Publications

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

Introduction Having been granted leave to submit amicus curiae observations, we respectfully offer these observations about the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘forced pregnancy’. This is the first occasion that the Appeals Chamber will provide its interpretation of this crime, which was expressly listed in an international instrument for the first time in the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute enumerates forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity and as a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The term ‘forced pregnancy’ is defined in Article (Art.) 7(2)(f) of the Rome Statute (RS), which states: ‘Forced pregnancy’ means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy. Our amicus curiae brief addresses three issues pertinent to this definition: the irrelevance of national laws relating to pregnancy when interpreting the Rome Statute’s definition of forced pregnancy; the elements of ‘forced pregnancy’ as a war crime and a crime against humanity; and the grounding of the crime of forced pregnancy in human rights that protect personal, sexual, and reproductive autonomy. In doing so, we recall that the Court must interpret the Rome Statute and Elements of Crimes, including as they relate to forced pregnancy ‘consistent with internationally recognised human rights’ and ‘without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender’ pursuant to Art. 21(3) RS. Additionally, the Court must interpret the Rome Statute in light of its object and purpose, namely, to ‘put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’, including the full range of sexual and gender-based crimes enumerated in the Statute. In light of their expertise, amici also seek to provide guidance on internationally recognised human rights relating to personal, sexual, and reproductive autonomy, and explain their relevance to the interpretation of the Rome Statute’s crime of forced pregnancy. Read Full Legal Filing

Introduction In response to the Appeals Chamber’s order, we respectfully seek leave to file amicus curiae observations on the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘forced pregnancy’, noting that this is the Appeals Chamber’s first opportunity to interpret this crime. Expertise Dr Rosemary Grey (lecturer, Sydney University Law School) is an expert in gender issues in international criminal law. Her publications include 13 peer-reviewed journal articles and her monograph Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-based Crimes at the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2019). From 8 June to 8 September 2015, she worked with the ICC Office of the Prosecutor through the Internship and Visiting Professional Programme, where she assisted with legal research on topics including forced pregnancy. Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WICJ) is an international women’s human rights NGO advocating for accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes through the ICC’s work, including with conflict affected communities in Uganda, since 2004. It is the successor of the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice (1997-2003) that brought together over 300 women’s human rights advocates and organizations in the Rome Statute negotiations. Global Justice Center (GJC) is an international NGO advocating for justice and accountability for sexual and gender-based violence and violations of reproductive autonomy in situations including Syria, Myanmar, and others. Its 2018 report, Beyond Killing: Gender, Genocide, & Obligations Under International Law, was the first of its kind to offer a comprehensive gender analysis of the crime of, and international legal obligations surrounding, genocide. Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights to be respected and protected, with over 50 years’ experience documenting and campaigning against human rights violations around the world. First proposed argument: Irrelevance of national law Art. 7(2)(f) of the Rome Statute states: ‘“Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy.’ The Trial Chamber stated that the final sentence of Art. 7(2)(f) ‘does not add a new element to the offence – and is thus not reproduced in the Elements of Crimes – but allays the concern that criminalising forced pregnancy may be seen as legalising abortion. Mr Ongwen appears to argue that the Trial Chamber erred by interpreting the crime of ‘forced pregnancy’ without analysis of abortion laws in the state where the crimes occurred (Uganda). That argument is incorrect. National laws on abortion have no bearing on the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘forced pregnancy’. The second sentence of Art. 7(2)(f) does not make the ICC’s jurisdiction over ‘forced pregnancy’ dependent on national legislation, nor create an element of the crime. It simply affirms that the legality of the relevant conduct under national law is distinct from its legality under international law. This is true of all crimes in the Rome Statute, but was made explicit for forced pregnancy in order to satisfy states who were concerned that defining forced pregnancy as a crime in the Rome Statute would affect their legal ability to regulate abortion under national law. Thus, regardless of whether conduct amounting to ‘forced pregnancy’ is consistent with national law, an individual who commits such conduct could be prosecuted for ‘forced pregnancy’ as a war crime and/or crime against humanity under the Rome Statute (if the contextual elements for were met, and subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction and admissibility rules). Victims in states with strict abortion laws do not enjoy lesser protections under the Rome Statute than those in states with more liberal abortion laws. Read Full Legal Filing

Dear Madam Prosecutor, As your term as prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) draws to a close, we are writing to thank you for your longstanding service and significant contributions to the ICC, as well as to acknowledge the progress that the Office of the Prosecutor has made during your tenure. While civil society organizations have identified areas for improvement and will continue to advocate for changes to ensure effective investigations and prosecutions, the office has made considerable advances in a number of situations and preliminary examinations under your leadership. We especially admire the high degree of independence you have exhibited during your mandate. Your office has opened investigations in the face of immense pressure and politicized opposition. You have done this work at great personal and institutional cost. Developments on the ground in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Palestine over the last few months have confirmed that accountability in those and other situations is essential, especially when the ICC is the only remaining option for justice. We will call on the next prosecutor to build on this legacy and continue to ensure that the court fulfils its mandate, regardless of the nationality or position of alleged perpetrators. Read the Full Letter

The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express grave concerns and unequivocally oppose the Trump administration’s use of the sanctions authority of the United States to attack the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent judicial institution dedicated to combatting impunity for the gravest crimes known to humanity. Many of the undersigned spoke out against steps in this direction taken earlier this year by the U.S. administration. We now issue this further statement because it is uniquely dangerous, extreme, and unprecedented to utilize a mechanism designed to penalize criminals, their aiders, and abettors, against an independent judicial institution. Asset freezes and entry restrictions are tools intended to combat individuals and entities constituting a threat to U.S. national security. By applying these measures to a court that 123 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. The administration’s actions jeopardize the ability of desperate victims to access justice, weaken the credibility underpinning the use of sanction tools in other contexts, and put the United States at odds with its closest allies. Download the full Letter

On 14 November 2019, the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) authorized the Court’s Prosecutor to investigate alleged international crimes occurring during a wave of violence in Rakhine State, Myanmar in 2016 and 2017. The investigation follows a brutal campaign of violence by Myanmar’s security forces against Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims. These so-called “clearance operations” were conducted through widespread and systematic murder, rape and sexual violence, and other abuses that forced more than 740,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. The ICC Prosecutor’s investigation, and any prosecutions that result, is one process among many aimed at accountability for crimes committed by Myanmar’s security forces (Tatmadaw). While somewhat limited in scope, the investigation carries the potential to hold individuals responsible for grave violations against the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities. This fact sheet answers fundamental questions about the ongoing ICC investigation and individual criminal responsibility for crimes committed against the Rohingya. Download Fact Sheet

The undersigned organizations express their deep concern regarding today’s announcement by Secretary of State Pompeo and other senior U.S. officials that the United States, among other things, has invoked emergency powers in order to threaten asset freezes and other punitive actions against officials of the International Criminal Court, their family members, and those who assist their investigations. The International Criminal Court exists because it is difficult to hold government officials and other powerful actors accountable when they commit grave human rights abuses. That impunity, in turn, is corrosive to the broader rule of law, the prospects of lasting peace, and respect for the dignity of all. Since the ICC’s establishment in 2002 as a court of last resort, diverse coalitions of faith-based organizations, human rights advocates, legal practitioners, victims of atrocities, and other constituencies have often looked to it to complement and reinforce their work for justice. Like all other human institutions, the ICC has room for improvement. Nevertheless, from Uganda and the Central African Republic to Darfur and the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar, the ICC continues to play a vital role, filling gaps in the justice system by independently investigating and prosecuting grave atrocity crimes when national authorities do not do so, or when they seek out help. Download the Letter