeding or a State allowed to intervene in a proceeding, the Court shall authorize a language other than English or French to be used by such a party or State, provided that the Court considers such authorization to be adequately justified.

Article 51
Rules of Procedure and Evidence
1. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence shall enter into force upon adoption by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.

2. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence may be proposed by:
(a) Any State Party;
(b) The judges acting by an absolute majority; or
(c) The Prosecutor.
Such amendments shall enter into force upon adoption by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.

3. After the adoption of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, in urgent cases where the Rules do not provide for a specific situation before the Court, the judges may, by a two-thirds majority, draw up provisional Rules to be applied until adopted, amended or rejected at the next ordinary or special session of the Assembly of States Parties.

4. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence, amendments thereto and any provisional Rule shall be consistent with this Statute. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as well as provisional Rules shall not be applied retroactively to the detriment of the person who is being investigated or prosecuted or who has been convicted.

5. In the event of conflict between the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Statute shall prevail.

Article 52
Regulations of the Court
1. The judges shall, in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopt, by an absolute majority, the Regulations of the Court necessary for its routine functioning.

2. The Prosecutor and the Registrar shall be consulted in the elaboration of the Regulations and any amendments thereto.

3. The Regulations and any amendments thereto shall take effect upon adoption unless otherwise decided by the judges. Immediately upon adoption, they shall be circulated to States Parties for comments. If within six months there are no objections from a majority of States Parties, they shall remain in force.

PART 5. INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

Article 53
Initiation of an investigation
1. The Prosecutor shall, having evaluated the information made available to him or her, initiate an investigation unless he or she determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed under this Statute. In deciding whether to initiate an investigation, the Prosecutor shall consider whether:
(a) The information available to the Prosecutor provides a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed;
(b) The case is or would be admissible under article 17; and
(c) Taking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims, there are nonetheless substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.
If the Prosecutor determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed and his or her determination is based solely on subparagraph (c) above, he or she shall inform the Pre-Trial Chamber.

2. If, upon investigation, the Prosecutor concludes that there is not a sufficient basis for a prosecution because:
(a) There is not a sufficient legal or factual basis to seek a warrant or summons under article 58;
(b) The case is inadmissible under article 17; or
(c) A prosecution is not in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and the age or infirmity of the alleged perpetrator, and his or her role in the alleged crime;
the Prosecutor shall inform the Pre-Trial Chamber and the State making a referral under article 14 or the Security Council in a case under article 13, paragraph (b), of his or her conclusion and the reasons for the conclusion.
3. (a) At the request of the State making a referral under article 14 or the Security Council under article 13, paragraph (b), the Pre-Trial Chamber may review a decision of the Prosecutor under paragraph 1 or 2 not to proceed and may request the Prosecutor to reconsider that decision.

(b) In addition, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, on its own initiative, review a decision of the Prosecutor not to proceed if it is based solely on paragraph 1 (c) or 2 (c). In such a case, the decision of the Prosecutor shall be effective only if confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

4. The Prosecutor may, at any time, reconsider a decision whether to initiate an investigation or prosecution based on new facts or information.

Article 54
Duties and powers of the Prosecutor with respect to investigations

1. The Prosecutor shall:
(a) In order to establish the truth, extend the investigation to cover all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of whether there is criminal responsibility under this Statute, and, in doing so, investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally;
(b) Take appropriate measures to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and in doing so, respect the interests and personal circumstances of victims and witnesses, including age, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, and health, and take into account the nature of the crime, in particular where it involves sexual violence, gender violence or violence against children; and
(c) Fully respect the rights of persons arising under this Statute.
2. The Prosecutor may conduct investigations on the territory of a State:
(a) In accordance with the provisions of Part 9; or
(b) As authorized by the Pre-Trial Chamber under article 57, paragraph 3 (d).
3. The Prosecutor may:
(a) Collect and examine evidence;
(b) Request the presence of and question persons being investigated, victims and witnesses;
(c) Seek the cooperation of any State or intergovernmental organization or arrangement in accordance with its respective competence and/or mandate;
(d) Enter into such arrangements or agreements, not inconsistent with this Statute, as may be necessary to facilitate the cooperation of a State, intergovernmental organization or person;
(e) Agree not to disclose, at any stage of the proceedings, documents or information that the Prosecutor obtains on the condition of confidentiality and solely for the purpose of generating new evidence, unless the provider of the information consents; and
(f) Take necessary measures, or request that necessary measures be taken, to ensure the confidentiality of information, the protection of any person or the preservation of evidence.

Article 55
Rights of persons during an investigation

1. In respect of an investigation under this Statute, a person:
(a) Shall not be compelled to incriminate himself or herself or to confess guilt;
(b) Shall not be subjected to any form of coercion, duress or threat, to torture or to any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(c) Shall, if questioned in a language other than a language the person fully understands and speaks, have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness; and
(d) Shall not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and shall not be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established in this Statute.
2. Where there are grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court and that person is about to be questioned either by the Prosecutor, or by national authorities pursuant to a request made under Part 9, that person shall also have the following rights of which he or she shall be informed prior to being questioned:
(a) To be informed, prior to being questioned, that there are grounds to believe that he or she has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) To remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;
(c) To have legal assistance of the person's choosing, or, if the person does not have legal assistance, to have legal assistance assigned to him or her, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by the person in any such case if the person does not have sufficient means to pay for it; and
(d) To be questioned in the presence of counsel unless the person has voluntarily waived his or her right to counsel.

Article 56
Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in relation
to a unique investigative opportunity

1. (a) Where the Prosecutor considers an investigation to present a unique opportunity to take testimony or a statement from a witness or to examine, collect or test evidence, which may not be available subsequently for the purposes of a trial, the Prosecutor shall so inform the Pre-Trial Chamber.

(b) In that case, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, upon request of the Prosecutor, take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the proceedings and, in particular, to protect the rights of the defence.

(c) Unless the Pre-Trial Chamber orders otherwise, the Prosecutor shall provide the relevant information to the person who has been arrested or appeared in response to a summons in connection with the investigation referred to in subparagraph (a), in order that he or she may be heard on the matter.
2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 (b) may include:
(a) Making recommendations or orders regarding procedures to be followed;
(b) Directing that a record be made of the proceedings;
(c) Appointing an expert to assist;
(d) Authorizing counsel for a person who has been arrested, or appeared before the Court in response to a summons, to participate, or where there has not yet been such an arrest or appearance or counsel has not been designated, appointing another counsel to attend and represent the interests of the defence;
(e) Naming one of its members or, if necessary, another available judge of the Pre-Trial or Trial Division to observe and make recommendations or orders regarding the collection and preservation of evidence and the questioning of persons;
(f) Taking such other action as may be necessary to collect or preserve evidence.
3. (a) Where the Prosecutor has not sought measures pursuant to this article but the Pre-Trial Chamber considers that such measures are required to preserve evidence that it deems would be essential for the defence at trial, it shall consult with the Prosecutor as to whether there is good reason for the Prosecutor's failure to request the measures. If upon consultation, the Pre-Trial Chamber concludes that the Prosecutor's failure to request such measures is unjustified, the Pre-Trial Chamber may take such measures on its own initiative.

(b) A decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber to act on its own initiative under this paragraph may be appealed by the Prosecutor. The appeal shall be heard on an expedited basis.

4. The admissibility of evidence preserved or collected for trial pursuant to this article, or the record thereof, shall be governed at trial by article 69, and given such weight as determined by the Trial Chamber.


Article 57
Functions and powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber

1. Unless otherwise provided in this Statute, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall exercise its functions in accordance with the provisions of this article.

2 . (a) Orders or rulings of the Pre-Trial Chamber issued under articles 15, 18, 19, 54, paragraph 2, 61, paragraph 7, and 72 must be concurred in by a majority of its judges.

(b) In all other cases, a single judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber may exercise the functions provided for in this Statute, unless otherwise provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence or by a majority of the Pre-Trial Chamber.

3. In addition to its other functions under this Statute, the Pre-Trial Chamber may:
(a) At the request of the Prosecutor, issue such orders and warrants as may be required for the purposes of an investigation;
(b) Upon the request of a person who has been arrested or has appeared pursuant to a summons under article 58, issue such orders, including measures such as those described in article 56, or seek such cooperation pursuant to Part 9 as may be necessary to assist the person in the preparation of his or her defence;
(c) Where necessary, provide for the protection and privacy of victims and witnesses, the preservation of evidence, the protection of persons who have been arrested or appeared in response to a summons, and the protection of national security information;
(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 if, whenever possible having regard to the views of the State concerned, the Pre-Trial Chamber has determined in that case that the State is clearly unable to execute a request for cooperation due to the unavailability of any authority or any component of its judicial system competent to execute the request for cooperation under Part 9.
(e) Where a warrant of arrest or a summons has been issued under article 58, and having due regard to the strength of the evidence and the rights of the parties concerned, as provided for in this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, seek the cooperation of States pursuant to article 93, paragraph 1 (k), to take protective measures for the purpose of forfeiture, in particular for the ultimate benefit of victims.
Article 58
Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a warrant of arrest
or a summons to appear

1. At any time after the initiation of an investigation, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the application of the Prosecutor, issue a warrant of arrest of a person if, having examined the application and the evidence or other information submitted by the Prosecutor, it is satisfied that:
(a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; and
(b) The arrest of the person appears necessary:

(i) To ensure the person's appearance at trial,
(ii) To ensure that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court proceedings, or
(iii) Where applicable, to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime or a related crime which is within the jurisdiction of the Court and which arises out of the same circumstances.
2. The application of the Prosecutor shall contain:
(a) The name of the person and any other relevant identifying information;
(b) A specific reference to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court which the person is alleged to have committed;
(c) A concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute those crimes;
(d) A summary of the evidence and any other information which establish reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed those crimes; and
(e) The reason why the Prosecutor believes that the arrest of the person is necessary.
3. The warrant of arrest shall contain:
(a) The name of the person and any other relevant identifying information;
(b) A specific reference to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court for which the person's arrest is sought; and
(c) A concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute those crimes.
4. The warrant of arrest shall remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the Court.

5. On the basis of the warrant of arrest, the Court may request the provisional arrest or the arrest and surrender of the person under Part 9.

6. The Prosecutor may request the Pre-Trial Chamber to amend the warrant of arrest by modifying or adding to the crimes specified therein. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall so amend the warrant if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed the modified or additional crimes.

7. As an alternative to seeking a warrant of arrest, the Prosecutor may submit an application requesting that the Pre-Trial Chamber issue a summons for the person to appear. If the Pre-Trial Chamber is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed the crime alleged and that a summons is sufficient to ensure the person's appearance, it shall issue the summons, with or without conditions restricting liberty (other than detention) if provided for by national law, for the person to appear. The summons shall contain:
(a) The name of the person and any other relevant identifying information;
(b) The specified date on which the person is to appear;
(c) A specific reference to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court which the person is alleged to have committed; and
(d) A concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute the crime.
The summons shall be served on the person.


Article 59
Arrest proceedings in the custodial State

1. A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9.

2. A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State, that:
(a) The warrant applies to that person;
(b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and
(c) The person's rights have been respected.
3. The person arrested shall have the right to apply to the competent authority in the custodial State for interim release pending surrender.

4. In reaching a decision on any such application, the competent authority in the custodial State shall consider whether, given the gravity of the alleged crimes, there are urgent and exceptional circumstances to justify interim release and whether necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the custodial State can fulfil its duty to surrender the person to the Court. It shall not be open to the competent authority of the custodial State to consider whether the warrant of arrest was properly issued in accordance with article 58, paragraph 1 (a) and (b).

5. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall be notified of any request for interim release and shall make recommendations to the competent authority in the custodial State. The competent authority in the custodial State shall give full consideration to such recommendations, including any recommendations on measures to prevent the escape of the person, before rendering its decision.
6. If the person is granted interim release, the Pre-Trial Chamber may request periodic reports on the status of the interim release.
7. Once ordered to be surrendered by the custodial State, the person shall be delivered to the Court as soon as possible.

Article 60
Initial proceedings before the Court

1. Upon the surrender of the person to the Court, or the person's appearance before the Court voluntarily or pursuant to a summons, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall satisfy itself that the person has been informed of the crimes which he or she is alleged to have committed, and of his or her rights under this Statute, including the right to apply for interim release pending trial.

2. A person subject to a warrant of arrest may apply for interim release pending trial. If the Pre-Trial Chamber is satisfied that the conditions set forth in article 58, paragraph 1, are met, the person shall continue to be detained. If it is not so satisfied, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall release the person, with or without conditions.
3. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall periodically review its ruling on the release or detention of the person, and may do so at any time on the request of the Prosecutor or the person. Upon such review, it may modify its ruling as to detention, release or conditions of release, if it is satisfied that changed circumstances so require.
4. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall ensure that a person is not detained for an unreasonable period prior to trial due to inexcusable delay by the Prosecutor. If such delay occurs, the Court shall consider releasing the person, with or without conditions.
5. If necessary, the Pre-Trial Chamber may issue a warrant of arrest to secure the presence of a person who has been released.

Article 61
Confirmation of the charges before trial

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, within a reasonable time after the person's surrender or voluntary appearance before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall hold a hearing to confirm the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to seek trial. The hearing shall be held in the presence of the Prosecutor and the person charged, as well as his or her counsel.
2. The Pre-Trial Chamber may, upon request of the Prosecutor or on its own motion, hold a hearing in the absence of the person charged to confirm the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to seek trial when the person has:
(a) Waived his or her right to be present; or
(b) Fled or cannot be found and all reasonable steps have been taken to secure his or her appearance before the Court and to inform the person of the charges and that a hearing to confirm those charges will be held.
In that case, the person shall be represented by counsel where the Pre-Trial Chamber determines that it is in the interests of justice.
3. Within a reasonable time before the hearing, the person shall:
(a) Be provided with a copy of the document containing the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to bring the person to trial; and
(b) Be informed of the evidence on which the Prosecutor intends to rely at the hearing.
The Pre-Trial Chamber may issue orders regarding the disclosure of information for the purposes of the hearing.

4. Before the hearing, the Prosecutor may continue the investigation and may amend or withdraw any charges. The person shall be given reasonable notice before the hearing of any amendment to or withdrawal of charges. In case of a withdrawal of charges, the Prosecutor shall notify the Pre-Trial Chamber of the reasons for the withdrawal.
5. At the hearing, the Prosecutor shall support each charge with sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed the crime charged. The Prosecutor may rely on documentary or summary evidence and need not call the witnesses expected to testify at the trial.
6. At the hearing, the person may:
(a) Object to the charges;
(b) Challenge the evidence presented by the Prosecutor; and
(c) Present evidence.
7. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the basis of the hearing, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged. Based on its determination, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall:
(a) Confirm those charges in relation to which it has determined that there is sufficient evidence, and commit the person to a Trial Chamber for trial on the charges as confirmed;
(b) Decline to confirm those charges in relation to which it has determined that there is insufficient evidence;
(c) Adjourn the hearing and request the Prosecutor to consider:
(i) Providing further evidence or conducting further investigation with respect to a particular charge; or
(ii) Amending a charge because the evidence submitted appears to establish a different crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
8. Where the Pre-Trial Chamber declines to confirm a charge, the Prosecutor shall not be precluded from subsequently requesting its confirmation if the request is supported by additional evidence.
9. After the charges are confirmed and before the trial has begun, the Prosecutor may, with the permission of the Pre-Trial Chamber and after notice to the accused, amend the charges. If the Prosecutor seeks to add additional charges or to substitute more serious charges, a hearing under this article to confirm those charges must be held. After commencement of the trial, the Prosecutor may, with the permission of the Trial Chamber, withdraw the charges.
10. Any warrant previously issued shall cease to have effect with respect to any charges which have not been confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber or which have been withdrawn by the Prosecutor.
11. Once the charges have been confirmed in accordance with this article, the Presidency shall constitute a Trial Chamber which, subject to paragraph 9 and to article 64, paragraph 4, shall be responsible for the conduct of subsequent proceedings and may exercise any function of the Pre-Trial Chamber that is relevant and capable of application in those proceedings.

PART 6. THE TRIAL

Article 62
Place of trial
Unless otherwise decided, the place of the trial shall be the seat of the Court.

Article 63
Trial in the presence of the accused
1. The accused shall be present during the trial.

2. If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial, the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall be taken only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required.

Article 64
Functions and powers of the Trial Chamber
1. The functions and powers of the Trial Chamber set out in this article shall be exercised in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
2. The Trial Chamber shall ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses.
3. Upon assignment of a case for trial in accordance with this Statute, the Trial Chamber assigned to deal with the case shall:
(a) Confer with the parties and adopt such procedures as are necessary to facilitate the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings;
(b) Determine the language or languages to be used at trial; and
(c) Subject to any other relevant provisions of this Statute, provide for disclosure of documents or information not previously disclosed, sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the trial to enable adequate preparation for trial.
4. The Trial Chamber may, if necessary for its effective and fair functioning, refer preliminary issues to the Pre-Trial Chamber or, if necessary, to another available judge of the Pre-Trial Division.
5. Upon notice to the parties, the Trial Chamber may, as appropriate, direct that there be joinder or severance in respect of charges against more than one accused.
6. In performing its functions prior to trial or during the course of a trial, the Trial Chamber may, as necessary:
(a) Exercise any functions of the Pre-Trial Chamber referred to in article 61, paragraph 11;
(b) Require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of documents and other evidence by obtaining, if necessary, the assistance of States as provided in this Statute;
(c) Provide for the protection of confidential information;
(d) Order the production of evidence in addition to that already collected prior to the trial or presented during the trial by the parties;
(e) Provide for the protection of the accused, witnesses and victims; and
(f) Rule on any other relevant matters.
7. The trial shall be held in public. The Trial Chamber may, however, determine that special circumstances require that certain proceedings be in closed session for the purposes set forth in article 68, or to protect confidential or sensitive information to be given in evidence.

8. (a) At the commencement of the trial, the Trial Chamber shall have read to the accused the charges previously confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber shall satisfy itself that the accused understands the nature of the charges. It shall afford him or her the opportunity to make an admission of guilt in accordance with article 65 or to plead not guilty.

(b) At the trial, the presiding judge may give directions for the conduct of proceedings, including to ensure that they are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Subject to any directions of the presiding judge, the parties may submit evidence in accordance with the provisions of this Statute.

9. The Trial Chamber shall have, inter alia, the power on application of a party or on its own motion to:
(a) Rule on the admissibility or relevance of evidence; and
(b) Take all necessary steps to maintain order in the course of a hearing.
10. The Trial Chamber shall ensure that a complete record of the trial, which accurately reflects the proceedings, is made and that it is maintained and preserved by the Registrar.


Article 65
Proceedings on an admission of guilt
1. Where the accused makes an admission of guilt pursuant to article 64, paragraph 8 (a), the Trial Chamber shall determine whether:
(a) The accused understands the nature and consequences of the admission of guilt;
(b) The admission is voluntarily made by the accused after sufficient consultation with defence counsel; and
(c) The admission of guilt is supported by the facts of the case that are contained in:
(i) The charges brought by the Prosecutor and admitted by the accused;
(ii) Any materials presented by the Prosecutor which supplement the charges and which the accused accepts; and
(iii) Any other evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses, presented by the Prosecutor or the accused.
2. Where the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the matters referred to in paragraph 1 are established, it shall consider the admission of guilt, together with any additional evidence presented, as establishing all the essential facts that are required to prove the crime to which the admission of guilt relates, and may convict the accused of that crime.
3. Where the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the matters referred to in paragraph 1 are established, it shall consider the admission of guilt as not having been made, in which case it shall order that the trial be continued under the ordinary trial procedures provided by this Statute and may remit the case to another Trial Chamber.
4. Where the Trial Chamber is of the opinion that a more complete presentation of the facts of the case is required in the interests of justice, in particular the interests of the victims, the Trial Chamber may:
(a) Request the Prosecutor to present additional evidence, including the testimony of witnesses; or
(b) Order that the trial be continued under the ordinary trial procedures provided by this Statute, in which case it shall consider the admission of guilt as not having been made and may remit the case to another Trial Chamber.
5. Any discussions between the Prosecutor and the defence regarding modification of the charges, the admission of guilt or the penalty to be imposed shall not be binding on the Court.


Article 66
Presumption of innocence
1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law.
2. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused.
3. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 67
Rights of the accused
1. In the determination of any charge, the accused shall be entitled to a public hearing, having regard to the provisions of this Statute, to a fair hearing conducted impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused's choosing in confidence;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(d) Subject to article 63, paragraph 2, to be present at the trial, to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the accused's choosing, to be informed, if the accused does not have legal assistance, of this right and to have legal assistance assigned by the Court in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her. The accused shall also be entitled to raise defences and to present other evidence admissible under this Statute;
(f) To have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness, if any of the proceedings of or documents presented to the Court are not in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;
(h) To make an unsworn oral or written statement in his or her defence; and
(i) Not to have imposed on him or her any reversal of the burden of proof or any onus of rebuttal.
2. In addition to any other disclosure provided for in this Statute, the Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to the defence evidence in the Prosecutor's possession or control which he or she believes shows or tends to show the innocence of the accused, or to mitigate the guilt of the accused, or which may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence. In case of doubt as to the application of this paragraph, the Court shall decide.

Article 68
Protection of the victims and witnesses and their
participation in the proceedings
1. The Court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so doing, the Court shall have regard to all relevant factors, including age, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, and health, and the nature of the crime, in particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence or violence against children. The Prosecutor shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.
2. As an exception to the principle of public hearings provided for in article 67, the Chambers of the Court may, to protect victims and witnesses or an accused, conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such measures shall be implemented in the case of a victim of sexual violence or a child who is a victim or a witness, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or witness.
3. Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4. The Victims and Witnesses Unit may advise the Prosecutor and the Court on appropriate protective measures, security arrangements, counselling and assistance as referred to in article 43, paragraph 6.
5. Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.
6. A State may make an application for necessary measures to be taken in respect of the protection of its servants or agents and the protection of confidential or sensitive information.

Article 69
Evidence
1. Before testifying, each witness shall, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, give an undertaking as to the truthfulness of the evidence to be given by that witness.
2. The testimony of a witness at trial shall be given in person, except to the extent provided by the measures set forth in article 68 or in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Court may also permit the giving of viva voce (oral) or recorded testimony of a witness by means of video or audio technology, as well as the introduction of documents or written transcripts, subject to this Statute and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused.
3. The parties may submit evidence relevant to the case, in accordance with article 64. The Court shall have the authority to request the submission of all evidence that it considers necessary for the determination of the truth.
4. The Court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence, taking into account, inter alia, the probative value of the evidence and any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial or to a fair evaluation of the testimony of a witness, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
5. The Court shall respect and observe privileges on confidentiality as provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
6. The Court shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but may take judicial notice of them.
7. Evidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognized human rights shall not be admissible if:
(a) The violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or
(b) The admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings.
8. When deciding on the relevance or admissibility of evidence collected by a State, the Court shall not rule on the application of the State's national law.

Article 70
Offences against the administration of justice
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over the following offences against its administration of justice when committed intentionally:
(a) Giving false testimony when under an obligation pursuant to article 69, paragraph 1, to tell the truth;
(b) Presenting evidence that the party knows is false or forged;
(c) Corruptly influencing a witness, obstructing or interfering with the attendance or testimony of a witness, retaliating against a witness for giving testimony or destroying, tampering with or interfering with the collection of evidence;
(d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties;
(e) Retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official;
(f) Soliciting or accepting a bribe as an official of the Court in connection with his or her official duties.
2. The principles and procedures governing the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over offences under this article shall be those provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The conditions for providing international cooperation to the Court with respect to its proceedings under this article shall be governed by the domestic laws of the requested State.
3. In the event of conviction, the Court may impose a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, or both.
4. (a) Each State Party shall extend its criminal laws penalizing offences against the integrity of its own investigative or judicial process to offences against the administration of justice referred to in this article, committed on its territory, or by one of its nationals;
(b) Upon request by the Court, whenever it deems it proper, the State Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall treat such cases with diligence and devote sufficient resources to enable them to be conducted effectively.

Article 71
Sanctions for misconduct before the Court
1. The Court may sanction persons present before it who commit misconduct, including disruption of its proceedings or deliberate refusal to comply with its directions, by administrative measures other than imprisonment, such as temporary or permanent removal from the courtroom, a fine or other similar measures provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
2. The procedures governing the imposition of the measures set forth in paragraph 1 shall be those provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Article 72
Protection of national security information
1. This article applies in any case where the disclosure of the information or documents of a State would, in the opinion of that State, prejudice its national security interests. Such cases include those falling within the scope of 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, as well as cases arising at any other stage of the proceedings where such disclosure may be at issue.
2. This article shall also apply when a person who has been requested to give information or evidence has refused to do so or has referred the matter to the State on the ground that disclosure would prejudice the national security interests of a State and the State concerned confirms that it is of the opinion that disclosure would prejudice its national security interests.
3. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the requirements of confidentiality applicable under article 54, paragraph 3 (e) and (f), or the application of article 73.
4. If a State learns that information or documents of the State are being, or are likely to be, disclosed at any stage of the proceedings, and it is of the opinion that disclosure would prejudice its national security interests, that State shall have the right to intervene in order to obtain resolution of the issue in accordance with this article.
5. If, in the opinion of a State, disclosure of information would prejudice its national security interests, all reasonable steps will be taken by the State, acting in conjunction with the Prosecutor, the defence or the Pre-Trial Chamber or Trial Chamber, as the case may be, to seek to resolve the matter by cooperative means. Such steps may include:
(a) Modification or clarification of the request;
(b) A determination by the Court regarding the relevance of the information or evidence sought, or a determination as to whether the evidence, though relevant, could be or has been obtained from a source other than the requested State;
(c) Obtaining the information or evidence from a different source or in a different form; or
(d) Agreement on conditions under which the assistance could be provided including, among other things, providing summaries or redactions, limitations on disclosure, use of in camera or ex parte proceedings, or other protective measures permissible under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
6. Once all reasonable steps have been taken to resolve the matter through cooperative means, and if the State considers that there are no means or conditions under which the information or documents could be provided or disclosed without prejudice to its national security interests, it shall so notify the Prosecutor or the Court of the specific reasons for its decision, unless a specific description of the reasons would itself necessarily result in such prejudice to the State's national security interests.
7. Thereafter, if the Court determines that the evidence is relevant and necessary for the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Court may undertake the following actions:
(a) Where disclosure of the information or document is sought pursuant to a request for cooperation under Part 9 or the circumstances described in paragraph 2, and the State has invoked the ground for refusal referred to in article 93, paragraph 4:
(i) The Court may, before making any conclusion referred to in subparagraph 7 (a) (ii), request further consultations for the purpose of considering the State's representations, which may include, as appropriate, hearings in camera and ex parte;
(ii) If the Court concludes that, by invoking the ground for refusal under article 93, paragraph 4, in the circumstances of the case, the requested State is not acting in accordance with its obligations under this Statute, the Court may refer the matter in accordance with article 87, paragraph 7, specifying the reasons for its conclusion; and
(iii) The Court may make such inference in the trial of the accused as to the existence or non-existence of a fact, as may be appropriate in the circumstances; or

(b) In all other circumstances:

(i) Order disclosure; or
(ii) To the extent it does not order disclosure, make such inference in the trial of the accused as to the existence or non-existence of a fact, as may be appropriate in the circumstances.

Article 73
Third-party information or documents
If a State Party is requested by the Court to provide a document or information in its custody, possession or control, which was disclosed to it in confidence by a State, intergovernmental organization or international organization, it shall seek the consent of the originator to disclose that document or information. If the originator is a State Party, it shall either consent to disclosure of the information or document or undertake to resolve the issue of disclosure with the Court, subject to the provisions of article 72. If the originator is not a State Party and refuses to consent to disclosure, the requested State shall inform the Court that it is unable to provide the document or information because of a pre-existing obligation of confidentiality to the originator.

Article 74
Requirements for the decision
1. All the judges of the Trial Chamber shall be present at each stage of the trial and throughout their deliberations. The Presidency may, on a case-by-case basis, designate, as available, one or more alternate judges to be present at each stage of the trial and to replace a member of the Trial Chamber if that member is unable to continue attending.
2. The Trial Chamber's decision shall be based on its evaluation of the evidence and the entire proceedings. The decision shall not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges and any amendments to the charges. The Court may base its decision only on evidence submitted and discussed before it at the trial.
3. The judges shall attempt to achieve unanimity in their decision, failing which the decision shall be taken by a majority of the judges.
4. The deliberations of the Trial Chamber shall remain secret.
5. The decision shall be in writing and shall contain a full and reasoned statement of the Trial Chamber's findings on the evidence and conclusions. The Trial Chamber shall issue one decision. When there is no unanimity, the Trial Chamber's decision shall contain the views of the majority and the minority. The decision or a summary thereof shall be delivered in open court.

Article 75
Reparations to victims
1. The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and will state the principles on which it is acting.
2. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation.
Where appropriate, the Court may order that the award for reparations be made through the Trust Fund provided for in article 79.

3. Before making an order under this article, the Court may invite and shall take account of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims, other interested persons or interested States.
4. In exercising its power under this article, the Court may, after a person is convicted of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court, determine whether, in order to give effect to an order which it may make under this article, it is necessary to seek measures under article 93, paragraph 1.
5. A State Party shall give effect to a decision under this article as if the provisions of article 109 were applicable to this article.
6. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under national or international law.

Article 76
Sentencing
1. In the event of a conviction, the Trial Chamber shall consider the appropriate sentence to be imposed and shall take into account the evidence presented and submissions made during the trial that are relevant to the sentence.
2. Except where article 65 applies and before the completion of the trial, the Trial Chamber may on its own motion and shall, at the request of the Prosecutor or the accused, hold a further hearing to hear any additional evidence or submissions relevant to the sentence, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
3. Where paragraph 2 applies, any representations under article 75 shall be heard during the further hearing referred to in paragraph 2 and, if necessary, during any additional hearing.
4. The sentence shall be pronounced in public and, wherever possible, in the presence of the accused.

PART 7. PENALTIES

Article 77
Applicable penalties
1. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:
(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or
(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.
2. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:
(a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.
Article 78
Determination of the sentence
1. In determining the sentence, the Court shall, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, take into account such factors as the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.
2. In imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the Court shall deduct the time, if any, previously spent in detention in accordance with an order of the Court. The Court may deduct any time otherwise spent in detention in connection with conduct underlying the crime.
3. When a person has been convicted of more than one crime, the Court shall pronounce a sentence for each crime and a joint sentence specifying the total period of imprisonment. This period shall be no less than the highest individual sentence pronounced and shall not exceed 30 years imprisonment or a sentence of life imprisonment in conformity with article 77, paragraph 1 (b).

Article 79
Trust Fund
1. A Trust Fund shall be established by decision of the Assembly of States Parties for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and of the families of such victims.
2. The Court may order money and other property collected through fines or forfeiture to be transferred, by order of the Court, to the Trust Fund.
3. The Trust Fund shall be managed according to criteria to be determined by the Assembly of States Parties.

Article 80
Non-prejudice to national application of
penalties and national laws
Nothing in this Part affects the application by States of penalties prescribed by their national law, nor the law of States which do not provide for penalties prescribed in this Part.

PART 8. APPEAL AND REVISION

Article 81
Appeal against decision of acquittal or conviction
or against sentence
1. A decision under article 74 may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as follows:
(a) The Prosecutor may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:

(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact, or
(iii) Error of law;

(b) The convicted person, or the Prosecutor on that person's behalf, may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact,
(iii) Error of law, or
(iv) Any other ground that affects the fairness or reliability of the proceedings or decision.
2. (a) A sentence may be appealed, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, by the Prosecutor or the convicted person on the ground of disproportion between the crime and the sentence;
(b) If on an appeal against sentence the Court considers that there are grounds on which the conviction might be set aside, wholly or in part, it may invite the Prosecutor and the convicted person to submit grounds under article 81, paragraph 1 (a) or (b), and may render a decision on conviction in accordance with article 83;
(c) The same procedure applies when the Court, on an appeal against conviction only, considers that there are grounds to reduce the sentence under paragraph 2 (a).
3. (a) Unless the Trial Chamber orders otherwise, a convicted person shall remain in custody pending an appeal;
(b) When a convicted person's time in custody exceeds the sentence of imprisonment imposed, that person shall be released, except that if the Prosecutor is also appealing, the release may be subject to the conditions under subparagraph (c) below;
(c) In case of an acquittal, the accused shall be released immediately, subject to the following:
(i) Under exceptional circumstances, and having regard, inter alia, to the concrete risk of flight, the seriousness of the offence charged and the probability of success on appeal, the Trial Chamber, at the request of the Prosecutor, may maintain the detention of the person pending appeal;
(ii) A decision by the Trial Chamber under subparagraph (c) (i) may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 (a) and (b), execution of the decision or sentence shall be suspended during the period allowed for appeal and for the duration of the appeal proceedings.

Article 82
Appeal against other decisions
1. Either party may appeal any of the following decisions in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence:
(a) A decision with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility;
(b) A decision granting or denying release of the person being investigated or prosecuted;
(c) A decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber to act on its own initiative under article 56, paragraph 3;
(d) A decision that involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the opinion of the Pre-Trial or Trial Chamber, an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings.
2. A decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber under article 57, paragraph 3 (d), may be appealed against by the State concerned or by the Prosecutor, with the leave of the Pre-Trial Chamber. The appeal shall be heard on an expedited basis.
3. An appeal shall not of itself have suspensive effect unless the Appeals Chamber so orders, upon request, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4. A legal representative of the victims, the convicted person or a bona fide owner of property adversely affected by an order under article 75 may appeal against the order for reparations, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Article 83
Proceedings on appeal
1. For the purposes of proceedings under article 81 and this article, the Appeals Chamber shall have all the powers of the Trial Chamber.
2. If the Appeals Chamber finds that the proceedings appealed from were unfair in a way that affected the reliability of the decision or sentence, or that the decision or sentence appealed from was materially affected by error of fact or law or procedural error, it may:
(a) Reverse or amend the decision or sentence; or
(b) Order a new trial before a different Trial Chamber.
For these purposes, the Appeals Chamber may remand a factual issue to the original Trial Chamber for it to determine the issue and to report back accordingly, or may itself call evidence to determine the issue. When the decision or sentence has been appealed only by the person convicted, or the Prosecutor on that person's behalf, it cannot be amended to his or her detriment.
3. If in an appeal against sentence the Appeals Chamber finds that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime, it may vary the sentence in accordance with Part 7.
4. The judgement of the Appeals Chamber shall be taken by a majority of the judges and shall be delivered in open court. The judgement shall state the reasons on which it is based. When there is no unanimity, the judgement of the Appeals Chamber shall contain the views of the majority and the minority, but a judge may deliver a separate or dissenting opinion on a question of law.
5. The Appeals Chamber may deliver its judgement in the absence of the person acquitted or convicted.

Article 84
Revision of conviction or sentence
1. The convicted person or, after death, spouses, children, parents or one person alive at the time of the accused's death who has been given express written instructions from the accused to bring such a claim, or the Prosecutor on the person's behalf, may apply to the Appeals Chamber to revise the final judgement of conviction or sentence on the grounds that:
(a) New evidence has been discovered that:

(i) Was not available at the time of trial, and such unavailability was not wholly or partially attributable to the party making application; and
(ii) Is sufficiently important that had it been proved at trial it would have been likely to have resulted in a different verdict;

(b) It has been newly discovered that decisive evidence, taken into account at trial and upon which the conviction depends, was false, forged or falsified;
(c) One or more of the judges who participated in conviction or confirmation of the charges has committed, in that case, an act of serious misconduct or serious breach of duty of sufficient gravity to justify the removal of that judge or those judges from office under article 46.
2. The Appeals Chamber shall reject the application if it considers it to be unfounded. If it determines that the application is meritorious, it may, as appropriate:
(a) Reconvene the original Trial Chamber;
(b) Constitute a new Trial Chamber; or
(c) Retain jurisdiction over the matter,
with a view to, after hearing the parties in the manner set forth in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, arriving at a determination on whether the judgement should be revised.


Article 85
Compensation to an arrested or convicted person

1. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
2. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence, and when subsequently his or her conviction has been reversed on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him or her.
3. In exceptional circumstances, where the Court finds conclusive facts showing that there has been a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice, it may in its discretion award compensation, according to the criteria provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to a person who has been released from detention following a final decision of acquittal or a termination of the proceedings for that reason.

PART 9. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE

Article 86
General obligation to cooperate
States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Article 87
Requests for cooperation: general provisions
1. (a) The Court shall have the authority to make requests to States Parties for cooperation. The requests shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or any other appropriate channel as may be designated by each State Party upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
Subsequent changes to the designation shall be made by each State Party in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
(b) When appropriate, without prejudice to the provisions of subparagraph (a), requests may also be transmitted through the International Criminal Police Organization or any appropriate regional organization.
2. Requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into an official language of the requested State or one of the working languages of the Court, in accordance with the choice made by that State upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
Subsequent changes to this choice shall be made in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
3. The requested State shall keep confidential a request for cooperation and any documents supporting the request, except to the extent that the disclosure is necessary for execution of the request.
4. In relation to any request for assistance presented under this Part, the Court may take such measures, including measures related to the protection of information, as may be necessary to ensure the safety or physical or psychological well-being of any victims, potential witnesses and their families. The Court may request that any information that is made available under this Part shall be provided and handled in a manner that protects the safety and physical or psychological well-being of any victims, potential witnesses and their families.
5. (a) The Court may invite any State not party to this Statute to provide assistance under this Part on the basis of an ad hoc arrangement, an agreement with such State or any other appropriate basis.
(b) Where a State not party to this Statute, which has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the Court, fails to cooperate with requests pursuant to any such arrangement or agreement, the Court may so inform the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the matter to the Court, the Security Council.
6. The Court may ask any intergovernmental organization to provide information or documents. The Court may also ask for other forms of cooperation and assistance which may be agreed upon with such an organization and which are in accordance with its competence or mandate.
7. Where a State Party fails to comply with a request to cooperate by the Court contrary to the provisions of this Statute, thereby preventing the Court from exercising its functions and powers under this Statute, the Court may make a finding to that effect and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the matter to the Court, to the Security Council.

Article 88
Availability of procedures under national law
States Parties shall ensure that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperation which are specified under this Part.

Article 89
Surrender of persons to the Court
1. The Court may transmit a request for the arrest and surrender of a person, together with the material supporting the request outlined in article 91, to any State on the territory of which that person may be found and shall request the cooperation of that State in the arrest and surrender of such a person. States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Part and the procedure under their national law, comply with requests for arrest and surrender.
2. Where the person sought for surrender brings a challenge before a national court on the basis of the principle of ne bis in idem as provided in article 20, the requested State shall immediately consult with the Court to determine if there has been a relevant ruling on admissibility. If the case is admissible, the requested State shall proceed with the execution of the request. If an admissibility ruling is pending, the requested State may postpone the execution of the request for surrender of the person until the Court makes a determination on admissibility.
3. (a) A State Party shall authorize, in accordance with its national procedural law, transportation through its territory of a person being surrendered to the Court by another State, except where transit through that State would impede or delay the surrender.
(b) A request by the Court for transit shall be transmitted in accordance with article 87. The request for transit shall contain:
(i) A description of the person being transported;

(ii) A brief statement of the facts of the case and their legal characterization; and

(iii) The warrant for arrest and surrender;
(c) A person being transported shall be detained in custody during the period of transit;
(d) No authorization is required if the person is transported by air and no landing is scheduled on the territory of the transit State;
(e) If an unscheduled landing occurs on the territory of the transit State, that State may require a request for transit from the Court as provided for in subparagraph (b). The transit State shall detain the person being transported until the request for transit is received and the transit is effected, provided that detention for purposes of this subparagraph may not be extended beyond 96 hours from the unscheduled landing unless the request is received within that time.
4. If the person sought is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the requested State for a crime different from that for which surrender to the Court is sought, the requested State, after making its decision to grant the request, shall consult with the Court.

Article 90
Competing requests
1. A State Party which receives a request from the Court for the surrender of a person under article 89 shall, if it also receives a request from any other State for the extradition of the same person for the same conduct which forms the basis of the crime for which the Court seeks the person's surrender, notify the Court and the requesting State of that fact.
2. Where the requesting State is a State Party, the requested State shall give priority to the request from the Court if:
(a) The Court has, pursuant to article 18 or 19, made a determination that the case in respect of which surrender is sought is admissible and that determination takes into account the investigation or prosecution conducted by the requesting State in respect of its request for extradition; or
(b) The Court makes the determination described in subparagraph (a) pursuant to the requested State's notification under paragraph 1.
3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 (a) has not been made, the requested State may, at its discretion, pending the determination of the Court under paragraph 2 (b), proceed to deal with the request for extradition from the requesting State but shall not extradite the person until the Court has determined that the case is inadmissible. The Court's determination shall be made on an expedited basis.
4. If the requesting State is a State not Party to this Statute the requested State, if it is not under an international obligation to extradite the person to the requesting State, shall give priority to the request for surrender from the Court, if the Court has determined that the case is admissible.
5. Where a case under paragraph 4 has not been determined to be admissible by the Court, the requested State may, at its discretion, proceed to deal with the request for extradition from the requesting State.
6. In cases where paragraph 4 applies except that the requested State is under an existing international obligation to extradite the person to the requesting State not Party to this Statute, the requested State shall determine whether to surrender the person to the Court or extradite the person to the requesting State. In making its decision, the requested State shall consider all the relevant factors, including but not limited to:
(a) The respective dates of the requests;
(b) The interests of the requesting State including, where relevant, whether the crime was committed in its territory and the nationality of the victims and of the person sought; and
(c) The possibility of subsequent surrender between the Court and the requesting State.
7. Where a State Party which receives a request from the Court for the surrender of a person also receives a request from any State for the extradition of the same person for conduct other than that which constitutes the crime for which the Court seeks the person's surrender:
(a) The requested State shall, if it is not under an existing international obligation to extradite the person to the requesting State, give priority to the request from the Court;
(b) The requested State shall, if it is under an existing international obligation to extradite the person to the requesting State, determine whether to surrender the person to the Court or to extradite the person to the requesting State. In making its decision, the requested State shall consider all the relevant factors, including but not limited to those set out in paragraph 6, but shall give special consideration to the relative nature and gravity of the conduct in question.
8. Where pursuant to a notification under this article, the Court has determined a case to be inadmissible, and subsequently extradition to the requesting State is refused, the requested State shall notify the Court of this decision.


Article 91
Contents of request for arrest and surrender
1. A request for arrest and surrender shall be made in writing. In urgent cases, a request may be made by any medium capable of delivering a written record, provided that the request shall be confirmed through the channel provided for in article 87, paragraph 1 (a).
2. In the case of a request for the arrest and surrender of a person for whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber under article 58, the request shall contain or be supported by:
(a) Information describing the person sought, sufficient to identify the person, and information as to that person's probable location;
(b) A copy of the warrant of arrest; and
(c) Such documents, statements or information as may be necessary to meet the requirements for the surrender process in the requested State, except that those requirements should not be more burdensome than those applicable to requests for extradition pursuant to treaties or arrangements between the requested State and other States and should, if possible, be less burdensome, taking into account the distinct nature of the Court.
3. In the case of a request for the arrest and surrender of a person already convicted, the request shall contain or be supported by:
(a) A copy of any warrant of arrest for that person;
(b) A copy of the judgement of conviction;
(c) Information to demonstrate that the person sought is the one referred to in the judgement of conviction; and
(d) If the person sought has been sentenced, a copy of the sentence imposed and, in the case of a sentence for imprisonment, a statement of any time already served and the time remaining to be served.
4. Upon the request of the Court, a State Party shall consult with the Court, either generally or with respect to a specific matter, regarding any requirements under its national law that may apply under paragraph 2 (c). During the consultations, the State Party shall advise the Court of the specific requirements of its national law.

Article 92
Provisional arrest
1. In urgent cases, the Court may request the provisional arrest of the person sought, pending presentation of the request for surrender and the documents supporting the request as specified in article 91.
2. The request for provisional arrest shall be made by any medium capable of delivering a written record and shall contain:
(a) Information describing the person sought, sufficient to identify the person, and information as to that person's probable location;
(b) A concise statement of the crimes for which the person's arrest is sought and of the facts which are alleged to constitute those crimes, including, where possible, the date and location of the crime;
(c) A statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or a judgement of conviction against the person sought; and
(d) A statement that a request for surrender of the person sought will follow.
3. A person who is provisionally arrested may be released from custody if the requested State has not received the request for surrender and the documents supporting the request as specified in article 91 within the time limits specified in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. However, the person may consent to surrender before the expiration of this period if permitted by the law of the requested State. In such a case, the requested State shall proceed to surrender the person to the Court as soon as possible.
4. The fact that the person sought has been released from custody pursuant to paragraph 3 shall not prejudice the subsequent arrest and surrender of that person if the request for surrender and the documents supporting the request are delivered at a later date.

Article 93
Other forms of cooperation
1. States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Part and under procedures of national law, comply with requests by the Court to provide the following assistance in relation to investigations or prosecutions:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons or the location of items;
(b) The taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
(c) The questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) The service of documents, including judicial documents;
(e) Facilitating the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the Court;
(f) The temporary transfer of persons as provided in paragraph 7;
(g) The examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
(h) The execution of searches and seizures;
(i) The provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
(j) The protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(k) The identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties; and
(l) Any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by the law of the requested State, with a view to facilitating the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The Court shall have the authority to provide an assurance to a witness or an expert appearing before the Court that he or she will not be prosecuted, detained or subjected to any restriction of personal freedom by the Court in respect of any act or omission that preceded the departure of that person from the requested State.
3. Where execution of a particular measure of assistance detailed in a request presented under paragraph 1, is prohibited in the requested State on the basis of an existing fundamental legal principle of general application, the requested State shall promptly consult with the Court to try to resolve the matter. In the consultations, consideration should be given to whether the assistance can be rendered in another manner or subject to conditions. If after consultations the matter cannot be resolved, the Court shall modify the request as necessary.
4. In accordance with article 72, a State Party may deny a request for assistance, in whole or in part, only if the request concerns the production of any documents or disclosure of evidence which relates to its national security.
5. Before denying a request for assistance under paragraph 1 (l), the requested State shall consider whether the assistance can be provided subject to specified conditions, or whether the assistance can be provided at a later date or in an alternative manner, provided that if the Court or the Prosecutor accepts the assistance subject to conditions, the Court or the Prosecutor shall abide by them.
6. If a request for assistance is denied, the requested State Party shall promptly inform the Court or the Prosecutor of the reasons for such denial.
7. (a) The Court may request the temporary transfer of a person in custody for purposes of identification or for obtaining testimony or other assistance. The person may be transferred if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The person freely gives his or her informed consent to the transfer; and
(ii) The requested State agrees to the transfer, subject to such conditions as that State and the Court may agree.
(b) The person being transferred shall remain in custody. When the purposes of the transfer have been fulfilled, the Court shall return the person without delay to the requested State.
8. (a) The Court shall ensure the confidentiality of documents and information, except as required for the investigation and proceedings described in the request.
(b) The requested State may, when necessary, transmit documents or information to the Prosecutor on a confidential basis. The Prosecutor may then use them solely for the purpose of generating new evidence.
(c) The requested State may, on its own motion or at the request of the Prosecutor, subsequently consent to the disclosure of such documents or information. They may then be used as evidence pursuant to the provisions of Parts 5 and 6 and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
9. (a) (i) In the event that a State Party receives competing requests, other than for surrender or extradition, from the Court and from another State pursuant to an international obligation, the State Party shall endeavour, in consultation with the Court and the other State, to meet both requests, if necessary by postponing or attaching conditions to one or the other request.
(ii) Failing that, competing requests shall be resolved in accordance with the principles established in article 90.
(b) Where, however, the request from the Court concerns information, property or persons which are subject to the control of a third State or an international organization by virtue of an international agreement, the requested States shall so inform the Court and the Court shall direct its request to the third State or international organization.
10. (a) The Court may, upon request, cooperate with and provide assistance to a State Party conducting an investigation into or trial in respect of conduct which constitutes a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court or which constitutes a serious crime under the national law of the requesting State.
(b) (i) The assistance provided under subparagraph (a) shall include, inter alia:
a. The transmission of statements, documents or other types of evidence obtained in the course of an investigation or a trial conducted by the Court; and
b. The questioning of any person detained by order of the Court;
(ii) In the case of assistance under subparagraph (b) (i) a:
a. If the documents or other types of evidence have been obtained with the assistance of a State, such transmission shall require the consent of that State;
b. If the statements, documents or other types of evidence have been provided by a witness or expert, such transmission shall be subject to the provisions of article 68.
(c) The Court may, under the conditions set out in this paragraph, grant a request for assistance under this paragraph from a State which is not a Party to this Statute.

Article 94
Postponement of execution of a request in respect
of ongoing investigation or prosecution

1. If the immediate execution of a request would interfere with an ongoing investigation or prosecution of a case different from that to which the request relates, the requested State may postpone the execution of the request for a period of time agreed upon with the Court. However, the postponement shall be no longer than is necessary to complete the relevant investigation or prosecution in the requested State. Before making a decision to postpone, the requested State should consider whether the assistance may be immediately provided subject to certain conditions.
2. If a decision to postpone is taken pursuant to paragraph 1, the Prosecutor may, however, seek measures to preserve evidence, pursuant to article 93, paragraph 1 (j).

Article 95
Postponement of execution of a request in
respect of an admissibility challenge

Where there is an admissibility challenge under consideration by the Court pursuant to article 18 or 19, the requested State may postpone the execution of a request under this Part pending a determination by the Court, unless the Court has specifically ordered that the Prosecutor may pursue the collection of such evidence pursuant to article 18 or 19.

Article 96
Contents of request for other forms of
assistance under article 93

1. A request for other forms of assistance referred to in article 93 shall be made in writing. In urgent cases, a request may be made by any medium capable of delivering a written record, provided that the request shall be confirmed through the channel provided for in article 87, paragraph 1 (a).
2. The request shall, as applicable, contain or be supported by the following:
(a) A concise statement of the purpose of the request and the assistance sought, including the legal basis and the grounds for the request;
(b) As much detailed information as possible about the location or identification of any person or place that must be found or identified in order for the assistance sought to be provided;
(c) A concise statement of the essential facts underlying the request;
(d) The reasons for and details of any procedure or requirement to be followed;
(e) Such information as may be required under the law of the requested State in order to execute the request; and
(f) Any other information relevant in order for the assistance sought to be provided.
3. Upon the request of the Court, a State Party shall consult with the Court, either generally or with respect to a specific matter, regarding any requirements under its national law that may apply under paragraph 2 (e). During the consultations, the State Party shall advise the Court of the specific requirements of its national law.
4. The provisions of this article shall, where applicable, also apply in respect of a request for assistance made to the Court.

Article 97
Consultations

Where a State Party receives a request under this Part in relation to which it identifies problems which may impede or prevent the execution of the request, that State shall consult with the Court without delay in order to resolve the matter. Such problems may include, inter alia:
(a) Insufficient information to execute the request;
(b) In the case of a request for surrender, the fact that despite best efforts, the person sought cannot be located or that the investigation conducted has determined that the person in the requested State is clearly not the person named in the warrant; or
(c) The fact that execution of the request in its current form would require the requested State to breach a pre-existing treaty obligation undertaken with respect to another State.

Article 98
Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity
and consent to surrender

1. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.
2. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.

Article 99
Execution of requests under articles 93 and 96

1. Requests for assistance shall be executed in accordance with the relevant procedure under the law of the requested State and, unless prohibited by such law, in the manner specified in the request, including following any procedure outlined therein or permitting persons specified in the request to be present at and assist in the execution process.
2. In the case of an urgent request, the documents or evidence produced in response shall, at the request of the Court, be sent urgently.
3. Replies from the requested State shall be transmitted in their original language and form.
4. Without prejudice to other articles in this Part, where it is necessary for the successful execution of a request which can be executed without any compulsory measures, including specifically the interview of or taking evidence from a person on a voluntary basis, including doing so without the presence of the authorities of the requested State Party if it is essential for the request to be executed, and the examination without modification of a public site or other public place, the Prosecutor may execute such request directly on the territory of a State as follows:
(a) When the State Party requested is a State on the territory of which the crime is alleged to have been committed, and there has been a determination of admissibility pursuant to article 18 or 19, the Prosecutor may directly execute such request following all possible consultations with the requested State Party;
(b) In other cases, the Prosecutor may execute such request following consultations with the requested State Party and subject to any reasonable conditions or concerns raised by that State Party. Where the requested State Party identifies problems with the execution of a request pursuant to this subparagraph it shall, without delay, consult with the Court to resolve the matter.
5. Provisions allowing a person heard or examined by the Court under article 72 to invoke restrictions designed to prevent disclosure of confidential information connected with national security shall also apply to the execution of requests for assistance under this article.

Article 100
Costs

1. The ordinary costs for execution of requests in the territory of the requested State shall be borne by that State, except for the following, which shall be borne by the Court:
(a) Costs associated with the travel and security of witnesses and experts or the transfer under article 93 of persons in custody;
(b) Costs of translation, interpretation and transcription;
(c) Travel and subsistence costs of the judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutors, the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar and staff of any organ of the Court;
(d) Costs of any expert opinion or report requested by the Court;
(e) Costs associated with the transport of a person being surrendered to the Court by a custodial State; and
(f) Following consultations, any extraordinary costs that may result from the execution of a request.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall, as appropriate, apply to requests from States Parties to the Court. In that case, the Court shall bear the ordinary costs of execution.

Article 101
Rule of speciality

1. A person surrendered to the Court under this Statute shall not be proceeded against, punished or detained for any conduct committed prior to surrender, other than the conduct or course of conduct which forms the basis of the crimes for which that person has been surrendered.
2. The Court may request a waiver of the requirements of paragraph 1 from the State which surrendered the person to the Court and, if necessary, the Court shall provide additional information in accordance with article 91. States Parties shall have the authority to provide a waiver to the Court and should endeavour to do so.

Article 102
Use of terms

For the purposes of this Statute:

(a) "surrender" means the delivering up of a person by a State to the Court, pursuant to this Statute.
(b) "extradition" means the delivering up of a person by one State to another as provided by treaty, convention or national legislation.

PART 10. ENFORCEMENT

Article 103
Role of States in enforcement of
sentences of imprisonment
1. (a) A sentence of imprisonment shall be served in a State designated by the Court from a list of States which have indicated to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons.
(b) At the time of declaring its willingness to accept sentenced persons, a State may attach conditions to its acceptance as agreed by the Court and in accordance with this Part.
(c) A State designated in a particular case shall promptly inform the Court whether it accepts the Court's designation.
2. (a) The State of enforcement shall notify the Court of any circumstances, including the exercise of any conditions agreed under paragraph 1, which could materially affect the terms or extent of the imprisonment. The Court shall be given at least 45 days' notice of any such known or foreseeable circumstances. During this period, the State of enforcement shall take no action that might prejudice its obligations under article 110.
(b) Where the Court cannot agree to the circumstances referred to in subparagraph (a), it shall notify the State of enforcement and proceed in accordance with article 104, paragraph 1.
3. In exercising its discretion to make a designation under paragraph 1, the Court shall take into account the following:
(a) The principle that States Parties should share the responsibility for enforcing sentences of imprisonment, in accordance with principles of equitable distribution, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) The application of widely accepted international treaty standards governing the treatment of prisoners;
(c) The views of the sentenced person;
(d) The nationality of the sentenced person;
(e) Such other factors regarding the circumstances of the crime or the person sentenced, or the effective enforcement of the sentence, as may be appropriate in designating the State of enforcement.
4. If no State is designated under paragraph 1, the sentence of imprisonment shall be served in a prison facility made available by the host State, in accordance with the conditions set out in the headquarters agreement referred to in article 3, paragraph 2. In such a case, the costs arising out of the enforcement of a sentence of imprisonment shall be borne by the Court.

Article 104
Change in designation of State of enforcement
1. The Court may, at any time, decide to transfer a sentenced person to a prison of another State.
2. A sentenced person may, at any time, apply to the Court to be transferred from the State of enforcement.

Article 105
Enforcement of the sentence
1. Subject to conditions which a State may have specified in accordance with article 103, paragraph 1 (b), the sentence of imprisonment shall be binding on the States Parties, which shall in no case modify it.
2. The Court alone shall have the right to decide any application for appeal and revision. The State of enforcement shall not impede the making of any such application by a sentenced person.

Article 106
Supervision of enforcement of sentences and
conditions of imprisonment
1. The enforcement of a sentence of imprisonment shall be subject to the supervision of the Court and shall be consistent with widely accepted international treaty standards governing treatment of prisoners.
2. The conditions of imprisonment shall be governed by the law of the State of enforcement and shall be consistent with widely accepted international treaty standards governing treatment of prisoners; in no case shall such conditions be more or less favourable than those available to prisoners convicted of similar offences in the State of enforcement.
3. Communications between a sentenced person and the Court shall be unimpeded and confidential.

Article 107
Transfer of the person upon completion of sentence
1. Following completion of the sentence, a person who is not a national of the State of enforcement may, in accordance with the law of the State of enforcement, be transferred to a State which is obliged to receive him or her, or to another State which agrees to receive him or her, taking into account any wishes of the person to be transferred to that State, unless the State of enforcement authorizes the person to remain in its territory.
2. If no State bears the costs arising out of transferring the person to another State pursuant to paragraph 1, such costs shall be borne by the Court.
3. Subject to the provisions of article 108, the State of enforcement may also, in accordance with its national law, extradite or otherwise surrender the person to a State which has requested the extradition or surrender of the person for purposes of trial or enforcement of a sentence.

Article 108
Limitation on the prosecution or punishment of other offences
1. A sentenced person in the custody of the State of enforcement shall not be subject to prosecution or punishment or to extradition to a third State for any conduct engaged in prior to that person's delivery to the State of enforcement, unless such prosecution, punishment or extradition has been approved by the Court at the request of the State of enforcement.
2. The Court shall decide the matter after having heard the views of the sentenced person.
3. Paragraph 1 shall cease to apply if the sentenced person remains voluntarily for more than 30 days in the territory of the State of enforcement after having served the full sentence imposed by the Court, or returns to the territory of that State after having left it.

Article 109
Enforcement of fines and forfeiture measures
1. States Parties shall give effect to fines or forfeitures ordered by the Court under Part 7, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties, and in accordance with the procedure of their national law.
2. If a State Party is unable to give effect to an order for forfeiture, it shall take measures to recover the value of the proceeds, property or assets ordered by the Court to be forfeited, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.
3. Property, or the proceeds of the sale of real property or, where appropriate, the sale of other property, which is obtained by a State Party as a result of its enforcement of a judgement of the Court shall be transferred to the Court.

Article 110
Review by the Court concerning reduction of sentence
1. The State of enforcement shall not release the person before expiry of the sentence pronounced by the Court.
2. The Court alone shall have the right to decide any reduction of sentence, and shall rule on the matter after having heard the person.
3. When the person has served two thirds of the sentence, or 25 years in the case of life imprisonment, the Court shall review the sentence to determine whether it should be reduced. Such a review shall not be conducted before that time.
4. In its review under paragraph 3, the Court may reduce the sentence if it finds that one or more of the following factors are present:
(a) The early and continuing willingness of the person to cooperate with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions;
(b) The voluntary assistance of the person in enabling the enforcement of the judgements and orders of the Court in other cases, and in particular providing assistance in locating assets subject to orders of fine, forfeiture or reparation which may be used for the benefit of victims; or
(c) Other factors establishing a clear and significant change of circumstances sufficient to justify the reduction of sentence, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
5. If the Court determines in its initial review under paragraph 3 that it is not appropriate to reduce the sentence, it shall thereafter review the question of reduction of sentence at such intervals and applying such criteria as provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Article 111
Escape
If a convicted person escapes from custody and flees the State of enforcement, that State may, after consultation with the Court, request the person's surrender from the State in which the person is located pursuant to existing bilateral or multilateral arrangements, or may request that the Court seek the person's surrender, in accordance with Part 9. It may direct that the person be delivered to the State in which he or she was serving the sentence or to another State designated by the Court.

PART 11. ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

Article 112
Assembly of States Parties
1. An Assembly of States Parties to this Statute is hereby established. Each State Party shall have one representative in the Assembly who may be accompanied by alternates and advisers. Other States which have signed this Statute or the Final Act may be observers in the Assembly.
2. The Assembly shall:
(a) Consider and adopt, as appropriate, recommendations of the Preparatory Commission;
(b) Provide management oversight to the Presidency, the Prosecutor and the Registrar regarding the administration of the Court;
(c) Consider the reports and activities of the Bureau established under paragraph 3 and take appropriate action in regard thereto;
(d) Consider and decide the budget for the Court;
(e) Decide whether to alter, in accordance with article 36, the number of judges;
(f) Consider pursuant to article 87, paragraphs 5 and 7, any question relating to non-cooperation;
(g) Perform any other function consistent with this Statute or the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
3. (a) The Assembly shall have a Bureau consisting of a President, two Vice-Presidents and 18 members elected by the Assembly for three-year terms.
(b) The Bureau shall have a representative character, taking into account, in particular, equitable geographical distribution and the adequate representation of the principal legal systems of the world.
(c) The Bureau shall meet as often as necessary, but at least once a year. It shall assist the Assembly in the discharge of its responsibilities.
4. The Assembly may establish such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary, including an independent oversight mechanism for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the Court, in order to enhance its efficiency and economy.
5. The President of the Court, the Prosecutor and the Registrar or their representatives may participate, as appropriate, in meetings of the Assembly and of the Bureau.
6. The Assembly shall meet at the seat of the Court or at the Headquarters of the United Nations once a year and, when circumstances so require, hold special sessions. Except as otherwise specified in this Statute, special sessions shall be convened by the Bureau on its own initiative or at the request of one third of the States Parties.
7. Each State Party shall have one vote. Every effort shall be made to reach decisions by consensus in the Assembly and in the Bureau. If consensus cannot be reached, except as otherwise provided in the Statute:
(a) Decisions on matters of substance must be approved by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting provided that an absolute majority of States Parties constitutes the quorum for voting;
(b) Decisions on matters of procedure shall be taken by a simple majority of States Parties present and voting.
8. A State Party which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions towards the costs of the Court shall have no vote in the Assembly and in the Bureau if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a State Party to vote in the Assembly and in the Bureau if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the State Party.
9. The Assembly shall adopt its own rules of procedure.
10. The official and working languages of the Assembly shall be those of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

PART 12. FINANCING

Article 113
Financial Regulations
Except as otherwise specifically provided, all financial matters related to the Court and the meetings of the Assembly of States Parties, including its Bureau and subsidiary bodies, shall be governed by this Statute and the Financial Regulations and Rules adopted by the Assembly of States Parties.

Article 114
Payment of expenses
Expenses of the Court and the Assembly of States Parties, including its Bureau and subsidiary bodies, shall be paid from the funds of the Court.

Article 115
Funds of the Court and of the Assembly of States Parties
The expenses of the Court and the Assembly of States Parties, including its Bureau and subsidiary bodies, as provided for in the budget decided by the Assembly of States Parties, shall be provided by the following sources:
(a) Assessed contributions made by States Parties;
(b) Funds provided by the United Nations, subject to the approval of the General Assembly, in particular in relation to the expenses incurred due to referrals by the Security Council.
Article 116
Voluntary contributions
Without prejudice to article 115, the Court may receive and utilize, as additional funds, voluntary contributions from Governments, international organizations, individuals, corporations and other entities, in accordance with relevant criteria adopted by the Assembly of States Parties.

Article 117
Assessment of contributions
The contributions of States Parties shall be assessed in accordance with an agreed scale of assessment, based on the scale adopted by the United Nations for its regular budget and adjusted in accordance with the principles on which that scale is based.

Article 118
Annual audit
The records, books and accounts of the Court, including its annual financial statements, shall be audited annually by an independent auditor.

PART 13. FINAL CLAUSES

Article 119
Settlement of disputes
1. Any dispute concerning the judicial functions of the Court shall be settled by the decision of the Court.
2. Any other dispute between two or more States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of this Statute which is not settled through negotiations within three months of their commencement shall be referred to the Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly may itself seek to settle the dispute or may make recommendations on further means of settlement of the dispute, including referral to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the Statute of that Court.

Article 120
Reservations
No reservations may be made to this Statute.


Article 121
Amendments
1. After the expiry of seven years from the entry into force of this Statute, any State Party may propose amendments thereto. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.
2. No sooner than three months from the date of notification, the Assembly of States Parties, at its next meeting, shall, by a majority of those present and voting, decide whether to take up the proposal. The Assembly may deal with the proposal directly or convene a Review Conference if the issue involved so warrants.
3. The adoption of an amendment at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties or at a Review Conference on which consensus cannot be reached shall require a two-thirds majority of States Parties.
4. Except as provided in paragraph 5, an amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties one year after instruments of ratification or acceptance have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by seven-eighths of them.
5. Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party's nationals or on its territory.
6. If an amendment has been accepted by seven-eighths of States Parties in accordance with paragraph 4, any State Party which has not accepted the amendment may withdraw from this Statute with immediate effect, notwithstanding article 127, paragraph 1, but subject to article 127, paragraph 2, by giving notice no later than one year after the entry into force of such amendment.
7. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall circulate to all States Parties any amendment adopted at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties or at a Review Conference.

Article 122
Amendments to provisions of an institutional nature
1. Amendments to provisions of this Statute which are of an exclusively institutional nature, namely, article 35, article 36, paragraphs 8 and 9, article 37, article 38, article 39, paragraphs 1 (first two sentences), 2 and 4, article 42, paragraphs 4 to 9, article 43, paragraphs 2 and 3, and articles 44, 46, 47 and 49, may be proposed at any time, notwithstanding article 121, paragraph 1, by any State Party. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations or such other person designated by the Assembly of States Parties who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties and to others participating in the Assembly.
2. Amendments under this article on which consensus cannot be reached shall be adopted by the Assembly of States Parties or by a Review Conference, by a two-thirds majority of States Parties. Such amendments shall enter into force for all States Parties six months after their adoption by the Assembly or, as the case may be, by the Conference.

Article 123
Review of the Statute
1. Seven years after the entry into force of this Statute the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene a Review Conference to consider any amendments to this Statute. Such review may include, but is not limited to, the list of crimes contained in article 5. The Conference shall be open to those participating in the Assembly of States Parties and on the same conditions.
2. At any time thereafter, at the request of a State Party and for the purposes set out in paragraph 1, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall, upon approval by a majority of States Parties, convene a Review Conference.
3. The provisions of article 121, paragraphs 3 to 7, shall apply to the adoption and entry into force of any amendment to the Statute considered at a Review Conference.

Article 124
Transitional Provision
Notwithstanding article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, a State, on becoming a party to this Statute, may declare that, for a period of seven years after the entry into force of this Statute for the State concerned, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory. A declaration under this article may be withdrawn at any time. The provisions of this article shall be reviewed at the Review Conference convened in accordance with article 123, paragraph 1.

Article 125
Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession
1. This Statute shall be open for signature by all States in Rome, at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, on 17 July 1998. Thereafter, it shall remain open for signature in Rome at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy until 17 October 1998. After that date, the Statute shall remain open for signature in New York, at United Nations Headquarters, until 31 December 2000.
2. This Statute is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. This Statute shall be open to accession by all States. Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 126
Entry into force
1. This Statute shall enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. For each State ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Statute after the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the Statute shall enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

Article 127
Withdrawal
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.
2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.

Article 128
Authentic texts
The original of this Statute, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Statute.

DONE at Rome, this 17th day of July 1998.


APPENDIX 2

Last updated on: 19 December 2003

In light of the establishment of the Permanent Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (by resolution ICC-ASP/2/Res.3, adopted at the second session of the Assembly on 12 September 2003), the United Nations Secretariat will cease to serve as the Secretariat of the Assembly on 31 December 2003. This web site, therefore, only reflects developments up until that date. Information on subsequent activities should be obtained from the web site of the International Criminal Court itself (http://www.icc-cpi.int/index.php)


THE ROME STATUTE ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY 2002

General Bodies
Overview International Criminal Court, The Hague
Ratification status of the Rome Statute (Treaty database) (English) (French) Assembly of States Parties (2002 - )
Ratification status of the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court (English) (French) Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999 - 2002)
Public Information United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 15 June-17 July 1998 (Rome Conference)
Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1996-1998)
Related Sites Ad Hoc Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1995)
International Law
Commission
International Court
of Justice Documentation
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998
International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court (E, F, S, R, C, A - pdf)
International Law Official Records of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court
United Nations Homepage Final Act of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 15 June-17 July 1998
Documents on the Crime of Aggression, issued at the Preparatory Commission and the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute
Assembly of States Parties documents (2002 - )
Preparatory Commission documents (1999 - 2002 )
Documents issued at the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 15 June-17 July 1998
Preparatory Committee documents (1996-1998)
Ad Hoc Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court documents (1995)
Relevant General Assembly resolutions
Historic documents, texts and related Conventions




Codification Division
Office of Legal Affairs
Copyright (c) United Nations 1999-2003
All rights reserved