Publications

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), the more than 120 undersigned organisations from over 60 countries representing all regions, and dozens of legal experts, human rights defenders and members of the European Parliament, condemn unequivocally and in the strongest terms the decision byco the United States (US) to impose unlawful sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). This unprecedented measure represents a direct attack against the rule of law, the independence of the Court and international justice, ultimately undermining the rights of millions of victims and survivors of mass atrocities worldwide.  The ICC has shown remarkable resilience in steadfastly discharging its mandate in the face of escalating attacks. Now, States Parties must match this commitment by defending the Court they themselves established and protecting those who cooperate with it. Condemnations alone are not enough; coordinated action is urgently needed to protect the Court’s ability to function. On 9 October 2026, the US announced the imposition of sanctions against the ICC as an institution under Executive Order 14203. These sanctions mark the gravest escalation in the sustained campaign carried out by the US with the declared aim of dismantling the ICC “brick by brick” for having investigated crimes allegedly committed on the territory of a State Party by US nationals or their allies, in particular Israeli nationals. Under the Rome Statute, the Court may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party, irrespective of the nationality of the alleged perpetrator.  Since February 2025, the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on the former ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan; both Deputy Prosecutors; the ICC President and eight other judges; a staff member and judicial candidate; a UN Special Rapporteur; and three Palestinian human rights organisations.  These measures aim to undermine the Rome Statute system as a whole and to prevent the investigation and prosecution of international crimes.  Executive Order 14203 prohibits US persons from providing material support or services to designated persons and entities, including financial services, and exposes non-US persons to the risk of secondary sanctions for engaging in conduct prohibited under the Executive Order. US persons who violate it may face criminal penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment and fines of up to 1 million USD, as well as civil penalties.  Although the Executive Order contains a six month wind-down period and exemptions for certain services, significant risks remain. Given the global reliance on the US financial and IT systems, even non-US service providers, including banks, may stop rendering their services to the ICC out of fear of penalties or reprisals from the US Treasury. This could impact the Court’s ability to maintain a bank account, receive financial contributions from States Parties, make payments, pay staff and maintain essential operations.  The Netherlands, as the host country, and all States Parties are responsible for ensuring the ICC can maintain access to services critical to its operations. The Court must be able to continue to carry out its core functions, including investigating alleged crimes; holding hearings; protecting victims and witnesses; and providing legal aid services.   For victims, survivors and witnesses in more than a dozen situation countries under investigation by the Court across the globe, the consequences could be profound. Many have waited years for justice, recounted traumatic experiences and placed their trust in the ICC as a last resort for justice. Any disruption to the ICC’s mandate and operations risks impeding their right to justice. It threatens decades of advances in accountability and justice efforts, leaving victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide without a meaningful prospect for accountability, truth and reparations.   The sanctions are already undermining justice efforts. The three Palestinian NGOs designated for cooperating with the Court immediately lost access to their bank accounts, funds, IT services and partners, impeding their work. The damage does not end with those targeted; the sanctions have created a chilling effect and impacted freedom of expression and association worldwide. Sanctions on the Court as an institution risk deepening that effect. Ultimately, victims, families of victims and survivors will pay the biggest price.  The US, which is not a State Party, is blatantly attacking the world’s only permanent international criminal court through measures that leverage its position within the global financial system. If the 125 States Parties to the Rome Statute allow these attacks to undermine the Court’s ability to function, the consequences would extend far beyond the ICC, threatening the broader rule of law, states’ sovereignty and systems of justice at the national, regional and international levels.  Statements of concern and condemnations are no longer a sufficient response to this attack. A coordinated response can no longer be delayed. Three decades ago, States made a promise that no one, no matter how powerful, will be shielded from accountability for international crimes. Victims and survivors have waited decades for a Court capable of delivering justice regardless of power or nationality, and today, the ICC is facing unprecedented pressure precisely because it seeks to apply the law equally. States Parties established the Court and are uniquely placed to safeguard its independence and effectiveness. Failure to respond decisively risks weakening the international justice system they pledged to uphold.  The CICC calls on all States Parties, individually and collectively, to:  Denounce publicly, unequivocally, in the strongest terms possible and at the highest political level the institutional sanctions against the ICC and those cooperating with it as an unlawful attack on judicial independence, the rule of law and victims.  Immediately adopt or activate blocking measures at the national and regional level – including the immediate adoption of the EU Blocking Statute (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) and equivalent domestic legislation elsewhere – to shield those designated, including the Court and its officials, the UN Special Rapporteur and civil society organisations, from the extraterritorial reach of these sanctions.  Guarantee that the Court and those cooperating with it can have access to banking and other essential services, including by:  Providing legal certainty to service providers by taking a clear legal position on the non-extraterritorial application of sanctions and making this legal position publicly available through letters or written statements.  Engaging proactively and regularly with banks, financial institutions, IT companies and others to reaffirm the unlawfulness of the sanctions, clarify that they should not be enforced extra-territorially, reject over-compliance or de-risking strategies and stop automatic or externalised compliance.  Ensure that all relevant ministries, including foreign affairs, justice, finance, treasury and digital affairs, coordinate, including at the regional level, to develop whole-of-government solutions.  Apply protection and solutions equally to civil society, human rights defenders and survivors targeted with sanctions or at risk due to their cooperation with the Court, extending every statement, solution, démarche and funding measure to include civil society organisations designated and those at risk, without distinction.  Find concrete measures to mitigate the impact of sanctions on civic space, freedom of speech and freedom of association.  Build and invest in economic, financial and tech sovereignty and resilience to reduce structural dependency on US service providers.  Explore all possible diplomatic and legal avenues to challenge the sanctions and their legality under international law, including by supporting any legal challenge raised by designated persons in the US and through a referral to the International Court of Justice.   Publicly and strongly reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute and continue to comply fully with their obligations under the Rome Statute, including funding, cooperation and the arrest and surrender of all persons subject to ICC warrants, without exception, delay, or selectivity.  Publicly and clearly oppose any initiatives aimed at weakening the Court, including attempts to amend the Rome Statute to limit its jurisdiction or independence and attempts to influence prosecutorial priorities, including efforts to sideline specific situations, such as Afghanistan or Palestine.  Refuse, without exception, coercion by a non-State Party to influence votes, positions, or conduct within the ASP or any other body of the Rome Statute system.  Ensure any ICC-related meeting is held in a country that ICC officials and staff and civil society organisations, including those designated, can access safely and without threats.   List of Signatories Organisations 11.11.11 A World Without Chemical and Biological Weapons (WWW) Action pour le Développement Intégral de l’Homme et de Tout l’Homme au Modèle de Kizito-Anuarite Action pour la Justice et Promotion des Droits de l’Homme (ARJPDH) Afghanistan Organization for Development of Human Right (AODHR) African Development and Peace Initiative (ADPI) African Initiatives for a Democratic World Order  Al Haq Al Mezan Center for Human Rights ALTSEAN-Burma Amman Center for Human Rights Studies(ACHRS) Amnesty International Asia Justice Coalition Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos Association Cultures du Monde Association Marocaine des Droits Humains (AMDH) The Arab Coalition for the International Criminal Court (ACICC) Atrocities Watch Africa Australian Centre for International Justice Avocats Sans Frontières  Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS) Bangladesh Integrated Social Advancement Programme Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies Center for Civil Liberties Center for Constitutional Rights Center for Justice and Accountability Center for Prisoners’ Rights Centre marocain pour la loi et la paix Citizens’ Assembly (Yurttaşlık Derneği)  Civic Committee for Human Rights (CCHR) Civil Society Institute – Armenia Coalition Guinéenne pour la Cour Pénale Internationale (CGCPI) Coalition tunisienne pour la Cour pénale internationale Collectif de Sauvegarde de la LADDH Algérie Colombes de la Nature Comisión de Derechos Humanos de El Salvador Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ, Northern Ireland)  COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding DAWN Defence of Human Rights and Public Services Trust Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) Exodus Charity Organization EuroMed Rights European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) FIBGAR – Baltasar Garzon International Foundation The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) Fondation congolaise pour la promotion de droits humains et la paix Foundation Sunflowers Global Justice Center Groupe LOTUS Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Holistic Empowerment for Development Human Rights and Humanitarian Development Initiatives  Human Rights Centre ZMINA Human Rights Now HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement Impact: Center against Human Trafficking and Sexual Violence in Conflict IMPARSIAL – The Indonesian Human Rights Monitor İnsan Hakları Derneği/Human Rights Association (İHD) International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) International Commission of Jurists International Commission of Jurists, Norwegian Section (ICJ Norway) International Community Care e.V. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya) Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group Kimbé Rèd FWI Kurdish Organizations Network Coalition for the International Criminal Court (KONCICC) Kurdistan Organizations Network to Abolish Nuclear and Mass Destruction Weapons (KONW) Kurdistan Without Genocide LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme/droits humains) Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH) Legal Action Worldwide (LAW) The Legal Agenda Libya Crimes Watch (LCW) Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens Ligue Pour La Paix, Les Droits De L’homme Et La Justice (LIPADHOJ) Ligue Sénégalaise des Droits Humains Ligue tunisienne des droits de l’homme LingvaLexa Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) MARUAH (Working Group for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanisms, Singapore) Mnemonic Netherlands Helsinki Committee  No Peace Without Justice (NPWJ) Norwegian Council for Tolerance & Peace (NCTP) Norwegian Helsinki Committee Observatorio Ciudadano Orde van Vlaamse Balies Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles Organization Against Weapons of Mass Destruction in Kurdistan Organisatión Nationale des Droits de l’Homme du Senegal (ONDH) Organization of the Justice Campaign (OJC) Palestinian Association for Human Rights (Witness) Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) The Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO) PAX Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) Platform for Peace and Humanity The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel REDRESS Refugees in Libya – APS Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Rights for Peace Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center Rohingya Maìyafuìnor Collaborative Network Route Justice StoptheDrugWar.org Students for Global Democracy Uganda Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS) Synergy for Justice Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) TRIAL International Union for Civil Liberty (UCL) United Nations Association Sweden Vision GRAM-International Vous et Vos Droits Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)  World Without Genocide Young World Federalists Youth Compassion for Humanity Uganda Youth for Peace and Dialogue between Cultures Zarga Organization for Rural Development Zimbabwe Human Rights Association Individuals Ahmed Aloui, Association tunisienne de défense des libertés individuelles Nadia Attaire, JURDI Farhatullah Babar, Human Rights Cell, Pakistan Peoples Party Andrés Mauricio Balcázar Suárez, Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo Edgar Boydens, Former Dean of the Brussels Bar Estelle Ceulemans, Member of the European Parliament Christophe Clergeau, Member of the European Parliament Rafendi Djamin, Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), Indonesia’s NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy François Dubuisson, Université libre de Bruxelles Terje Einarsen, University of Bergen Penelope Faulkner, Quê Me: Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) Benjamin Fiorini, Université Paris 8 Claire Fita, Member of the European Parliament Isabelle Fouchard, CNRS/Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Raphaël Glucksmann, Member of the European Parliament Sandra Gómez López, Member of the European Parliament  Pierre Jouvet, Member of the European Parliament  Sarah Kasande, International human rights lawyer Murielle Laurent, Member of the European Parliament César Luena, Member of the European Parliament Mathilde Lutak, JURDI Kaari Mattila, Academic Nora Mebarek, Member of the European Parliament Alessandra Moretti, Member of the European Parliament Hana Jalloul Muro, Member of the European Parliament  Matjaz Nemec, Member of the European Parliament  Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Member of the European Parliament Zoran Pusić, Civic Committee for Human Rights (CCHR) René Repasi, Member of the European Parliament Insaf Rezagui-Sbeih, Université Paris Cité; JURDI Chloé Ridel, Member of the European Parliament Indira Rosenthal, Independent Farah Safi, JURDI Sarah Sameur, Avocate au Barreau de Paris Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, Member of the European Parliament Eric Sargiacomo, Member of the European Parliament  Krzysztof Smiszek, Member of the European Parliament  Cecilia Strada, Member of the European Parliament Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament Marta Temido, Member of the European Parliament Vesna Teršelič, Antifascist League Thomas Verfuss, Journalists For Justice Luc Walleyn, Lawyer Tiemo Wölken, Member of the European Parliament Lara Wolters, Member of the European Parliament Dr Parisa Zangeneh, Independent Mounir Satouri, Member of the European Parliament

Amici submit this brief to explain the irreparable harm that this Order causes. It advances two arguments. First, the fracturing of civil society resulting from the Order impairs the functioning of the ICC. CSOs and human rights defenders, who are comprised of, to name a few, lawyers, victim representatives, and survivor advocates, are not peripheral advocates for the ICC; rather, they are critical to the functioning of the ICC. The ICC was designed to depend on them to connect with victims and witnesses; document crimes; monitor judicial developments; support victim participation and reparations; contribute legal, contextual, cultural and other expertise; and advance cooperation and domestic accountability, particularly in situation countries where the Court has limited access.

In the span of two months, five States, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Venezuela, and Chad, have announced their withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which will take effect one year after their notification is deposited with the United Nations (UN). The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), together with more than 133 non-governmental organisations (NGOs), calls on States Parties, international and regional organisations, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and civil society to mount a collective response to halt these withdrawals and stand against the new US campaign, to preserve victims’ and survivors’ access to justice and reparations.  In September 2025, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso announced their intention to withdraw from the ICC. The three countries, members of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), formally notified UN Secretary-General António Guterres of their withdrawal from the Rome Statute in June 2026. They have accused the ICC, among other things, of pursuing a selective prosecutorial policy against the Global South. On Friday, 24 July 2026, Venezuela also announced that it had notified the Secretary-General of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute. This was followed on Monday, 27 July, by Chad, whose decision has reportedly been linked to a US request to review its membership to the Court.  The withdrawals by Venezuela and Chad come amid a renewed US campaign to “dismantle the ICC brick by brick” in order to prevent any investigation or prosecution of US nationals and their allies, including Israel. This campaign includes diplomatic pressure urging States to withdraw from the Rome Statute and threatening to reduce or withdraw foreign and security assistance from countries that continue to support the Court. The objective of this campaign is clear: to secure impunity for international crimes committed by the United States and its allies.  These are critical times: victims of the most serious crimes need effective access to justice more than ever, yet the ICC, its judges and organisations cooperating with it are under unprecedented and sustained attack. In this context, any disengagement from the ICC weakens the fight against impunity, undermines the prevention of the gravest crimes, and erodes victims’ rights to justice, truth, and reparations.  Withdrawals not only create safe havens for ICC fugitives, they also increase the risks of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide being committed with impunity on the territory of withdrawing States or by their nationals, gravely limiting the possibility of justice for victims. Furthermore, they undermine cooperation with the Court, including access to victims and witnesses, and the arrest and surrender of alleged perpetrators.  The CICC and undersigned organisations recognise the necessity of ensuring fairness in the international criminal justice system, safeguarding judicial independence, and truthfully addressing concerns about selectivity in the administration of justice. It is equally important to ensure those allegedly responsible for international crimes are held to account, regardless of their nationality.  Yet, these withdrawals come at a time when the Office of the Prosecutor has significantly expanded the geographical scope of its investigations beyond Africa, including in Palestine, the Philippines, Ukraine, Myanmar/Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and elsewhere. Furthermore, it has sought arrest warrants against leaders of powerful States and their allies, notably the Russian and Israeli Heads of State, and charges were recently confirmed against the former Filipino Head of State. Concerns regarding selectivity should be addressed through constructive dialogue within the Assembly of States Parties and, mindful of its fully independent mandate, the Court, rather than through unilateral withdrawals.  The CICC and the undersigned organisations urge Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Venezuela, and Chad to reverse their decisions by immediately withdrawing their notifications, following Hungary’s example earlier this year. They also urge the United States to halt its campaign, revoke the sanctions, and stop its attacks against the independence of justice.  Victims and survivors deserve concrete progress towards accountability, truth and reparations, and must be supported in their quest for justice. The promise made to victims nearly 30 years ago in Rome that impunity would no longer be the norm cannot be derailed by one State, no matter how powerful. The international community must discharge its duty to safeguard that promise, for the benefit of victims, survivors and humanity.  To this end, the signatories call for:  Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Venezuela, and Chad to:   Revoke their notifications of withdrawal before the expiration of the one-year period provided for under Article 127 of the Rome Statute. Maintain their engagement and full cooperation with the ICC, including ensuring access to victims and witnesses in their territory, and the arrest and surrender of suspects. The United States to:   Immediately halt its campaign against the ICC, revoke all ICC-related sanctions, and stop its attacks against the independence of justice. State Parties and regional organisations to:   Intensify diplomatic efforts, individually and through regional organisations and groupings, to seek withdrawal of the current notifications; prevent further withdrawals; reaffirm that concerns about the ICC’s prosecutorial policy should be addressed through dialogue and cooperation; and support States that are most vulnerable to the US campaign. Denounce the unlawful US sanctions and campaign against the ICC and those cooperating with it publicly and firmly, and reaffirm their support for the Rome Statute system, both individually and collectively through the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), regional organisations, and at the UN General Assembly. Continue to engage bilaterally with the US Administration to call for an end to the campaign, the revocation of existing sanctions and no further designations. Support and protect national coalitions, civil society organisations and human rights defenders working to advance international justice, particularly in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Venezuela, and Chad, and those targeted with unlawful sanctions. Publicly and clearly oppose any initiatives aimed at weakening the Court, including attempts to amend the Rome Statute to limit its jurisdiction or independence and attempts to influence prosecutorial priorities, including efforts to sideline specific investigations, such as Venezuela, Afghanistan, or Palestine. Not bow to political pressure or campaigns aimed at undermining the independence of the Court when exercising their voting rights in the ASP. Continue cooperating fully with the ICC and comply with their international obligations, including by arresting and surrendering to the Court any person subject to an ICC arrest warrant, without selectivity. The International Criminal Court to:   Continue reaffirming, through the Office of the Prosecutor, that its prosecutorial policy is guided by the principles of independence, impartiality, and non-selectivity; continue investigating and prosecuting those most responsible for international crimes regardless of their nationality; and communicate, where appropriate, the progress of its work in ongoing investigations to reinforce deterrence and maintain victims’ confidence in international justice. Reaffirm that the withdrawals do not affect the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed prior to the effective date of withdrawal. Intensify its outreach efforts, including in preliminary examination countries, to counter misinformation, prevent further violations, deter the commission of further crimes, and continue its engagement with victims and affected communities to sustain their confidence in international justice. Signatories Civil society organisations:  A World Without Chemical and Biological Weapons (WWW) Action des Chrétiens Activistes des Droits de l’Homme à Shabunda (ACADHOSHA) Afghanistan Organisation for Development of Human Rights African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies African Initiatives for a Democratic World Order Al-Haq Association Nationale de l’Alphabetisation et la Formation de Adultes (ANAFA) Anfal Stories Organization APDHE, Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España The Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession (ACIJLP) and the Arab Coalition for the International Criminal Court (ACICC) Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) L’Action pour la Réforme de la Justice et la Promotion des Droits de l’Homme (ARJPDH) Association Cultures du Monde Association démocratique des femmes du Maroc Association for Urban Safety and Mediation (ASUM) Association Marocaine des Droits Humains (AMDH) Australian Centre for International Justice Avocats Sans Frontières Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS) Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) Center for Civil Liberties Center for Clean and Green Governance (CCGG) Center for Truth and Justice Centre Libanais des droits humains – CLDH Children Education Society (CHESO), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center (CLRDC) Citizens’ Assembly (Yurttaşlık Derneği) Citizens for Global Solutions Club des Amis du Droit du Congo (CAD) Coalition Burundaise pour la Cour Pénale Internationale Coalition de l’Afrique Francophone pour la CPI Coalition for the Prevention of Hazara Genocide (CPHG) Coalition Guinéenne pour la Cour Pénale Internationale (CGCPI) Collectif des Avocats pour la défense des Victimes de crimes de droit International commis au Burundi (CAVIB) Colombes de la Nature / CDN Colombian Commission of Jurists Comisión de Derechos Humanos de El Salvador (CDHES) Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding Corporación Sisma Mujer Darfur Call Darfur Women Action Group Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHRCO) EuroMed Rights European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) Exodus Charity Organization Federación de asociaciones de defensa y promoción de derechos humanos International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) Baltasar Garzon International Foundation (FIBGAR) Finnish League for Human Rights Fondation Congolaise pour la promotion des droits humains et la Paix (FOCDP) Forum tunisien pour les droits economiques et sociaux Foundation Sunflowers Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI) Global Justice Center Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Helsinki Committee for Human Rights / Serbia Holistic Empowerment for Development Human Rights and Humanitarian Development Initiatives (HRHDI) Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği – İHD) Human Rights Center (ZMINA) Human rights movement Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan Human Rights Now Human Rights Online Philippines (HRonlinePH) Human Rights Watch Humanitarian Law Center Hūmānus Ican Kurdistan Network (IKN) ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions Imparsial, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor Initiatives pour la paix et les droits humains Institute for Environmental Security International Commission of Jurists, Kenyan Section (ICJ Kenya) International Community Care e. V International Legal Initiative (ILI) International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) Iranian Center for International Criminal Law (ICICL) Just Access e.V. Justice Call Kenya Human Rights Commission Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group Kurdish organizations Network coalition for the International Criminal court (KONCICC) Kurdistan organizations Network to Abolish Nuclear and Mass Destruction Weapons – KONW Kurdistan without Genocide Kurdocide watch – Chak Kurdistan Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI) Life campaign to abolish the death sentence in Kurdistan Network Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens Ligue Burundaise des droits de l’homme Iteka Ligue pour la paix, les droits de l’Homme et la Justice (LIPADHOJ) Manawa Organization For Martyrs & Anfal’s Inquiry MARUAH (Working Group for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanisms, Singapore) Network of Families of the Disappeared, Nepal No Peace Without Justice (NPWJ) Norwegian Council for Tolerance & Peace Nürnberger Menschenrechtszentrum Organisation marocaine des droits humains Organization Against Weapons of Mass Destruction in Kurdistan Organization of the Justice Campaign (OJC) Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO) Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) Platform for Peace and Humanity Programa Venezolano de Educación Acción en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA) Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI) Public Association “Dignity” African Assembly for the Defense of Human Rights (RADDHO) REDRESS Refugees in Libya – APS Reporters Without Borders (RSF) / Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) / Reporteros Sin Fronteras (RSF) Réseau Equitas Côte d’Ivoire Stand up for Africa Students for Global Democracy Uganda Sudan Social Development Organization (SUDO) Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS) Synergy for Justice Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) TRIAL International Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group (ULAG) United Nations Association of Sweden Viasna, Human Rights Center Vision GRAM-International Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ) World Without Genocide Youth Compassion for Humanity Uganda Youth For Peace And Dialogue between cultures Youth Initiative for Human Rights Zarga organization for rural development Individuals:   Abdul Nabi Alekry, Advisor, Bahrain Human Rights Organization Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders Alaa Shalaby, Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) Asiya Arif, Executive Director, Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC) Enid H. Adler, Attorney-at-Law, Sole Practitioner Gunal Kursun, Spokesperson of the Turkish Coalition for the ICC Hernando Valencia-Villa, Independent Jurist Inès N’GOPOT, Journalist and Member of the Association des Journalistes pour la Cour Pénale Internationale Kaja Kowalczewska, Postdoctoral Researcher, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Kelly Matheson, U.S. Attorney Specialized in international human rights Maria Appelblom, Former Chief of UN Standing Police Capacity Maysa Ayoub, Assistant Professor, The American University in Cairo Mody Watt, Secretary General, l’Organisation Nationale des Droits de l’Homme (ONDH), Sénégal Rebecca Shoot, Co-Convener, Washington Working Group for the ICC Terje Einarsen, Professor of International Law, Chairperson ICJ Norway Thomas Verfuss, Founding president of the Association of Journalists at the ICC (AJICC-AJCPI)

Originally posted by Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice July 21st, 2026 — An International Criminal Court (ICC) junior staff member accused the ICC’s Prosecutor, the highest elected official within the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the Court, of sexual misconduct and retaliation against ICC staff that reported the misconduct. We urge States Parties not to lose sight of what, and who, the special session convened for 24 July of the Assembly of States Parties is actually about.  As feminist organisations and experts working on gender justice and institutional accountability, we are concerned that the substance of the proceedings, allegations of sexual misconduct and retaliation within the OTP, is being displaced by inaccurate information surrounding the disciplinary process. At the Centre of This Process Are Survivors of Gender-based Violence in the Workplace Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute requires the Prosecutor to be a person of high moral character. That is the question now before the Assembly: whether the sitting Prosecutor reportedly found to have engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with a junior member of his immediate office, and to have retaliated against staff who relayed her account, meets that standard. On 16 July 2026, Sarah, a lawyer and ICC staff member who came forward with claims of sexual misconduct by the ICC Prosecutor, spoke publicly for the first time. She described a progressive escalation of acts that crossed her physical and emotional boundaries, including specific incidents during official missions abroad. A second woman, who worked for the Prosecutor earlier in her career, has described a similar pattern during an internship. Sarah was a junior staff member working in the immediate office of the Prosecutor, the highest officer in a rigidly hierarchical institution. Women who come forward in these circumstances have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. Sarah’s immigration status also affected her ability to report concerns. Sarah’s career, personal and family life have all suffered because of what she endured. The power imbalance is also reflected in the media, which has  portrayed her as a foreign intelligence agent and a threat rather than as a woman subjected to alleged conduct no one should face in their workplace. The chilling effect is inevitable. As Purna Sen, formerly Special Advisor to the Prosecutor on Working Climate, observes, underreporting of harassment in international organisations is well documented, including at the ICC, and the disincentives are structural: institutional closure around senior staff, opaque process, denial of access to outcomes, and career-damaging stigma. Every process handled this way raises the threshold for the next person.  The Ad Hoc Panel Did Not Exonerate the Prosecutor The ad hoc Panel did not exonerate the Prosecutor. The ad hoc Panel’s mandate was narrow and expressly advisory. The Bureau confirmed on 2 July 2025 that the Panel would have an advisory role in relation to the Bureau and would focus strictly on the legal characterisation of the facts in the OIOS report, and not on fact-finding. It did not conduct the investigation, did not independently establish facts, did not make recommendations on sanctions, and did not decide the matter. Its conclusions amount to legal advice, not a judgment nor a court ruling.  Within the legal architecture of the ICC, the Rome Statute assigns the ASP the task of disciplining elected officials. States Parties elect the Prosecutor under Article 42, and Article 46 places removal in the same hands. The power to appoint and the power to discipline are deliberately paired, because accountability for the Court’s most senior officials cannot rest with the officials themselves. The Court’s Work on the Situation in the State of Palestine Does Not Depend on a Single Official The OTP is a professional body of lawyers, investigators and specialists whose expertise ensures continuity of cases across successive terms. Its work does not rest on any individual officeholder. The investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine was announced by former Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on 3 March 2021, predating both the current Prosecutor’s term and the allegations that emerged in 2024. The Office filed applications for arrest warrants on 20 May 2024, and Pre-Trial Chamber I issued them unanimously on 21 November 2024. The OTP has continued to function since the Prosecutor took leave of absence in May 2025 and since his suspension by the Bureau in June 2026, under the leadership of the Deputy Prosecutors. Work has also progressed in other situations, including Libya and the Philippines. A substantial part of the Office’s activity proceeds under seal, and the absence of public records is not evidence of inactivity. Ensuring the Integrity of the ICC is Essential to Pushback Against Attacks We strongly condemn the United States sanctions regime designating Court officials and Palestinian organisations and the campaign announced by the United States Secretary of State on 13 July 2026 to “dismantle” the “threat of the ICC.” As feminist organisations and international justice practitioners committed to accountability for international crimes, and fighting for justice and reparations for victims and survivors of gender-based crimes, we take these attacks seriously and are deeply concerned about them because we believe and support the essential work of the ICC.  These threats are, however, distinct from allegations of misconduct raised internally by members of the Court’s own staff. Conflating the two issues reinforces misogynistic stereotypes about survivors of gender-based violence, and entrenches the well-documented underreporting of harassment in international workplaces, including at the Court itself.  We call on ICC States Parties to: Attend the Special Session and cast a vote. A decision of this significance should reflect the full membership of the Assembly. When a representative cannot attend in person, proxy voting is available, and we encourage its use so that no State Party’s voice goes unheard. Decide on the basis of the full record before the Assembly, comprising the OIOS, ad hoc Panel’s, and the Bureau’s reports, and underlying evidence and the written submissions of both parties. Reject the conflation of allegations relating to the Situation in the State of Palestine, and reaffirm publicly that the Court’s work in Palestine and in all other situations continues irrespective of the outcome of the vote. The manner in which this process concludes will be read by survivors of sexual violence as an indication of what the institution expects of those who report misconduct, and of what it is prepared to require of those who hold its highest offices. For more information about the legal framework and the steps taken so far in this process, see this joint civil society Q&A providing documented and publicly sourced information. Our work on Workplace Culture at the ICC Signatories Organisations (34) Action Against Prohibited Conduct (AAPC), ARJPDH (Action pour la Réforme de la Justice et la Promotion des Droits de l’Homme), Democratic Republic of Congo Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos, Perú Bumi Setara, Indonesia Clinique de droit international pénal et humanitaire (Faculté de droit, Université Laval), Canada Corporación Humanas, Chile Corporación ILEX Accion Juridica, Colombia Cordaid, The Netherlands Family Frontiers, Malaysia International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), France International People’s Tribunal for Indonesia’s Genocide 1965/66, Indonesia/Netherlands Just Access, Germany Global Justice Center, USA Greater Equitable Measures (GEM), Malaysia International Criminal Law Society, Germany Intersex Thailand, Thailand Kemban Kolektif, Malaysia KOMPAKS (Civil Society Coalition of Anti Sexual Violence), Indonesia Kurdish organizations Network coalition for the International Criminal Court (KONCICC), Iraq Life campaign to abolish the death sentence in Kurdistan, Iraq Manushya Foundation, Thailand Sankorelabs, Mali Students for Global Democracy Uganda, Uganda The Regional Coalition for Women Human Rights Defenders in South West Asia and North Africa (WHRDMENA), SWANA region New Bloom, Taiwan NGO-CEDAW Cambodia, Cambodia Organization of the Justice Campaign‏- OJC, Iraq Ruta Pacifica de Mujeres, Colombia Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network, Indonesia Sustainable Development Network, Malaysia Synergy for Justice Stichting, The Netherlands UpRights, The Netherlands Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition (WHRDIC), Global Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), The Netherlands Women’s International Peace Centre, Uganda Youth Association for Development (YAD), Pakistan Zarga organization for rural development, Sudan Individuals (216) Adrian Fekete, Germany Akila Radhakrishnan, Independent human rights lawyer and gender justice expert Alannah Cooper, Netherlands Albane Sibourd-Baudry, Switzerland Alisya Fairuz Alyn Ware, World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy, Czech Republic Amanda Zirgulis Ambre Arnold Amira Samsudin Amy Yasmine, Malaysia Angelica Cocoma, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Germany Angie Conroy, NGO-CEDAW, Cambodia Anne Marie Tan Sue Yen, Malaysia Annelies van der Plas, Netherlands Annie Nguyen , USA Annie O’Reilly Lawyer , Ireland Antonella Leone, Switzerland Anusha Rym Asha Dhillon, Malaysia Audrey Crasson Banil Lorid Bas Oostdijk, Netherlands Belle Razali, Transgender and Gender Diverse Health Expert/Consultant, Malaysia Bjorn Arp, International Human Rights Lawyer, United States of America Carina Bury Carlos David Avendaño, The Netherlands Caroline Reinhart, Journalist, France Charlotte lamy Charlotte LP Christian St-Pierre, Investigator, Canada Christiane Cesin Christina Konstantinidou Christopher “Kip” Hale, International Criminal Lawyer Clara Sabina Bowley, Nurse Dalina Annuar, Malaysia Daniel William Franken Danya O. Centeno García, International Human Rights and Criminal Justice Lawyer Diana Bravo Rubio, Academica y defensora de derechos humanos, Colombia Edgardo Legaspi, Philippines Edward Patrick Flaherty, Attorney at Law (US Supreme Court Bar), Switzerland Emeric Rogier, Former ICC Emilie Palamy Pradichit, Laos / Thailand Emily Cheah, Lawyer, Malaysia Enid H Adler, Esq, Counselor and Attorney at Law (retired), USA Erin Farrell Rosenberg Estelle Mounier, Magistrate Evi Siganou Fareeza Ibrahim, Malaysia Frans de Ridder, Nederland Geneviève Audet, Canada George Boskos Gry Tina Tinde, Investigator of sexual exploitation and abuse Gwendoline RENAUD, France Hédoux, France Henrietta Pentony Ho Mei Yee Ashely, Malaysia Ineke de Ridder-Cornax, The Netherlands Inge cs , Nederland Ireena zain, Malaysia Jack Murphy, United Kingdom Jehan Aziz Jennifer Trahan, Professor, NYU Center for Global Affairs Jeroen de Zeeuw Jiavern Tham, HAYAT, Malaysia John Josepha Umri Jones, USA Julia Baly, Australia Kathy Franken, United States Kelsey R Kevin van den Abeele Kristen Anna, USA Kristen Wojcik Krittaporn Semsantad, Thailand Lavi Kasilingam Li Tim, Koh Lisa van Leur LiYing Lim Lucie Canal M. van Looij Madeleine Tee Cheng Mei, Malaysia Marianne Migneault, Canada Marie Lamy Martine Costers, Belgium Mathilde Colin Melissa G Michel Tuerlings Michiel Rouw Muhammad Sha’ani bin Abdullah, Sustainable Development Network Malaysia Nada Chaiyajit Nadia van der Linde, Netherlands Nicola Fletcher, Former ICC, Netherlands Norlaili Ismail Nur Hani Hidayah Ab Razak, Malaysia Omar A, Netherlands Patricia Stewart, APPI, Ireland Puteri noor Amirah, Malaysia Rebecca A.Shoot, Impact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions, USA Rebecca Hamilton, Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law Rima Isam Anabtawi, Academic, USA Robert Hotston Rosemary Grey, Sydney Law School, Australia Saber Chatar, Netherlands Sandra Sporer , Germany Sara Is Sarah Bergman, Psychologist, France Sebastian Landin Sergio Rodriguez Diaz, Colombia Shreyashi Sharma, Human Rights Lawyer, India Shriya Patel Sofie Wallyn, Belgium Stephen Rapp, USA Steven Reilly, United Kingdom Sumit Dheir Tamyra Selvarajan Thea Coventry, PhD Candidate in international law, Leiden University, Netherlands Theresa de Langis, PhD, USA Thomas Ebbs TIU KIAN WEE Tiffany Ly, Germany Valerie Lim Vony Rambolamanana, International criminal law expert, France Wapke Alexandra Monasch, PMT Groep The Netherlands Zélie Marembert, France Zoé L. Zoe S. And 91 further signatories who wish to remain publicly anonymous, including 19 ICC staff members.

As US organizations from across civil society—including legal, human rights, faith-based, humanitarian, academic, and democracy organizations—alongside advocates for victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, prominent scholars, legal practitioners, diplomats, and civil servants, we are alarmed by the US administration’s announced campaign to “dismantle” and “systematically disable” the International Criminal Court (ICC), including reported threats of consequences for states that continue to support or cooperate with the Court. As the country commemorates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we are reminded that the American experiment rests on an enduring principle: that no one is above the law. An independent judiciary, the rule of law, and equal justice under law are values the United States has long championed both at home and abroad. The United States played a defining role in the early development of international criminal justice. US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson and Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz, a lifelong champion of international justice, including the ICC, and the promise of “Never Again,” promoted the enduring principle that the gravest crimes must be met with accountability under the law. That commitment continued through US support on a bipartisan basis for accountability efforts before dedicated courts set up to address grave crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. And it continued to support the work of the ICC in countries including Sudan and Ukraine. The ICC is an independent and impartial judicial institution created by states to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, consistent with the principle that such crimes should not go unpunished. These are the only crimes within its jurisdiction. As a court of last resort, it reinforces—rather than replaces—the primary responsibility of states to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Efforts to intimidate, weaken, or dismantle the Court undermine confidence in the administration of justice and the international legal system itself. Most critically, they break a promise to victims and survivors that justice can prevail over impunity for crimes that shock the conscience of humanity and that no one is above the law. We are concerned by any effort to pressure states for honoring the international legal commitments they have undertaken. The ICC has jurisdiction when a citizen of a non-state party commits crimes within its mandate on the territory of an ICC state party. US citizens who commit crimes abroad are subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This is a well-established principle of international law. We also express our solidarity with the judges, legal professionals, civil society organizations, and others who serve the cause of international justice with professionalism, independence, and fidelity to the law. We urge the administration to withdraw this policy; refrain from actions that undermine the independence and functioning of the International Criminal Court or seek to discourage lawful cooperation with it; and reaffirm the longstanding commitment of the United States to justice, accountability, and the rule of law. July 17, International Justice Day, marks the adoption of the Rome Statute of the ICC. We reaffirm our commitment to accountability for atrocity crimes, to judicial independence, and the rule of law. We urge the US government to uphold that legacy. SIGNATORIES (as of July 17, 2026)  Organizational Signatories Advocacy Network for Justice and Peace (ANJP) The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice American Atheists American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) American Jewish World Service Americans for Democratic Action  Amnesty International USA Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) Center for Constitutional Rights Center for Development of International Law Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Center for International Policy Center for Justice and Accountability Center for Truth and Justice (CFTJ) Charity & Security Network Citizens for Global Solutions-Education Fund The Cora di Brazzà Foundation cylindr magazine Defending Rights & Dissent Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) Ensaaf Friends Committee on National Legislation The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security Global Justice Center Human Rights First Human Rights Watch Human Security Project ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions Indigenous Environmental Network International Action Network for Gender Equity & Law (IANGEL) International Criminal Court Alliance Latin American Working Group (LAWG) The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns New Jewish Narrative New Lines Institute NH Peace Action Education Fund Peace Action Presbyterian Church (USA), Office of Public Witness The Reckoning Project StoptheDrugWar.org Syria Justice and Accountability Centre United Church of Christ United Nations Association of Greater Philadelphia Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) Western States Legal Foundation Whitestone Legal Advocacy World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy World Without Genocide Individual Signatories Enid H. Adler, Esq Edward Aguilar Kirby Anwar, Visiting Associate Professor, CUNY School of Law Hon. Lloyd Axworthy Hon. Dr. Teta Banks Patricia Barajas Marisa R. Bassett, former Assistant Appeals Counsel, ICTY and IRMCT Hala L. Bouhafa Mike Brand, Director of the Human Security Project and Adjunct Professor of Mass Atrocities and International Law Nancy Bremeau, Commissioner, Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women Alison Brown Thalia R. Brown, Founder and CEO, The Authentic Discussion Dr. John Burroughs Sean Butler, International Criminal Court Alliance Jacqueline Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation Andrea Carlise, Attorney-at-Law Linda Carter, Professor of Law Emerita  Matthew Charity, Professor of Law Roger S. Clark, Professor Donna Cline, International Criminal Lawyer Lawrence Elias Couch David M. Crane, Founding Chief Prosecutor UN Special Court for Sierra Leone Tad Daley, Executive Director, Americans for Democratic Action  Tom Dannenbaum, Professor of Law Christian De Vos, Visiting Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Law Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Professor, Cardozo Law School Maria Gevorgyan, Center for Truth and Justice (CFTJ) Jennifer Glaudemans, Attorney-at-Law Jonathan Hafetz, Professor of Law Rebecca Hamilton, Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law Sarah Elaine Harrison, Former Associate General Counsel, Department of Defense  Kimberly Hart, former Human Rights Team Lead at USAID Ellen Kennedy, Executive Director, World Without Genocide Celeste Kmiotek, Human Rights Lawyer Martha Kruse Winston E. Langley, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Boston  David Mandel-Anthony, Former Deputy to the Ambassador at Large, Office of Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State Savanna Mapelli Dr. Hope Elizabeth May, The Cora di Brazzà Foundation Dr. Jacqueline R. McAllister, Chair of International Studies, Associate Professor of Political Science, Kenyon College Alice McCarthy Wambura Moenga, International Human Rights Lawyer Chris Morssink, United Nations Association of Greater Philadelphia Priyanka Motaparthy, Clinical Professor of Law Gissou Nia, Human Rights Lawyer William Pace, Executive Director, Center for Development of International Law, Founding Convener, Coalition for the ICC Jessica Peake, Director, International & Comparative Law Program at UCLA School of Law Jessica Pierson Alka Pradhan, Professor Emily Prey, New Lines Institute Stephen J. Rapp, Former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Jana Ramsey, Former Senior Policy Advisor, State Department  Nicole Rangel, Human Rights and International Justice Expert  D. Wes Rist, former Atrocity Prevention Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of State Susanne Riveles Gabor Rona, Professor, Cardozo Law School Alberto Saldamando, Indigenous Environmental Network Michael Scharf, President of the American Branch of the International Law Association Elizabeth Shafer, The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy Rajika Shah, Director, Justice for Atrocities Clinic, LMU Loyola Law School Rebecca A. Shoot, Co-Convener, ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions Timothy Slade, Filmmaker Sung Sohn Jane Stromseth, Francis Cabell Brown Professor of International Law Emerita, Georgetown University Law Center Jennifer Trahan, Professor, NYU Center for Global Affairs

In July, the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties will convene an unprecedented Special Session where, for the first time in the Court's history, States will be asked to decide whether to remove a sitting ICC Prosecutor from office. That decision must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the statutory framework governing these disciplinary proceedings and the decisions available to the relevant decision-maker at each stage of the process. There is a legitimate public interest in the disciplinary proceedings currently before the ASP. The allegations against the Prosecutor are serious, and the moral and ethical standards required of his position are high. Yet key aspects of the process remain confidential or unpublished, including virtually all procedural documents, key decisions, the main findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducted the external fact-finding investigation into the allegations, and the main conclusions of the ad hoc Panel of judicial experts, which was mandated to provide advice on the legal characterisation of the facts as established by the OIOS.

Link to original letter with list of signatories To Members of the 119th Congress and the incoming Presidential Administration of Donald J. Trump: The undersigned organizations write to express grave concerns and to unequivocally oppose the use of the sanctions authority of the United States to attack the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent judicial institution dedicated to combating impunity for the gravest crimes known to humanity. The ICC performs a vital role in international affairs by investigating the worst international crimes that shock the collective conscience of humanity and investigating those accused of committing those crimes. It does so in a manner that protects the due process rights of the accused, the sovereignty of states, including the United States, and the rights of victims. As has been widely observed, supporting the work of the Court is in the interest of the United States, and sanctioning it, conversely, undermines important US interests. The positive role of the ICC has been recognized through previous bipartisan support for investigations into war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Russian officials in the Ukraine conflict (S.Res.531 and H.Res.963), attempts to bring justice for the victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and as a pathway to accountability for perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan. Many of the undersigned spoke out when the previous Trump administration subjected two senior ICC officials to sanctions and travel restrictions. At that time, we cautioned that it was “uniquely dangerous, extreme, and unprecedented to utilize a mechanism designed to penalize criminals, their aiders, and abettors, against an independent judicial institution.” The previous sanctions against the Prosecutor and a member of her team raised serious concerns about the ICC’s ability to fulfill its mandate, including the Prosecutor’s obligation to report to the UN Security Council on the situations in Darfur and Libya, and to participate in the annual meetings of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s oversight management and legislative body, where the US participates as an Observer. In 2024, the House of Representatives passed the so-called “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act.” Although the bill’s full scope was ambiguous, the legislative intent was to punish foreign persons who aid, materially assist, or provide financial support for efforts by the ICC to undertake certain investigations and prosecutions. The Biden administration strongly opposed the bill and the previous Senate did not vote on the legislation. As human rights, legal, and faith-based organizations, the foundations of civil society, as well as individuals who have dedicated their careers to these causes, we decry attempts to attack an independent judicial institution and urge the 119th Congress and incoming administration to reconsider this misguided position. Asset freezes and entry restrictions are tools intended to combat individuals and entities constituting a threat to US national security, such as kleptocrats committing grand corruption, gross human rights offenders, and perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. By applying these measures to a court that 125 countries – and on two occasions, the United Nations Security Council – have entrusted with providing accountability for atrocity crimes, the United States has brought upon itself the stigma of siding with impunity over justice. In fact, Russia sanctioned some of the court’s judges last year, and the United States should not similarly adopt such vindictive tools. Such actions jeopardize the ability of desperate victims across all the court’s investigations to access justice, weaken the credibility of sanction tools in other contexts, and place the United States at odds with its closest allies. The ICC represents and constitutes part of a global system of international justice of which the United States was a chief architect at Nuremberg and beyond. Today, the ICC, alongside other tribunals, regional mechanisms, and national courts, is carrying forward these efforts through investigations and prosecutions that could help realize justice for atrocity victims from Sudan to Myanmar to Ukraine. As a court of last resort, the ICC only can intervene when and where a State has demonstrated unwillingness or inability to hold its nationals to account for crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. The ICC therefore provides an essential backstop for victims who have no other recourse to justice. The use of sanctions has the potential for wide-reaching impact against this institution dedicated to advancing justice for victims. The proposed sanctions were prompted by the arrest warrants issued on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Practically, sanctioning the court or its officials would halt its work across all situations that are under its purview, including those critically important to the United States, such as the situation in Ukraine and in Sudan. US citizens who represent victims and survivors also could be implicated for their work to help achieve justice for perpetrators of atrocity crimes. The idea that justice can be selectively used to advance geopolitical concerns is a moral affront to all those who are in peril and an abrogation of the universality of human rights. An attack on the ICC in one situation is an attack on the rule of law itself. At an historical moment when the global rule of law is under attack from multiple fronts, institutions like the International Criminal Court are needed more than ever to advance human rights protections and the universal goal of preventing future atrocities and advancing justice for victims. Instead, sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice. It is essential that the United States answer any allegation of wrongdoing in a manner that does not betray the cause of global justice, abandon international cooperation, or compromise support for human dignity and rights. It would be a terrible irony if a tool designed to penalize gross violators of human rights could instead contribute to their continued impunity. We urge other governments, Members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC. We invite allies of justice to join us in standing against these destructive measures. 

Dear President Biden: We write as organizations with a steadfast commitment to justice for grave international crimes and therefore to the success of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We urge your administration to oppose the threats and calls for punitive actions against the Court that several U.S. lawmakers have recently made. Acting on these calls would do grave harm to the interests of all victims globally and to the U.S. government’s ability to champion human rights and the cause of justice, which are stated priorities of your administration. Accountability is important for its own sake and protects against the commission of future atrocity crimes. Acting where it has jurisdiction and within its mandate as a court of last resort, the ICC works together with national authorities to ensure perpetrators of such crimes are held to account and that victims and affected communities find some measure of justice. While the United States is not an ICC member country, Republican and Democratic administrations have supported the Court in specific cases, and the U.S. has assisted arrest operations to bring justice to victims in central Africa. Your own administration has recognized the Court’s essential role to address serious crimes in Ukraine and Darfur. We are alarmed by threats that U.S. lawmakers have aimed at the Court in recent weeks including the letter sent on April 24 by Senators, threatening to sanction the ICC prosecutor’s “employees and associates,” if steps were taken to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli officials. On May 20, the ICC prosecutor requested warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israeli officials stemming from his ongoing Palestine investigation; ICC judges will assess the request to determine whether to issue warrants.

Dear Prosecutor Khan: It is with great enthusiasm that we write to you about the development of the comprehensive policy paper to advance accountability for the crime against humanity of persecution on the grounds of gender. In the 1990s, MADRE housed the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, a worldwide coalition of women’s rights activists working to address gender gaps in the draft Rome Statute. In 2018, MADRE and our allies once again led an international coalition that successfully further affirmed the understanding of gender persecution under international law for the draft crimes against humanity treaty. Today, MADRE is serving as a Secretariat for civil society organizations from across the world to help ensure broad civil society input. To this end, MADRE has compiled and consolidated the priorities and recommendations from organizations across the world for your consideration. As you will see below, 222 feminist organizations and academic institutes from 80 countries and territories have joined this statement of principles and priorities that we now share with you. Read the Full Letter