International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent, treaty-based court seated in The Hague, the Netherlands, with jurisdiction over individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, was adopted on 17 July 1998 and entered into force on 1 July 2002. An independent institution rather than an organ of the United Nations, it forms part of the international framework for accountability for serious crimes. (icc-cpi.int)

The Court connects international law with individual criminal responsibility. Its jurisdiction is subject to defined territorial, nationality, temporal, and procedural conditions; it is not a court with unrestricted worldwide authority. Under the principle of complementarity, national authorities retain primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes, while the ICC may act when relevant domestic proceedings are absent or are not genuine because authorities are unwilling or unable to conduct them. Its operation combines judicial proceedings, defence safeguards, victim participation, and dependence on international cooperation to secure arrests and enforce decisions. (icc-cpi.int)

Historical Origins and Establishment

The post–Second World War tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo provided institutional precedents for prosecuting individuals under international law, rather than treating wartime wrongdoing solely as a matter of state responsibility. Their mandates concerned crimes associated with the defeated Axis powers; neither constituted a permanent court for future situations. In resolution 260 (III) of 9 December 1948, which also adopted the Genocide Convention, the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to study the desirability and possibility of an international judicial organ for trying persons charged with genocide and other relevant crimes. Early drafting efforts did not produce a court, and further consideration became linked to the unresolved definition of aggression. (legal.un.org)

The permanent-court project resumed before the establishment of the 1990s ad hoc tribunals. Following an initiative by Trinidad and Tobago concerning international drug trafficking, General Assembly resolution 44/39 of 4 December 1989 requested renewed consideration of an international criminal court. Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia through resolution 827 of 25 May 1993, with jurisdiction over serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia from 1991. Resolution 955 of 8 November 1994 established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, covering crimes committed in Rwanda, and by Rwandan citizens in neighbouring states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994. These were situation-specific institutions with geographically and temporally bounded mandates, unlike the proposed permanent, treaty-based court. (legal.un.org)

In 1994, the International Law Commission completed a draft statute and recommended a diplomatic conference to negotiate a convention. The General Assembly instead first established an ad hoc committee through resolution 49/53 of 9 December 1994 to examine substantive and administrative questions. After that committee met twice in 1995, resolution 50/46 of 11 December 1995 created a Preparatory Committee to develop a broadly acceptable consolidated text. Resolution 51/207 of 17 December 1996 authorized a diplomatic conference in 1998, and resolution 52/160 of 15 December 1997 fixed its location and dates. The preparatory process thus moved from expert legal drafting to intergovernmental negotiation; its final session, held from 16 March to 3 April 1998, produced the draft submitted to Rome. (legal.un.org)

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries met at the Food and Agriculture Organization’s headquarters in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998, with delegations from 160 states. Giovanni Conso of Italy served as conference president, Philippe Kirsch of Canada chaired the Committee of the Whole responsible for substantive negotiations, and M. Cherif Bassiouni of Egypt chaired the Drafting Committee, which coordinated and refined texts without reopening their substance. On 17 July, the conference adopted the Rome Statute by a non-recorded vote of 120 in favour, seven against and 21 abstentions. Adoption established the treaty text, but did not itself bring the Court into legal existence. (legal.un.org)

The Statute required sixty ratifications before entry into force. On 11 April 2002, ten states simultaneously deposited ratification instruments with the United Nations Secretary-General, bringing the total to sixty-six and passing that threshold. They included Cambodia, Ireland, Jordan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, establishing the permanent Court. Institutional inauguration followed: an inaugural public session took place in the Hall of Knights in The Hague, Netherlands, on 11 March 2003. (press.un.org)

Legal Status, Governing Instruments, and Treaty Membership

The International Criminal Court is a permanent, treaty-based institution, legally and functionally independent of the United Nations, rather than a UN organ. Article 4 of the Rome Statute gives it international legal personality and the legal capacity necessary to perform its functions. Article 3 establishes its seat in The Hague, in the Netherlands, while permitting it to sit elsewhere. Unlike the International Court of Justice, which adjudicates disputes between states and delivers advisory opinions, the ICC exercises criminal jurisdiction over individuals. Its permanent mandate also distinguishes it from the temporary tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established by the Security Council for particular situations and defined periods. (legal.un.org)

The Rome Statute supplies the Court’s constitutional framework: it establishes jurisdiction, institutional powers, proceedings, penalties, and cooperation obligations. The Elements of Crimes assist interpretation and application of the crime definitions by specifying their material, mental, and jurisdictional elements. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence govern the practical conduct of proceedings, including investigations, evidence, appeals, and judicial assistance; they are subordinate to the Statute, which prevails in a conflict. Institutional regulations operate at a further level of detail. The Regulations of the Court govern routine judicial and administrative functioning, while the Registry and Prosecutor’s regulations govern their respective operations. Under Article 52, judges adopt the Court’s regulations by an absolute majority, consistently with the Statute and Rules. (icc-cpi.int)

Article 21 establishes an ordered system of applicable law. The Court applies first the Statute, Elements of Crimes, and Rules of Procedure and Evidence; second, where appropriate, applicable treaties and principles and rules of international law, including the law of armed conflict; and, failing those, general principles derived from national legal systems, provided they are compatible with the Statute and international standards. The Court may use principles interpreted in its previous decisions, but the provision does not impose a general rule of binding precedent. All application and interpretation of law must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights and free from prohibited adverse discrimination. (legal.un.org)

Treaty signature and treaty membership are distinct. Signature was available until 31 December 2000 but did not itself make a state a party: signatories must deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval with the UN Secretary-General. Accession provides a route without prior signature. For states joining after the initial threshold of sixty instruments, entry into force occurs on the first day of the month following the sixtieth day after deposit. The UN depositary recorded 125 parties and 137 signatories on 13 October 2026; these are separate, overlapping categories. Armenia, for example, signed on 1 October 1999 and deposited ratification on 14 November 2023. Article 120 prohibits reservations to the Statute. (legal.un.org)

Under Article 127, withdrawal normally takes effect one year after the Secretary-General receives written notification, unless a later date is specified. It does not cancel obligations incurred during membership, including financial obligations, or terminate the specified cooperation duties concerning investigations and proceedings begun before withdrawal became effective. Matters already under the Court’s consideration may continue. Burundi’s withdrawal took effect on 27 October 2017, and the Philippines’ on 17 March 2019. (legal.un.org)

Amendment adoption, state acceptance, and entry into force are separate legal steps. Under Article 121, adoption requires consensus or a two-thirds majority of States Parties. Ordinarily, an amendment binds all parties one year after seven-eighths have deposited acceptance or ratification. Amendments to Articles 5–8 instead enter into force for accepting states one year after their individual deposits, subject to the statutory jurisdictional limitations for non-accepting parties. Article 122 provides a different procedure for specified institutional provisions: amendments enter into force for all parties six months after adoption. Membership in the original treaty therefore does not establish acceptance of every crime-related amendment. (legal.un.org)

Crimes Within the Court’s Jurisdiction

Genocide, defined in Article 6 of the Rome Statute, requires the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, wholly or partly, as such. Its five prohibited forms are killing group members; seriously harming them physically or mentally; deliberately imposing living conditions calculated to cause the group’s physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births; and forcibly transferring its children to another group. Consequently, genocide does not necessarily involve mass killing: preventing births or transferring children can constitute the crime when the required destructive intent is established. Political and social groups are not among Article 6’s protected categories. The Elements of Crimes additionally require conduct occurring within a manifest pattern of similar acts directed against the group, or conduct capable by itself of bringing about the intended destruction. (legal.un.org)

Crimes against humanity, under Article 7, require an underlying offence committed knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. The alternatives are disjunctive: the attack need not be both widespread and systematic. “Attack” means a course of conduct involving multiple prohibited acts pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a state or organizational policy; it need not be a military operation, and the crime can occur in peacetime. The offences include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer, unlawful imprisonment, torture, persecution, enforced disappearance, apartheid, and specified forms of sexual violence. Enslavement entails exercising ownership-like powers over another person, including through trafficking; persecution entails intentionally and severely depriving people of fundamental rights because of their group identity, with the statutory connection to another listed act or crime within the Court’s jurisdiction. Unlike genocide, these crimes do not generally require an intention to destroy a protected group. (legal.un.org)

War crimes, enumerated in Article 8, require a connection to an armed conflict. The Statute distinguishes international conflicts from conflicts of a non-international character, with separate lists of offences. International-conflict provisions cover grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including wilful killing, torture, hostage-taking, and unlawful deportation of protected persons, alongside other serious violations governing hostilities. Non-international-conflict provisions protect people taking no active part in hostilities, including captured or incapacitated fighters, against murder, cruel treatment, torture, and other abuses. Riots and isolated or sporadic violence do not themselves satisfy the Statute’s armed-conflict framework. The Elements of Crimes require the conduct to occur in the context of, and be associated with, the relevant armed conflict. (legal.un.org)

Both conflict categories prohibit deliberately attacking civilians not directly participating in hostilities and contain protections for medical facilities, religious buildings, and historic monuments, subject to the applicable conditions. Thus, an attack on a historic monument can constitute a war crime where the monument is not a military objective; these provisions also protect cultural heritage. Article 8 criminalizes conscripting or enlisting children younger than fifteen, or using them to participate actively in hostilities. In international conflicts, the recruitment provision refers to national armed forces; in non-international conflicts, it covers armed forces or groups. Article 8 emphasizes crimes committed under a plan or policy or on a large scale, but its wording does not make either circumstance a requirement for every war crime. (legal.un.org)

Aggression, defined in Article 8 bis, is a leadership crime: responsibility concerns someone effectively able to control or direct a state’s political or military action who plans, prepares, initiates, or executes a qualifying act of aggression. The state’s act must, through its character, gravity, and scale, constitute a manifest violation of the United Nations Charter. Examples include invasion, military occupation or annexation by force, and blockade of another state’s ports or coasts. This definition separates the state’s use of force from the individual leader’s criminal responsibility. The Kampala Review Conference in Uganda adopted the aggression amendments on 11 June 2010. On 14 December 2017, the Assembly of States Parties decided to activate jurisdiction from 17 July 2018; the special conditions governing its exercise are distinct from the crime’s substantive definition. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

Jurisdictional Conditions and Routes to Investigation

Article 11 of the Rome Statute limits temporal jurisdiction to crimes committed on or after its entry into force on 1 July 2002. Neither a state’s acceptance nor a Security Council referral can extend jurisdiction to earlier crimes. For a state joining subsequently, the ordinary starting date is the Statute’s entry into force for that state, unless an Article 12(3) declaration accepts jurisdiction over an earlier period within the post-2002 limit. Bangladesh, for example, became subject to the Statute on 1 June 2010; the investigation authorized in the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation consequently uses that date for crimes committed at least partly in Bangladesh. Amendments introducing additional crimes have separate entry-into-force conditions, so ratification of the original treaty does not automatically make every amended offence applicable from 2002. (legal.un.org)

For genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Article 12 ordinarily requires either a territorial connection or a nationality connection when proceedings originate through a State Party referral or the Prosecutor’s initiative. The relevant state must be a party or have accepted jurisdiction: it may be the state where the conduct occurred, the state of registration of a vessel or aircraft, or the accused person’s state of nationality. Accordingly, nationals of non-party states can fall within jurisdiction for crimes committed on a participating state’s territory. This is not universal jurisdiction, which does not depend on those territorial or nationality connections. On 6 September 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I held that alleged deportation from Myanmar to Bangladesh could fall within jurisdiction because a constituent element—the crossing into Bangladesh—occurred in a State Party, although Myanmar was not a party. (legal.un.org)

Under Article 12(3), a non-party state may accept jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar and must cooperate with the Court concerning that acceptance. Such a declaration supplies a jurisdictional basis but is not itself a State Party referral under Article 14. Ukraine illustrates retrospective acceptance: its declaration lodged on 17 April 2014 covered alleged crimes on its territory between 21 November 2013 and 22 February 2014; its second declaration, lodged on 8 September 2015 while it remained a non-party, covered crimes from 20 February 2014 without an end date. (legal.un.org)

Article 13 establishes three triggering routes. A State Party referral asks the Prosecutor to investigate a situation, rather than directing prosecution of a particular person. A Security Council referral, made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, does not require the territorial or nationality acceptance specified in Article 12(2), permitting jurisdiction over situations involving non-party states. Neither referral automatically opens an investigation: the Prosecutor applies Article 53’s reasonable-basis assessment, including jurisdiction, admissibility, and the interests of justice. Alternatively, the Prosecutor may act proprio motu—on the Prosecutor’s own initiative—using information from states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, or other reliable sources. Article 15 then requires Pre-Trial Chamber authorization based on a reasonable basis to proceed and apparent jurisdiction; this additional authorization requirement does not ordinarily apply to referred situations. (legal.un.org)

Aggression has a narrower regime, activated from 17 July 2018. Under Article 15 bis, governing State Party referrals and proprio motu investigations, jurisdiction excludes crimes committed by non-party nationals or on non-party territory; participating states may also lodge an opt-out declaration. The 2017 activation framework additionally excludes aggression committed by nationals or on the territory of States Parties that have not ratified or accepted the aggression amendments. The Prosecutor must ascertain whether the Security Council has determined that an act of aggression occurred and notify the UN Secretary-General. If no determination follows within six months, investigation may proceed with Pre-Trial Division authorization, provided no Article 16 deferral intervenes. Article 15 ter, governing Security Council referrals, does not impose those nationality, territorial, ratification, or opt-out exclusions. The Assembly’s resolution of 9 July 2025 scheduled consideration of proposed jurisdictional changes for 2029 rather than adopting them. (icc-cpi.int)

Complementarity and Admissibility

Complementarity gives national criminal jurisdictions primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes within the Court’s mandate. The ICC supplements rather than replaces domestic proceedings. Admissibility is distinct from jurisdiction: jurisdiction concerns the Court’s legal competence over particular crimes, persons, places, and periods; admissibility determines whether a particular case may proceed despite that competence. Article 17 of the Rome Statute identifies grounds for inadmissibility involving domestic proceedings, previous trials, and insufficient gravity. National proceedings can therefore make a case inadmissible even when the Court has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

The domestic-proceedings assessment is case-specific, not simply an appraisal of a country’s judicial institutions. For an existing ICC case, national investigations must concern the same person and substantially the same conduct. A general investigation into a conflict, or a promise to investigate, does not establish that the particular case is being addressed domestically. On 30 August 2011, the Appeals Chamber upheld the admissibility of the two Kenyan cases, covering six suspects, because Kenya had not supplied sufficient evidence of relevant investigations. The judgment required evidence of concrete investigative steps, not completed investigations. Where relevant domestic proceedings are absent, unwillingness or inability need not first be established; where an investigation has resulted in a decision not to prosecute, the Court examines whether that decision arose from unwillingness or inability genuinely to prosecute. (icc-cpi.int)

Article 17 defines unwillingness through proceedings intended to shield a person from responsibility, unjustified delay inconsistent with bringing that person to justice, or proceedings lacking independence or impartiality and conducted inconsistently with that intent. Inability concerns total or substantial collapse, or unavailability, of the national judicial system that prevents obtaining the accused, necessary evidence or testimony, or otherwise conducting proceedings. These assessments can produce different outcomes within one situation. In Libya, the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi was declared inadmissible on 11 October 2013 because relevant domestic proceedings were underway and Libya was found willing and able genuinely to conduct them; the Appeals Chamber affirmed this on 24 July 2014. Libya’s challenge concerning Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi was rejected on 31 May 2013, and that rejection was upheld on 21 May 2014. (legal.un.org)

Admissibility also requires sufficient gravity under Article 17(1)(d), independently of whether national authorities are acting. Article 17(1)(c), read with Article 20, protects against repeated prosecution through ne bis in idem. A previous trial elsewhere generally prevents an ICC trial for the same conduct, but exceptions apply where proceedings shielded the person or lacked independence or impartiality and were conducted inconsistently with bringing the person to justice. An investigated case closed without prosecution is addressed separately under Article 17(1)(b); it is not automatically equivalent to a completed trial. (legal.un.org)

Judicial review operates at both investigation and case stages. Under Article 18, following notification in the circumstances specified there, a state has one month to report relevant national investigations and request deferral; the Prosecutor must defer unless the Pre-Trial Chamber authorizes the investigation. Deferral can be reviewed after six months or following a significant change of circumstances. Under Article 19, an accused or person subject to an arrest warrant or summons, a qualifying state with jurisdiction, or a state whose acceptance of jurisdiction is required may challenge admissibility. Chambers may also examine admissibility on their own motion, and jurisdiction or admissibility decisions are appealable. Rule 59 provides for referring parties and victims who have communicated with the Court to submit written observations. (ihl-databases.icrc.org)

Capacity-building accompanies, but does not replace, these legal tests. The Assembly of States Parties’ complementarity work facilitates exchanges about technical assistance and domestic investigative and prosecutorial capacity. On 25 April 2024, the Office of the Prosecutor launched its Policy on Complementarity and Cooperation at events in Bogotá and Bangui. The policy combines partnerships supporting national authorities with continued attention to the Office’s own investigative and prosecutorial mandate. The Assembly’s Complementarity Platform connects requests for assistance with potential providers, supporting national proceedings rather than transferring admissibility decisions away from the Court’s judges. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

Institutional Structure and Administration

Article 34 of the Rome Statute identifies four organs of the Court: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry. The Presidency consists of the President and two Vice-Presidents, elected by an absolute majority of the judges for three-year terms, renewable once. It coordinates judicial administration, constitutes chambers and assigns cases, oversees the Registry, and conducts external relations. Its responsibility for the Court’s proper administration expressly excludes the Office of the Prosecutor, although the two organs coordinate on matters of mutual concern. On 11 March 2024, the judges elected Tomoko Akane as President, Rosario Salvatore Aitala as First Vice-President, and Reine Alapini-Gansou as Second Vice-President. (icc-cpi.int)

The Court has eighteen judges, elected by the Assembly of States Parties through secret ballots. Candidates must possess high moral character, impartiality and integrity, qualify for appointment to their countries’ highest judicial offices, and have an excellent knowledge of English or French. Article 36 distinguishes candidates with competence and practical experience in criminal law and procedure, designated List A, from those with competence in relevant fields of international law and extensive professional legal experience, designated List B. Elections must produce at least nine List A and five List B judges. Selection also takes account of the principal legal systems, equitable geographical representation, fair representation of women and men, and expertise concerning violence against women or children. No two judges may be nationals of the same state. Terms ordinarily last nine years without re-election; limited exceptions cover certain short initial or replacement terms. (icc-cpi.int)

The judges are organized into three divisions, but particular proceedings are conducted by chambers constituted within them. Under Article 39, the Appeals Division comprises the President and four other judges; the Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions each comprise at least six judges. A Trial Chamber consists of three judges, while Pre-Trial Chamber functions may be exercised by three judges or a single judge, according to the applicable provisions. Appeals are heard by the five-member Appeals Chamber. The allocation of judges reflects their qualifications and experience, with predominantly criminal-trial experience required in the Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions. Appeals judges serve exclusively in that division, and a judge who participated in a case’s pre-trial phase cannot sit in its trial chamber. (legal.un.org)

The Office of the Prosecutor is a separate, independent organ responsible for receiving and examining information about alleged crimes, investigating, and conducting prosecutions. Article 42 prohibits its members from seeking or acting on instructions from an external source. The Prosecutor has authority over the Office’s management, administration, staff and resources, assisted by Deputy Prosecutors. The Assembly elects the Prosecutor by an absolute majority and elects Deputy Prosecutors from candidates nominated by the Prosecutor. Their terms are ordinarily nine years and are non-renewable. This organizational separation distinguishes prosecutorial decision-making from the judges’ adjudication and the Registry’s neutral administrative services. (legal.un.org)

The Registry handles non-judicial administration and services, without encroaching on the Prosecutor’s responsibilities. The Registrar is elected by the judges for a five-year term, renewable once, and works under the President’s authority. Registry services include court records, translation and interpretation, detention-centre administration, legal aid, security, finance, human resources and field-office support. It provides logistical and administrative assistance to defence counsel and victims’ legal representatives, and supports victim participation and witness protection. Its communication functions have concrete linguistic and geographical dimensions: courtroom interpretation has included Lingala, Sango, Swahili and Zaghawa, while outreach activities communicate judicial developments directly to affected communities in local languages. (icc-cpi.int)

The Assembly of States Parties is the treaty system’s representative and management-oversight body, not a fifth Court organ or an appellate authority. Each State Party has one vote. The Assembly elects judges and prosecutorial officials, approves the Court’s budget, and considers contributions, audit reports and administrative performance. Its oversight concerns administration rather than the determination of individual cases. The Trust Fund for Victims is likewise separate from the Court’s four organs; the Assembly considers reports from its Board of Directors. Its implementation of reparations and assistance activities should therefore be distinguished from the Registry’s provision of services within judicial proceedings. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

Individual Responsibility and Defence Safeguards

Article 25 of the Rome Statute establishes criminal responsibility for natural persons, rather than states; it leaves state responsibility under international law unaffected. Liability encompasses committing a crime alone, jointly, or through another person; ordering, soliciting, or inducing a crime that occurs or is attempted; and purposefully aiding its commission. Intentional contributions to crimes by a common-purpose group require either an aim to further its criminal activity or knowledge of its criminal intention. Direct and public incitement to genocide and attempts involving a substantial step are also punishable. Article 27 provides that official status, including service as head of state, does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility. (legal.un.org)

Command or superior responsibility under Article 28 is distinct from ordering or personally committing crimes. A military commander must exercise effective control over the forces concerned and may incur liability for failing to control them properly when the commander knew, or should have known, of their crimes. The provision requires failure to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress crimes or refer them for investigation and prosecution. For non-military superiors, the knowledge threshold is knowing or consciously disregarding clearly indicative information; the crimes must also concern activities within their effective responsibility and control. (legal.un.org)

Article 30 normally requires intent and knowledge. Intent means deliberately engaging in conduct and, regarding consequences, either intending them or knowing they will occur in the ordinary course of events. Knowledge includes awareness of relevant circumstances. Article 26 excludes anyone who was under eighteen when the alleged crime occurred, irrespective of their age when proceedings begin. Article 31 recognizes grounds excluding responsibility: mental disease or qualifying intoxication destroying relevant capacities, reasonable and proportionate defence against imminent unlawful force, and duress involving imminent death or continuing or imminent serious bodily harm. Duress additionally requires necessary and reasonable action without intending greater harm than that avoided. Voluntary intoxication does not qualify where the person knew or disregarded the risk of resulting criminal conduct. (legal.un.org)

Articles 32–33 further limit defences. A factual mistake excuses responsibility only when it negates the required mental element; ignorance that conduct is criminal generally does not. Obeying orders is insufficient unless a legal duty to obey existed, the person did not know the order was unlawful, and it was not manifestly unlawful. Orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are expressly manifestly unlawful. (legal.un.org)

The criminal-law principle of legality is expressed in Articles 22–24: conduct must constitute a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction when committed, definitions cannot be expanded by analogy, and ambiguity must favour the accused. Punishment must be authorized by the Statute, and responsibility cannot attach to conduct before its entry into force on 1 July 2002. A more favourable applicable law introduced before final judgment benefits the person concerned. Article 66 establishes the presumption of innocence, places the burden on the Prosecutor, and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction. (legal.un.org)

Article 67 guarantees prompt, detailed notice of charges in a language the accused fully understands and speaks; adequate preparation time; confidential communication with chosen counsel; and trial without undue delay. Assigned legal assistance is required where the interests of justice demand it and is free if the accused lacks sufficient means. Necessary interpretation and translation are also free. The defence may examine prosecution witnesses and obtain defence witnesses under equivalent conditions. The Prosecutor must disclose, as soon as practicable, evidence tending to establish innocence, mitigate guilt, or undermine prosecution evidence’s credibility. The accused cannot be compelled to testify or confess, and silence cannot count towards a finding of guilt or innocence. Article 67 also prohibits reversing the burden of proof or imposing an obligation to rebut allegations. (legal.un.org)

Investigation, Trial, and Appeal

Under Article 53 of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor evaluates available information for a reasonable basis to investigate, considering jurisdiction, admissibility, and whether substantial reasons indicate that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice. Decisions not to proceed are subject to specified forms of Pre-Trial Chamber review. Once an investigation begins, Article 54 requires the Prosecutor to investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally. Investigators may collect documents, interview witnesses and suspects, and seek state cooperation; the Pre-Trial Chamber can authorize investigative measures and safeguard evidence where a unique opportunity to obtain it may not recur. (legal.un.org)

An arrest warrant requires a judicial finding under Article 58 that there are reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction. Arrest must also be necessary to secure appearance, prevent obstruction or endangerment of proceedings, or, where applicable, prevent continued commission of the relevant crime or a related crime. A summons may instead be issued if sufficient to ensure appearance. Following surrender or voluntary appearance, the Pre-Trial Chamber verifies that the person understands the allegations and applicable rights. It considers applications for interim release and periodically reviews continued detention; unreasonable detention caused by inexcusable prosecutorial delay may require release, with or without conditions. (legal.un.org)

Confirmation of charges is a separate screening stage in this criminal procedure, not a trial determining guilt. Under Article 61, the Prosecutor must establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed each charged crime—a higher threshold than that required for a warrant. The defence may challenge charges and evidence and present evidence of its own. Judges may confirm charges, decline confirmation, or adjourn proceedings to permit further evidence or amended charges. Confirmation normally takes place in the person’s presence, although statutory exceptions permit absence. Confirmed charges pass to a Trial Chamber; neither an arrest warrant nor confirmation constitutes a conviction. (legal.un.org)

Trial hearings are generally public and held in the accused’s presence, subject to narrowly defined exceptions. The Trial Chamber manages disclosure sufficiently in advance for preparation; Article 67 additionally requires disclosure, as soon as practicable, of prosecution-held material indicating innocence, mitigating guilt, or affecting prosecution evidence’s credibility. Parties present testimony and documentary or recorded evidence, while judges assess relevance, probative value, and possible prejudice to a fair trial. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under Article 74, the written decision must explain the findings and conclusions, rely only on evidence submitted and discussed at trial, and remain within the facts and circumstances of the charges as amended. A majority decision includes both majority and minority views. (legal.un.org)

An admission of guilt does not automatically produce a conviction. Article 65 requires judges to establish that the accused understands its consequences, acts voluntarily after sufficient consultation with counsel, and that the admission is supported by the case’s facts. Agreements between prosecution and defence do not bind the Court. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi admitted guilt at his trial’s opening on 22 August 2016; judges questioned him about understanding and voluntariness before the prosecution presented its case. This illustrates the continuing judicial examination required even where criminal responsibility is admitted. (legal.un.org)

Articles 81–83 govern appeals against convictions, acquittals, and sentences. Grounds include procedural, factual, or legal error; a convicted person may additionally raise another ground affecting the fairness or reliability of proceedings. Either party may challenge disproportionate sentencing. The Appeals Chamber may reverse or amend a decision or sentence, or order a new trial before a different Trial Chamber. Article 82 permits interlocutory appeals in specified categories, including jurisdiction, admissibility, and release; certain other issues require the originating chamber’s permission. Separately, Article 84 permits revision of a final conviction or sentence for potentially decisive new evidence, crucial evidence subsequently discovered to be false or forged, or sufficiently serious judicial misconduct or breach of duty. Revision is therefore distinct from an ordinary appeal. (legal.un.org)

Victims, Witnesses, and Reparations

Victim participation and witness testimony are distinct procedural roles. Witnesses provide evidence about facts or matters within their expertise; participating victims present their own interests in the proceedings. A person may hold both statuses, but participation does not itself require giving testimony. Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute permits victims to present views and concerns when their personal interests are affected, at stages and in forms determined by the judges. Participation may extend from pre-trial proceedings through trial and appeal. Legal representatives may submit written observations, address hearings, and, with judicial permission, question witnesses. These activities must remain consistent with the accused’s rights and a fair and impartial trial; participation does not transfer the Prosecutor’s burden of proving the charges to victims. The Registry’s Victims Participation and Reparations Section assists with applications, while judges determine eligibility and the permitted forms of participation. (icc-cpi.int)

Protection covers victims, witnesses, and other people endangered because of testimony, rather than only prosecution witnesses. Article 68 requires attention to safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity, and privacy, taking account of age, health, gender, and the nature of the alleged crimes. The Registry’s Victims and Witnesses Unit provides protective arrangements, counselling, and assistance. Judges may authorize pseudonyms, facial or voice distortion, private or closed hearing sessions, and testimony by video link. Outside the courtroom, arrangements can include local protection, assisted moves, or relocation as a last resort. Trauma specialists assess vulnerable witnesses, including children and survivors of sexual violence, and recommend measures such as a support person beside the witness, psychological monitoring, screens preventing eye contact with the accused, and questioning adapted to the witness’s capacities. Courtroom familiarization explains procedures and equipment without discussing the substance of testimony. Confidentiality and protective measures do not eliminate the opportunity for cross-examination. (legal.un.org)

Reparations constitute a separate process from participation and depend on conviction. Under Article 75, the Court establishes principles governing restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation, determines the scope of damage, loss, and injury, and may issue an order directly against the convicted person. Before making an order, it considers representations from the convicted person, victims, and other interested persons or states. Awards may be individual, collective, or a combination, and may include symbolic measures. Collective programmes can nevertheless deliver individual benefits, such as psychological care, education, or support for livelihoods. Eligibility concerns harm resulting from the crimes of conviction, rather than every injury suffered within the wider conflict; participation in the criminal proceedings and entitlement to reparations are therefore distinct determinations. (legal.un.org)

The reparations order against Germain Katanga illustrates this combination. On 24 March 2017, Trial Chamber II found 297 of 341 applicants eligible for reparations arising from crimes committed during the attack on Bogoro in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It awarded each eligible victim symbolic compensation of US$250, alongside collective measures for housing, education, income-generating activities, and psychological rehabilitation. Katanga’s liability was fixed at US$1 million. Because he was indigent, the Chamber invited the Trust Fund for Victims to consider financing implementation; in May 2017, its Board decided to provide the full US$1 million. The order excluded harm from crimes outside the conviction, including sexual violence, while identifying the Fund’s separate assistance mandate as a possible mechanism for addressing such injuries. (icc-cpi.int)

The Trust Fund’s two mandates have different legal foundations and beneficiary criteria. Under its reparations mandate, it implements judicial awards using funds recovered from convicted persons and, where its Board decides, supplements those resources with voluntary contributions. Its assistance mandate supports physical and psychological rehabilitation and material assistance for victims, families, and communities in situations under the Court’s jurisdiction. Assistance does not require a conviction or a direct connection to a particular case and may operate before, during, or after judicial proceedings. Funded entirely through voluntary contributions from states and private donors, it does not replace a state’s own responsibility to provide reparation. (trustfundforvictims.org)

State Cooperation, Sentences, and Enforcement

The Court has no police force or independent enforcement body. It depends on national authorities to arrest suspects, surrender them to its custody, collect evidence, freeze assets, and enforce sentences. Article 86 of the Rome Statute requires States Parties to cooperate fully with investigations and prosecutions; Article 88 requires them to establish domestic procedures for that cooperation. Assistance under Article 93 includes taking testimony, producing official records, conducting searches and seizures, protecting witnesses, and preserving evidence. The Statute distinguishes surrender—delivery of a person to the Court—from extradition between states. Arrest and surrender requests are executed through national procedures, subject to the requirements of Part 9. (icc-cpi.int)

Cooperation with non-party states can rest on an ad hoc arrangement, an agreement, or another appropriate basis under Article 87(5). For States Parties, Article 97 requires prompt consultation when difficulties impede execution of a request. Under Article 87(7), where non-compliance contrary to the Statute prevents the Court from exercising its functions and powers, judges may formally find non-cooperation and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, for a Security Council referral, the United Nations Security Council. Failure by a non-party state to honour a cooperation arrangement or agreement may likewise be reported under Article 87(5)(b). These provisions establish reporting mechanisms rather than an ICC power to compel compliance through its own police. (legal.un.org)

For the crimes listed in Article 5, Article 77 permits imprisonment for a fixed term not exceeding thirty years, or life imprisonment when justified by the crime’s extreme gravity and the convicted person’s individual circumstances. The Statute does not authorize capital punishment. Article 78 requires deduction of detention served under a Court order and permits credit for other detention connected with the underlying conduct. Conviction for several crimes produces individual sentences and a joint sentence within the same statutory limits. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may impose fines and forfeiture of crime-derived proceeds, property, and assets, protecting bona fide third-party rights. These penalties are distinct from victim reparations ordered under Article 75. States Parties enforce financial orders through national procedures under Article 109; Article 75(5) applies that enforcement framework to reparations decisions. (legal.un.org)

Imprisonment is served in a state designated from those willing to accept sentenced persons; treaty membership does not automatically require acceptance of prisoners. Selection considers prisoner-treatment standards, the person’s views and nationality, and equitable distribution of enforcement responsibilities. If no state is designated, the Netherlands, as host state, provides a prison facility under the headquarters agreement. The Court supervises enforcement, and the enforcing state cannot modify the sentence. Domestic law governs prison conditions, subject to international standards and equal treatment with prisoners convicted of similar offences. On 19 December 2015, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and Germain Katanga were transferred to the Democratic Republic of the Congo under individual enforcement agreements—the Court’s first designation of a state for sentence enforcement. (legal.un.org)

Only the Court may reduce a sentence. Article 110 requires review after two-thirds of a fixed term, or twenty-five years of life imprisonment; review does not guarantee release. Relevant factors include continuing cooperation with investigations, voluntary assistance in enforcing other judgments, and significant changes of circumstances. Further reviews follow if reduction is refused. On 13 November 2015, an Appeals Chamber panel reduced Katanga’s twelve-year sentence by three years and eight months, setting its completion date at 18 January 2016. (legal.un.org)

Selected Situations and Judicial Decisions

A situation defines the broader parameters of an ICC investigation, usually by territory, period, and alleged criminal activity; a case concerns identified individuals and particular alleged crimes within those parameters. One situation may therefore generate several cases, with different procedural outcomes. The early investigations illustrate three routes to investigation. The Democratic Republic of the Congo referred its situation on 19 April 2004. The United Nations Security Council referred Darfur, Sudan, through Resolution 1593 on 31 March 2005, and Libya through Resolution 1970 on 26 February 2011, the latter covering events since 15 February 2011. In Kenya, the Prosecutor proceeded proprio motu, rather than following a state or Security Council referral: Pre-Trial Chamber II authorized an investigation on 31 March 2010 into alleged crimes against humanity associated with the 2007–2008 post-election violence. Authorization to investigate did not constitute a determination of any individual’s guilt. (icc-cpi.int)

On 14 March 2012, Trial Chamber I convicted Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, delivering the Court’s first conviction. Lubanga was found guilty as a co-perpetrator of three child-soldier offences: conscripting children under fifteen, enlisting children under fifteen, and using them to participate actively in hostilities. The adjudicated conduct concerned the Forces patriotiques pour la libération du Congo, the armed wing of the Union des patriotes congolais, between September 2002 and August 2003. The judgment thus addressed specified recruitment and use offences, rather than criminal responsibility for every atrocity committed during the Congolese conflict. Lubanga received a fourteen-year prison sentence on 10 July 2012. (icc-cpi.int)

The Lubanga case also produced the Court’s first reparations proceedings. An initial decision on principles and procedures was issued on 7 August 2012; appellate proceedings subsequently resulted in an amended reparations order on 3 March 2015. On 15 December 2017, Trial Chamber II fixed Lubanga’s liability for collective reparations at US$10 million. In assessing the award, the Chamber examined 473 applications and identified 425 applicants as most likely direct or indirect victims, while recognizing evidence of hundreds or thousands of additional victims. The award therefore was not simply a distribution among those applicants: it quantified liability for collective measures addressing harm caused by the crimes of conviction. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

On 27 September 2016, Trial Chamber VIII convicted Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi of intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, Mali, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The attacks, committed between approximately 30 June and 11 July 2012, damaged or destroyed ten protected buildings; nine were UNESCO World Heritage sites. The case concerned the protection of cultural heritage through the war-crime prohibition on attacking religious buildings and historic monuments. Al Mahdi admitted guilt at the opening of his trial on 22 August 2016—the first such admission before the ICC—but the Chamber also assessed whether the admission and supporting evidence established the offence. On 17 August 2017, it ordered individual and collective reparations and assessed his liability at €2.7 million. (icc-cpi.int)

On 8 June 2018, the Appeals Chamber, by majority, acquitted Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo of the war crimes and crimes against humanity for which he had been convicted on 21 March 2016. Those charges concerned murder, rape, and pillaging by Mouvement de libération du Congo troops in the Central African Republic during 2002–2003, with Bemba’s liability assessed as a military commander under Article 28. The appellate majority found that the conviction included specific acts outside the confirmed charges and that the Trial Chamber had seriously erred in assessing the necessary and reasonable measures available to him as a remote commander. Two judges dissented. This acquittal was separate from Bemba et al., the Article 70 proceedings concerning offences against the administration of justice. In that case, the Appeals Chamber had upheld most convictions on 8 March 2018, including those relating to corruptly influencing defence witnesses and soliciting false testimony; the June acquittal did not overturn those separate findings. (icc-cpi.int)

Relations with the United Nations and Institutional Review

The Court is an independent treaty institution, not an organ of the United Nations. Article 2 of the Rome Statute provides for a relationship agreement approved by the Assembly of States Parties. That agreement entered into force on 4 October 2004, when Court President Philippe Kirsch and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan signed it in New York. It recognizes the institutions’ separate mandates while establishing arrangements for cooperation. The Court has observer status in the General Assembly and submits annual reports on its activities; these reporting arrangements do not place its judicial decisions under UN supervision. (legal.un.org)

Cooperation extends beyond diplomatic representation. The relationship agreement provides for exchanges of information and judicial assistance, with Article 18 specifically addressing cooperation between the United Nations and the Prosecutor during investigations. Its provisions accommodate confidentiality, protection of persons, and the security of UN operations and activities. The UN Office of Legal Affairs serves as the organization’s focal point for Court-related cooperation. These arrangements provide an institutional channel for assistance without transferring prosecutorial authority to the United Nations. (icc-cpi.int)

The Security Council has two distinct statutory powers. Under Article 13(b), it may refer a situation to the Prosecutor while acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This route does not require the territorial or nationality connections to a consenting state that ordinarily apply under Article 12, although a referral does not itself establish individual guilt or remove the Court’s admissibility requirements. Article 16 instead permits the Council, through a Chapter VII resolution, to request that no investigation or prosecution commence or proceed for twelve months. The request may be renewed under the same conditions. Referral activates a jurisdictional route; deferral temporarily suspends investigative or prosecutorial action rather than dismissing a case or amending the Statute. (legal.un.org)

Institutional review has proceeded through the Assembly of States Parties rather than UN administrative oversight. On 6 December 2019, the Assembly appointed nine experts to conduct an Independent Expert Review, chaired by Richard Goldstone. Their final report, issued on 30 September 2020, contained 384 recommendations. The review’s three clusters—governance, judiciary, and investigations and prosecutions—examined administrative accountability, judicial work, and prosecutorial operations. Recommendations required assessment by the responsible institutions rather than taking effect automatically: in December 2024, the Assembly concluded the dedicated Review Mechanism’s mandate after assessment of all but one recommendation, while implementation review continued for recommendations assessed positively or positively with modifications. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

Reparations administration formed a concrete part of this reform process. The Court’s June 2021 response identified proposals concerning the Trust Fund for Victims’ fundraising strategy, coordination with the Registry, victim-eligibility screening and data management, and working methods between its Board and Secretariat. Recommendation R353 addressed implementation partnerships, including arrangements with UN organizations and coordination with national and international programmes. The response also distinguished administrative resources financed through assessed contributions from resources used for reparations and assistance, including voluntary contributions and recovered assets. These issues concern the practical delivery and financing of awards, not reconsideration of criminal judgments. (asp.icc-cpi.int)

Jurisdictional coverage, state assistance, and national investigative capacity impose different operational conditions: jurisdiction determines which situations the Court may address, while cooperation supplies arrests, evidence, and other assistance needed to conduct proceedings. Domestic capacity also matters because national jurisdictions retain primary responsibility for prosecuting Statute crimes. The Prosecutor’s Policy on Complementarity and Cooperation, launched on 25 April 2024, developed partnerships with national authorities alongside continued attention to the Office’s own investigative mandate. Documented activities include technical assistance, exchanges of expertise, and support for domestic legislation; the Assembly’s complementarity process provides a forum for coordinating such work. These arrangements address prosecutorial capacity and implementation rather than establishing effects on conflict prevention or reconciliation. (legal.un.org)

References

1. International Criminal Court - Some Questions and Answerslegal.un.org
2. Establishment of an International Criminal Court - overviewlegal.un.org
3. United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 1998 — Diplomatic Conferences — Codification Division Publicationslegal.un.org
4. Witnessesirmct.org
5. Documentsunictr.irmct.org
6. Final Actlegal.un.org
7. UN DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE CONCLUDES IN ROME WITH DECISION TO ESTABLISH PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTpress.un.org
8. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT WILL ENTER INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY 2002, AS 10 STATES DEPOSIT RATIFICATION INSTRUMENTS AT HEADQUARTERSpress.un.org
9. Rome Statute - Part 1. Establishment of the Courtlegal.un.org
10. International Law and Justiceun.org
11. The Courticj-cij.org
12. Resource libraryicc-cpi.int
13. Elements of Crimesicc-cpi.int
14. Rules of Procedure and Evidenceicc-cpi.int
15. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998legal.un.org
16. Rome Statute - Part 2. Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Lawlegal.un.org
17. UNTC: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courttreaties.un.org
18. Rome Statute - Part 13. Final Clauseslegal.un.org
19. Elements of Crimesicc-cpi.int
20. Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimesun.org
21. How the Court worksicc-cpi.int
22. Crime of Aggression — Amendments Ratificationasp.icc-cpi.int
23. Commonwealth Seminar publicationasp.icc-cpi.int
24. Understanding the International Criminal Courticc-cpi.int
25. Bangladesh/Myanmaricc-cpi.int
26. Rome Statuteicc-cpi.int
27. ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rules that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladeshicc-cpi.int
28. ICC Prosecutor extends preliminary examination of the situation in Ukraine following second article 12(3) declarationicc-cpi.int
29. Assembly activates Court’s jurisdiction over crime of aggressionicc-cpi.int
30. Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggressionasp.icc-cpi.int
31. ICC-ASP/S-1/Res.1: The review of the amendments on the crime of aggressionasp.icc-cpi.int
32. Complementarityasp.icc-cpi.int
33. Representing Victimsicc-cpi.int
34. Situation in Kenya: Appeals Chamber confirms the admissibility of the casesicc-cpi.int
35. Judgment on Kenya’s admissibility appeal, ICC-01/09-01/11-307icc-cpi.int
36. Al-Senussi case: Appeals Chamber confirms case is inadmissible before ICCicc-cpi.int
37. Rome Statute, Article 18 - Preliminary rulings regarding admissibilityihl-databases.icrc.org
38. Rules of Procedure and Evidenceicc-cpi.int
39. ICC Office of the Prosecutor launches Policy on Complementarity and Cooperationicc-cpi.int
40. ICC-ASP/23/24asp.icc-cpi.int
41. The Presidencyicc-cpi.int
42. New ICC Presidency elected for 2024-2027icc-cpi.int
43. Rome Statuteicc-cpi.int
44. Registryicc-cpi.int
45. Mission: Outreachicc-cpi.int
46. ICC - Assembly of States Partiesasp.icc-cpi.int
47. Assembly of States Partiesicc-cpi.int
48. Rome Statute — Part 3. General Principles of Criminal Lawlegal.un.org
49. Rome Statutelegal.un.org
50. Rome Statute — Part 6. The Triallegal.un.org
51. Rome Statute - Part 5. Investigation and Prosecutionlegal.un.org
52. Al Mahdi case: accused makes an admission of guilt at trial openingicc-cpi.int
53. Rome Statute - Part 8. Appeal and Revisionlegal.un.org
54. Witnessesicc-cpi.int
55. Victimsicc-cpi.int
56. Libyaicc-cpi.int
57. Behind the Scenesicc-cpi.int
58. Reparation orderstrustfundforvictims.org
59. Katanga case: ICC Trial Chamber II awards victims individual and collective reparationsicc-cpi.int
60. Trust Fund for Victims decides to provide $1 million for the reparations awarded to victims in the Katanga case, welcomes earmarked donations of €200,000 from the Netherlandsicc-cpi.int
61. Other programmes for the benefit of victims (assistance)trustfundforvictims.org
62. How the Court worksicc-cpi.int
63. Rome Statute - Part 9. International Cooperation and Judicial Assistancelegal.un.org
64. Rome Statute - Part 7. Penaltieslegal.un.org
65. Rome Statute - Part 10. Enforcementlegal.un.org
66. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and Germain Katanga transferred to the DRC to serve their sentences of imprisonmenticc-cpi.int
67. Report of the International Criminal Court to the United Nations General Assembly (ICC-ASP/15/16)asp.icc-cpi.int
68. Situation Completion Policyicc-cpi.int
69. Darfur, Sudanicc-cpi.int
70. Libyaicc-cpi.int
71. Situations under investigationicc-cpi.int
72. ICC judges grant the Prosecutor’s request to launch an investigation on crimes against humanity with regard to the situation in Kenyaicc-cpi.int
73. Building a more just worldicc-cpi.int
74. Lubanga case: Trial Chamber II issues additional decision on reparationsicc-cpi.int
75. Affaire Lubanga : La Chambre de première instance II rend une décision complémentaire sur les réparationsicc-cpi.int
76. Report to the Assembly of States Parties on the projects and activities of the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victimsasp.icc-cpi.int
77. Al Mahdiicc-cpi.int
78. Judgment and Sentence: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdiicc-cpi.int
79. ICC - Agreement Between the International Criminal Court and the United Nationsicc-cpi.int
80. Report of the International Criminal Court to the United Nations, A/60/177icc-cpi.int
81. United Nations - International Criminal Court Cooperationun.org
82. Assembly President O-Gon Kwon welcomes the final report of the Group of Independent Expertsasp.icc-cpi.int
83. Independent Expert Review: Message from the Chairasp.icc-cpi.int
84. Assembly of States Parties, Twenty-third session, Official Records, Volume Iasp.icc-cpi.int
85. ICC-ASP/20/2: Court response to the Independent Expert Reviewasp.icc-cpi.int