ASP18 Side Event: European States & Civil Society: Strengthening the ICC and Rome Statute System

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 3 (4 December 2019)

Name of the Event: European States & Civil Society: Strengthening the ICC and Rome Statute System (Co-hosted by Finland and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC))

Overview by: Hester Dek, Intern PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Cooperation with the ICC is key for the Court to work efficiently and effectively.

• One of the main challenges for the ICC is the lack of outreach and information dissemination, for instance in countries such as Georgia.  

Summary of the Event:

Virginie Amato (Regional Coordinator for Europe, Coalition for the ICC) opened the side event by discussing the threats human rights defenders, who continue to fight for global justice in a continuously hostile environment, face worldwide. She highlighted how the promise of the Rome Statute towards victims and ending impunity is threatened increasingly through the decrease in multilateral cooperation. 

Next, Saija Nurminen (counsellor, desk officer ICC, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland) discussed the strong support of the ICC by the EU. She called for the increasing need for support in order to strengthen the ICC so it can be “as efficient and effective as possible.” 

Eamon Gilmore (EU Special Representative for Human Rights and EU Special Envoy for the Peace Process in Colombia) continued on the topic of support, stating that in the current time “political support provided might be more important than financial support.”  However, he mentioned that the issue of resources is very important as well, as “to act adequately, the ICC has to be properly resourced.” He stressed that in the end it goes beyond the issue of resources, as cooperation is key. 

Nadia Volkova (director, ULAG) spoke about the current attitude towards the ICC in Ukraine. She discussed the military opposition to the Court, and their arguments regarding its ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and costs. She stated that in light of the military stance, they appreciate the effort from the international community and continue to hope for a more radical push by the EU and allies. 

Next, Nino Jomaridze (lawyer at GYLA) discussed the Georgian case. She stated that the Georgian situation is of importance for the ICC, as it poses exemplary challenges to the ICC. Jomaridze went on to discuss four main challenges in the interaction between the ICC and Georgia. First, the lack of outreach. She stated that a lot of Georgians have never heard about the ICC, its investigation, its mandate etc. Second, the lack of information on the progress of the Office the Prosecutor.  She mentioned that “while during the first years of ICC involvement the interest of victims was quite high, this interest has faded away due to lack of information”. Third, the lack of cooperation from for example Russia. Fourth, the importance of the role of victims, who should not be forgotten by the ICC or other stakeholders. 

Next, Andreas Schueller (director of the International Crimes and Accountability program, ECCHR) discussed the importance of the ICC functioning as a criminal court. He mentioned the importance of investigations, instead of the long preliminary investigation process, and called for support of the review process to guarantee an independent court with constructive criticism of the current process. 

Lastly, the floor was opened for questions and comments. The first comment regarded outreach of the Court, stating that many public officials, the media, and people in general do not know about the Court: “the media spoke about the ICC while portraying photos of the ICJ”.  It was stated that this makes it difficult to manage expectations, for example in explaining that “international justice is not quick justice”. 

Another issue that was mentioned was political willingness. Roberta Dariol (EU Focal Point on the ICC, EEAS) took Ukraine as an example and stated that often the lack of knowledge about the court results in a lack of political will; “When people don’t fully understand what is at stake they are reluctant to work towards this”. She argued that civil society has a strong role in this respect in terms of education. On this latter aspect Nadia Volkova commented. She stated that in the Ukraine, politicians and the military have had plenty of chances to do that: “those who wanted to learn about it have had a chance”. 

ASP18 Side Event: The Value of a Harm-Based, Victim Centered Approach to Reparative Justice

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 3 (4 December 2019)

Name of the Event: The Value of a Harm-Based, Victim Centered Approach to Reparative Justice (Side Event hosted by the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims)

Overview by: Signe Wolf Børm, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Reparations are essential to ensure victims reintegration into society.

• States Parties to the Rome Statute should contribute to the Trust Fund for Victims.

• Collective and individual reparations have different outcomes for the individuals within a community. Mr. Fidel concluded that collective reparations are important, but alone they cannot respond to all the needs of the victims.

Summary of the Event:

This side event, co-sponsored by the governments of Chile, Finland, Ireland, Mali, and Sweden focused on a harm-based, victim centered approach to reparative justice. Pieter de Baan, Executive director of the Trust Fund for Victims (TVF) as introductory remark noted that the title of the event ‘The Value of a Harm-Based, Victim Centered Approach to Reparative Justice’, was chosen to reflect that a harm-based and victim centered approach when compensating victims is essential based on the Rome Statute system. 

The first keynote remark was provided by Malick Coulibaly, the Minister of Justice of Mali. Mr. Coulibaly underlined the importance of the TVF, which provides victims with support, whether it is physical, psychological, or material. It was further noted that Mali had contributed to the TFV and that other countries should do so too.

H.E. Kevin Kelly, Ambassador of Ireland to the Netherlands, mentioned that accountability for international crimes is one of the key objectives of the ICC. With investigations, trials, and decisions in cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes, there are always victims.  The lives of the victims must be rebuild with dignity and the aim of the TVF is therefore to deliver tangible imperative value to the victims, families, and communities. H.E. Mr. Kelly was a part of a delegation of States Parties which went to Uganda in 2018 to see the work and progress of the TFV first hand. The delegation was happy with the progress the TVF, for instance relating to physical and psycho-social support for the victims, but H.E. Mr. Kelly highlighted that sustained work over a number of years will be necessary. The responsibility however is ultimately that of the states. Lastly, H.E. Mr. Kelly noted that Ireland has this year made a voluntary contribution of 200.000 Euros and urged other States Parties to contribute to the TFV. 

Mariana Durney from the Chilean ministry of foreign affairs spoke next, stating that the harm-based and victim centered approach corresponds with the established approach by the ICC. Ms. Durney further stated that reparations can take multiple forms, including restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation, which can be awarded both on an individual and collective basis, depending on the harm caused and facts of the case. The importance of the Court being capable of communicating and inviting the affected people to testify was therefore considered necessary to understand the full scale of atrocities that took place. The Court hearing the victims experiences was deemed necessary to award the appropriate reparations, which in turn will allow victims to recover and reintegrate into their societies. Once again the lack of funding was mentioned as difficulty in reaching those goals.

Hereafter Felipe Michelini, the Chair of the Board of Directors of the TFV discussed the value of the victim centered approach due to its recognition of the victims and the horrible acts they have suffered. Mr. Michelini stated that, listening to the victims, recognizing them and their dignity and that they are worth being heard, is important, particularly considering that perpetrators tell them that no one will listen to them. Victims furthermore need support in the judicial process, where they are exposed to re-traumatization. An issue that was highlighted in this regard was that states like to refer to victim centered approaches and are willing to allocate resources to trials but not to reparations. This argument is reflected in the resources allocated to the TFV being very small compared to those of the trials. The minimal budget allocated to victims does however not diminish the fact that the best possible results should be delivered, and the obligation of the States Parties to repair can therefore not be set aside.

Upon the keynote remarks, a general debate was initiated, where Fidel Nsita Luvengika, the Legal Representative of Victims in the Katanga and Al-Hassan cases, stated that it was found that reparations given to collectives for example in the form of a well, means that the individual victims do not find anything for themselves, to be able to build up a home and a life again. This is due to victims being left without homes, as these have been looted or destroyed during the atrocities and are left with no financial resources. A well or a hospital was therefore explained as being important to rebuild communities, but these forms of reparation will not enable the victims to reestablish a normal life. It was moreover stated that victims are happy when a sentence is given to the perpetrator but when the victims are asked to forgive, they deny doing so because they are not being given reparations, despite the perpetrator having to do so. Perpetrators are generally not capable to compensate, which necessitates TFV help with reparations instead. Mr. Fidel Nsita Luvengika concluded that collective reparations are important, but alone they cannot respond to all the needs of the victims.

Karine Bonneau (Global Survivors Fund) explained the mandate of the Global Survivors Fund, stating that the organization works with survivors of sexual and gender based violence. She noted that the survivors of sexual and gender based violence have never been highly prioritized by the international community. With reparations and the right support, the victims will be able to reintegrate into their society. The Global Survivors Fund therefore has a goal to ensure that these victims receive reparations and other forms of redress. The Fund has three functions 1) allocation of financial resources for local education, 2) technical assistance and, 3) access to reparations. Lastly, the Fund is survivor centric, and it will be fully effective in 2020. The Global Survivors Fund wish is to collaborate with states and the Fund should therefore be seen as complementary to national efforts, in an effort of transforming the lives of survivors and shift the international policy agenda to promote reparations. A side note that was mentioned was that where the perpetrator is not convicted, no compensation will be afforded to the victims and the international efforts are of core importance within this area.

Lastly Mama Koité Doumbia and Gocha Lordkipanidze, both TFV board members, closed the session by stating that it is essential to support the TFV. Support is both needed in awareness raising aimed at the public and private sector as well as the general public. States Parties were moreover urged to voluntarily contribute financially to the TFV. This was highlighted as being of core importance, as to ensure that victims are recognized.

ASP18 Side Event: Pursuing Universality of the Rome Statute in an Evolving International Context: Persistent Challenges, New Dimensions and Adaptive Strategies

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Wednesday (4 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Pursuing Universality of the Rome Statute in an Evolving International Context: Persistent Challenges, New Dimensions and Adaptive Strategies (Side Event co-hosted by the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, and Parliamentarians for Global Action)

Overview by: Erez Roman, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• “Universal membership of the Rome Statute is essential to support the ICC’s legitimacy as a truly global institution of international justice.”

• Hon. Natan Teewe Brechtefeld from Kiribati brought forward the growing role environment plays.

• The situation of ratification of the Rome Statute by Ukraine was raised by Hon. Dr. Hryhoriy Nemyria.

Summary of the Event:

Moderator Dr. David Donat Cattin (Secretary General of Parliamentarians for Global Action) introduced the panelists and remarked on the importance of the work of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) toward the goal of universal ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute, as PGA has contributed to 79 of the 125 ratifications of the Rome Statute to date. The panelists were then given the floor to speak.

First, H.E. Mr. Paul Van den Ijssel, the permanent representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the OPCW& ICC. H.E. spoke about the importance of the universality of the Rome Statute. However, he mentioned that the application of the Rome Statute by the Netherlands is lacking and has not been so successful so far. The Ambassador mentioned the Netherlands’ role regarding the unsuccessful accession process of Malaysia and emphasized his disappointment relating to the fall through of the process. In addition, the Ambassador also referred to the role played by the Netherlands regarding the accession process of Ukraine. More generally, the Ambassador reiterated that universality is a common responsibility of all States Parties. However, certain issues regarding accession to the ICC that may arise such as retroactivity and complementarity which have to be acted upon by all members. 

Following the opening statements, Mattias Hellman, External Relations Advisor, Presidency of the International Criminal Court, thanked PGA for their contribution to the success of the ICC. Subsequently, he mentioned several points regarding the difficulties of achieving universality of the Rome Statute. These points, which differ between countries, include a lack of interest in the Court, a lack of correct information regarding the Court, and the existence of general suspicion of the intentions of the Court. Other than the reasons relating to the court, there are also reasons relating to the states themselves, including for instance lack of capacity or resources, competing priorities and other, more urgent needs of the country. To conclude, Mr. Hellman emphasized the point that intervention from outside the country will not succeed in making the country ratify and accede. The only way is through domestic advocacy as the need and will to accede has to stem from within the country. Nonetheless, other states should support a state which shows willingness to accede and show them the importance of the ICC and inform about what membership entails. 

Third to speak was H.E. Mr. O-Gon Kwon, President of the Assembly of the States Parties of the ICC. Mr. O-Gon Kwon started by expressing his happiness with the ratification of the Rome Statute by the Republic of Kiribati and his disappointment regarding the failure of the ratification process undertaken by Malaysia. In relation to the successful accession process of Kiribati, the ASP President mentioned that environmental issues played an extremely important role. In relation to the backtracking on its accession by Malaysia, the President of the ASP emphasized the role played by misconceptions regarding certain important principles such as the true meaning of the principle of complementarity. The ASP President concluded his talk by pointing to the message that is sent to non-member countries when a new country signs and ratifies the Rome Statute.

Fourth to speak was Hon. Nathan Teewe Brechtefeld , MP and Former Minister of Justice of Kiribati (PGA member). Mr. Teewe Brechtefeld said a few words on the accession process of Kiribati. He emphasized the decisive role played by environmental issues and mentioned that Kiribati joined the ICC to gain protection from environmental crimes. Furthermore, Mr. Teewe Brechtefeld stated that Kiribati became interested in the ICC because it believes it could assist it in maintaining its exclusive economic zone and in general its sovereignty. He concluded by reiterating the need to expand the jurisdiction of the court to include environmental crimes. 

Fifth to speak was Hon. Dr. Hryhoriy Nemyria, MP (Ukraine), Chair of PGA National Group in Ukraine and PGA Board Member. Mr. Nemyria spoke about Ukraine’s recent history regarding its accession to the ICC. He mentioned some points regarding what could cause a positive momentum to accession. The two major events that were mentioned as catalysts were the Orange revolution and the annexation of Crimea and occupation of parts of eastern Ukraine which indeed caused the Parliament of Ukraine to take some steps regarding accession. Nevertheless, as Mr Nemyria said, Ukraine is yet to ratify the Statute. He continued by explaining possible answers including the political system of Ukraine, the legal aspects of having a semi-presidential system, and certain questions regarding the effectiveness of ratification.

Sixth in line was Mr. Andrew Khoo, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Bar Council Malaysia, who spoke about the failed accession process undertaken by Malaysia. Mr. Khoo introduced the process and then explained certain points relating to why it failed such as a populist wave which ambushed the accession with negative comments regarding state sovereignty and diminution of the role played by traditional rulers. Furthermore, misinformation regarding the sovereign immunity was also brought up but can be easily defended by looking at the example of the Genocide Convention which Malaysia signed and ratified in 1993. He concluded his talk by stating the lessons which should be learned from this process, namely, know your country, challenges, and citizens in order to be successful.     

Dr. Donat Cattin concluded the event with comments regarding the future of the universality of the Rome Statute and mentioned the case of the referral of the situation regarding the Rohingya in Myanmar as an example of universality. 

ASP18 Side Event: Head of State Immunities

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 3 (4 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Head of State Immunities: Situating Nuremberg Principle III Within the Current International Legal Framework (Side Event co-hosted by Germany and the International Nuremberg Principles Academy)

Overview by: Francisca De Castro, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Immunity has been at the heart of international criminal justice since the Nuremberg principles, particularly principle number 3 that “the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

• Immunity does not equal impunity

• The International Law Commission (ILC) has been working on the question of immunity and has proposed a draft article which provides that immunity is not applicable in respect to crimes under international law.

• The question of immunity is not just being observed by the ILC, it is playing out before domestic courts as well.

• When thinking of the basis for immunity, it should appear that it does not apply to international crimes because of the core existence of immunity.

Summary of the Event:

This impressive panel was put together by the International Nuremberg Principles Academy and was moderated by Professor Claus Kreß from the University of Cologne who emphasized that the question of immunity has been present from the beginnings of international criminal justice, which can be traced back to the Paris Negotiations after World War I. The question remains of a particular interest considering the recent developments with the potential prosecution of Omar Al-Bashir. 

The first speaker was Dr. Concepción Escobar Hernandez, a member of the International Law Commission who was appointed as the Special Rapporteur for the topic of immunity in 2012. She discussed the work of the ILC on creating a series of draft articles on immunity of state officials. She reminded the participants of the differences between functional and personal immunity, and went on to discuss the considerations of functional immunity, particularly with regards to its exceptions. These exceptions include that under draft article 7, functional immunity should not apply to crimes under international law (a formulation carefully drafted as to avoid debate). Ms. Escobar Hernandez reminded that there remained some debate about the nature of the crimes under international law as they could still be considered official acts, and thus rendering the perpetrator immune. The commission decided to keep silent on the response to this debate about the nature of the crime as to avoid further debate. Another point highlighted was that the ILC continues to deal with the question of immunity and exceptions to immunity because the commission must maintain a coherent approach with regards to past reports. But the question that remains, according to Ms. Escobar Hernandez is the question of where the debate stands on immunity and impunity as the two may overlap, particularly when considering the potential politicization of the exercise of jurisdiction. 

The second panelist was Dr. Leila Nadya Sadat, a professor from the Washington University St. Louis and director of the Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, working on a draft convention on crimes against humanity. She reiterated the importance of the question of immunity as it is not just being discussed within the ILC but is an issue that is actively playing out before domestic courts. She addressed the convention of crimes against humanity and considered it essential for the question of immunity to be addressed in that convention. In the draft convention, an active decision was made to use language from articles of other conventions states have already ratified so there wouldn’t be issues of interpretation. She further highlighted that it is important for immunity to be inapplicable in situations of international crimes, particularly when looking at the appointment of individuals as heads of states for life. 

The third panelist was professor Dr. Dapo Akande from Oxford University, who started his intervention by a reflection on the nature of immunity. In his view, officials of states are immune from criminal prosecution in foreign states for two reasons. The first reason he mentioned is that functional immunity is substantive in that it is a way to instate state responsibility since the official is acting on behalf of the state. The second reason is that immunity is procedural in the sense that sovereign states may not have jurisdiction over another sovereign state. When considering the application of immunity in international crimes, Mr. Akande highlighted some arguments that were often being used to put forward the idea that immunity shall not apply for international crimes, but he refuted those arguments by saying that some were more convincing than others. For example, the argument that claims that state immunities are only applicable to sovereign acts and that an international crime is unsovereign in nature, Mr. Akande refuted by reminding that some international crimes depend on the fact that it was committed on behalf of the state to be considered international crimes. He proposes a different approach which would include looking at the reasons for which immunity was created and finding arguments there. He also spoke on the jurisprudential developments in which it has happened that foreign courts have tried state officials for international crimes, and immunity has not been invoked which highlights the underlying assumption that in practice, there is no immunity for these crimes.

ASP18 Seventh Plenary Meeting: Cooperation

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 4 (5 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Seventh Plenary Meeting: Cooperation

Overview by: Raghavi Viswanath and Erez Roman, Junior Research Associates PILPG -NL

Main Highlights:

• The ICC Prosecutor called on States Parties to undertake more coordinated efforts relating to information sharing and the tracking of suspects.

• The Registrar encouraged more states to contribute to the trust fund for family visits. He also stressed on the need for states to voluntarily accept released defendants.

Summary of the Event: 

The seventh plenary meeting focused on cooperation, entitled “Inter-State and Inter-Institutional cooperation at the heart of cooperation challenges”. The meeting began with opening statements from the facilitators of the Hague Working Group - France and Senegal. Both states lamented how despite continuous efforts, the Court still faces difficulties in the enforcement of its orders. The facilitators outlined the top priorities for the working group - namely increased cooperation in the enforcement of arrest warrants, financial investigations, and voluntary cooperation agreements under Chapter IX of the Rome Statute. In light of the recent Paris Declaration, the group also seeks to explore mechanisms for the seizing of assets.

Senegalese ambassador Momar Diop then invited the panelists to share information on interstate initiatives for the effective implementation of the ICC’s mandate. Flavien Mbata (Minister of Justice, Central African Republic) spoke about how the CAR requested the Court’s intervention both in 2004 and 2014. On both occasions, CAR was able to engage in a fruitful cooperation efforts with the Court, which culminated in the opening of an investigation and the arrest of two suspects. However, he underscored the need for strengthening national capacity and full cooperation of all stakeholders. The Ambassador of Chad to Benelux spoke of the ICC’s draft plan of action on arrest strategies. The Ambassador advised the States Parties and the Court to refrain from formulations that require the UNSC to provide a mandate to peacekeeping forces to carry out arrests in Africa.

This was followed by presentations from the Genocide Network and the ENM from France, both of which stressed on the need for specialised war crimes units in States Parties. Matevz Pezdirc from the Genocide network particularly stressed the need for assistance in capacity-building and operational information sharing. He pointed out that courts in Finland and the Netherlands had begun relying on open source information in arriving at decisions. The OTP also predominantly relied on information sharing in the indictments issued regarding Libya in 2019. Besides the recommendation for national units, he recommended to set up regional networks. 

Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda then spoke of the operational challenges that the OTP faces in the enforcement of arrest warrants. She informed the Assembly of how the OTP is fully dependent on States Parties with respect to arrests since the Court lacks a police force of its own. She noted that the failure to arrest not only has serious financial implications for the Court, it also jeopardizes the collection of evidence and prevents the Court from developing useful jurisprudence. She then offered suggestions on how states can help the OTP. First, states could share information that could assist with the tracking of ICC suspects. Second, states can help the OTP identify investigative partners and create a deterrent environment that facilitates the enforcement of warrants. Third, she encouraged States Parties to proactively contribute to the ASP and UNSC and prevent cases of non-compliance.

The Court’s Registrar Peter Lewis then provided insights on potential practical cooperation opportunities. He spoke of the Court being depended on aircrafts to fly in suspects to the Hague. However, it is enormously expensive to do this commercially. Therefore, he encouraged States Parties that have military and commercial aircrafts at their disposal to enter into voluntary agreements with the Court. Second, he highlighted the need to create a network of countries willing to take in released or acquitted defendants. He commended the efforts of the Netherlands in finding interim solutions for Ble Goude. Nonetheless, in his view, such ad hoc arrangements are often too late to be effective. Therefore, an institutionalised mechanism should be preferred. Finally, he discussed the status of the trust fund for family visits. In its previous session, the ASP had set up a fund to enable relatives of the accused to visit them while they were serving their sentences or while in detention. This year, the Registry ran of funds. Therefore, he encouraged states to generously contribute to the fund.

Following this, the representative from Spain recorded Spain’s contribution to the Court’s efforts. In particular, he mentioned Law 18 of 2003 which operationalizes Spain’s cooperation with ICC. The representative concluded his statement by saying that a two-way cooperation between the ICC and the member states is what embodies complementarity. 

That brought the plenary meeting to the second part: statements from States Parties. The representative of Finland on behalf of the EU first stressed the importance of the Security Council’s support to the Court and pushed for a UN Security Council referral of the Rohingya issue to the ICC. Subsequently, he assured the ASP that the EU would continue to offer assistance where required and urges States Parties to enter into voluntary agreements and give effect to those agreements.

Several States Parties contributed to the discussion. Mexico joined the call of the EU communicated by Finland to enhance cooperation with the UN Security Council in areas such as travel bans and seizure of assets as a way to enhance the way the Court acts. Furthermore, he also called for better cooperation between the ICC and national authorities of the member states. Chile, Japan, Belgium, Italy and Gambia also encouraged states parties to sign voluntary cooperation agreements with the Court due to their importance for the effectiveness and efficiency of the Court.

Speaking on behalf of the Netherlands, Ambassador Paul van den Ijssel stressed that the witness protection programme and securing the rights of the accused was equally integral to the Court’s functions. To this end, he urged states to accept released prisoners and help the Court relocate witnesses. He spoke of the Netherlands’ efforts to support Ble Goude. However, he lamented how there was still no long-term solution in sight. 

Thereafter, the delegation from the UK listed its contributions to the OTP’s efforts. In particular, the UK made mention of its sentence enforcement agreement with the ICC (2007), its efforts to support ICC witnesses and their families, and its technical assistance to the Secretariat of the Trust Fund for Victims. The delegation also brought the Assembly’s attention to the UK’s recent outreach efforts - in financially supporting victims from the Central African Republic to attend the Bemba hearings.

The session concluded with statements from four CSOs - No Peace Without Justice, Darfur Women Action Group, the International Bar Association, and the Afghanistan Transitional Justice Group. All of them stressed the need to preserve the Court’s independence and strengthen national capacity, particularly in countries like Sudan. The IBA, in particular, noted that only five states parties have contributed to the trust fund for family visits thus far. It called on other states to contribute to the fund, and requested the ASP to consider allocating funds from the regular budget.