No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Full Picture: Preliminary Examinations at the International Criminal Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2019
Abstract
The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has described the preliminary examination as one of its “three core activities,” alongside investigating and prosecuting crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). Honing in on this once-mysterious “core activity,” this article contributes to the recently expanding literature on preliminary examinations at the ICC by providing a much needed comprehensive picture of all preliminary examinations conducted to date. The twentieth anniversary of the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, provides a timely opportunity for this review as part of the broader effort to take stock of the ICC’s achievements, failures, and future. The article demonstrates that, despite not having full investigatory powers at the preliminary examination stage, the OTP is very active during this phase. It interacts with a wide range of domestic and international actors and makes decisions on important legal issues that go to the heart of the ICC’s work. Paying close attention to preliminary examinations is therefore critical to understanding the OTP’s work, to understanding which actors engage with, and seek to “use,” the ICC, and to understanding important debates about the ICC’s legitimacy.
Résumé
Le Bureau du Procureur de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) décrit l’examen préliminaire comme l’une de ses “trois activités principales,” parallèlement à l’enquête et à la poursuite des crimes en vertu du Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale (Statut de Rome). Visant cette “activité principale,” jadis mystérieuse, cet article contribue à la littérature croissante sur les examens préliminaires à la CPI en fournissant une image complète, bien nécessaire, de tous les examens préliminaires menés à ce jour. Le vingtième anniversaire du traité fondateur de la CPI, le Statut de Rome, constitue une occasion opportune pour dresser ce bilan dans le cadre d’un effort plus vaste visant à faire le point sur les réalisations, les échecs et l’avenir de la CPI. L’article démontre que, même s’il ne dispose pas de pouvoirs d’enquête complets au stade de l’examen préliminaire, le Bureau du Procureur est très actif au cours de cette phase. Il interagit avec un large éventail d’acteurs nationaux et internationaux et prend des décisions sur des questions juridiques importantes qui sont au cœur des travaux de la CPI. Il est donc essentiel d’accorder une attention particulière aux examens préliminaires pour comprendre le travail du Bureau du Procureur, les acteurs qui s’engagent auprès de la Cour et cherchent à l’ “utiliser,” ainsi que des débats importants sur la légitimité de la CPI.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 56 , October 2019 , pp. 1 - 57
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2019
Footnotes
In addition to thanking the reviewers, the authors would like to thank Clare Hopkins and Amanda Hawkins for their research assistance.
References
1 International Criminal Court (ICC)–Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), OTP Strategic Plan: 2016–2018 (16 November 2015), online: < https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/en-otp_strategic_plan_2016-2018.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) at para 55 [2016–18 Strategic Plan].
2 ICC–OTP, Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on Opening Preliminary Examinations into the Situation in the Philippines and Venezuela (8 February 2018), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=180208-otp-stat> (accessed 31 August 2018) [Statement on Philippines and Venezuela].
3 ICC–OTP, Fatou Bensouda, on Opening a Preliminary Examination Concerning the Alleged Deportation of the Rohingya People from Myanmar to Bangladesh (18 September 2018), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=180918-otp-stat-Rohingya> (accessed 7 November 2018).
4 For some earlier work, see Héctor Olásolo, “The Prosecutor of the ICC before the Initiation of Investigations: A Quasi-Judicial or a Political Body?” (2003) 3:2 Intl Crim L Rev 87; Stegmiller, Ignaz, The Pre-Investigative Stage of the ICC: Criteria for Situation Selection (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1997, 2187 UNTS 3 [Rome Statute]; “Burundi,” International Criminal Court, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/burundi> (accessed 4 August 2008); ICC, ICC Statement on the Philippines’ Notice of Withdrawal: State Participation in Rome Statute System Essential to International Rule of Law, Doc ICC-CPI-20180320-PR1371 (20 March 2018); see also Grey, Rosemary & Wharton, Sara, “Lifting the Curtain: Opening a Preliminary Examination at the International Criminal Court” (2018) 16:3 J Intl Criminal Justice 593.Google Scholar
6 E.g. The Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies held an expert seminar on preliminary examinations on 29 September 2015. See Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Preliminary Examinations and Legacy/Sustainable Exit: Reviewing Policies and Practices (29 September 2015), online: <https://postconflictjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Report-Preliminary-Examination-and-Legacy_Sustainable-Exit_Reviewing-Policies-and-Practices.pdf> (accessed 25 March 2018).
7 Bergsmo, Morten & Stahn, Carsten, eds, Quality Control in Preliminary Examinations, 2 vols (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2018).Google Scholar
8 Grey & Wharton, supra note 5.
9 E.g. Carsten Stahn, “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t, Challenges and Critiques of Preliminary Examinations at the ICC” (2017) 15 J Intl Criminal Justice 413; Kersten, Mark, “‘Casting a Larger Shadow’: Pre-Meditated Madness, the International Criminal Court, and Preliminary Examinations” in Bergsmo, Morten & Stahn, Carsten, eds, Quality Control in Preliminary Examinations, vol 2 (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2018) 655.Google Scholar
10 E.g. Anni Pues, “Towards the ‘Golden Hour’? A Critical Exploration of the Length of Preliminary Examinations” (2017) 15:3 J Intl Criminal Justice 435; Stahn, supra note 9 at 428–29; Mark Kersten, “How Long Can the ICC Keep Palestine and Israel in Purgatory?” Justice in Conflict (blog) (29 February 2016), online: <https://justiceinconflict.org/2016/02/29/how-long-can-the-icc-keep-palestine-and-israel-in-purgatory/> (accessed 25 March 2018) [Kersten, “How Long”].
11 E.g. Louise Chappell, Rosemary Grey & Emily Waller, “The Gender Justice Shadow of Complementarity: Lessons from the International Criminal Court’s Preliminary Examinations in Guinea and Colombia” (2013) 7:2 I J Transitional Justice 455.
12 Justine Tillier, “The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity: Strengthening the Rule of Law?” (2013) 13:3 Intl Crim L Rev 507 at 511–52; Amrita Kapur, “The Value of International-National Interactions and Norm Interpretations in Catalysing National Prosecutions of Sexual Violence” (2016) 6:1 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 62.
13 E.g. Alette Smeulers, Maartje Weerdesteijn & Barbara Hola, “The Selection of Situations by the ICC: An Empirically Based Evaluation of the OTP’s Performance” (2015) 15:1 Intl Crim L Rev 1; Margaret M deGuzman, “Gravity and the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court” (2009) 32:5 Fordham Intl LJ 1400 at 1409–15; Stahn, supra note 9 at 426–27.
14 E.g. Stahn, supra note 9 at 430–32.
15 As Stahn notes, preliminary examinations “have a key role to play in relation to the legitimacy and perception of justice.” Ibid at 415.
16 OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2018 (5 December 2018) at para 17, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/181205-rep-otp-PE-ENG.pdf> (accessed 5 December 2018) [2018 PE Report].
17 OTP, Annex to the ‘Paper on Some Policy Issues before the Office of the Prosecutor’: Referrals and Communications (2003) at 3–4, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/278614ED-A8CA-4835-B91D-DB7FA7639E02/143706/policy_annex_final_210404.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Annex to 2003 Policy Paper].
18 ICC, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2nd ed (2013), Rule 48 [ICC RPE].
19 Request under Regulation 46(3) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37, Decision on the Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute (6 September 2018), ch 1 at para 82.
20 Ibid [emphasis added].
21 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 15; Request under Regulation 46(3) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-33, Prosecution Response to Observations by Intervening Participants (11 July 2018) at n 10; see also Grey & Wharton, supra note 5.
22 2018 PE Report, supra note 16.
23 Rome Statute, supra note 5.
24 Ibid, art 15(3)-(4).
25 Ibid, art 15(6); ICC RPE, supra note 18, Rules 49, 105.
26 Rome Statute, supra note 5, art 53(3)(a).
27 Ibid: “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” [emphasis added].
28 Ibid.
29 See also Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor, Doc ICC-BD/05-01-09 (23 April 2009), Regulation 31.
30 Rome Statute, supra note 5, art 53(3)(b).
31 Ibid, art 15(6).
32 See Annex to 2003 Policy Paper, supra note 17 at 3–4.
33 ICC–OTP, Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations (November 2013) at para 77, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-policy_paper_preliminary_examinations_2013-eng.pdf> (accessed 4 August 2018) [PE Policy Paper].
34 ICC–OTP, Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations: Draft (4 October 2010), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/9ff1eaa1-41c4-4a30-a202-174b18da923c/282515/otp_draftpolicypaperonpreliminaryexaminations04101.pdf> (accessed 17 August 2018).
35 PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at paras 25–33.
36 Ibid at paras 77–83.
37 Ibid at para 35.
38 Ibid at paras 94–99.
39 ICC–OTP, Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice (2007), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/772C95C9-F54D-4321-BF09-73422BB23528/143640/ICCOTPInterestsOfJustice.pdf> (accessed 17 August 2018) [Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice].
40 ICC–OTP, Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes (June 2014) at paras 38–47, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-policy-paper-on-sexual-and-gender-based-crimes--june-2014.pdf> (accessed 17 August 2018) [Policy Paper on Gender-Based Crimes].
41 ICC–OTP, Policy Paper on Children (November 2016) at paras 53–61, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/20161115_otp_icc_policy-on-children_eng.pdf> (accessed 17 August 2018) [Policy on Children].
42 Policy Paper on Gender-Based Crimes, supra note 40 at 5.
43 Ibid at para 41.
44 Ibid at para 45; Policy on Children, supra note 41 at para 57.
45 Policy on Children, supra note 41 at para 59.
46 2016–18 Strategic Plan, supra note 1 at para 55.
47 The OTP did not use the term “preliminary examination” in its early practice. However, it referred in substance to this pre-investigative process.
48 Starting in 2011, the OTP began publishing annual reports on its preliminary examination activities. Additionally, in relation to certain situations, it released what it calls “Article 53(1) Reports” upon the conclusion of certain preliminary examinations. ICC–OTP, Situation in Mali: Article 53(1) Report (16 January 2013), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/SASMaliArticle53_1PublicReportENG16Jan2013.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Mali Article 53(1) Report]; ICC–OTP, Situation in the Central African Republic II: Article 53(1) Report (24 September 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/art_53_1_report_car_ii_24sep14.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [CAR II Article 53(1) Report]; ICC–OTP, Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia: Article 53(1) Report (6 November 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-com-article_53(1)-report-06nov2014eng.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Comoros Article 53(1) Report]. The OTP also published what it calls “Article 5 Reports,” detailing its conclusion in relation to issues of subject-matter jurisdiction. ICC–OTP, Situation in Nigeria: Article 5 Report (5 August 2013), online: < https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/docs/SAS-NGA-PublicversionArticle5Report-05August2013.PDF> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Nigeria Article 5 Report]; ICC–OTP, Situation in the Republic of Korea: Article 5 Report (June 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/sas-kor-article-5-public-report-eng-05jun2014.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [South Korea Article 5 Report]; ICC–OTP, Situation in Honduras: Article 5 Report (October 2015), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/SAS-HON-Article_5_Report-Oct2015-ENG.PDF> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Honduras Article 5 Report]; ICC–OTP, Situation in the Gabonese Republic: Article 5 Report (21 September 2018), online <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/180921-otp-rep-gabon_ENG.pdf> (accessed 7 November 2018) [Gabon Article 5 Report]. Finally, the OTP published an “Interim Report” in relation to the situation in Colombia in November 2012. ICC–OTP, Situation in Colombia: Interim Report (November 2012), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/3d3055bd-16e2-4c83-ba85-35bcfd2a7922/285102/otpcolombiapublicinterimreportnovember2012.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Colombia Interim Report]. As well, the OTP prepares detailed requests for authorization to proceed to an investigation for situations opened proprio motu if the prosecutor determines that the Article 53(1) criteria are fulfilled that contain considerable information about the preliminary examination that led to that decision.
49 United Nations Regional Groups of Member States, Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, online: <https://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups.shtml> (accessed 16 August 2018).+(accessed+16+August+2018).>Google Scholar Palestine is not included in any regional grouping at the United Nations as of yet but is listed as an Asia-Pacific state by the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) and was categorized as such. “Asia-Pacific States,” International Criminal Court, online: < https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/statesparties/asianstates/Pages/asianstates.aspx> (accessed 16 August 2018).
50 See Grey & Wharton, supra note 5.
51 This classification is done to the best of our ability based on the information made available by the OTP. In situations in which there is a state referral or Article 12(3) declaration, we have taken this to be the initial trigger for the preliminary examination due to the prosecutor’s policy of automatically opening a preliminary examination upon receipt of a referral or a declaration (as opposed to an Article 15 communication), unless there is a clear statement that there was already a preliminary examination underway prior to the receipt of the referral or declaration.
52 E.g., the government of Ukraine submitted its initial Article 12(3) declaration on 17 April 2014, and the OTP announced that it opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Ukraine just over a week later on 25 April 2014. Thus, a start date of 25 April 2014 was used. ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014, (2 December 2014) at paras 58–59, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-pre-exam-2014.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [2014 PE Report]. Similarly, the OTP has stated that the situation in Gabon has been under preliminary examination since 29 September 2016, eight days after the receipt of the state referral. ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2017 (4 December 2017) at paras 23–24, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/2017-PE-rep/2017-otp-rep-PE_ENG.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [2017 PE Report]. The preliminary examination in Kenya was opened on 27 December 2007. Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-3, Request for Authorisation of an Investigation Pursuant to Article 15 (26 November 2009) at para 3 [Kenya Request for Authorization]. The preliminary examination in Georgia was opened on 14 August 2008. Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15-4-Corr and ICC-01/15-4-Corr2, Corrected Version of Request for Authorisation of an Investigation pursuant to Article 15 (16 October 2015 and 17 November 2015) at para 38 [Georgia Request for Authorization]. The situation in Guinea has been under preliminary examination since 14 October 2009; the Palestine II preliminary examination was opened on 16 January 2015; and the Burundi preliminary examination opened on 25 April 2016. 2017 PE Report, ibid at paras 51, 156, 282. The preliminary examination in the CAR II situation was opened on 7 February 2014. CAR II Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 4. Both the Venezuela II and the Philippines preliminary examinations were opened on 8 February 2018, and the Bangladesh/Myanmar preliminary examination was opened on 18 September 2018. 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 25, 42, 99. The Colombia preliminary examination has been open “since June 2004,” thus, we used the last day of the month for the purposes of any calculations. Colombia Interim Report, supra note 48 at para 2. Finally, the OTP has stated that the preliminary examination in Afghanistan has been open “since 2006.” Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17-2-Conf-Exp and ICC-02/17-7-Red, Public Redacted Version of ‘Request for Authorisation of an Investigation pursuant to Article 15’ (20 November 2017), ch 3 at para 22. As no further information is available as to this preliminary examination’s starting date, we used the last day of 2006 for the purposes of our calculations. Thus, we can say that it lasted at least as long as this calculated amount.
53 As the decisions to open some of the earlier preliminary examinations were not initially made public, the “opening date” indicates that the preliminary examination was opened “at least as early as” the particular date at which the preliminary examination was made public. The preliminary examinations in Nigeria and Honduras were both announced on 18 November 2010. 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 204; “Honduras: Preliminary Examination,” International Criminal Court <https://www.icc-cpi.int/honduras> (accessed 16 August 2018) [“Honduras Preliminary Examination”]. The preliminary examination in South Korea was announced on 6 December 2010. South Korea Article 5 Report, supra note 48 at para 2.
54 UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1593, Doc S/RES/1593 (31 March 2005) (re Darfur); UNSC Resolution 1790, Doc S/RES/1790 (26 February 2011) (re Libya).
55 Some state referrals were received subsequent to the opening of a preliminary examination. Thus, the referral date was only used as the date of the “opening” of the preliminary examination if it was the initial triggering mechanism for the preliminary examination. Situations for which the date of state referral was used include Uganda (referral date 16 December 2003), CAR I (referral date 22 December 2004), Mali (referral date 18 July 2012), and Comoros (referral date 14 May 2013). Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges against Dominic Ongwen, (23 March 2016), ch 3 at para 4; ICC–OTP, Background: Situation in the Central African Republic, Doc ICC-OTP-BN-20070522-220-A_EN (22 May 2007), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/B64950CF-8370-4438-AD7C-0905079D747A/144037/ICCOTPBN20070522220_A_EN.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [CAR Background]; Mali Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 2; Comoros Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 7.
56 The Article 12(3) declaration from Côte d’Ivoire was received by the prosecutor on 1 October 2003. Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ICC-02/11-3, Request for Authorisation of an Investigation pursuant to Article 15 (23 June 2011) at para 15 [Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization]. The attempted Article 12(3) declaration from Palestine that triggered the Palestine I preliminary examination was submitted on 22 January 2009. ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2012 (November 2012) at para 196, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/C433C462-7C4E-4358-8A72-8D99FD00E8CD/285209/OTP2012ReportonPreliminaryExaminations22Nov2012.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [2012 PE Report].
57 Regarding Afghanistan, see note 52 above. Regarding the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the OTP did not use the language of “preliminary examinations” this early in its practice. However, the OTP stated in a press release dated 16 July 2003 that it would “closely follow the situation” in the DRC, which indicates that a preliminary examination, in substance, was opened on that date. The OTP’s subsequent press release of 23 June 2004 further supports that inference. ICC–OTP, Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, press release (16 July 2003), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/B080A3DD-7C69-4BC9-AE25-0D2C271A9A63/277502/16_july__english.pdf> (accessed 6 September 2018); ICC–OTP, Office of Prosecutor of International Criminal Court Opens First Investigation, press release (23 July 2004), online: <https://www.un.org/press/en/2004/l3071.doc.htm> (accessed 12 December 2018).
58 The first public statement in relation to this preliminary examination was the announcement that it was closed. ICC–OTP, Letter to Communication Senders Concerning the Situation in Venezuela (9 February 2006), online: <https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c90d25/pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Venezuela Letter].
59 ICC–OTP, Letter to Communication Senders Concerning the Situation in Iraq (9 February 2006), online: <https://www.iccnow.org/documents/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Iraq Letter].
60 It is known that Prosecutor Bensouda re-opened the Iraq/UK preliminary examination on 13 May 2014, thus the most that can be said is that this preliminary examination has been ongoing at least as long as it has been re-opened. 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 172.
61 ICC–OTP, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Opens an Investigation into Nothern Uganda [sic], press release, Doc ICC-OTP-20040729-65 (29 July 2004), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=prosecutor+of+the+international+criminal+court+opens+an+investigation+into+nothern+uganda> (accessed 26 November 2018) [29 July 2004 Press Release]; CAR Background, supra note 55; Situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, ICC-01/11-01/11-1, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi (27 June 2011), ch 1 at para 2 (conclusion date 3 March 2011); Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-3, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Al Bashir (4 March 2009), ch 1 at para 3 [First Al Bashir Arrest Warrant Decision] (the OTP notified the Pre-Trial Chamber of the decision to proceed to investigation in situation in Darfur, Sudan, on 1 June 2005); Mali Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48; CAR II Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48. For the preliminary examination in the DRC, we have considered the preliminary examination concluded at the point at which the prosecutor informed the ASP that he was ready to request authorization to open an investigation. This was said to happen in September 2003. Thus, the last date of this month was used for the purposes of calculating the duration of the preliminary examination. ICC–ASP, Report on the Activities of the Court, Third Session, ICC-ASP/3/10 (22 July 2004) at para 55.
62 In particular, the date on which the prosecutor notified the president of the court of his or her intention to submit a request for authorization to open an investigation proprio motu. Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization, supra note 56 at para 8 (date of notification 19 May 2011); 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 231 (re Afghanistan — date of notification 30 October 2017) and para 283 (re Burundi — date of notification 17 August 2017); Kenya Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at para 1 (date of notification 5 November 2009); Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at para 17 (date of notification 5 October 2015).
63 Comoros Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48; Venezuela Letter, supra note 58; 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at para 196 (re Palestine I, date of conclusion 3 April 2012); “Honduras Preliminary Examination,” supra note 53 (date of conclusion 28 October 2015); “Preliminary Examination: Republic of Korea,” International Criminal Court, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/korea> (accessed 16 August 2018) (date of conclusion 23 June 2014); Gabon Article 5 Report, supra note 48.
64 PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at para 77.
65 Numbered sequentially according to their date of opening.
66 ICC, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, Re-opens the Preliminary Examination of the Situation in Iraq (13 May 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-statement-iraq-13-05-2014> (accessed 16 August 2018) [Preliminary Examination of the Situation in Iraq].
67 E.g. “the situation in the Republic of Korea” concerned crimes allegedly committed in that state by nationals of North Korea. See South Korea Article 5 Report, supra note 48.
68 E.g., the “situation in Afghanistan” concerns crimes allegedly committed in that state and in Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-operated facilities in Poland, Romania, and Lithuania. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17-7-Red, Public Redacted Version of ‘Request for Authorisation of an Investigation pursuant to Article 15’ (20 November 2017) at para 49 [Afghanistan Request for Authorization].
69 E.g. the “Iraq/UK” situation concerns crimes allegedly committed in Iraq by UK nationals.
70 Uganda, CAR I, Mali, Comoros, and Gabon.
71 Darfur, Sudan, and Libya.
72 Côte d’Ivoire, Palestine I, Ukraine, and Palestine II.
73 DRC, Colombia, Iraq/UK, Venezuela I, Kenya, Afghanistan, Georgia, Guinea, Republic of Korea, Nigeria, Honduras, CAR II, Burundi, the Philippines, Venezuela II, and Bangladesh/Myanmar.
74 See example later in this article.
75 Iraq Letter, supra note 59 at 2; PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at para 85.
76 Rome Statute, supra note 5, art 15(2).
77 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 23.
78 Ibid at para 180.
79 Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at para 39.
80 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 161.
81 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at paras 48, 116, 169, 233; ICC–ASP, Report on the Activities of the Court, Ninth Session, Doc ICC-ASP/9/23 (19 November 2010) at para 62; 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at paras 160, 162; ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2013 (November 2013) at para 197, online: < https://www.icc-cpi.int/OTPReports/otp-report-2013.aspx> (accessed 17 August 2018) [2013 PE Report]; 2014 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 165.
82 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at paras 94, 160; 2013 PE Report, supra note 81 at para 150; Report of the International Criminal Court to the Seventy-first Session of the UN General Assembly, UNGAOR, Doc A/71/342 (19 August 2016) at para 24.
83 Afghanistan Request for Authorization, supra note 68 at para 26.
84 ICC–ASP, Report on the Activities of the Court, Sixth Session, Doc ICC-ASP/6/18 (18 October 2007) at para 37; ICC–ASP, Report on the Activities of the Court, Seventh Session, Doc ICC-ASP/7/25 (29 October 2008) at para 68; ICC–ASP, Report on the Activities of the Court, Eighth Session, Doc ICC-ASP/8/40 (21 October 2009) at para 60.
85 PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at paras 100–03. For a recent evaluation of the effectiveness of this “positive complementarity” approach, see Human Rights Watch, “Pressure Point: The ICC’s Impact on National Justice Lessons from Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, and the United Kingdom,” Human Rights Watch (May 2018), online: <https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/ij0418_web_0.pdf> (accessed 7 September 2009).
86 ICC–ASP, Report on the Activities of the Court, Ninth Session, Doc ICC-ASP/9/23 (19 November 2010) at para 63; 2014 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 128; 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 153.
87 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 153.
88 Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at para 39.
89 Afghanistan Request for Authorization, supra note 68 at para 23.
90 South Korea Article 5 Report, supra note 48 at para 5.
91 Report of the International Criminal Court to the Sixty-fifth Session of the UN General Assembly, UNGAOR, Doc A/65/313 (19 August 2010) at para 82 [Report of ICC to Sixty-fifth Session of UNGA].
92 Afghanistan Request for Authorization, supra note 68.
93 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at para 196.
94 Seventh Report of the International Criminal Court to the United Nations for 2010/2011, UNGOAR, Doc A/66/309 (9 August 2011) at para 84.
95 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at paras 196, 201.
96 See Grey & Wharton, supra note 5.
97 Venezuela Letter, supra note 58.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 South Korea Article 5 Report, supra note 48 at para 2.
101 Ibid at paras 39, 43–81.
102 Honduras Article 5 Report, supra note 48.
103 2013 PE Report, supra note 81 at paras 71–73.
104 ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2015 (12 November 2015) at paras 276, 278, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-pe-rep-2015-eng.pdf> (accessed 17 August 2018) [2015 PE Report].
105 Gabon Article 5 Report, supra note 48.
106 Ibid at paras 3–9.
107 Ibid at paras 16–20; see also 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 285–312.
108 Letter from Embassy of Ukraine to the United Kingdom of the Netherlands Transmitting Article 12(3) Declaration (9 April 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/997/declarationRecognitionJuristiction09-04-2014.pdf> (accessed 4 August 2018); see also 2014 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 59.
109 Letter from Pavlo Klimkin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, to Mr. Herman von Hebel, Registrar of the International Criminal Court (8 September 2015), available online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/other/Ukraine_Art_12-3_declaration_08092015.pdf> (accessed 17 August 2018).
110 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 59.
111 Ibid at paras 84–95.
112 2015 PE Report, supra note 104 at paras 91–98.
113 Ibid at para 86; ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016 (14 November 2016) at paras 155-58, 164–79, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/161114-otp-rep-pe_eng.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [2016 PE Report]; 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 66–93.
114 The prosecutor reported having received fifty-two Article 15 communications in relation to the situation in the Philippines and 110 Article 15 communications in relation to the situation in Venezuela II. 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 42, 99.
115 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 51–53.
116 Statement on Philippines and Venezuela, supra note 2; see also 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 104–16.
117 We use the term “post hoc referral” to refer to situations in which the OTP has already commenced a preliminary examination proprio motu and the state subsequently makes a referral regarding the same situation, thereby vitiating the need for authorization from a pre-trial chamber to proceed to an investigation.
118 ICC–OTP, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on the Referral by a Group of Six States Parties Regarding the Situation in Venezuela (27 September 2018), online: <https://icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=180927-otp-stat-venezuela> (accessed 7 November 2018); ICC, Referral of the situation in Venezuela under Article 14 of the Rome Statute submitted by the Republic of Argentina, Canada, the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Chile, the Republic of Paraguay and the Republic of Peru (26 September 2018), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/180925-otp-referral-venezuela_ENG.pdf> (accessed 7 November 2018).
119 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 25, 37–38.
120 Ibid at paras 26–29.
121 Request under Regulation 46(3) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37, Decision on the ‘Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute’ (6 September 2018), ch 1 [PTC Decision Regarding Myanmar and Bangladesh]; 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 31–33. In a partially dissenting opinion, Judge Perrin de Brichambaut held that at the present stage of proceedings, the court could not rule on the question of jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people. Request under Regulation 46(3) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37-Anx, Decision on the ‘Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute’: Partially Dissenting Opinion, Judge Perrin de Brichambaut (6 September 2018).
122 Rome Statute, supra note 5, art 17(1)(a)–(c).
123 Ibid, art 17(1)(d).
124 Iraq Letter, supra note 59.
125 Ibid at 1.
126 Ibid at 4–8.
127 Ibid at 9.
128 Preliminary Examination of the Situation in Iraq, supra note 66. See Beth Van Schaack, “Backgrounder: Preliminary Examination into Abuses by United Kingdom Personnel in Iraq,” Just Security (blog) (14 May 2014), online: <https://www.justsecurity.org/10457/backgrounder-preliminary-examination-united-kingdom-personnel-iraq/> (accessed 17 August 2017).
129 2016 PE Report, supra note 113 at paras 314, 317–19; Comoros Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at paras 2, 5, 11–13.
130 Comoros Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at paras 19–128, 132, 138.
131 Situation on Registered Vessels of the Union of Comoros, The Hellenic Republic of Greece and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-3-Red, Application for Review pursuant to Article 53(3)(a) of the Prosecutor’s Decision of 6 November 2014 Not to Initiate an Investigation in the Situation (29 January 2015) [Comoros Application for Review].
132 Situation on the Registered Vessels of the Union of Comoros, The Hellenic Republic of Greece and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-34, Decision on the Request of the Union of the Comoros to Review the Prosecutor’s Decision Not to Initiate an Investigation (16 July 2015), ch 1, Judge Péter Kovács dissenting [Comoros Decision to Review].
133 ICC–OTP, Situation on the Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-57-Anx1, Final Decision of the Prosecution Concerning the ‘Article 53(1) Report’ (ICC-01/13-6-AnxA) (29 November 2017).
134 Situation on the Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, The Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-68, Decision on the ‘Application for Judicial Review by the Government of the Union of the Comoros’ (November 2018), ch 1 at 15, Judge Péter Kovács dissenting in part [Comoros Decision on Application for Judicial Review]. In fact, the Pre-Trial Chamber states that the prosecutor’s “final decision” “wilfully refrains from complying with” its earlier decision requesting the prosecutor to reconsider (at para 119). The Pre-Trial Chamber set a six-month time limit for the prosecutor to conduct and report on such reconsideration.
135 Situation on Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic of Greece, and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-69, Request for Leave to Appeal the ‘Decision on the “Application for Judicial Review by the Government of the Union of the Comoros”’ (21 November 2018), ch 1.
136 Colombia Interim Report, supra note 48 at para 2.
137 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 124; Colombia Interim Report, supra note 48 at paras 31–153.
138 Report of ICC to the Sixty-fifth Session of UNGA, supra note 91 at para 70.
139 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 130; 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 134.
140 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at paras 130–42; 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 165.
141 ICC–OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (13 December 2011) at paras 107–12, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/63682F4E-49C8-445D-8C13-F310A4F3AEC2/284116/OTPReportonPreliminaryExaminations13December2011.pdf> (accessed 16 August 2018) [2011 PE Report]; 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 158.
142 2011 PE Report, supra note 141 at para 113.
143 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at paras 153–58.
144 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 172.
145 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 204. In the prosecutor’s announcement, he mentions that “the Office has been analyzing the alleged crimes committed in Central Nigeria since mid-2004.” This could suggest that the OTP was conducting what amounts in substance to a preliminary examination for a long time prior to the announcement. However, the OTP also stated at this time that “the Office is still at the beginning of its preliminary examination work, in the process of determining whether or not Rome Statute crimes have been committed or not.” Thus, it remains unclear how far in advance of this 2010 announcement the OTP was engaged in an active preliminary examination. ICC–OTP, OTP Weekly Briefing, Issue no 64 (16–22 November 2010) at 2, online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP_Weekly_Briefing_64-ENG.pdf> (accessed 11 August 2018).
146 Nigeria Article 5 Report, supra note 48 at para 4.
147 Ibid at paras 6–9, 26–32.
148 Ibid at paras 13–17, 40–62, 77–126.
149 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 227–32.
150 Ibid at para 249.
151 Ibid at paras 173–74.
152 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 194–96.
153 Ibid at paras 199–209.
154 United Nations (UN), General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine ‘Non-Member Observer State’ Status in United Nations, UN meetings coverage and press release (29 November 2012), online: <https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11317.doc.htm> (accessed 13 September 2018).+(accessed+13+September+2018).>Google Scholar
155 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 251.
156 Ibid at paras 268–75.
157 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 68.
158 Palestine, Referral by the State of Palestine Pursuant to Article 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute (15 May 2018), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/2018-05-22_ref-palestine.pdf> (accessed 31 July 2018).
159 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at paras 251–84.
160 Ibid at para 282.
161 Ibid at para 284.
162 Ibid at paras 277–79.
163 Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice, supra note 39 at 1, 3.
164 Ibid.
165 E.g. Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization, supra note 56 at para 60; Kenya Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at para 61; Mali Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 172; CAR II Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 266.
166 Situation in Burundi, ICC-01/17-5-Red, Public Redacted Version of ‘Request for Authorisation of an Investigation Pursuant to Article 15’, 6 September 2017 (5 November 2017) at paras 196–99 [Burundi Request for Authorization]. The OTP has said, in fact, that it has a policy to “consider, in particular, the interests of victims” in assessing this criterion. PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at para 68.
167 CAR Background, supra note 55.
168 Afghanistan Request for Authorization, supra note 68 at paras 364–72.
169 Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at paras 339–44.
170 Ibid at para 342.
171 Rome Statute, supra note 5, art 15(3).
172 Namely, Uganda, DRC, Darfur, CAR I, Kenya, Libya, and Côte d’Ivoire.
173 Namely, Mali, CAR II, Georgia, Burundi, and Afghanistan.
174 The remaining six are Venezuela I, South Korea, Palestine I, Honduras, Comoros, and Gabon.
175 Namely, Bangladesh/Myanmar, the Philippines, Ukraine, Venezuela II, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq/UK, Nigeria, and Palestine.
176 “Democratic Republic of the Congo,” International Criminal Court, online <https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc>(accessed 18 August 2018).
177 ICC–OTP, The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Opens Its First Investigation, press release, Doc ICC-OTP-20040623-59 (23 June 2004), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=the+office+of+the+prosecutor+of+the+international+criminal+court+opens+its+first+investigation> (accessed 7 August 2018).
178 29 July 2004 Press Release, supra note 61.
179 ICC, President of Uganda Refers Situation Concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) to the ICC, press release, Doc ICC-20040129-44 (29 January 2004), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=president+of+uganda+refers+situation+concerning+the+lord_s+resistance+army+_lra_+to+the+icc> (accessed 31 December 2017) [29 January 2004 Press Release].
180 It is clear that the OTP was by no means a passive player in relation to the referral, but it is not clear that the OTP was actively analyzing the situation prior to receiving the referral. The language of its 2004 press releases suggests the referral triggered an analysis that would in substance amount to what are now called preliminary examinations. Accordingly, we have categorized the situation in Uganda as having been triggered by a state referral. 29 January 2004 Press Release, supra note 179; 29 July 2004 Press Release, supra note 61. It was not until later, in a 2008 speech at the London School of Economics that Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo suggested that a preliminary examination was in effect completed before his office sought the referral from Uganda (in the same vein as in the situation in the DRC). Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor, “The Tenth Anniversary of the ICC and Challenges for the Future: Implementing the Law” (Paper presented in London, 8 October 2008) at 6, online <https://www.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/aboutUs/articlesAndTranscripts/ICClecture.pdf> (accessed 19 October 2018); see also David Bosco, Rough Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) at 97–98; Phil Clark, “Chasing Cases: The ICC and the Politics of State Referrals in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda” in Carsten Stahn & Mohamed M El Zeidy, eds, The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 1188; Sarah MH Nouwen and Wouter G Werner, “Doing Justice to the Political: The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan” (2010) 21:4 EJIL 941.
181 ICC, Prosecutor Opens Investigation in the Central African Republic (22 May 2007), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=prosecutor+opens+investigation+in+the+central+african+republic> (accessed 18 August 2018).
182 Regarding the initiation of the CAR I preliminary examination, see CAR Background, supra note 55 at 1.
183 Ibid.
184 Situation in the Central African Republic, ICC-01/05-7, Prosecution’s Report Pursuant to Pre-Trial Chamber III’s 30 November 2006 Decision Requesting Information on the Status of the Preliminary Examination in the Situation in the Central African Republic (15 December 2006) at para 13.
185 First Al Bashir Arrest Warrant Decision, supra note 61 at para 1.
186 On 1 June 2005. Ibid at para 3.
187 Situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, , ICC-01/11-01/11-1, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi (27 June 2011), ch I at para 2.
188 Ibid at para 14.
189 Ibid; Situation in Kenya, ICC-01/09-19, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in Kenya (31 March 2010), ch 2.
190 The OTP received the declaration on 1 October 2003, triggering the preliminary examination. Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization, supra note 56 at para 15.
191 2011 PE Report, supra note 141 at para 120.
192 Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization, supra note 56; Situation in Côte d’Ivoire, ICC-02/11-14, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (3 October 2011) ch 3.
193 ICC, Renvoi de la situation au Mali (13 July 2012), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/A245A47F-BFD1-45B6-891C-3BCB5B173F57/0/ReferralLetterMali130712.pdf> (accessed 19 October 2018); Mali Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at paras 5, 15, 23–41.
194 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at paras 142–70.
195 ICC–OTP, Statement of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on opening a second investigation in the Central African Republic, Doc ICC-OTP-20140924-PR1043 (24 September 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=pr1043> (accessed 9 September 2018).
196 ICC–OTP, Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on Opening a New Preliminary Examination in Central African Republic, press release (7 August 2014), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-statement-07-02-2014> (accessed 24 August 2018); CAR II Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 4, executive summary.
197 CAR II Article 53(1) Report, supra note 48 at para 5.
198 Report of the International Criminal Court to the Sixty-fourth Session of the UN General Assembly, UNGOAR, Doc A/64/356 (17 September 2009) at para 48.
199 Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at paras 38–43.
200 2015 PE Report, supra note 104 at paras 227, 255.
201 Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52; Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15-12, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Authorisation of an Investigation (27 January 2016), ch 1.
202 ICC–OTP, Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on Opening a Preliminary Examination into the Situation in Burundi” (25 April 2016), online: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-stat-25-04-2016> (accessed 18 August 2018).
203 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 289.
204 2016 PE Report, supra note 113 at para 59 (current to 30 September 2016).
205 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 283; Burundi Request for Authorization, supra note 166.
206 Situation in Burundi, ICC-01/17-9-Red, Public Redacted Version of ‘Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in Burundi,’ ICC-01/7-X-9-US-Exp, 25 October 2017 (9 November 2017), ch 3.
207 2011 PE Report, supra note 141 at para 20.
208 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at paras 236–39.
209 Heller, Kevin Jon, “The OTP’s Remarkable Slow-Walking of the Afghanistan Examination,” Opinio Juris (blog) (1 December 2013), online: <https://opiniojuris.org/2013/12/01/otps-remarkable-slow-walking-afghanistan-examination/> (accessed 6 September 2018).+(accessed+6+September+2018).>Google Scholar
210 2013 PE Report, supra note 81 at paras 35–52.
211 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 231; Afghanistan Request for Authorization, supra note 68.
212 Afghanistan Request for Authorization, supra note 68 at paras 187–252, 352–63. For a discussion of other international forces, see paras 253–60.
213 Preliminary Examination of the Situation in Iraq, supra note 66.
214 Comoros Application for Review, supra note 131.
215 See discussion earlier in this article.
216 Iraq Letter, supra note 59.
217 2018 PE Report, supra note 16 at para 200.
218 Annex to 2003 Policy Paper, supra note 17 at 3–4. The OTP has reiterated this on numerous occasions. E.g. 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at para 13; PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at para 89.
219 Kersten, “How Long,” supra note 10; Pues, supra note 10, but see at 445–47; Situation in the Central African Republic, ICC-01/05-6, Decision Requesting Information on the Status of the Preliminary Examination of the Situation in the Central African Republic (30 November 2006), ch 3 at 4 [CAR Decision Requesting Information].
220 Annex to 2003 Policy Paper, supra note 17 at 3–4; PE Policy Paper, supra note 33 at para 90.
221 Annex to 2003 Policy Paper, supra note 17 at 3.
222 Pues, supra note 10; Kersten, “How Long,” supra note 10; Human Rights Watch, ICC: Course Correction (16 June 2011), online: < https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/06/16/icc-course-correction> (accessed 18 October 2017) [Human Rights Watch, ICC: Course Correction]; Tillier, supra note 12 at 548–49.
223 Kersten, “How Long,” supra note 10.
224 Comoros Application for Review, supra note 131 at paras 42–43.
225 CAR Decision Requesting Information, supra note 219 at 2–3; see also Pavel Caban, “Preliminary Examinations by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court” (2011) 2 Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law 199 at 211; Pues, supra note 10 at 442–43.
226 PTC Decision regarding Myanmar and Bangladesh, supra note 121 at paras 83–88.
227 Comoros Decision on Application for Judicial Review, supra note 134 at para 120.
228 Pues, supra note 10 at 436.
229 Ibid at 437.
230 Ibid at 452–53; Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, supra note 6 at paras 14–17; Human Rights Watch, ICC: Course Correction, supra note 222.
231 See discussion earlier in this article regarding how these durations were calculated.
232 The Venezuela I preliminary examination is not included in this calculation since there is no information on when it was opened and, thus, no way to calculate its duration.
233 Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, supra note 6 at para 18; Pues, supra note 10 at 440–41; Stahn, supra note 9 at 428.
234 Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization, supra note 56 at para 15.
235 Luis Moreno-Ocampo, “Address to the Assembly of States Parties” (Paper presented to the Ninth Session of the Assembly of States Parties, The Hague, 6 December 2010) at 5, online: <https://asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP9/Statements/ICC-ASP9-statements-LuisMorenoOcampo-ENG.pdf> (accessed 21 October 2018).
236 Côte d’Ivoire Request for Authorization, supra note 56 at para 8.
237 Ibid at para 49.
238 Burundi, CAR I, CAR II, Côte d’Ivoire, Darfur, DRC, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Uganda.
239 Colombia, Honduras, Venezuela I, and Venezuela II.
240 Bangladesh/Myanmar, Iraq/UK, Palestine I, South Korea, and the Philippines.
241 Georgia and Ukraine.
242 In the Afghanistan preliminary examination, the OTP analyzed crimes allegedly committed in Afghanistan, Poland, Lithuania, and Romania.
243 In the Palestine II preliminary examination, the OTP is analyzing crimes allegedly committed in Palestine and Israel, including rocket and mortar attacks allegedly launched from Palestine into Israel’s territory. See 2016 PE Report, supra note 113 at para 123.
244 In the Comoros preliminary examination, the OTP analyzed crimes allegedly committed on vessels registered to Comoros, Cambodia, and Greece.
245 No information about alleged perpetrators is available in relation to the Palestine I preliminary examination.
246 This drop also reflects the fact that the Palestine I preliminary examination was counted for the purposes of assessing territorial jurisdiction but is excluded for the purposes of counting the states of nationality jurisdiction as no explicit information was given in that preliminary examination with respect to potential perpetrators.
247 Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at para 2; 2017 PE Report, supra note 52 at paras 96–110. Note, in relation to Georgia, the OTP concluded that there was insufficient information to find a reasonable basis to believe that crimes were committed by members of the Russian armed forces. See Georgia Request for Authorization, supra note 52 at paras 208–11.
248 See David Bosco, “Discretion and State Influence at the International Criminal Court: The Prosecutor’s Preliminary Examinations” (2017) 111:2 AJIL 395 [Bosco, “Discretion and State Influence”].
249 By the term “explicit” state consent, we seek to distinguish the situation of state consent denoted by ratification of the Rome Statute in the first place.
250 These six are: Uganda, CAR I, Mali (in which the preliminary examination was triggered by a state party referral); Côte d’Ivoire (in which the preliminary examination was triggered in response to an Article 12(3) declaration); and the DRC and CAR II (in which the prosecutor received a post hoc state party referral after initiating a preliminary examination). The remaining two preliminary examinations that involved explicit state consent, but which were closed without an investigation, are Comoros and Gabon. For the purposes of this analysis, the decision not to proceed in relation to the Palestine I preliminary examination is excluded since its attempted Article 12(3) declaration was found to be invalid because there was no clear confirmation from the UN General Assembly of the statehood of Palestine at that time, and, accordingly, it would be inaccurate to classify this as a situation involving “state” consent.
251 Namely, Kenya, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Burundi.
252 Namely, Venezuela I, South Korea, and Honduras.
253 See e.g. Kersten, Mark, “Buyer’s Beware: Is a UN Security Council Referral of Myanmar to the International Criminal Court a Good Idea,” Justice in Conflict (blog) (31 August 2018), online: <https://justiceinconflict.org/2018/08/31/buyers-beware-is-a-un-security-council-referral-of-myanmar-to-the-international-criminal-court-a-good-idea/> (accessed 31 August 2018).Google Scholar
254 United Nations, Referral of Syria to International Criminal Court Fails as Negative Votes Prevent Security Council from Adopting Draft Resolution, press release (22 May 2014), online: <https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11407.doc.htm> (accessed 18 August 2018).+(accessed+18+August+2018).>Google Scholar
255 E.g. Human Rights Watch, UN Security Council: Refer Myanmar to ICC (18 May 2018), online: <https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/08/un-security-council-refer-myanmar-icc> (accessed 18 August 2018).+(accessed+18+August+2018).>Google Scholar
256 We refer to the DRC’s post hoc referral in April 2004, the CAR’s second self-referral in May 2014, Palestine’s post hoc referral in May 2018, and the joint post hoc referral of Venezuela II in September 2018.
257 Mali, Comoros, Gabon, and CAR.
258 See e.g. “African Union Backs Mass Withdrawal from ICC,” BBC News (1 February 2017), online: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38826073> (accessed 18 August 2018).
259 Grey & Wharton, supra note 5.
260 Namely, Uganda, CAR I, Mali, Comoros and Gabon. The Comoros referral involves allegations against Israeli nationals and also potentially includes acts occurring on vessels registered to Cambodia and Greece.
261 See notes 177 and 180 above.
262 Namely, DRC, Kenya, Guinea, Nigeria, CAR II, and Burundi.
263 Namely, Venezuela I, Colombia, Honduras, and Venezuela II.
264 Namely, Georgia and Afghanistan (which includes crimes allegedly committed by members of the CIA in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania).
265 Namely, Afghanistan, Iraq/UK, Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Bangladesh/Myanmar.
266 These two preliminary examinations are Afghanistan and Iraq/UK, respectively.
267 Pues, supra note 10 at 437, 439; Bosco, “Discretion and State Influence,” supra note 248 at 401.
268 Based on best available information including some approximations as described in the Research Method section above.
269 Pues, supra note 10 at paras 440–41. See also Bosco, “Discretion and State Influence,” supra note 248 at 405.
270 One exception being Uganda. See Clark, supra note 180 at 1202.
271 2012 PE Report, supra note 56 at para 182.
272 Observations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the Challenge to Admissibility made by the Defence for Germain Katanga in the case of the Prosecutor versus Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, Registry (25 September 2009) at 4.
273 Bosco, “Discretion and State Influence,” supra note 248 at 406–07.
274 Burundi Request for Authorization, supra note 166 at para 27; “UN Commission: Burundi Commits Crimes against Humanity,” Aljazeera (4 September 2017), online: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/commission-burundi-commits-crimes-humanity-170904133352582.html> (accessed 19 August 2018).
275 Pues, supra note 10 at 436; Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, supra note 6 at para 32.
276 Human Rights Watch, ICC: Course Correction, supra note 222.
277 Namely, CAR I, Côte d’Ivoire, Darfur, DRC, Kenya, Libya, and Uganda.
278 Namely, Iraq/UK, Palestine I, and Venezuela I.
279 Namely, Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Nigeria, and South Korea.
280 Namely, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Burundi, CAR II, Comoros, Gabon, Mali, Palestine II, the Philippines, Ukraine, Venezuela II.
281 Namely, Burundi, CAR II, Georgia, and Mali.
282 Namely, Comoros, Gabon, Honduras, and South Korea.
283 Namely, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq/UK, Nigeria, Palestine II, the Philippines, Ukraine, and Venezuela II.
284 Application under Regulation 46(3), ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-1, Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute (9 April 2018) at para 14.