What should an International Criminal Court member state do if it feels the Court is behaving in an unfair, politicized manner by, say, using recanted testimony in a continuation of an already bafflingly “amateur” prosecution?
That’s easy, says the ICC: Sit down and shut up.
Here’s the story: A Kenyan delegation hoping to lobby other ICC member states at the London Assembly of State Parties Session in its quest to reform Hague practices has drawn the ire of the aspiring transnational behemoth.
“The Court notes with great concern that a number of issues have been proposed for discussion at the Assembly which relate to matters falling clearly within the judicial and prosecutorial competence of the Court,” a letter signed by three members of ICC leadership reads. “Additionally, as your Excellency will be aware, some of these matters are under active consideration before the Chambers of the Court, and hence sub judice.”
This, of course, begs the question: Why hold an “Assembly of State Parties” if those state parties do not have the right to challenge or question any edict handed down by the Court? And at what point, exactly, did the Court gain this purported “judicial and prosecutorial competence”?
Apparently once a nation signs the Rome Statute, its leaders can never protest any any ICC decision, no matter how outlandish or unjust.