The COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT includes 2,500 non-governmental

organisations in 150 countries working in partnership to strengthen international cooperation with the

International Criminal Court; ensure that the Court is fair, effective and independent; make justice both

visible and universal; and advance stronger national laws that deliver justice to victims of war crimes, crimes

against humanity and genocide.

The Coalition Secretariat would like to thank the donors who support the Coalition's work: the European

Union, Humanity United, the Samuel Rubin Foundation, and the governments of Australia, Austria, Finland,

Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and a number of

committed individuals. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the

Coalition for the International Criminal Court and should in no way be taken to reflect the

views of the European Union, Irish Aid, or any other donor.

The Coalition Secretariat takes all care to ensure accuracy. Corrections and additions are always welcome.

For more information about the Coalition, please visit: www.coalitionfortheicc.org

Follow the Coalition on:

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. The Assembly of States Parties 4

3. The Opening Session 8

4. Elections 8

5. The General Debate 11

6. Cooperation 12

7. Complementarity 16

8. The Court’s Budget for 2016 17

9. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Rome Statute 20

10. The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Court Proceedings 21

11. Requests for supplementary agenda items 23

12. The Omnibus Resolution 24

Acronyms and Key terms 27

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

3

1. Introduction This is an informal background paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP) from 18-26 November 2015, drafted by the Coalition for the International Court for the convenience of those who will be in attendance at the session. While by no means exhaustive, this paper aims to provide participants an informed entry point to the discussions that will take place at the 14th ASP, as well as to positions taken by the Coalition and or individual members on the issues at hand. Civil society has long played a role in the Rome Statute system of international justice, beginning with participation in meetings of the Preparatory Committee, tasked with establishing the ICC, the historic 1998 Rome Conference, and the Preparatory Commission, which was convened following the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. The ICC was established in 2002 with the entry into force of the Rome Statute. Throughout the entire process, civil society was there. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) actually predates the Rome Statute; the CICC was established in 1995 to play a convening role in civil society’ engagement with efforts to create a permanent international judicial mechanism to address genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Since then the Coalition for the ICC has facilitated NGO access to these negotiations with an aim to increasing global civil society participation and input to the ICC process. At the 4th plenary meeting of the 2003 ASP, the Coalition for the ICC was recognised, by consensus, for its “coordinating and facilitating role” in a stand-alone ASP resolution. The ASP is a pivotal forum for the Coalition and its members. More than 100 representatives from NGOs from all parts of the world will attend the 14th ASP session. The continued commitment of NGOs to invest time and resources in the ASP is a clear indication of the sustained support for the Rome Statute system of justice. The consultative arrangements for NGOs with the ASP and the Court are extraordinary and this constructive cooperation will again be evident throughout the 14th session. As in previous years, NGOs coordinate their activities through the Coalition. A large number of side-events (co-)organized by civil society will be held, creating a platform for dialogue between the participating NGOs on the one hand, and the Court and States Parties on the other. In advance of and during the fourteenth session of the ASP, the Coalition will continue its advocacy for a fair, effective and independent Court by addressing a number of key issues through advocacy documents, letters, meetings, press briefings and other events. At the conclusion of each day of the 14th ASP, the Coalition will publish a report of the events that took place on its #GlobalJustice blog.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

4

2. The Assembly of States Parties

The Assembly of States Parties (ASP) serves as the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) management oversight and legislative body. The Assembly comprises all 123 states parties to the Rome Statute (Statute). It is important to note that while the ASP provides management oversight regarding the administration of the Court, it is strictly forbidden for the body to interfere with the judicial or prosecutorial independence of the Court. ASP Bureau The ASP has a Bureau that consists of a President, two Vice-Presidents, and 18 states’ representatives, each elected for three-year terms. The current President of the ASP is Minister Sidiki Kaba of Senegal, and he is supported by Vice-Presidents Ambassador Álvaro Moerzinger of Uruguay (based in The Hague) and Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi of Italy (based in New York). The current remaining 18 Bureau members are: Chile Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Germany Ghana Hungary

Japan The Netherlands Nigeria Republic of Korea Romania Samoa

Slovenia (Rapporteur) South Africa Sweden Uganda United Kingdom

The current ASP Presidency and Bureau were elected in 2013 for a three-year term. The Bureau assists the Assembly in the discharge of its mandate and meets regularly throughout the year in New York and The Hague. The Bureau has two working groups: the New York Working Group (NYWG) and the Hague Working Group (HWG), presided over by Ambassador Cardi and Ambassador Álvaro Moerzinger respectively. ASP Secretariat The ASP has a Permanent Secretariat (SASP) to assist it in its work. The Secretariat is located in The Hague and its Director is Mr. Renan Villacis. States Parties The ASP is composed of the 123 states that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute and are thus member of the ICC. Each state party receives one vote (Article 112 (7) Rome Statute) in the decision-making process of the ASP (however, both the Rome Statute and the ASP Bureau encourage States Parties to attempt to reach consensus in their decision-making, and only when this is impossible to resort to a vote). All other states that signed the Statute but have not ratified it or signed the Final Act of the Rome Conference may attend the ASP as observers.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

5

The current 123 States Parties to the Rome Statute are:

A

Afghanistan

Albania

Andorra

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Australia

Austria

B

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belgium

Belize

Benin

Bolivia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

Brazil

Bulgaria

Burkina Faso

Burundi

C

Cabo Verde

Cambodia

Canada

Central African Republic

Chad

Chile

Colombia

Comoros

Congo

Cook Islands

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

D

Dem. Rep. of the Congo

Denmark

Djibouti

Dominica

Dominican Republic

E

Ecuador

Estonia

F

Fiji

Finland

France

G

Gabon

Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Grenada

Guatemala

Guinea

Guyana

H

Honduras

Hungary

I

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

J

Japan

Jordan

K

Kenya

L

Latvia

Lesotho

Liberia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

M

Madagascar

Macedonia

Malawi

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mauritius

Mexico

Moldova

Mongolia

Montenegro

N

Namibia

Nauru

Netherlands

New Zealand

Niger

Nigeria

Norway

P

Palestine

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

R

Republic of Korea

Romania

S

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

San Marino

Senegal

Serbia

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

Spain

Suriname

Sweden

Switzerland

T

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Timor-Leste

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

U

Uganda

United Kingdom

Uruguay

V

Vanuatu

Venezuela

Z

Zambia

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

6

Sessions of the Assembly of States Parties The ASP meets in full plenary session at least once a year, in either New York or The Hague. The 14th session of the ASP will take place in The Hague from 18 to 26 November at the World Forum Convention Centre. States Parties use the annual ASP meetings to discuss and take decisions upon issues of importance in relation to the functioning and success of the ICC and the Rome Statute system, whether in relation to the Court’s budget, cooperation, complementarity, or other issues. The ICC is dependent on States Parties and can only exercise its mandate to the extent that they assist and reinforce the Court’s work. As such, ASP decisions not only affect States Parties’ political will and cooperation, whether mandated or voluntary, but also the functioning of the Court itself. In addition to making decisions, at each session of the ASP, the Assembly tasks the Bureau to discuss a number of issues of importance to the work of the ICC and the work of the ASP for the following year. These topics are then assigned to either Bureau Working Group and a facilitator or co-facilitators are appointed per issue to lead the discussions. At every ASP session, the Assembly also tasks one of its subsidiary bodies, such as the Committee on Budget and Finance, or the Court itself, to report back on a number of issues the following year. These reports, and more information about the ASP, can be found on the ASP website: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/assembly/Pages/assembly.aspx Observers States that are not party to the Rome Statute, regional and international organisations, civil society, and the media may participate in Assembly meetings as observers. Participation in the ASP sessions provides these groups with the opportunity to engage with the international justice system created by the Rome Statute. For example, non-states parties may use the occasion to demonstrate their commitment to an end to impunity for international crimes, either by joining in the General Debate or other plenary discussions, or by providing updates on progress towards ratification and/or implementation of the Rome Statute and the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court (APIC). The 14th session of the ASP The outcomes of each annual ASP session differ according to the specific issues under discussion in any given year, but they usually fall under recurring general topics. At the conclusion of the 14th session of the ASP, one can expect the plenary to have adopted language in stand-alone resolutions or as part of the “Omnibus Resolution” on issues such as the Court’s budget for 2016, cooperation, complementarity, universality, and many other topics. At the 14th session, three special plenary discussions will be organised:

1. On cooperation (Friday 20 November from 10:00-13:00); 2. On complementarity (Thursday 19 November from 15:00-18:00); and 3. On enhancing the judicial proceedings of the Court (Tuesday 24 November from 15:00-

18:00). More information about these special plenary sessions can be found below. A great number of side events will be organised in the margins of the ASP. During breakfast meetings, lunch breaks, or evening events, many topics on the ASPs agenda or other topics related to the ICC’s work and impact more broadly will be discussed. All side-events can be found in the

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

7

ASP Journal which provides the daily agenda of the 14th ASP with an overview of plenary sessions and side-events. It will be updated regularly and throughout the ASP: http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP14/ASP14-Journal-ENG.pdf Civil society (co-) organises a large number of these events. To highlight a few:

Strengthening African Responses to International Criminal Justice: Complementarity in Action (co-hosted by The Netherlands and the Institute for Security Studies); Thursday 19 November, 13:15 - 14:45

Coalition Meeting with European States (co-hosted by Luxembourg and the European Union External Action Service); Friday 20 November, 13:15-15:00

Palestine and the ICC: Accountability Opportunities and Obligations (co-hosted by the State of Palestine, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Al Hag organization); Friday 20 November, 13:00-15:00

Complementarity: Beyond the ICC (co-hosted by Uganda, Africa Legal Aid (AFLA) and Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)); Friday 20 November, 13:00-15:00

From admission to reparation, heeding the voices of victims (hosted by the Victims’ Rights Working Group), Saturday 21 November, 13:15 – 15:00

Making Justice Count: Pushing Forward the ICC’s Local Impact (co-hosted by the United Kingdom and Human Rights Watch); Monday 23 November, 13:00-15:00

Africa and the ICC – Looking Back, Moving Forward (co-hosted by Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the Wayamo Foundation); Monday 23 November, 18:00 – 19:30

Performance Indicators of the Court (hosted by the United Kingdom and Open Society Justice Initiative); Tuesday 24 November, 13:00 – 15:00

Complementarity and Cooperation: The ICC and the National Jurisdictions in Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Mali (hosted by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)); Tuesday 24 November, 13:15 – 14:45

Reading of Excerpts of “Hague Girls” (co-hosted by Uganda and Africa Legal Aid (AFLA)); Tuesday 24 November, 18 – 19:30pm

Accountability and the Prospect of a Political Solution to Conflict in Syria (hosted by No Peace Without Justice (NPWJ)); Wednesday 25 November, 13:15 – 14:45

Reception for the launch of “The Politics of Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court” by Professor Louise Chappell, in recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (hosted by Australia and the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice)(by invitation only)

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

8

3. The Opening Session The 14th ASP session will open on Wednesday 18 November with a plenary session dedicated to preliminary (and administrative) tasks but will also include several elections (see chapter below). The opening session also typically features a number of keynote addresses – by the ASP President, the ICC President, the ICC Prosecutor - and possibly by participating Heads of State, Ministers, and other high-level state representatives. The Assembly begins by formally adopting the agenda of ASP14, followed by the appointment of the Credentials Committee. After appealing to states in arrears to satisfy their contribution requirements, the Assembly will hear reports from the Court, the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims, the Bureau, and the Oversight Committee on the permanent premises.

4. Elections Time has also been allotted during the opening session on 18 November to elect:

1) Five members of the Trust Fund for Victims Board of Directors (TFV)

2) One member of the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF)

3) Nine members of the Advisory Committee on the Nomination of Judges (ACN)

Ahead of all three elections, the Bureau has requested that States Parties find consensus to avoid the need for an actual vote. The Coalition for the ICC monitors all ICC and ASP elections to ensure that they are fair, transparent, and lead to the election of the most qualified candidates. The Coalition itself does not endorse or oppose individual candidates, but rather advocates for the integrity of the nominations’ and elections’ procedures. The Coalition strongly opposes reciprocal political agreements (“vote-trading”) in ICC and ASP elections. Election of five members of the Trust Fund for Victims Board of Directors The TFV Board plays a vital role in providing leadership and guidance to the TFV as well as in securing voluntary contributions and donations to fund the TFV’s activities. As such, members of the TFV Board are responsible for the development and maintenance of the TFV as a relevant and credible institution. This is especially true now following the first reparations order issued by the ICC in March 20151 in the case against Thomas Lubanga2 and the subsequent implementation plan the TFV submitted to the ICC judges in November of this year.

1 www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%2520and%2520media/press%2520releases/Pages/pr1102.aspx

2 www.icc-

cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%2520and%2520cases/situations/situation%2520icc%25200104/related%2520cases/i

cc%25200104%25200106/Pages/democratic%2520republic%2520of%2520the%2520congo.aspx

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

9

Serving in an individual capacity and on a pro bono basis, the five members of the TFV Board are elected by the ASP for three‐year terms and may only be re-elected once. Each geographic region (African States, Asian States, Eastern European States, Group of Latin America and Caribbean States, and Western European and Other States) is eligible for one seat on the Board. 2015 nominees:

1. Mr. Felipe Raúl Michelini, Uruguay, Latin American and Caribbean States, incumbent

2. Mr. Motoo Noguchi, Japan, Asia-Pacific States, incumbent

3. Ms. Arminka Helić, United Kingdom, Western European and Other States

4. Mr. Goran Salihović, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eastern European States

5. Mr. Sayeman Bula-Bula, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), African States, incumbent

6. Ms. Mama Koité Doumbia, Mali, African States

7. Ms. Mirjam Blaak Sow, Uganda, African States

The nomination period for the TFV Board election ran for 12 weeks, ending in August 2015. As there are currently three nominees from the African Group of States, the Bureau encouraged3 the DRC, Mali and Uganda - as the nominating states - to consult and return with a consensus candidate for the region. If that is impossible, a candidate must receive a two-thirds majority vote among States Parties present at the ASP. in order to be elected Additionally, a successful candidate should receive the most votes among all the nominees from her or his particular region.

Election of 1 member of the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF) The CBF is an independent expert body4 responsible for the technical examination of any document submitted to the ASP containing financial or budgetary implications. The ASP may also entrust to the CBF any other matter of a financial, budgetary, or administrative nature. Following the submission of the Court’s proposed budget, the CBF issues an analytical report of the budget, providing recommendations to the ASP on the exact budgetary increase that should be accorded. The role of the CBF is thus instrumental to the decisions States Parties will make on the Court’s annual budget, which in turn impacts the activities of the Court in terms of the investigations and cases it can pursue. (For more information on the Court’s budget, see the related chapter below.) The 12 CBF members5 are meant to only bring recognised financial expertise at the international level to the budget request process. The ASP Bureau fixed a one-month nomination period6 following the resignation7 of Estonia’s Juhani Lemmik from the CBF in September 2015. To ensure an equitable geographical

3 www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Bureau/ICC-ASP-2015-Bureau-09-01Oct2015.pdf

4 www.iccnow.org/?mod=budget

5 www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/CBF/List-CBF-members-2015-ENG.pdf

6 www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Elections/ECBF2015/CBF2015-vacancy-NV-ENG.pdf

7 www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Elections/ECBF2015/CBF2015-vacancy-NV-ENG.pdf

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

10

representation in the CBF, only the Group of Eastern European States was invited to put forward nominees for his replacement. As of 3 November, the only nomination submitted is that of Urmet Lee (Estonia). Election of 9 members of the Advisory Committee on the Nomination of Judges (ACN) The ACN is intended to facilitate the election of the most highly-qualified judges to the ICC, in accordance with Article 36 of the Rome Statute. The ACN provides analysis to States Parties on each candidate. To do that, the ACN conducts face-to-face interviews and considers written materials submitted by the candidates, including statements of qualifications and curricula vitae. The ACN also considers candidates’ language skills, moral character, health, and any other factor that may help or hinder the candidates from fulfilling their judicial responsibilities. After interviewing candidates, the ACN prepares technical information and analysis on the suitability of the candidates. These reports are submitted to ICC States Parties and observers, allowing for thorough consideration by the Assembly prior to the election. Nine members8 make up the ACN, and those elected will serve three-year terms and may only serve a second term if re-elected. Again, the Bureau recommends approval by consensus as an alternative to election. Once elected, ACN members serve in their own personal capacities and not on behalf of an organisation or State Party. The Coalition encouraged and welcomed the establishment9 of the ACN and remains committed to supporting it in the fulfilment of its mandate. The Coalition is a large proponent of further improved ICC judicial elections and has strongly urged ICC States Parties to fully support the ACN and to pay due regard to its findings and recommendations. Current nominees:

1. Mr. Thomas Barankitse, Burundi, African States

2. Mr. Bruno Cotte, France, Western European and Other States

3. Mr. Hiroshi Fukuda (incumbent), Japan, Asia-Pacific States

4. Mr. Adrian Fulford, United Kingdom, Western European and Other States

5. Mr. Philippe Kirsch (incumbent), Canada, Western European and Other States

6. Mr. Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko (incumbent), Uganda, African States

7. Mr. Ernest Petrič (incumbent), Slovenia, Eastern European States

8. Ms. Monica Pinto (incumbent), Argentina, Latin America and Caribbean States

9. Mr. Bruno Simma (incumbent), Germany, Western European and Other States

10. Mr. Manuel Ventura Robles, Costa Rica, Latin America and Caribbean States

8 www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP11/ICC-ASP-11-47-ENG.pdf

9 www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP10/ICC-ASP-10-36-ENG.pdf

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

11

5. The General Debate The General Debate will take place over three plenary meetings during the first two days of the ASP (18 and 19 November 2015). It provides an opportunity for ASP participants to address issues relating to the Assembly’s work and the wider Rome Statute (RS) system of international justice. While special sessions have been dedicated to the in-depth continuation of several of this year’s ongoing discussions, the General Debate serves as a forum for States Parties, non-states parties, regional and international organisations, and NGOs to make statements on additional points of concern and to express their support for an end to impunity more broadly. Indeed, the General Debate portion of the ASP provides an excellent opportunity for countries to reiterate their support for the Court and its progress thus far. It also serves as an opportunity to inform ASP participants of the steps states have taken to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute, as well as to update on progress made regarding domestic implementation of the Statute and ratification of the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court (APIC). Efforts undertaken to improve cooperation with the Court can also be highlighted, as can the progress of investigations and prosecutions of Rome Statute crimes at the national level – as per the principle of complementarity. Participants can also contribute to the General Debate by making advance written submissions, which will be published on the ASP website. The Coalition has long encouraged states to take full advantage of this opportunity to express support for an end to impunity through the Rome Statute system, in addition to their taking formal position with respect to a variety of issues. At the 14th session of the ASP, some important issues for states to consider addressing in their General Debate statements include:

- non-cooperation with the previous ASP’s request that states avoid non-essential contact with ICC fugitives;

- the initiative to restrain the permanent UN Security Council members’ veto powers where Rome Statute crimes are involved;

- recent challenges to the integrity and universality of the Rome Statute; - the ICC’s field presence and outreach capacity; and, - ratification of the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the ICC.

Civil society also takes part in the General Debate, with 10-12 individual non-governmental organisations delivering statements. These NGOs use the General Debate to raise their particular concerns before the entire Assembly, which is of great value when some topics of concern to civil society are not prominently featured – if at all – on the ASP programme. NGOs can thus raise awareness about their own contributions and ability to assist interested States Parties. The points raised by civil society during the General Debate often inform the decision-making process of States Parties throughout the remainder of the Assembly. The list of speakers is finalised in advance of the ASP with each speaker encouraged to take the floor for a maximum of five minutes.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

12

6. Cooperation With no enforcement mechanism of its own, the ability of the ICC to do its job is largely dependent on the cooperation it receives from states, the UN, regional organisations, and other relevant actors. Cooperation is an absolutely vital part of the system of international justice set up by the Rome Statute and must be multi-faceted to enable the various functions of the ICC to be executed effectively and impartially. Cooperation figures centrally in States Parties’ responsibility to uphold the Rome Statute system and its goal of bringing those most responsible for atrocity crimes to account. Without this support international justice simply cannot function. The various ways in which states are to cooperate with the ICC is laid out in Part IX of the Rome Statute. The Hague Working Group discussions on cooperation Over the course of 2015 and under the facilitation of Ambassador Maymouna Diop-Sy (Senegal) and Ambassador Jan-Lucas van Hoorn (The Netherlands), the Hague Working Group (HWG) discussed inter alia the 66 Recommendations on Cooperation (first developed in 2007), voluntary cooperation agreements, arrest strategies, and the feasibility of establishing a coordinating mechanism for national authorities dealing with cooperation. In May 2015, the co-facilitators organised a retreat on cooperation in Santpoort, Netherlands, where the President of the Assembly, States Parties’ representatives, and key ICC officials participated. The Court and the co-facilitators later organised two high‐level seminars for fostering cooperation in San José, Costa Rica (in July 2015, for Spanish-speaking Central and North American States) and in Gaborone, Botswana10 (in October 2015, for Southern African States), respectively. The Court also organised a seminar11 on cooperation with focal points of States where ICC investigations have been opened or are taking place, on 2 November in The Hague. The importance of states appointing national focal points was stressed; incumbent focal points discussed lessons learned and reflections for the future on issues such as witness and victim protection, outreach within situation countries, and participation of situation countries in Court proceedings. 66 Recommendations In 2007, the Assembly adopted 66 Recommendations on cooperation, an extensive list of recommendations identifying the challenges and key priority areas regarding cooperation. The document provides guidance as well as possible remedies for overcoming cooperation challenges. In 2015, the facilitation on cooperation operated under a mandate to review the 66 recommendations. Both the Court and States Parties agreed the recommendations continue to be valid and relevant today. The HWG thus decided to identify priorities among the 66 recommendations and to formulate practical measures into proposals and concrete statements of action. In this vein, States Parties and the Court worked together to identify areas that are especially relevant for enhanced cooperation, resulting in a draft flyer entitled, “Recommendations

10

www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr1164.aspx 11

www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr1166.aspx

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

13

on States’ Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC): Experiences and Priorities.” The HWG recommends the ASP adopt the flyer during the 14th session. Voluntary agreements Voluntary cooperation from states (such as acquittal agreements, witness relocation/protection and hosting detainees on interim release) is crucial to the Court’s ability to function fairly and effectively. However, the number of voluntary agreements that have been concluded between states and the Court remains appallingly low, and will continue to hamper the Court’s ability to function effectively if new agreements are not forthcoming. It is the obligation of all States Parties to give effect to the rights of accused persons contained in the Rome Statute and bilateral voluntary agreements are a crucial tool to give effect to the right of interim release and relocation following final release or acquittal in the event the released person cannot return to his or her country. The Court has previously circulated ‘framework agreements’ and stresses these can serve as a basis upon which States Parties can engage with the Court in order to draft voluntary agreements which are amenable to the necessary requirements of both parties. Civil society strongly urges States Parties to enter into discussions with the Court in this regard and to sign such voluntary cooperation agreements or address obstacles to doing so as soon as possible. Enforcement of Sentences Since 2012, no new agreements have been concluded on the enforcement of sentences. Sentences of imprisonment, in accordance with Chapter X of the Rome Statute, shall be enforced by states which have declared to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons. Pursuant to Rule 200 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Court may enter into bilateral arrangements with states with a view to regulate the acceptance of persons sentenced by the Court. According to the Statute, the Court, in deciding in which of the consenting states a convicted person should serve his or her sentence, shall take into consideration circumstances such as the application of standards governing the treatment of prisoners, and the views and nationality of the sentenced person. After the Court has made a decision it shall notify the state with information regarding the prisoner's nationality, his or her medical status, the sentence, and the final judgment. The person is then to be delivered to the territory of the state. These agreements provide the legal framework for the possible enforcement of an actual sentence handed down by the ICC’s judges. Interim Release Many defendants make applications for interim release during the course of their trial, as is their fundamental right before the ICC. Defendants will not however be provisionally released where there is a risk that they may not appear for trial; continue to commit the crimes alleged; obstruct the proceedings; or interfere with witnesses. If none of these conditions apply, ICC judges may consider provisionally releasing the defendant pending trial but a state willing to accept this person on its territory must first be identified. To date only one state – Belgium – has signed an agreement on interim release. More states urgently need to follow this example in order to facilitate the exercise of a fundamental right of the accused. Relocation following final release or acquittal In 2014, the Registry indicated that the Court’s draft framework agreement on release in case of acquittal (which only applies to individuals who cannot return to their home country) was ready for discussion. However, as yet no state has signed such an agreement.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

14

Witness Relocation As with most legal systems, witnesses are essential to determining fact at the ICC. Yet witness support and protection can be challenging, as witnesses can be victims of intimidation or bribery or may have suffered from trauma. The Rome Statute obliges the ICC to guarantee their rights and safety. A last resort protective measure is entry into the Court’s Protection Programme, through which the witness and his or her close relatives are relocated away from the source of a threat. This is an effective method of protection, but due to the immense burden on the relocated persons, relocation remains a measure of last resort and only absolute necessity. While witness protection is primarily the responsibility of the ICC, it depends heavily on the cooperation of States Parties to enter into voluntary agreements to relocate witnesses. In 2015, one new witness relocation agreement was signed, bringing the total number of such agreements to 15. Arrest Strategies Without an enforcement mechanism of its own, the Court is dependent on states’ cooperation in the execution of ICC arrest warrants. Failures to execute arrest warrants have a negative impact on the ICC’s ability to achieve its mandate. At the 2013 ASP session, the Assembly decided to consider concrete steps and measures aimed at securing arrests in a structured and systematic manner. Mr. Roberto Bellelli (Italy) was appointed as rapporteur on arrest strategies with the mandate to deliver a report which would provide background and justification for a draft “Action Plan on Arrest Strategies.” The Action Plan is intended to be a document providing general recommendations on the implementation of the obligations established by the Rome Statute. The Action Plan will not create any legal obligation for States Parties or other states. In 2014, the rapporteur issued a report to explain the draft Action Plan on arrest strategies. The report stated that the Action Plan will take a ‘results-oriented’ approach to ensuring full compliance with Court requests for the execution of its restrictive orders, including arrest warrants. After discussion throughout 2014 on the draft Action Plan, the ASP renewed the rapporteur’s mandate to complete the consideration of the Action Plan during 2015. This year, after lengthy and thorough discussions in the HWG, States Parties decided to change wording from the draft Action Plan that could lead to the misconception that it would have a binding effect. Wording such as “shall” and “should” was changed into “may”, “might”, and “could”. Also discussed in 2015 was the recommendation in the draft Action Plan on the establishment of a tracking unit within the OTP that would consist of a professional in-house capacity unit tasked to conduct the search for fugitives and their assets. The unit would directly report to the Prosecutor through the OTP Head of the Investigative Division. In 2015, States Parties discussed whether this unit would pose a threat to the OTP’s prosecutorial independence. The HWG decided to ‘bracket’ the language on the tracking unit in the draft Action Plan and leave it up to the Assembly at the 14th session to decide whether to keep the language in there or not. The HWG adopted the report on Arrest Strategies by the rapporteur and the draft of the Action Plan on Arrest Strategies, with some language still to be considered by the ASP at its 14th session. As such, at the 14th ASP session States Parties will continue discussions on the draft Action Plan. ASP 14 Special Session On 20 November 2015, ASP 14 will feature a special plenary session dedicated to cooperation. The session, moderated by the cooperation facilitators Ambassador Diop-Sy and Ambassador van

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

15

Hoorn, will feature discussions on several cooperation-related documents issued by the Bureau and the Court. The special session will be divided into two parts, with the first portion focused on discussing “Cooperation with the Court by means of voluntary framework agreements or arrangements.” The session’s panel will comprise representatives of the Court, States Parties, and international organisations. The second part of the plenary session will allow for a more general discussion on cooperation.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

16

7. Complementarity Under the principle of complementarity, States Parties have a duty to investigate and prosecute all Rome Statute crimes that occur within their respective jurisdictions. This foundational principle was designed to ensure States Parties undertake the primary role in the enforcement of international criminal justice, leaving the International Criminal Court as a court of last resort. In the event that a State Party is unable or unwilling to bring perpetrators of international crimes to justice, the ICC could decide to investigate and prosecute – and thereby address an impunity gap. ICC President Fernández considers complementarity a preexisting obligation of States Parties, arising from the preamble to the Statute. Under the principle of complementarity, the involvement of the ICC will only be triggered when a State Party has failed in its duty to enforce the Rome Statute’s obligation regarding investigation and prosecution of international crimes. The ICC recognises that either a lack of capacity or of political will may be responsible for such a failure. However, even then the ICC may only assume responsibility for the prosecution of those most responsible, leaving some degree of an impunity gap. Thus national jurisdictions will always have a role to play in addressing Rome Statute crimes. Discussions on complementarity in 2015 Leading up to ASP14, the ad country co-focal points - Botswana and Sweden - convened working group discussions related to complementarity in both New York and The Hague, with a focus on discussing how to strengthen effective domestic implementation of the Rome Statute to enhance the capacity of national jurisdictions. Specifically, the co-focal points were mandated to facilitate discussions with the Court and other stakeholders on “complementarity related capacity-building activities by the international community to assist national jurisdictions, on possible situation-specific completion strategies of the Court and the role of partnerships with national authorities and other actors in this regard; and also including to assist on issues such as witness protection and sexual and gender-based crimes”.12 The draft Bureau report, outlining the discussions on complementarity led by the co-focal points throughout 2015 as well as many events organised by the co-focal points around the world, will be uploaded on the ASP14 website13. The HWG proposed language on complementarity to be included in the Omnibus Resolution for this year’s ASP. ASP 14 Special Session On 19 November 2015, ASP 14 will feature a special plenary session dedicated to complementarity. It will focus on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) in particular and seek an exchange of views on “strategic action to enhance national capacity to investigate and prosecute Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes that may amount to Rome Statute Crimes”.

12 Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Thirteenth session, New York, 8 – 17 December 2014 (ICC-ASP/13/20), vol. I, ICC-ASP/13/Res.5, annex I, para. 12. 13

https://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/sessions/documentation/14th-session/Pages/default.aspx

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

17

8. The Court’s Budget for 2016 Budget Basics States Parties to the Rome Statute pay a yearly contribution to the ICC based on their gross national income. The ICC Registrar coordinates the initial drafting of the Court’s budget in conjunction with other Court organs. The proposed budget is then submitted to the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF), an independent subsidiary expert body of the ASP. The CBF is made up of 12 members14, nominated and selected by the ASP based on equitable geographic representation. Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean are allocated two Committee members each. Western Europe and Other States have four spots between them. Evaluating the budgetary needs of a unique international criminal justice institution like the ICC is a very complicated undertaking. The CBF undertakes a technical examination of any document, submitted to the Assembly, containing financial or budgetary implications. The Assembly may also entrust to the CBF any other matter of a financial, budgetary or administrative nature. During its bi-annual meetings, the CBF considers and makes recommendations on the resources that the Court has requested to fulfil its various prosecutorial, judicial, and organisational needs, as well as its obligations to defendants and victims. At the conclusion of its Fall meeting, the CBF issues recommendations on the ICC’s proposed budget for the next year. Final approval of the Court’s budget is then given by the ASP at its annual session. Civil society has long advocated for states to provide the ICC with the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate. 2016 ICC Budget Request The ICC’s proposed 2016 budget amounts to €153.32 million. This represents a €22.66 million or 17.3% increase on the approved 2015 budget and includes funds to cover additional investigations and prosecutions. - The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) requested a €6.47m (16.4%) increase, covering a new active

investigation (€3.4m) and the case against Lord’s Resistance Army commander Dominic Ongwen (€1.2m).

- The Registry requested a €16.91m (26%) increase, to cover: o Sustained quality and level of services required by parties to proceedings (€5.6m,

including €2.7m for field operations and €2.1m for witness protection and support), o Support of courtroom activities for live trials (€2.5m), o Legal aid for indigent defendants and participating witnesses (€3m), o Maintenance and support functions for the new premises (€3.5m), o Growing staff costs (€1.2m) and support of the Dominic Ongwen confirmation of

charges hearing (€600,000). - The Judiciary requested a €670,000m (5.6%) increase. - The TFV requested a €663,400 (36.5%) increase, mainly related to reparations activities.

14

https://exchange.wfm-

igp.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=729fb690469f4f3ca25bcbcb16e6da58&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.icc-

cpi.int%2ficcdocs%2fasp_docs%2fCBF%2fList-CBF-members-2015-ENG.pdf

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

18

However, following negative reactions to the 17% budget increase by States, the Court was asked to put forward an alternative proposal for delivery of its mandated activities in a more ‘cost-effective way’. Subsequently, the Court submitted a proposal that was considered by the CBF, based upon which the CBF recommended that the ASP approve a budget of €139.96 million for 2016, representing an increase of 7% compared to the Court’s approved 2015 budget. This is substantially lower than the 17.3% increase requested by the Court. CBF Recommendations for the Court’s 2016 Budget The CBF recommends15 the ASP approve a budget of €139.96 million for 2016, reflecting a €9,295,000 increase compared to the approved 2015 budget, broken down as follows: - The Office of the Prosecutor: CBF recommends a €3,839,400 increase - The Registry: CBF recommends a €7,635,100 increase - The Judiciary: CBF recommends a €429,900 increase - The TFV: CBF recommends a €72,600 increase While the Coalition does not take a position on the specific amount of resources that should be allocated to the ICC in any given year, it urges States Parties to treat the CBF’s review and recommendations as the bare minimum approach in their budget discussions. States Parties should oppose arbitrarily limiting the Court’s 2016 budget which would undermine the ICC’s ability to deliver justice. A lack of resources is a severe impediment to the optimal functioning of the Court. States in arrears The issue of states in arrears – or states that have not yet paid their contribution to the Court budget in full – has an impact on the Court’s work as it cannot access its full allocated budget. The ASP discusses this issue throughout the year in a separate facilitation within the New York Working Group, let by Mr. Slavomir Kantor (Slovakia). In the draft Bureau report on the states in arrears, it was set out that by October of 2015, the Court had not yet received €38m or 30% of its contributions for 2015. In comparison, the outstanding contributions around the same time last year ‘only’ stood at €9.5m. In addition, the total outstanding contributions by all States Parties since 2002 amount to an additional €8,151,645. Discussion on Setting a Financial Envelope Already in 2014, the Coalition’s Team on Budget and Finance expressed16 extreme concern at the CBF’s recommendation that “states parties consider whether a financial target or envelope should be set at each Assembly meeting that would define the anticipated outer limits of the budget for the year following the one immediately thereafter.”17 Following this recommendation carries with it the risk that the ICC’s budget process would be driven not by the resource needs of the ICC but by how much States Parties are willing to pay. This approach is entirely inappropriate given the fluctuating

15

https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP14/ICC-ASP-14-15-ENG.pdf 16 CICC Team on Budget and Finance: http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/CICC_BudgetandFinance__HWG_submission_18Nov2014.pdf. 17 Report of the Committee on Budget and Finance on the work of its twenty-third session, ICCASP/13/15, 5 November 2013.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

19

workload of the ICC and inconsistent with the Assembly’s important practice of deciding the budget as near as possible to the start of the financial year. If States Parties adopt the recommended approach, they would consider the financial envelope more than a year in advance of the budget period. Moreover, there is a real danger that such an approach would be used to strengthen efforts by a minority of states to impose zero nominal growth on the ICC budget. In all cases, it is quite certain that the ICC would be denied the flexibility it needs to expand its work when required to respond to impunity. Indeed, if such an envelope were adopted and the ICC decided to request greater resources for further activities in its proposal, States Parties that may be politically opposed to such activities could seek to use the envelope as a justification to block the new activities. In its 2014 submission, the Coalition’s Team on Budget and Finance called on States Parties in The Hague Working Group to expressly reject this recommendation and to continue to decide the annual budget based on the budgetary needs of the ICC in a transparent process with effective safeguards against politicisation of the process. Discussions in 2015 have once again turned to the option of such an envelope, and civil society continues to highlight the demerits of that approach.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

20

9. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Rome Statute

Throughout 2015, States Parties addressed a number of proposed amendments to both the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and to the Rome Statute. Subject to Article 51 of the Rome Statute, amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) can be proposed by any State Party and shall enter into force if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties. Any amendments to the RPE must be consistent with the Rome Statute and, in the event of conflict between the Rome Statute and the RPE, the Rome Statute shall prevail. To allow for a year-round structured dialogue between subsidiary bodies of the ASP, the Court, and other stakeholders on proposals for amendments to the RPE, the ASP set out a road-map through the Study Group on Governance (SGG). The ASP also set up a Working Group on Amendments for the purpose of considering amendments to the Rome Statute and to the RPE with a view to identifying amendments to be adopted in accordance with the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties. The Working Group on Amendments, chaired in 2015 by Ambassador May-Elin Stener (Norway) and meeting in New York, had the goal to achieve greater clarity on both the substantive views on the amendment proposals and the procedure to be followed in dealing with amendment proposals, as well as to inform the ASP in considering the amendments during its annual session. The Study Group road-map and the Working Group on Amendments, however, do not preclude a State Party from exercising its right to submit an amendment proposal to the RPE at any time in the year prior to an ASP session, pursuant to Article 51 of the Rome Statute. Although discussion continued this year on many amendment proposals to the Rome Statute as well as to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Working Group on Amendments only reached consensus to send one amendment proposal to the ASP at its 14th session: the proposal to delete Article 124 of the Statute. Proposed Amendment to the Rome Statute Subject to Article 121 RS, amendments to the Statute itself can be proposed by any State Party, and proposals are to be submitted to the UN Secretary General, who in turn circulates them to all States Parties. The Assembly shall, at the first ASP session after the submission, decide whether to adopt the proposal: adopting a proposal requires a two-thirds majority among States Parties present and voting at the ASP. The Assembly may deal with the proposal directly at the ASP or convene a Review Conference if the amendment at issue warrants such a measure. Once adopted, amendments to articles not dealing with core crimes enter into force for all States Parties after ratification by seven-eighths of States Parties. The only RS amendment proposal submitted to the Assembly this year relates to Article 124 RS, a transitional provision which allows States to choose not to have their nationals subject to the Court’s jurisdiction over war crimes for a seven year period following ratification. The proposed amendment would delete the article, thus removing states’ ability to defer the ICC’s jurisdiction. For a number of stakeholders, the possibility of a State to defer the Court’s jurisdiction contributes to the impunity gap.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

21

10. The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Court Proceedings

Criticisms of drawn-out courtroom proceedings have long dogged international criminal tribunals, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is no exception. While a measure of feet-finding was to be expected for the Court’s first trials, it is now vital to significantly reduce trial length to bolster confidence in the Rome Statute (RS) system of justice and to ensure timely justice for victims. The Study Group on Governance The Study Group on Governance (SGG) of the ASP was established to conduct a structured dialogue between the Court and States Parties based in The Hague, with a view to strengthening the institutional framework of the Rome Statute system and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Court. The Study Group in 2015 is chaired by Ambassador Masaru Tsuji (Japan) and Ambassador María Teresa Infante Caffi (Chile). The SGG is composed of ‘clusters’ each with its own specific focus: SGG Cluster I addresses “Increasing the Efficiency of the Criminal Process”, its co-focal points being Mr. Alfredo Fortes García (Peru) and Ms. Marisa Macpherson (New Zealand); while SGG Cluster II addresses “Enhancing the transparency and predictability of the budgetary process”, with Ms. Lourdes Suinaga (Mexico) and Mr. Reinhard Hassenpflug (Germany) as its co-focal point(s). The Working Group on Lessons Learnt The Working Group on Lessons Learnt (WGLL), chaired by ICC President Fernández, is a focus group composed of ICC judges that arose out of a 2012 exercise by the judiciary to identify provisions in the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence that might be amended to address inefficiencies experienced in the Court’s earlier years. The WGLL 2012 report18 stressed the need to simultaneously standardize best practices – an avenue that does not require voting at the ASP. The most recent result of this approach is the Pre-Trial Practice Manual19 (manual), which the WGLL issued in September 2015 with the aim of establishing consistent practices among the different pre-trial chambers. The manual guides judges on how to conduct efficient pre-trial proceedings while preserving the quality of work. The Manual streamlines evidence disclosure procedures, limits the use of live evidence at the pre-trial stage and suggests reducing the time between initial appearances and confirmation of charges hearings, among other initiatives. The WGLL will update the current manual to reflect harmonised victims’ application procedures and eventually aims to convert the document into a Judicial Practice Manual covering pre-trial, trial, and appeals proceedings. For years, the Coalition has pressed for comprehensive, institution-wide reviews of the ICC’s judicial processes. The Coalition believes civil society to be uniquely placed to promote dialogue between all the stakeholders in a more efficient and effective Court. Among others, the Coalition has

18

www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP11/ICC-ASP-11-31-Add1-ENG.pdf 19

www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/other/Pre-Trial_practice_manual_(September_2015).pdf

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

22

advocated for the reform of unsustainable appeals chamber practices as well as for due consideration for victims’ rights when discussing efficient practices. The Coalition supports initiatives that coordinate efforts between States Parties, Court officials, civil society, and ad hoc and special tribunals’ experts. ASP 14 Special Session On Tuesday 24 November 2015, ASP 14 will feature a special plenary session to address ways to increase the efficiency of the criminal process. The Prosecutor, the ICC President, a civil society expert, and other speakers will offer views on this crucial topic.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

23

11. Requests for supplementary agenda items

Pursuant to rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties any State Party, the Court or the ASP Bureau may request the inclusion of supplementary items in the ASP agenda. For the 14th Session of the ASP three requests have been made, one by South Africa and two by Kenya. South Africa’s request South Africa has requested an agenda item on the application and implementation of article 97 and article 98 of the Rome Statute (RS). Pursuant to article 97RS a State Party shall consult the Court to resolve problems which may impede or prevent it from executing cooperation requests. According to South Africa there is no clear procedure regarding the structuring of these consultations. Additionally South Africa requests to have a discussion on the interpretation of article 98RS, and its relationship with article 27RS. Kenya’s requests Kenya has requested two supplementary items to be added to the 14th ASP agenda:

1. Discussion on the application of amended Rule 68 At the 12th session of the ASP rule 68 RPE was amended to provide for admission of “prior recorded testimony”. In its request for a supplementary agenda item, Kenya has asked for the legislative intent of rule 68 RPE to be discussed by the Assembly at its 14th session, and requested that the Assembly affirms the non-retroactive application of the amended rule to situations under investigation by the Court commenced before the 12th session of the ASP.

2. Discussion on the establishment of an ad hoc mechanism to audit the Prosecutors' witness identification and recruitment processes

At the 8th session of the ASP, the Assembly established an Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM). The IOM is, in accordance with Article 112(4)RS, mandated to “provide for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the Court in order to enhance the Court’s efficiency and economy.” Kenya has expressed its concern that the Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM) is not operational yet. Kenya has therefore requested the Assembly to have a discussion on the appointment of an ad hoc mechanism of 5 independent jurists to audit the Prosecutors' witness identification and recruitment processes in the ICC case against William Ruto and Joshua Arab Sang. 190 member of the Kenyan Parliament have signed a petition to highlight concerns on witness procurement in the Kenyan cases, more specifically in the case mentioned. At the time of writing, no decision was taken by the ASP Bureau on whether to formally suggest to the ASP, on the first day of the 14th session, to include the requested supplementary agenda items. While the Coalition does not take position on these supplementary agenda requests, the Coalition stresses that states parties must be cognizant that issues relating to their management oversight role do not infringe on issues which pertain to the judicial and prosecutorial competence of the Court and the independence of the Prosecutor and Judiciary. Challenges to the cases before the ICC must be made before the judges and at all times in compliance with the Rome Statute system. In the deliberations on the various issues before the ASP, no decision should be taken that undermines, or could be perceived to undermine, the judicial independence of the Court.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

24

12. The Omnibus Resolution At each of its sessions since 2003, the Assembly of States Parties has adopted an ‘Omnibus Resolution’, formally entitled, “Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties.” The Omnibus Resolution addresses a wide range of substantive, practical, and policy issues in relation to the Court, the ASP, and other stakeholders. The ASP will adopt an updated version of the Omnibus Resolution this year, following New York Working Group (NYWG) consultations chaired by facilitator Ms. Damaris Carnal (Switzerland). However, a number of The Hague Working Group (HWG) and other New York Working Group facilitations have suggested language for the Omnibus Resolution as well. The topics that will be addressed in the Omnibus Resolution are listed below, along with the appointed Bureau facilitator or focal points, as relevant. Universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute

Ad Country Co-Focal points (in The Hague Working Group and the New York Working

Group): Mr. Nicos Argyrides (Cyprus) and Mr. Christian Nygaard Nissen (Denmark)

Agreement on Privileges and Immunities

Cooperation

Co-Facilitation (in The Hague Working Group): Ambassador Maymouna Diop Sy (Senegal)

and Ambassador Jan-Lucas van Hoorn (The Netherlands)

Non-cooperation

Ad country Co-Focal points: Senegal (on behalf of the President of the Assembly), Belgium,

Czech Republic, Japan and Uruguay

Host State

Relationship with the United Nations

Facilitation (in the NYWG): Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi (Italy)

Relationships with other International Organizations and Bodies

Activities of the Court

Procedure for the Nomination and Election of Judges (Elections)

Facilitation (in the NYWG): Mr. Stefan Barriga (Liechtenstein)

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

25

Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties

Counsel

Legal Aid

Study Group on Governance (SGG)

Co-Facilitation (In The Hague): Ambassador Masaru Tsuji (Japan) and Ambassador María

Teresa Infante Caffi (Chile)

Cluster I: Increasing the Efficiency of the Criminal Process - Co-Facilitation: Mr. Alfredo Fortes García (Peru) and Marisa Macpherson (New Zealand)

Cluster II: Governance and Budgetary Process - Co-Facilitation: Ms. Lourdes Suinaga (Mexico) and Mr. Reinhard Hassenpflug (Germany)

Proceedings of the Court

ASP Bureau Working Methods Review

Strategic Planning

Co-Facilitation (in The Hague Working Group): Ambassador Jan Borkowski (Poland) and

Ambassador Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé (Bolivia)

Victims and Affected Communities, Reparations and Trust Fund for Victims

Facilitation (in The Hague Working Group): Ambassador Sheikh Mohammed Belal

(Bangladesh)

Geographical Representation and Gender Balance of Staff at the Court (Recruitment of

Staff)

Facilitation (in the New York Working Group): Ms. Gina Guillen (Costa Rica)

Complementarity

Ad Country Co-Facilitation (In THWG and NYWG): Botswana and Sweden

Independent Oversight Mechanism

Programme Budget

Review Conference

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

26

Consideration of Amendments / Working Group on Amendments

Facilitation (in The New York Working Group): Ambassador May-Ellin Stener (Norway)

Participation in the Assembly of States Parties

The Omnibus Resolution will also include – in an annex – the mandates of the ASP for next year. The Bureau will then meet at the beginning of 2016 to appoint the next facilitators and focal points.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court Informal Background Paper to the 14th session of the Assembly of States Parties

27

Acronyms and Key terms

ACN Advisory Committee on the Nomination of Judges ASP Assembly of States Parties

ASP 14 The 2015 session of the ASP AU African Union

BoD Board of Directors

ASP Bureau

The President, Vice-Presidents, and Rapporteur along with 18 States Parties

CBF Committee on Budget and Finance CICC Coalition for the International Criminal Court EU European Union

GRULAC Latin America and Caribbean Group HWG or THWG The ASP Bureau’s Hague Working Group

IOM Independent Oversight Mechanism MENA Middle East and North Africa Region NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NYWG New York Working Group OAS Organization of American States OP Operative Paragraphs of a Resolution

OTP Office of the Prosecutor

Omnibus An ASP resolution formally named “Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties”

PE Preliminary Examination PP Preliminary Paragraphs of a Resolution

Plenary General discussions at the ASP with all States Parties attending

ICC Presidency

President: Judge Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi (Argentina); First Vice-President: Judge Joyce Aluoch (Kenya) and Second Vice-President: Judge Kuniko Ozaki (Japan)

RPE Rules of Procedure and Evidence SASP Secretariat of the ASP

Statute / RS Rome Statute, founding document of the ICC and the legislation that states must ratify to become members of the ASP and to the ICC

SGBV Sexual and Gender-Based Violence SGG/Study Group Study Group on Governance

TFV Trust Fund for Victims UN United Nations

UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNSC United Nations Security Council VWU Victims and Witnesses Unit (of the ICC’s Registry)

WEOG Western European and Others Group of states WGLL Working Group on Lesson Learnt