PROSECUTOR V.

RUTO AND SANG, ICC-01/09-01/11 OA5,

Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber V(a) of 18
June 2013 entitled Decision on Mr Ruto’s Request for Excusal from Continuous Presence at
Trial, (25 October 2013).
Facts
 Defendant was accused of being criminally responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator
pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity of:
 murder (article 7(l)(a));
 deportation or forcible transfer of population (article 7(l)(d)); and
 persecution (article 7(l)(h)).
 Mr William Samoei Ruto filed the "Defence Request pursuant to Article 63(1) of the
Rome Statute", requesting that Trial Chamber V(a) grant a waiver of his right to be
present during the trial and conduct the trial without requiring his attendance throughout
the duration of the proceedings. Which was subsequently granted by the Trial chamber
subject to certain conditions.
Conclusion
 The Appeals Chamber concludes that the Trial Chamber in the present case interpreted
the scope of its discretion too broadly and thereby exceeded the limits of its discretionary
power. In particular, the Trial Chamber provided Mr Ruto with what amounts to a
blanket excusai before the trial had even commenced, effectively making his absence the
general mle and his presence an exception. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber excused Mr
Ruto without first exploring whether there were any alternative options. Finally, the Trial
Chamber did not exercise its discretion to excuse Mr Ruto on a case-by-case basis, at
specific instances of the proceedings, and for a duration limited to that which was strictly
necessary.
 Mr William Samoei Ruto's request for an oral hearing is rejected.
 The "Decision on Mr Ruto's Request for Excusal from Continuous Presence at Trial" is
reversed.
Appeal chamber judgement reversing Trial chamber decision.
On 5 April 2016, Trial Chamber V(A) decided, by majority that the case against
William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang is to be terminated. The parties have not
appealed this decision. Case also involved Henry Kiprono Kosgey. Judges declined to
confirm the charges against Mr Kosgey on 23 January 2012.
SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, ICC-01/04-169
(OA),
Appeals Chamber, ‘Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Appeal against the Decision of Pre-Trial
Chamber I Entitled Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article
58’, 12 July 2006
Facts
 This is an appeal against the determination of inadmissibility of the case of Mr. Bosco
Ntaganda by Pre-Trial Chamber I emanating from an application by the Prosecutor for
a warrant of arrest
 On 10 February 2006, Pre-Trial Chamber I rendered the "Decision on the Prosecutor's
Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58" (lCC-01/04-118-US-Exp-Corr, in this
decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber granted the Prosecutor's application for a warrant of
arrest against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and rejected the application for a warrant of
arrest against Mr. Bosco Ntaganda "because [...] the case against him is inadmissible"

Conclusion
 A decision is materially affected by an error of law if the Pre-Trial or Trial Chamber
would have rendered a decision that is substantially different from the decision that
was affected by the error, if it had not made the error. The Prosecutor's application for
a warrant of arrest against Mr. Bosco Ntaganda was rejected by Pre-Trial Chamber I
only because the Pre-Trial Chamber found the case against him inadmissible. Had the
Pre-Trial Chamber refrained from determining the admissibility, it would have
considered on the basis of article 58 (1) of the Statute whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued against the suspect.
 The decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 10 February 2006 entitled "Decision on the
Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58" is reversed in so far as it
declares the case against Mr. Bosco Ntaganda inadmissible
 The Prosecutor's application for a warrant of arrest against Mr. Bosco Ntaganda is
remanded to the Pre-Trial Chamber for completion of the review limited to the
requirements stipulated in article 58 (l) of the Statute. Should the Pre-Trial Chamber
issue a warrant of arrest, it should identify the appropriate organ responsible for the
preparation and transmission of the request for arrest and surrender.
 Judge Georghios M. Pikis appends a separate opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part.
Appeal chamber decision reversing Pre-trial chamber I decision. No further appeals on
this matter.
This was the Office of the Prosecutor's first investigation, and led to its two first
convictions, in the case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and The Prosecutor v.
Germain Katanga, and to the acquittal of Mr Ngudojolo Chui. A trial is ongoing for Mr
Ntaganda.
 SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, ICC-01/04 (A.C.),
Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Georghios M. Pikis, (July 13, 2006)
Facts
 This is an appeal against the determination of inadmissibility of the case of Mr. Bosco
Ntaganda by Pre-Trial Chamber I emanating from an application by the Prosecutor for
a warrant of arrest
 On 10 February 2006, Pre-Trial Chamber I rendered the "Decision on the Prosecutor's
Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58" (lCC-01/04-118-US-Exp-Corr, in this
decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber granted the Prosecutor's application for a warrant of
arrest against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and rejected the application for a warrant of
arrest against Mr. Bosco Ntaganda "because [...] the case against him is inadmissible"

Conclusion
 The judge accepted the first decision stating that the powers of the Appeals Chamber
in relation to appeals under article 82 (1) (a) of the Statute are specified in rule 158 (1)
of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. They reflect the nature of the jurisdiction of
the appeals court to review by reference to its correctness the decision under appeal.
These powers are "to confirm, reverse or amend the decision appealed." To "reverse"
signifies the following of a course opposite to that taken. And in the context of
judicial proceedings the word bears a special meaning, a term of art, bestowing power
to "set aside, revoke, annul", "overturn”. In light of the reasons founding my decision,
I associate myself with the order of the Appeals Chamber reversing the decision given
whereby the case was dismissed as inadmissible.
 But in the second opinion he stated that he entertained serious doubts whether it is at
all open to the Appeals Chamber to send the case back for either reconsideration or
further consideration. Rule 158 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence does not
confer in terms power to do so. He dissented from the decision of the majority that the
case should be sent back to the Pre-Trial Chamber for the determination of the
application for the issue of a warrant of arrest.
Appeal chamber decision reversing Pre-trial chamber I decision. No further appeals on
this matter.
 SITUATION IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC CONGO, CASE NO. ICC-01/04,
Decision on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS1, VPRS-2, VPRS-
3, VPRS-4, VPRS-5 and VPRS-6, (Jan. 17, 2006).
Facts
 On 23 May 2005, a “Report to PTC I in accordance with rule 89 paragraph 1 of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and Regulation 86 paragraph 5 of the Regulations
of the Court” 1 was registered by the Registry in the record of the situation in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
 In 14 June 2005, the Registry registered in the record a letter from Mr Sidiki Kaba,
President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), submitting the
applications for participation of victims designated VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS
4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6. The Applicants were requesting in these applications that
they be accorded the status of victims in order to participate in the proceedings as a
whole.
 The Applicants’ request raises two main questions: whether the Statute, the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence (“the Rules”) and the Regulations of the Court accord
victims the right to participate in the proceedings at the stage of investigation of a
situation and, if so, what form such participation should take. A further question to be
addressed is whether the six Applicants meet the criteria for being considered victims
within the meaning of rule 85 of the Rules.
Conclusion
 PTC I held that rule 85(a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence establishes four
criteria that have to be met in order to obtain the status of victim: the victim must be a
natural person; he or she must have suffered harm; the crime from which the harm
ensued must fall within the jurisdiction of the court; and there must be a causal link
between the crime and the harm suffered.
 Decides that article 68 (3) of the Statute is applicable to the stage of investigation of
the situation
 Accords the status of victim to VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and
VPRS 6, allowing them to participate in the proceedings at the stage of investigation
of the situation in the DRC.
 Rejects the Prosecutor’s arguments to the effect that there are, strictly speaking, no
proceedings within the meaning of article 68 (3) of the Statute during the
investigation stage, that the participation of the victims at the investigation stage is
inappropriate, and that the applicants failed to show that their personal interests were
affected at the investigation stage.
Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision. The Prosecutor Applied for leave to appeal Pre-Trial
Chamber I’s decision on 23 January 2006 which was rejected by Pre-Trial Chamber I
on 31st March 2006
 PROSECUTOR V. CALLIXTE MBARUSHIMANA, ICC-01/04-01/10-451,
Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the ‘Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court’,
26th October 2011.
Facts
 the Defence argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the case
against Mr Callixte Mbarushimana submitting the following
(i) that "the 'situation of crisis that triggered the jurisdiction of the Court' at the date
of [the] Referral did not envisage the events then unfolding in the North and South
Kivus ('the Kivus') but, rather, the 'situation of crisis' in the Ituri region of the DRC
alone");
(ii) that "even if it be found that the crisis situation triggering the jurisdiction of the
Court encompassed events in the Kivus", the Prosecutor has not shown that the
Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda "committed atrocity crimes prior to
3 March 2004 such that it contributed to the aforementioned 'situation of crisis'" and
(iii) that, "in the circumstances, there exists no 'sufficient nexus' between the charges
against Mr. Mbarushimana and the scope of the situation"

Conclusion
 the Chamber was satisfied that the case against Mr Mbarushimana is sufficiently
linked to the situation of crisis existing in the DRC at the time of and underlying the
Referral.
 the Chamber's determination that the crimes underlying the charges against Mr
Mbarushimana are indeed linked to the crimes which prompted the Government of the
DRC to refer the country's situation to the Court is affected neither by the fact that
ongoing events in the Kivus at the time of the Referral allegedly "lacked the objective
criteria" necessary for them to be incorporated in the scope of the Referral, nor by
whether or not the FDLR in particular was at that same time committing crimes which
might have contributed to the crisis triggering the referral to (and hence the
jurisdiction of) the Court.
 The considerations developed and the UN documents referred to above show that the
crimes allegedly perpetrated by FDLR forces, which form the basis of the charges
against Mr Mbarushimana, are indeed inextricably linked to the situation of crisis in
the DRC which has been under the constant examination by, and a continuing source
of deep concern for, the United Nations since at least the early 2000s. By its very
nature, the link required for an event to be encompassed in the scope of a situation can
stretch over a number of years; accordingly, it cannot be required that the person
targeted by the Prosecutor's investigation be active throughout the duration of the
relevant time-frame.
 REJECTS the Defence Request for Leave to Reply and the Prosecutor's Request for
Leave to Respond; REJECTS the Defence Request for a Hearing; REJECTS the
Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court.
Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision. Pre-Trial Chamber I declined to confirm the charges
against Callixte Mbarushimana and did not commit the case to trial. The Prosecution's
appeal was dismissed. On 23 December 2011, Mr Mbarushimana was released from the
ICC custody. The case is considered closed unless and until the Prosecutor submits new
evidence.
PROSECUTOR V OMAR HASSAN AHMAD AL BASHIR
Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan
Ahmad Al Bashir ICC-02/05-01/09- 3, Pre-Trial Chamber I (4 March 2009),
Facts
 On 31 March 2005, the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of
the Charter of the United Nations, adopted Resolution 15931 referring the situation in
Darfur, Sudan since 1 July 2002 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
in accordance with article 13(b) of the Statute.
 On 14 July 2008, the Prosecution filed an application under article 584 requesting the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir for his alleged
criminal responsibility in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes against members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups in Darfur from
2003 to 14 July 2008

Conclusion
 the Chamber takes note that the latest report issued on 23 January 2009 by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in the Sudan, entitled
"Killing and injury of civilians on 25 August 2008 by governmental security forces:
Kalma IDP Camp, South Darfur, Sudan", concludes that GoS forces appear to
continue to commit some of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court for which
an arrest warrant for Omar Al Bashir is issued, on the basis of the present decision.
 As a result, and given that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Al
Bashir is the de jure and de facto President of the State of Sudan and Commander in-
Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Chamber is satisfied that his arrest appears
also necessary, pursuant to article 58(l)(b)(iii) of the Statute, to prevent Omar Al
Bashir from continuing to commit the above-mentioned crimes.
 DECIDES to issue a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir for his alleged
responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes under article 25(3) (a) of
the Statute for

Pre-Trial chamber I decision, suspect still at large, no further progress in the case. The
first warrant for arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir was issued on 4 March
2009, the second on 12 July 2010. The suspect is still at large. Until Omar Al Bashir is
arrested and transferred to the seat of the Court in The Hague, the case will remain in
the Pre-Trial stage. The ICC does not try individuals unless they are present in the
courtroom.
 PROSECUTOR V. GERMAIN KATANGA (ICC-01/04-01/07)
Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 7 March 2014
Facts
 On 26 September 2008, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued the Decision on the confirmation
of charges wherein it found unanimously that there was sufficient evidence to
establish substantial grounds to believe that, during the attack on Bogoro of 24
February 2003, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo jointly committed through
other persons, within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute
 Germain Katanga also stands accused of having committed jointly with Mathieu
Ngudjolo through other persons, within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute,
the war crime of pillaging under article 8(2)(b)(xvi) of the Statute, with the
knowledge that the crime would occur in the ordinary course of events.
 Furthermore, Germain Katanga stands accused of having committed jointly with
Mathieu Ngudjolo, within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute, the war crime
of using children under the age of fifteen years to participate actively in hostilities, as
set out in article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) of the Statute.
Conclusion
 The Chamber considers that all the findings establish beyond reasonable doubt that
Germain Katanga’s intentional contribution to the crimes of murder (as a war crime
and as a crime against humanity), attack against civilians, destruction of property and
pillaging (as war crimes) was significant and made in the knowledge of the intention
of the group to commit the crimes.
 The Chamber found that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that
Germain Katanga had made a significant contribution to the commission of the crimes
by the Ngiti militia, which was acting with a common purpose, by assisting its
members to plan the operation against Bogoro. The Chamber found that Germain
Katanga acted in the knowledge of the criminal common plan devised by the militia to
target the predominantly Hema population of Bogoro. The crimes of murder,
attacking civilians, destroying property and pillaging were part of the common plan.
 The Trial Chamber acquitted Germain Katanga of rape and sexual slavery as a crime
againt humanity and the war crimes of using children under the age of fifteen years to
participate actively in hostilities, sexual slavery, and rape. The Chamber found that
there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the crimes of rape and sexual
slavery were committed. Regarding the crime of using child soldiers, it found that
there were children within the Ngiti militia and among the combatants who were in
Bogoro on the day of the attack. However, the Chamber concluded that the evidence
presented in support of the accused’s guilt did not satisfy it beyond reasonable doubt
of the accused’s responsibility for these crimes
On 25 June 2014, the Defence for Germain Katanga and the Office of the Prosecutor
discontinued their appeals against the judgment in the Katanga case. The judgment is
now final.

PROSECUTOR V. JEAN-PIERRE BEMBA GOMBO (ICC-01/05-01/08-424)

“Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the
Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo” 15 June 2009
Facts
 The Prosecutor presents the charges against Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo ("Mr Jean-
Pierre Bemba") a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the "DRC"),
born on 4 November 1962 in Bokada, Equateur Province, in the DRC, son of Jeannot
Bemba Saolana, married to Lilia Teixeira and currently member of the Senate of the
DRC
 On 21 March 2016, Trial Chamber III had concluded that, as a person effectively
acting as a military commander and with effective control over the Mouvement de
libération du Congo (“MLC”) troops, Mr Bemba was criminally responsible pursuant
to article 28(a) of the ICC Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity of murder
and rape and the war crimes of murder, rape and pillaging committed by the MLC
troops in the Central African Republic (“CAR”) from on or about 26 October 2002 to
15 March 2003.

Conclusion
 the Chamber reiterates its finding that Mr Jean Pierre-Bemba neither took the
necessary nor the reasonable measures within his material ability to prevent or to
repress the crimes committed by his MLC subordinates throughout the five-month
period of the intervention in the CAR. The evidence shows that a genuine will to take
the necessary and reasonable measures to protect the civilian population by
preventing crimes or even repressing their commission was lacking. Mr Jena-Pierre
Bemba's failure to fulfil his duties to prevent crimes increased the risk of their
commission by the MLC troops in the CAR at all times relevant to the Case.
 Following an in-depth review of the amended document containing the charges
submitted by the Prosecutor, and of the observations of the Defence and the legal
representatives of the victims, Pre-Trial Chamber II considered, on 15 June 2009, that
there was sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Mr
Bemba is criminally responsible for having effectively acted as a military commander
within the meaning of article 28(a) of the Statute, for war crimes (murder, rape and
pillaging) and crimes against humanity (murder and rape).
Pre-Trial Chamber II decision. On 21 March 2016, Trial Chamber III declared,
unanimously, Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of two
counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes
(murder, rape, and pillaging). On 8 June 2018, the Appeals Chamber of the
International Criminal Court (“ICC”) reversed Trial Chamber III’s decision of 21
March 2016 and decided, by majority, to acquit Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo from the
charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

PROSECUTION V. BEMBA, (ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 3),

Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the
decision of Trial Chamber III of 24 June 2010 entitled 'Decision on the Admissibility and
Abuse of Process Challenges', 19 October 2010.
Facts
 On 25 February 2010, Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (hereinafter: "Mr Bemba")
formally challenged the admissibility of the case in a filing submitted to Trial
Chamber III (hereinafter: "Trial Chamber") entitled "Application Challenging the
Admissibility of the Case pursuant to Articles 17 and 19(2)(a) of the Rome Statute"
 On 24 June 2010, the Trial Chamber rendered the "Decision on the Admissibility and
Abuse of Process Challenges" (hereinafter: "Impugned Decision"), holding that the
case against Mr Bemba before the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: "ICC") is
admissible and rejecting the Admissibility Application in toto
 Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo filed an appeal for the same
Conclusion
 In determining the admissibility of a ground of appeal, the Appeals Chamber has held
that "an appellant is obliged not only to set out the alleged error, but also to indicate,
with sufficient precision, how this error would have materially affected the impugned
decision" Mr Bemba argues that the Trial Chamber committed an error in finding that
the Pourvoi en Cassation lodged in April 2010 before the Court of Cassation was an
abuse of this Court's process. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, Mr Bemba fails to
meet the minimum requirements for consideration of the merits of this ground of
appeal, because he does not indicate in the Document in Support of the Appeal how
the alleged error materially affected the Impugned Decision.
 In the present case, no error in the Impugned Decision has been identified. The
Appeals Chamber therefore confirms the Impugned Decision and dismisses the
appeal.

Appeal Chamber Decision

 PROSECUTOR V. KATANGA ET AL. (ICC-01/04-01/07),
Public redacted version Decision on the Confirmation of the Charges, 30 September 2008

Facts
 The Prosecution charged Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui under article
7(l)(a) of the Statute with murder constituting a crime against humanity at Bogoro
village. The Prosecution submitted that such murder consisted of the killings of at
least two hundred civilian residents of, or persons present at Bogoro village in the
Bahema Sud collectivité, Irumu territory, Ituri district, including Suzanne Mabone
and Maria Babona.
Conclusion
 The majority of the Chamber, Judge Anita Usacka dissenting, finds that there is
sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that on 24 February
2003, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui jointly committed through other
persons, within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute, the crimes against
humanity of rape and sexual slavery, under article 7(l)(g) of the Statute, with
knowledge that these crimes would occur in the ordinary course of events (dolus
directus of the second degree), under article 7(l)(g).
 On 7 March 2014, Trial Chamber II of the ICC ruling in the majority, with Judge
Christine Van den Wyngaert dissenting, rendered its judgment in the case The
Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga. Trial Chamber II found German Katanga guilty, as
an accessory, within the meaning of article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute, of one count
of crime against humanity (murder) and four counts of war crimes (murder, attacking
a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging) committed on 24 February
2003 during the attack on the village of Bogoro, in the Ituri district of the DRC.
Pre-Trial Chamber I decision. On 25 June 2014, the Defence for Germain Katanga and
the Office of the Prosecutor discontinued their appeals against the judgment in the
Katanga case. The judgment is now final.
Found guilty, on 7 March 2014, as an accessory to one count of a crime against
humanity (murder) and four counts of war crimes (murder, attacking a civilian
population, destruction of property and pillaging) committed on 24 February 2003
during the attack on the village of Bogoro, in the Ituri district of the DRC. The
judgment is final, as both the Defence and Prosecution withdrew their appeals on 25
June 2014. Sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment; time spent in detention at the
ICC – between 18 September 2007 and 23 May 2014 – was deducted from the sentence.
Case also involved charges against Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui but the 2 cases were severed
on 21 November 2012. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted on 18 December 2012.
 PROSECUTOR V. GERMAIN KATANGA ET AL., I.C.C.-01/04-01/07 (T.C.),
Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article 19 of the Statute), (June 16, 2009)

Facts
 At the status conference of 28 November 2008, the Defence for Germain Katanga
announced that it intended to make a challenge to admissibility.2 On 10 February
2009, it did file an “ex parte only available to the Defence” motion challenging the
admissibility of the case, pursuant to article 19(2)(a) of the Statute (“the Motion”).3
After having been reclassified as a confidential document by the Registry at the
request of the Chamber,4 the Motion was transmitted, pursuant to rule 58(3) of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“the Rules”), to the Office of the Prosecutor on 25
February 2009
Conclusion
 Under article 17 (1) (a) and (b) of the Statute, the question of unwillingness or
inability has to be considered only (1) when there are, at the time of the proceedings
in respect of an admissibility challenge, domestic investigations or prosecutions that
could render the case inadmissible before the Court, or (2) when there have been such
investigations and the State having jurisdiction has decided not to prosecute the
person concerned.
 Inaction on the part of a State having jurisdiction (that is, the fact that a State is not
investigating or prosecuting, or has not done so) renders a case admissible before the
Court, subject to article 17 (1) (d) of the Statute
 The Chamber rejects the Motion; and declares the case against Germain Katanga
admissible.
Trial chamber Decision
 PROSECUTOR V. GERMAIN KATANGA AND MATHIEU NGUDJOLO CHUI,
ICC-01/04-01/07-1497
"Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial
Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case", 25 September 2009
Facts
 On 12 June 2009, the Chamber held another hearing at which it "dismissed the
challenge to admissibility and declared that the case concerning the Appellant was
admissible before the court". The Chamber stated that the reasons for its decision
would "be presented in detail in a decision to which everyone would have access at
the beginning of the following week". On 16 June 2009, the Chamber filed the
"Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the
Case (Article 19 of the Statute)".

Conclusion
 The Appellant argues that the errors committed by the Trial Chamber "individually
and in total, have materially affected the Trial Chamber's Decision." He states that "if
not for these errors, the Trial Chamber would have declared the case against him
inadmissible, as any reasonable Trial Chamber would have done." He asks the
Appeals Chamber to reverse the decision and "declare the case against inadmissible".
 The Prosecutor urges the Appeals Chamber to "uphold the Trial Chamber's finding
that the case is admissible and dismiss the Grounds of Appeal."
 the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the Trial Chamber correctly decided that the
case against the Appellant is admissible. The Appeals Chamber therefore considers it
appropriate to confirm the decision and to dismiss the appeal.
Appeal Chamber Decision
 SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF CÔTE D'IVOIRE (ICC-02/11),
“Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation
into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire”, 3 October 2011.
Facts
 On 23 June 2011, the Prosecutor filed his "Request for authorisation of an
investigation pursuant to article 15" in which he requests authorisation from the
Chamber to commence an investigation into the situation in the Republic of Côte
d'Ivoire in relation to post-election violence in the period following 28 November
2010
 The Prosecutor contends that the available information provides a reasonable basis to
believe that crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Statute and war crimes
under Article 8 of the Statute were committed in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire during
the post-election violence following 28 November 2010.^ It is submitted that the main
objective of the proposed investigation is to identify those individuals who bear the
greatest responsibility for ordering or facilitating these crimes
Conclusion
 Addressing the issues raised under complementarity and gravity, due to the absence of
national proceedings against those appearing to be most responsible for the crimes
committed during the post-election violence, and in light of the gravity of the acts
committed, the Chamber is satisfied that there are potential cases that would be
admissible in the situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, if the investigation is
authorised.
 the Chamber authorises the commencement of an investigation in Côte d'Ivoire with
respect to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed since 28 November
2010. The investigation is also authorised with respect to continuing crimes that may
be committed in the future, as set out in paragraph 179 above, insofar as they are part
of the context of the ongoing situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
 In granting the Prosecutor's request to open an investigation, the ICC Pre-Trial
Chamber noted the Prosecutor's intention to investigate the actions of both pro-
Gbagbo and pro-Ouattara forces. The Prosecutor submitted that attacks directed
against the civilian population in Côte d'Ivoire were widespread and systematic, and
included, for example, raids conducted against headquarters of the opposing party,
excessive force used in heavily populated areas in order to disperse protesters, and
military roadblocks and checkpoints set up, at which killings allegedly occurred. The
Prosecutor submitted that the acts were on a large scale, and that approximately 1
million people were displaced. The Prosecutor's supporting material also indicated the
existence of several mass graves in Abidjan, and documentation relating to
widespread arbitrary arrests, "disappearances" and incidents of rape.
Pre-Trial Chamber Decision. There are presently 2 cases, 1 ongoing appeal, 3 warrants
of arrest and 1 at large in this matter.

PROSECUTOR V. MUTHAURA ET AL., NO. ICC-01/09-02/11-382-RED

Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome
Statute, 29 January 2012

Facts
 On 26 November 2009, the Prosecutor filed a request for authorization to commence
an investigation into the situation in the Republic of Kenya. On 31 March 2010, the
Chamber authorized, by majority, the commencement of an investigation into the
situation in the Republic of Kenya in relation to crimes against humanity within the
jurisdiction of the Court committed between 1 June 2005 and 26 November 2009
 On 8 March 2011, the Chamber, by majority, decided that there were reasonable
grounds to believe that the Suspects are criminally responsible for the crimes against
humanity of murder, forcible transfer of population, rape, other inhumane acts and
persecution, and summoned the Suspects to appear before it

Conclusion
 the Chamber is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial
grounds to believe that Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta are individually criminally
responsible as indirect co-perpetrators under article 25(3)(a) of the Statute
 Accordingly, pursuant to article 61(7)(a) of the Statute, the Chamber concludes that
the charges against Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta must be confirmed to the extent
specified in the preceding paragraph and that Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta must be
committed to a Trial Chamber for trial on the charges as confirmed
Pre-Trial Chamber Decision. Appeal was filed against this decision on 30 January 2012
which was subsequently rejected on 24 May 2012 by the Presiding judge of the appeal
chamber.
Charges withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Case also involved charges against
Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Mohammed Hussein Ali. Judges declined to confirm
charges against Mohammed Hussein Ali on 23 January 2012. The case is considered
closed unless and until the Prosecutor submits new evidence.
 SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA (ICC-01/09),
Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation
into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, 31 March 2010
Facts
 On 26 November 2009, the Prosecutor filed the “Request for authorisation of an
investigation pursuant to Article 15”, together with 39 appended annexes, in which he
requested the Chamber to “authorise the commencement of an investigation into the
situation in the Republic of Kenya in relation to the post-election violence of 2007-
2008”
Conclusion
 In order to decide on the Prosecutor's Request, the Chamber set out the criteria for the
Chamber's authorization of an investigation under article 15 of the Statute.
Subsequently, the Chamber examined whether the requisite criteria have been met.
Finally, the Chamber laid out the material, temporal and territorial scope of the
authorized investigation.
 the Chamber concurred with the Prosecutor that the alleged crimes against humanity
occurred on the territory of the Republic of Kenya, for which reason the Court's
jurisdiction {ratione loci) under article 12(2)(a) of the Statute were satisfied.
 the Chamber considered that the second constituent element of gravity was also
satisfied and accordingly the general gravity threshold under article 17(l)(d) of the
Statute was met in this case.
 authorized the commencement of an investigation into the situation in the Republic of
Kenya in relation to crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the Court
committed between 1 June 2005 and 26 November 2009
 In granting the Prosecutor's request to open an investigation, the ICC Pre-Trial
Chamber noted the gravity and scale of the violence. The Prosecutor contended that
over 1,000 people were killed, there were over 900 acts of documented rape and
sexual violence, approximately 350,000 people were displaced, and over 3,500 were
seriously injured. The Chamber noted from the Prosecutor's submission "…elements
of brutality, for example burning victims alive, attacking places sheltering IDPs,
beheadings, and using pangas and machetes to hack people to death", and that
perpetrators, among other acts, allegedly "terrorized communities by installing
checkpoints where they would select their victims based on ethnicity, and hack them
to death, commonly committed gang rape, genital mutilation and forced circumcision,
and often forced family members to watch."
The investigation produced two main cases, originally with six suspects, involving
charges which include the following crimes. However, charges were not confirmed or
were withdrawn concerning these six suspects. Proceedings in two cases involving
charges against three suspects for offences against the administration of
justice consisting in corruptly or attempting to corruptly influencing ICC witnesses.

PROSECUTOR V. FRANCIS KIRIMI MUTHAURA, ET AL., ICC-01/09-02/11-274

(A.C.),

Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber
II of 30 May 2011 entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya
Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute”,
(August 30, 2011)

Facts

 The principal issue raised by Kenya under this ground of appeal is the interpretation
of the words, "[t]he case is being investigated [...] by a State which has jurisdiction
over it" in article 17 (1) (a) of the Statute. In particular, Kenya challenges the
correctness of the Pre-Trial Chamber's finding that for a case to be inadmissible
before the Court, a national jurisdiction must be investigating the same person and for
the same conduct as in the case already before the Court."

Conclusion

 On an appeal pursuant to article 82 (1) (a) of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber may
confirm, reverse or amend the decision appealed (rale 158 (1) of the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence). In the present case it is appropriate to confirm the finding in
the Impugned Decision, that the case is admissible, because no error in that decision
has been identified. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

On 13 March, 2015, Trial Chamber V(B) terminates the proceedings in this case.

Charges withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Case also involved charges against
Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Mohammed Hussein Ali. Judges declined to confirm
charges against Mohammed Hussein Ali on 23 January 2012. The case is considered
closed unless and until the Prosecutor submits new evidence
 PROSECUTOR V. BAHAR IDRISS ABU GARDA, ICC-02/05-02/09 (P.T.C.),

Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, (February 8, 2010)

Facts

 The Prosecution alleges that "on 29 September 2007, at the MGS Haskanita in
Haskanita Village, Um Kadada Locality in North Darfur, the Sudan", Mr Abu Garda,
knowingly and in the context of and associated with an armed conflict, jointly, and
with JEM forces under his control and SLA-Unity forces,
(i) "Killed twelve (12) AMIS peacekeeping personnel and attempted to kill eight
(8) AMIS peacekeeping personnel, with the knowledge that they were personnel
involved in a peacekeeping mission established in accordance. with the UN
Charter and were taking no active part in hostilities and thus entitled to the
protection given to civilians under the international law of armed conflict", thus
committing the war crime of violence to life under articles 8(2)(c)(i) and 25(3)
(a) and/or (f) of the Statute. (count 1).
(ii) ''Intentionally directed attacks against AMIS peacekeeping personnel,
installations, material, units and vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission
established in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which were
entitled to the protection given to civilians and civilian objects under the
international law of armed conflict, with the knowledge of the-factual
circumstances that established that protection", thus committing the war crime
of intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units
and vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission under articles 8(2)(e)(iii) and
25(3)(a) of the Statute (count 2); and
(iii) "Appropriated property belonging to AMIS and its personnel including
vehicles, refrigerators, computers, cellular phones, military boots and uniforms,
fuel, ammunition and money/without the consent of the owners and for their
private or personal use", thus committing the war crime of pillaging under
articles 8(2)(e)(v) and 25(3)(a) of the Statute (count 3)
 the Prosecution submits that Mr Abu Garda is individually criminally responsible as a
co-perpetrator or as an indirect co-perpetrator under article 25(3)(a) of the Statute for
the above-mentioned war crimes listed in article 8 of the Statute.

Conclusion

 the Chamber concludes: that the evidence brought by the Prosecution is not sufficient
to establish substantial grounds to believe that the existence of a common plan to
attack the MGS Haskanita can be inferred from any of the conducts listed by the
Prosecution as the alleged essential contribution of Mr Abu Garda to the
implementation of a common plan.
 Accordingly, the Chamber declines to confirm the charges against Mr Abu Garda
under Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the DCC, without prejudice for the Prosecution to
 subsequently request the confirmation of the charges against him, if such request is
supported by additional evidence, in accordance with article 61(8) of the Statute.

On 8 February 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber I decided not to confirm the charges against
Mr Abu Garda, and later rejected the Prosecutor's application to appeal the decision.
Next steps: The case is considered closed unless and until the Prosecutor presents new
evidence

PROSECUTOR V. AL-SENUSSI, ICC-01/11-01/11-466-RED

Decision on the Admissibility of the case against Abdullah (October 11, 2013)]

Facts

 The Admissibility Challenge is brought by Libya as a State having jurisdiction over

the case against Mr Al-Senussi, in accordance with article 19(2)(b) of the Statute.
 Libya submits that "its national judicial system is actively investigating Abdullah Al-
Senussi for his alleged criminal responsibility for multiple acts of murder and
persecution, committed pursuant to or in furtherance of State policy, amounting to
crimes against humanity" and that "these acts, allegedly committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack against Libyan civilians, include but are not limited
to crimes committed in Benghazi during the period from 15 to 20 February 2011".
According to Libya, the details of these investigations show that the case against Mr
Al-Senussi is being investigated at the domestic level and, accordingly, is
inadmissible before the Court pursuant to article 17(l)(a) of the Statute.

Conclusion

 the Chamber concludes that the case against Mr Al-Senussi that is before the Court is
currently subject to domestic proceedings being conducted by the competent
authorities of Libya - which has jurisdiction over the case - and that Libya is not
unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out its proceedings in relation to the case
against Mr Al-Senussi. The case against Mr Al-Senussi is therefore inadmissible
before the Court pursuant to article 17(1)(a) of the Statute

17 October, 2013, Defence appeals decision in Al-Senussi case Appeals upholds decision;
Al-Senussi case is not admissible
10 December 2014, Pre-Trial Chamber I issue a finding of non-compliance by the
Government of Libya with respect to the non-execution of two requests for cooperation
transmitted by the ICC, and decides to refer the matter to the UN Security Council.
 PROSECUTOR V. SAIF AL-ISLAM GADDAFI ET AL., ICC-01/11-01/11-344-RED
(P.T.C.),

Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, (May 31, 2013).

Facts

 The warrant of arrest for Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi was issued on 27 June 2011.
 He is not in the Court's custody. Case also involved charges Muammar Gaddafi and
Abdullah Al-Senussi in warrant issued on 27 June 2011, having found reasonable
grounds to believe that they is criminally responsible under article 25(3)(a) of the
Statute for the commission of crimes against humanity of murder and persecution in
various locations of the Libyan territory, in particular in Benghazi, Misrata, Tripoli
and other neighbouring cities, from 15 February 2011 until at least 28 February 2011
in violation of articles 7(l)(a) and (h) of the Statute.

Conclusion

 In this Admissibility Challenge, the Chamber has not been provided with enough
evidence with a sufficient degree of specificity and probative value to demonstrate
that the Libyan and the ICC investigations cover the same conduct and that Libya is
able genuinely to carry out an investigation against Mr Gaddafi. The Chamber finds
that the present case is admissible before the Court and recalls Libya's obligation to
surrender the suspect.
 The Chamber recalls that a finding on admissibility is predicated on facts as they exist
at the time of the proceedings concerning the admissibility challenge as the domestic
activities or lack thereof may change over time. It follows that the present decision is
without prejudice to any subsequent challenge that may be brought before the
Chamber, provided that the requirements of article 19(4), third sentence, of the Statute
have been met.

The case remains in the Pre-Trial stage, pending Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi's transfer to the
seat of the Court in The Hague. Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi was declared
inadmissible on 11 October 2013.
Case against Muammar Gaddafi was terminated on 22 November 2011, following his
death.
 PROSECUTOR V. SAIF AL-ISLAM GADDAFI, ICC-01/11-01/11- 239

"Decision requesting further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case
against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi", 7 December 2012,

Facts

 Application filed in the chamber on behalf of the Government of Libya pursuant to

Article 19 of the ICC Statute", challenging the admissibility of the case against Saif
Al-lslam Gaddafi

Conclusion

 the Chamber requests Libya to provide its submissions, with the appropriate evidence
in their support of arguments by 23rd January, 2013. The Libyan authorities are also
entitled to submit evidence on any other matters relevant to the admissibility of the
case and on which they intend to rely for the purposes of the Admissibility Challenge.
 Further, chamber states that, it is necessary that the Prosecutor's response to Libya's
further submissions pursuant to the present decision include an update of her
assessment on the admissibility of the present case, taking into account the additional
material provided by Libya as well as the information gathered by the Prosecutor
from other sources. In this submission, the Prosecutor shall also include an assessment
of the relevance and probative value of the evidence that may be presented by Libya
to substantiate its assertions.

Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision

 SITUATION IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH/REPUBLIC OF
THE UNION OF MYANMAR (ICC-01/19),

Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation

into the Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar,
Pre-Trial Chamber III, 14.11.2019. (“Myanmar Authorization Decision”)

Facts

 On 6 September 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued its ‘Decision on the “Prosecution’s

Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute" finding that
the Court may assert jurisdiction pursuant to article 12(2)(a) of the Statute if at least
one element of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court or part of such crime is
committed on the territory of a State Party to the Statute.
 On 12 June 2019, the Prosecutor informed the Presidency, pursuant to Regulation 45
of the Regulations, of her intention, pursuant to article 15(3) of the Statute, to submit
a request for judicial authorisation to commence an investigation into the Situation in
Bangladesh/Myanmar.

Conclusion

 the Chamber accepts that there exists a reasonable basis to believe that since at least 9
October 2016, members of the Tatmadaw, jointly with other security forces and with
some participation of local civilians, may have committed coercive acts that could
qualify as the crimes against humanity of deportation (article 7(1)(d) of the Statute)
and persecution on grounds of ethnicity and/or religion (article 7(1)(h) of the Statute)
against the Rohingya population.
 Further, the Chamber does not consider it necessary to form any view in relation to
the facts identified as relevant to the Prosecutor’s submissions concerning the alleged
crime of other inhumane acts. Nevertheless, the Chamber stresses that the Prosecutor
is not restricted to investigating only the events mentioned in her Request, much less
their provisional legal characterisation.

Pre-Trial Chamber Decision. The case is ongoing and in preliminary stages

 PROSECUTOR V. LAURENT GBAGBO, (ICC-02/11-01/11),

Decision on the confirmation of charges against Laurent Gbagbo, 12 June 2014. (“Laurent
Gbagbo Decision”)

Facts

 Laurent Gbagbo, Ivorian national and former President of Côte d'Ivoire, at time of
warrant. Charges against him for four counts of crimes against humanity: murder,
rape, other inhumane acts or – in the alternative – attempted murder, and persecution,
allegedly committed during the 2010-2011 post-election violence in Côte d'Ivoire.

Conclusion

 The PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I finds that there is sufficient evidence to establish

substantial grounds to believe that Laurent Gbagbo, born on 31 May 1945 in Mama,
Côte d’Ivoire, is criminally responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder,
rape, other inhumane acts or – in the alternative – attempted murder, and persecution
in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, committed between 16 and 19 December 2010 during and
after a pro-Ouattara march on the RTI headquarters, on 3 March 2011 at a women’s
demonstration in Abobo, on 17 March 2011 by shelling a densely populated area in
Abobo, and on or around 12 April 2011 in Yopougon, under article 25(3)(a) of the
Statute for committing these crimes, jointly with members of his inner circle and
through members of the pro-Gbagbo forces, or, in the alternative, under article 25(3)
(b) of the Statute or, in the alternative, under article 25(3)(d) of the Statute for
contributing in any other way to the commission of these crimes.

The Blé Goudé case and Gbagbo case were joined on 11 March 2015. The trial began
on 28 January 2016. On 15 January 2019, Trial Chamber I, by majority, acquitted Mr
Laurent Gbagbo and Mr Charles Blé Goudé from all charges of crimes against
humanity allegedly committed in Côte d'Ivoire in 2010 and 2011. On 1 February 2019,
the Appeals Chamber set conditions to be imposed on Mr Gbagbo and Mr Blé Goudé
upon their release to a State willing to accept them on its territory and willing and able
to enforce the conditions set by the Chamber.

On 16 July 2019, Trial Chamber I filed the written full reasons for the acquittal of Mr
Laurent Gbagbo and Mr Charles Blé Goudé. On 16 September 2019, the Prosecutor
filed a notice of appeal against this decision. On 31 March 2021, the Appeals Chamber
confirmed, by majority, the acquittal decision of 15 January 2019.

The acquittal of Mr Gbagbo and Mr Blé Goudé is now final. The Appeals Chamber
revoked all conditions on the release of Mr Gbagbo and Mr Blé Goudé. The Chamber
directed the ICC Registrar to make arrangements for the safe transfer of Mr Gbagbo
and Mr Blé Goudé to a receiving State or States.

Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, ICC,

Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on Confirmation Charges, (Jan. 29, 2007).

Facts

 Thomas Lubanga Dylio is Former President of the Union des Patriotes

Congolais/Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (UPC/FPLC). Charges:
Found guilty, on 14 March 2012, of the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting
children under the age of 15 years and using them to participate actively in hostilities

Conclusion

 the Chamber finds that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to
believe that from early September 2002 to 13 August 2003, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
incurred criminal responsibility as a co-perpetrator within the meaning of article 25(3)
(a) of the Statute for the crimes referred to in Section IV of this decision. Further,
recalls that in its decisions of 10 February 2006 and 3 October 2006, the Chamber
found that the instant case fell within the jurisdiction of the Court and was admissible
pursuant to article 17 of the Statute.

Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision

Found guilty, on 14 March 2012, of the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting
children under the age of 15 years and using them to participate actively in hostilities
(child soldiers). Sentenced, on 10 July 2012, to a total of 14 years of imprisonment.
Verdict and sentence confirmed by Appeals Chamber on 1 December 2014. On 19
December 2015, Mr Lubanga was transferred to a prison facility in the DRC to serve
his sentence of imprisonment. The reparations proceedings started on 7 August 2012.
 PROSECUTOR V. FRANCIS KIRIMI MUTHAURA ET AL., ICC-01/09-02/11-382-
RED

P.T.C., Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the
Rome Statute, (January 23, 2012)

Facts

 The confirmation of charges hearing took place from 21 September to 5 October

2011. Charges withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Case also involved charges
against Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Mohammed Hussein Ali. Judges declined to
confirm charges against Mohammed Hussein Ali on 23 January 2012.

Conclusion

 The court lacks jurisdiction rationae materiae in the present case, I feel barred, at
least in principle, from pronouncing a view on the merits of the case, more
specifically on whether or not there are substantial grounds to believe that Mr
Muthaura and Mr Kenyatta committed the crimes charged, as required by article 61(7)
of the Statute. Consequently, and Secondly, I also feel barred from examining
whether or not the Prosecutor presented “sufficient evidence” within the meaning of
that provision. Likewise, I feel barred from determining whether or not the numerous
Defence challenges to the Prosecutor’s evidence pursuant to article 61(6)(b) of the
Statute are well-founded and relevant.

Pre-Trial Chamber Decision I,

The case is considered closed unless and until the Prosecutor submits new evidence.