The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the most relevant permanent court in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes affecting the international community: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
To ensure fair trials, the ICC establishes progressive levels of proof at each procedural stage, knowledge of which is essential to design effective defensive strategies and anticipate risks.
At VENFORT LawyersOur team of lawyers is accredited before the International Criminal Court both to defend defend defendants and to represent victims in international proceedings, with a solid track record of experience in the field. advising high-profile clients in the Americas, Europe and West Asia.
In the following, we analyze the main levels of evidence before the ICC, illustrating them with real examples and highlighting their importance in international defense practice.
Initiation of the Investigation: "Reasonable Basis to Proceed" 1.
According to Article 53 of the Rome Statute before opening a formal investigation, the Prosecutor must demonstrate that there is a reasonable basis to proceed.. This standard is relatively low: it is sufficient that the available facts permit the assumption that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has occurred.
Practical example: In CAR Situation II, the Prosecutor's Office opened the investigation in 2014 based on reports of systematic sexual violence. Even without identifying individual perpetrators, the weight of the reports made it possible to open proceedings.
Defensive strategy: At this stage, effective representation can provide the OTP with information demonstrating the lack of gravity, the non-existence of crimes, or the priority of genuine national investigations, based on the principle of complementarity.
2. Issuance of an Arrest Warrant or Subpoena: "Reasonable Grounds to Believe".
To issue a warrant of arrest or a summons, the Pre-Trial Chamber must find reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime. This level is stricter than the previous one, but still preliminary in accordance with article 58 of the Rome Statute.
Practical example: The arrest warrants against Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti, leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army (Uganda), were authorized based on victim testimonies and NGO reports, without the need for a full trial of the evidence.
Defensive strategy: Here it is essential to challenge the reliability and sufficiency of sources. Discrediting partial testimonies or demonstrating that there is no direct link between the investigated person and the facts can avoid restrictive measures of liberty.
3. Confirmation of Charges: "Reasons to believe".
In the confirmation of charges hearingUnder Article 61 of the Rome Statute, the Prosecution must demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the crimes attributed to him or her.
The standard already requires a critical appraisal of the evidence, but not yet the maximum rigor of a trial.
Practical example: In the trial against Germain Katanga, accused of war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the charges were confirmed after assessing forensic reports, testimonies of protected witnesses and documentary evidence of the military operations.
Defensive strategy: An effective defense must attack the internal consistency of the evidence, propose plausible alternative versions and denounce irregularities in the procurement or authenticity of the evidence.
Judgment: "Beyond reasonable doubt" 4.
At trial, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the most demanding standard of proof and the one that supports the presumption of innocence. (Article 66 of the Rome Statute).
Practical example: In the case against Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d'Ivoire, the Chamber acquitted the accused in 2019 after concluding that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his responsibility for the crimes charged.
Defensive strategy: At this stage, any ambiguity, inconsistency or absence of direct evidence on the subjective elements of the crime (intent, knowledge) may lead to an acquittal.
In conclusion, understanding the different levels of proof before the ICC is not an academic exercise.is a strategic necessity for those facing investigations or accusations in international jurisdiction.
From the beginning of the proceedings to the trial, the scope for decisively influencing the outcome of the case depends on having a thorough understanding of the evidentiary requirements and acting accordingly.
At VENFORT Abogados, our team of lawyers is accredited before the International Criminal Court, offering excellent technical representation, both for the defense of investigated or accused persons and for the effective protection of victims.
Our experience in proceedings before the ICC, INTERPOL and national courts in Spain and Venezuela allows us to provide our clients with legal certainty, strategic control of the process and protection of their fundamental rights at all stages of the proceedings.
Contact us for a preventive advice or a comprehensive international defense adapted to your case.
