International Criminal Court

This 244-page report examines the ICC's accomplishments and shortcomings since it began operations in 2003. The court was created to bring justice to the victims of gross human rights violations; so far the court has issued arrest warrants against suspects in four countries, though none have yet been tried.

CONTENTS

Primer
Jurisdiction and Admissibility
How the Court Works
International Cooperation
The Court Today
Victims and witnesses
Legal Representatives of Victims
Defense
Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression
Trust Fund for Victims
Situations and Cases
Legal Tools

Primer on the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, so called because it was adopted in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute is an international treaty, binding only on those States which formally express their consent to be bound by its provisions. These States then become “Parties” to the Statute. In accordance with its terms, the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, once 60 States had become Parties. Today, 100 States have become Parties to the Statute. The States Parties meet in the Assembly of States Parties which is the management oversight and legislative body of the Court.

Following the adoption of the Rome Statute, the United Nations convened the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. As with the Rome Conference, all States were invited to participate in the Preparatory Commission. Among its achievements, the Preparatory Commission reached consensus on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes. These two texts were subsequently adopted by the Assembly of States Parties. Together with the Rome Statute and the Regulations of the Court adopted by the judges, they comprise the Court’s basic legal texts, setting out its structure, jurisdiction and functions.

Structure of the Court

The Court is an independent institution. The Court is not part of the United Nations, but it maintains a cooperative relationship with the U.N. The Court is based in The Hague , the Netherlands , although it may also sit elsewhere.

The Court is composed of four organs. These are the Presidency, the judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.

Presidency

Judicial Divisions

Office of the Prosecutor

Registry

Other Offices

Jurisdiction and Admissibility

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the Rome Statute. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime.

The Court has jurisdiction over individuals accused of these crimes. This includes those directly responsible for committing the crimes as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute.

The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:

· The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;

· The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or

· The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.

Even where the Court has jurisdiction, it will not necessarily act. The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

How the Court Works

States Parties or the United Nations Security Council may refer situations of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court to the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor evaluates the available information and commences an investigation unless he determines there is no reasonable basis to proceed.

The Prosecutor may also begin an investigation on his own initiative. In doing so, he receives and analyzes information submitted by a variety of reliable sources. If the Prosecutor concludes there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he asks a Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize an investigation.

The Prosecutor’s investigations cover all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of criminal responsibility. The Prosecutor investigates incriminating and exonerating circumstance equally and fully respects the rights of the accused.

During the duration of an investigation, each situation is assigned to a Pre-Trial Chamber. The Pre-Trial Chamber is responsible for the judicial aspects of proceedings. Among its functions, the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, may issue a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. Once a wanted person has been surrendered to or voluntarily appears before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber holds a hearing to confirm the charges that will be the basis of the trial.

Following the confirmation of charges, a case is assigned to a Trial Chamber of three judges. The Trial Chamber is responsible for conducting fair and expeditious proceedings with full respect for the rights of the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has the right to conduct the defence in person or through counsel of his or her choosing. Victims may also participate in proceedings directly or through their legal representatives.

Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Trial Chamber issues its decision, acquitting or convicting the accused. If the accused is convicted, the Trial Chamber issues a sentence for a specified term of up to thirty years or, when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. The Trial Chamber may also order reparations to victims.

Throughout the Pre-Trial and Trial phases, the accused, the Prosecutor or a concerned State may appeal decisions of the Chambers as specified by the Statute. Following the decision of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor or the accused may appeal the decision or sentence as provided in the Statute. Legal representatives of victims, the convicted person or bona fide owners of adversely-affected property may appeal reparations orders. All appeals are decided by the Appeals Chamber of five judges.

International Cooperation

In all of its activities, the Court relies on international cooperation, in particular from States.

States Parties are obliged to cooperate fully with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions. States Parties may cooperate in, inter alia, arresting persons wanted by the Court, providing evidence for use in proceedings, relocating witnesses, and enforcing the sentences of convicted persons. The Court may also receive cooperation from non-States Parties, and may enter into arrangements or agreements to provide cooperation.

International organizations also provide important support to the Court. Foremost among these is the United Nations. On 4 October 2004, the President of the ICC Philippe Kirsch and the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan concluded the Negotiated Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations. This Agreement provides for institutional relations, cooperation and judicial assistance between the Court and the United Nations while reaffirming the independence of the Court.

The Court Today

Since the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, the Court has developed into a fully functioning institution.

Four situations have been referred to the Prosecutor. Three State Parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic) have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court, and the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, has referred a situation on the territory of a non-State Party (Darfur, Sudan).

After analysing the referrals for jurisdiction and admissibility, the Prosecutor began investigations in three situations – Uganda; Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur, Sudan. On 8 July 2005, the Court issued the first arrest warrants with regard to the situation in Uganda. Subject to sufficient cooperation in arresting persons, the Court will begin trials soon.

The Prosecutor continues to monitor situations in other countries, including Côte d’Ivoire, a non-State Party, which declared its acceptance of jurisdiction over crimes on its territory.

Victims and witnesses

One of the great innovations of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence is the series of rights granted to victims. For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims have the possibility under the Statute to present their views and observations before the Court.

Participation before the Court may occur at various stages of proceedings and may take different forms. Although it will be up to the judges to give directions as to the timing and manner of participation.

Participation in the Court's proceedings will in most cases take place through a legal representative and will be conducted ”in a manner which is not prejudicial or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial”.

The victim-based provisions within the Rome Statute provide victims with the opportunity to have their voices heard and to obtain, where appropriate, some form of reparation for their suffering. It is this balance between retributive and restorative justice that will enable the ICC, not only to bring criminals to justice but also to help the victims themselves obtain justice.

Legal Representatives of Victims

According to Rule 90(6) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the legal representatives of victims must have the same qualifications as a counsel for the defence, as set out in Rule 22(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

In order to see the appointment and qualifications of legal representatives of victims, their duties and responsibilities and how to apply to be included in the list of counsel, click here.

The list of Counsel authorised to act before the Court can be consulted here.

The Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) provides support and assistance to the legal representatives of victims and to victims participating in the proceedings as well as asking for reparations. Moreover, the members of the Office may be appointed as legal representatives of victims.

Defense

The defense is a key component of any trial. It represents the interests of the accused in the courtroom and assists other persons entitled to legal assistance under the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, in particular persons questioned by the Prosecutor where there are grounds to believe that they have committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Rome Statute provides that accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty [article 66(1)]. The rights of the accused are on an equal footing with those of the prosecution. This equality is of the utmost importance when it comes to conducting investigations and research into alleged crimes as it is when it comes to the scope for the accused to be heard by the Court. It is vital to ensure equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence in the interests of a fair judgment being reached.

The international community's aim of protecting the fundamental human rights of victims and of administering justice can only be furthered if all parties are provided with an equal opportunity to prove or disprove allegations in a fair and justifiable manner.

Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression

Inter-sessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression

Liechtenstein Institute on Self Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States, 8 - 11 June 2006

Informal inter-sessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression
ICC-ASP/5/SWGCA/INF.1 - English

Documents from the fourth session of the Assembly of States Parties,
The Hague, 28 November – 3 December 2005

Trust Fund for Victims

The International Criminal Court examines the most serious crimes. Consequently, its trials involve victims who have often been damaged in the most severe manner.

Providing justice to these victims is important. But so too is providing them with help and compensation to enable them to rebuild lives often shattered by war. The Victims Trust Fund aims to help meet that need.

Victims can include child soldiers - minors pressed into military service who may have suffered great ordeals as a result of being forced into front line service. Or a victim may be the result of a case of rape, needing help not just for the material loss in a war, but for trauma counselling. Other victims may have seen their property and livelihood destroyed. In other cases, a village may have been destroyed in fighting, and money will be needed to rebuild it.

The Fund was established by the Court, and is administered by the Registry, but it is also supervised by an independent Board of Directors.

The purpose of the fund is to channel money to victims. Sometimes this will be money that the court orders an offender to pay as compensation. Under Article 75, paragraph Two of the Rome Statute, the Court may order a convicted person to pay money for compensation, restitution or rehabilitation.

The funds can be allocated either to individuals or to a collectivity. The fund may make payments directly to victims or to other bodies, such as an aid organisation. A convict might not have the necessary funds to pay the compensation sum imposed by the Court, external sources can be involved. These include grants from governments, international organisations or individuals. Voluntary contributions by outside entities to the fund must first be approved by the funds Board of Directors.

Situation of Contributions and Pledges to the Trust Fund for Victims
as of 29 August 2006:
Amount received: EURO 1 630 237.20
Amount pledged: EURO 275 000.00

Latest developments for the Trust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court. Fourth Assembly of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court.
28 November - 5 December 2005 - English | French

Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims
ICC-ASP/4/Res.3 - English | French

Situations and Cases

ICC-02/05 Situation in Darfur, Sudan

ICC-01/05 Situation in Central African Republic

ICC-02/04 Situation in Uganda

ICC-02/04-01/05 Case The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen

ICC-01/04 Situation in Democratic Republic of the Congo
ICC-01/04-01/06 Case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

Referred Situations and Communications received

Three States Parties have referred situations to the Office of the Prosecutor.

The United Nations Security Council has referred one situation to the Prosecutor.

The Office of the Prosecutor also receives communications from the public.
(last update: 10.02.2006)

Investigations: After rigorous analysis in accordance with the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Chief Prosecutor has decided to open investigations into three situations.

Warrants of Arrest: The Pre-Trials Chambers have so far issued six warrants of arrest at the request of the Prosecutor.

Legal Tools

What are the ICC Legal Tools? The Legal Tools Project aspires to equip users with the legal information, commentaries and software required to work effectively with international criminal law. It seeks to serve as a complete virtual library on international criminal law and justice. The Tools comprise at present over 25000 documents and legal commentaries. Some 13 collections and databases of legal documents are included, together with four legal research and reference tools developed by the Court: the Case Matrix , the Elements Commentary , the Proceedings Commentary and the Means of Proof document .

The ICC aims to provide a set of services which is useful to the work of the Court and of other jurisdictions and organisations, and which is also available for free to researchers, students and any other person interested in international criminal law and justice.

To this end the ICC draws on the support of partners entrusted with the testing and development of each tool. With their assistance, the Court expects to stimulate further contributions and engage new partners to expand and improve the Legal Tools.



		JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT Johan D. van der Vyver In 1994, when the International Law Commission submitted its Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC) to the United Nations Organization, the United States Senate came out in full support of such a tribunal, stating that an international criminal court with jurisdiction over international crimes "would greatly strengthen the rule of law," that such a court "would serve the interests of the United States and of the world community," and that the United States delegation "should make every effort to advance this proposal at the United Nations."¹ However, it soon emerged that American support for the ICC was conditional upon exempting U.S. citizens from the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues and leader of the American delegation in Rome, David Scheffer, in an interview with the Washington Post said it quite bluntly: "Any arrangement by which a UN-sponsored tribunal could assert jurisdiction to prosecute Americans would be political poison in Congress."² Having been confronted by the choice between American exceptionalism and the principle of equal justice for all, the Rome Conference was constrained by the elementary dictates of criminal justice to opt for the latter. This created conflict with the U.S. government. John Bolton, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, leaves one in no doubt as to the current strategy of the U.S. toward the ICC. Writing in The National Interest, he proclaimed: [W]hether the ICC survives and flourishes depends in a large measure on the United States. We should therefore ignore it in our official posture, and attempt to isolate it through our diplomacy, in order to prevent it from acquiring any further legitimacy or resources.³ The International Criminal Court (ICC) was formally established on July 1, 2002. There are currently 92 States Parties. The judges have been elected, the Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutor have assumed office, the Registrar has been appointed, the budget for the first year of operation has been approved, and everything is ready to go. At the third session of the Assembly of States Parties in September 2003, Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced that he will soon be seeking authorization from a Pre-Trial Division of the ICC to proceed proprio motu with investigations of alleged crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Jurisdiction and Its Exercise The ICC has been afforded jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined in the ICC Statute (aggression may be added to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC in seven years time). The exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC may be triggered by the Security Council of the United Nations, a State Party, or the Prosecutor acting proprio motu. The Security Council refers "a situation" to the ICC, leaving it up to the Prosecutor to decide in full autonomy whether to bring charges emanating from that situation, who to prosecute, and for what crime(s). No further conditions have been laid down for the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC in cases of Security Council referrals. However, the Security Council cannot confer powers on the ICC that the ICC does not have by virtue of its Statute. The ICC can, for example, only prosecute persons over the age of 18 years, it only has jurisdiction in respect of crimes committed after July 1, 2002, it cannot exercise jurisdiction while a State with a special interest in the matter is willing and able to investigate the alleged crime and, if appropriate, bring the perpetrator to justice. The Security Council cannot instruct the ICC to deviate from any of these restrictions. Referral of a situation to the ICC by the Security Council occurs in virtue of the Council's Chapter VII powers. The Security Council can therefore only refer a situation to the ICC if it has decided that the situation constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. That decision, as well as the referral itself, can be vetoed by any of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America). A State Party, likewise, only refers a situation to the ICC. In cases of State Party referrals, there is a further constraint: the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction in the matter if the State of which the perpetrator is a national (the national State) or the State on whose territory the crime was allegedly committed (the territorial State) has either ratified the ICC Statute, or has on an ad hoc basis agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC in the particular case under investigation. Investigations conducted by the Prosecutor proprio motu are also only feasible if the national State or the territorial State have either through ratification of the ICC Statute or a special declaration agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. But here, a further constraint applies: the decision of the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation must be approved by a three-judge Pre-Trial Division of the ICC. Iraq has not ratified the ICC Statute. Nor has the United States. War crimes that may have been committed by American or Iraqi nationals in Iraq can therefore not be prosecuted in the ICC unless the Security Council would refer the situation to the ICC. A Security Council referral can be vetoed by the United States. Prosecutions for war crimes that may have been committed by Australian, British or Polish troops can, on the other hand, derive from a State Party referral or emerge from a proprio motu investigation of the Prosecutor. Australia ratified the ICC Statute on July 1, 2002, the U.K. did so on October 4, 2001, and Poland became a State Party on November 12, 2001. The competence of the Prosecutor to proceed with a proprio motu investigation against any of those troops is, as noted above, subject to judicial control. Afghanistan ratified the ICC Statute on February 10, 2003. Prosecution in the ICC for war crimes committed in Afghanistan pursuant to a State Party referral or deriving from a proprio motu investigation of the Prosecutor would only be possible if the alleged crime was committed after that date. This time constraint does not apply to prosecution triggered by a Security Council referral, but such referrals are subject to the veto powers of any one of the Permanent Members. The Democratic Republic of Congo ratified the ICC Statute on April 11, 2002. A Pre-trial Division of the ICC can authorize the investigations currently being contemplated by the Prosecutor, but only in respect of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity committed in that country after the date of ratification. ICC and U.S. Nationals There is only one instance where a crime committed by an American national can be prosecuted in the ICC without the consent of the American Government: if the crime was committed in a State other than the United States and that other State is either a State Party of the ICC Statute or has agreed on an ad hoc basis to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC in that particular case. But even then, if a status of forces agreement is operative between the United States and the territorial State, preference must be given to surrendering the perpetrator to the United States to be tried in the U.S. If there is an extradition treaty in place between the United States (as a non-party State) and the territorial State (being a State Party or having agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC), the territorial State is given a (judicial) discretion to either extradite the perpetrator to the United States to stand trial or to surrender the perpetrator for trial in the ICC. In the exercise of this discretion, the territorial State is mandated to take into consideration the respective dates of the request for extradition and the request for surrender, the fact that the perpetrator is an American citizen, and the nationality of the victim(s) of the crime. Whenever the ICC seeks to exercise jurisdiction, any State (not only States Parties) can bring an application before a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC protesting the admissibility of the case in the ICC on any of the following grounds: The case is being investigated by that State; The perpetrator is being prosecuted in that State for the crime under investigation; The case has been investigated by that State and it has been decided not to prosecute the person concerned (there was no probable cause); The person concerned has already been prosecuted by that State for the crime under investigation; The case is not of sufficient gravity to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. Any of these grounds will exclude the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC unless it has been proved that the State lodging the objection was either unwilling or unable to genuinely conduct the investigation or trial. Unwillingness is defined in the ICC Statute to denote a sham investigation or trial conducted with the intention of actually not wanting to bring the person to justice (the investigation or prosecution was conducted with intent to safeguard the person concerned from prosecution in the ICC). Inability is confined to a total or partial collapse of the criminal justice system of the State concerned. It is inconceivable that inability will ever apply to the United States, and it is highly unlikely that prosecuting authorities of the United States will conduct sham investigations or trials. In the one circumstance alluded to above in which an American citizen can be brought to trial in the ICC without the prior consent of the United States, the United States can therefore preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC by conducting a bona fide investigation into the alleged crime. If following the investigation it is decided not to proceed with a prosecution due to the absence of probable cause, then so be it! The ICC must in terms of its own Statute abide by that decision of the national prosecuting authorities. Those supportive of the current U.S. approach argue that the ICC Statute, by applying to non-party States, violates a basic principle of international law. That is not the case. The ICC Statute makes a clear distinction between (a) the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC, and (b) the duty of States to cooperate with the Court. The latter duty is, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, founded on State consent: no State can be obligated to cooperate with the ICC without its consent. As far as (a) is concerned: States are not prosecuted in the ICC. Nor are the crimes within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC creations of the ICC Statute. They are, as a matter of ius cogens, crimes under customary international law. It is perhaps important to note that the definitions of crimes and their inclusion in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC were approved at the Rome Conference by general agreement - with one exception: inclusion of the war crime relating to resettlement of a population in occupied territories prompted the negative vote of Israel. For the rest, abstentions and negative votes founded on the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the ICC were not based on what went into the ICC Statute, but on what was not included (notably international drug trafficking and the threat or use of nuclear weapons). All that was done in Rome, therefore, was to create a tribunal to bring perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole to justice in cases where national States with a special interest in the matter are either unwilling or unable to do the same. The ICC jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes is founded, except in the case of Security Council referrals, on the universally recognized jurisdictional principles of territoriality and active personality. The exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC is furthermore subject to the principle of complementarity; that is, the first right and duty to bring perpetrators of the crimes concerned to justice vest in national criminal justice systems. The ICC only serves as a stop-gap for cases where the national State is either unwilling or unable to prosecute the very serious crimes that come within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court. Johan D. van der Vyver is I.T. Cohen Professor of International Law and Human Rights at Emory University, School of Law. ¹Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1994 and 1995, § 517(b), HR 2333, 103rd Cong, 108 Stat 382, 469 (1994). These sentiments were echoed on several occasions by President William Clinton. On September 22, 1997, President Clinton in his address to the 52nd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations said: The United Nations must be prepared to respond [to the demands of people who do not enjoy universal human rights] not only by setting standards but by implementing them. ... To punish those responsible for crimes against humanity and to promote justice so that peace endures, we must maintain our strong support for the U.N.'s war crime tribunals and truth commissions. And before the century ends, we should establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law. See 33.39 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 1386, at 1389 (Sept. 29, 1997). ²T.W. Lippman 'Ambassador to the Darkest Areas of Human Conflict' Washington Post, at A.19 (18 Nov. 1997). ³J. Bolton, 'Courting Danger, What's Wrong With the International Criminal Court' 54 The National Interest 60, at 71 (Winter 1998/99).

The International Criminal Court (http://www.icc-cpi.int/), located in The Hague (Netherlands), is an independent judicial body with jurisdiction over persons charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court was established by the Rome Statute adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. The Court's relationship with the United Nations is governed by an agreement between the two international organizations.