1. Regulatory context: the Rome Statute and its traditional jurisdiction

• The Rome Statute is the treaty that establishes the ICC's jurisdiction over four “core” crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
• Traditionally, these crimes have been conceived as perpetrated through physical violence, persecution, destruction, etc. The means of commission were material—bullets, bombs, physical violence, forced displacement, etc.

The ICC deals with the most serious crimes recognized in international criminal law, not crimes of a strictly domestic nature or common criminal offenses.

2. The new “Policy on Cyber-Enabled Crimes under the Rome Statute” (December 2025)

What changes does it introduce?

• On December 3, 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC (OTP) officially adopts the “Policy on Cyber-Enabled Crimes under the Rome Statute.” (icc-cpi.int)
• With this policy, the ICC recognizes that international crimes can committed or facilitated by digital means: cyberattacks, computer sabotage, system manipulation, mass surveillance, communications interference, manipulation of data or digital evidence, etc. 
• Thus, the ICC does not create new crimes (“cybercrime” as an autonomous category), but rather extends its scope of persecution to technological means of committing or facilitating the crimes set forth in the Statute. 

Scope of jurisdiction

• The ICC can prosecute acts that, although they occur in cyberspace, meet the objective and subjective elements of the crimes listed in the Statute—for example, digital attacks on civilian infrastructure in the context of armed conflict, mass surveillance of the civilian population, manipulation of judicial evidence, etc. 
• Likewise, surveillance, digital censorship, or mass espionage could constitute, in certain contexts, a form of collective persecution or discrimination, especially if they are directed against vulnerable ethnic, religious, or political groups — which could fall under the definition of crimes against humanity. 

Cooperation, testing, and technical challenges

• The OTP recognizes that investigating these crimes will require cooperation with States, technical entities, and specialized agencies in cybersecurity, digital forensics, intelligence, data protection, etc. 
• It is not just a matter of detecting crime, but of preserve, analyze, and present digital evidence with guarantees of integrity and chain of custody, which requires multidisciplinary teams (technology + law). 

Limits: what the ICC does not investigate

• The ICC has no jurisdiction over common computer crimes — such as fraud, scams, isolated hacking, crimes involving illegal access to systems, theft of private data, etc. That jurisdiction remains with the national courts. 
• The policy does not seek to criminalize mere “computer hacking,” but rather to recognize that when such digital conduct is integrated into international crimes (violence, persecution, mass destruction, attacks on civilian populations, etc.), it may be subject to prosecution by the ICC. 

3. Legal implications: complexity, timing, and risks

New forms of international crime

Digitization, the use of artificial intelligence, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, electronic surveillance, or manipulation of communications—all of these forms can transform what was once conceived of as physical violence into invisible, technological crimes, but with serious consequences for civilian victims. The ICC now has a framework to address that reality.

Need for sophisticated technical and legal discussions

The inclusion of cyberspace brings unprecedented challenges: digital forensic evidence, traceability of attacks, attribution of individual responsibility (who gave the order? Who carried out the attack? What role do service providers play?). This requires defense and prosecution with interdisciplinary teams, technical expertise, and in-depth knowledge of international law.

Importance of international cooperation and regulatory standards

For the ICC to operate effectively in these cases, cooperation between states, cybersecurity agencies, digital infrastructure providers, technical services, intelligence, and judicial authorities will be essential—which poses a challenge for global governance of cyberspace.

Risk of overrepresentation or misuse of jurisdiction if fundamental rights are not respected

Human rights organizations have warned that the use of digital evidence, surveillance, or data sharing could violate fundamental freedoms—if the ICC does not balance its criminal mandate with respect for human rights and due process guarantees. 

4. Competitive advantage of Venfort / Aldana Abogados: specialized advice on international cybercrime

In this new legal-digital paradigm, Dr. Alan Aldana's experience is essential:

• His training and international accreditation provide him with the technical and criminal expertise to analyze the cyber commission route of the crimes under the Statute.
• His practice focuses on evaluating competition issues, jurisdiction, admissibility of digital evidence, procedural risks, and defense strategies in complex scenarios.
• It can offer preventive or reactive advice: from reviewing state or institutional cybersecurity structures to criminal defense in proceedings before the ICC.

The firm is prepared to handle cases in which the crime—or its facilitation—was committed by digital means, providing a technical, solid, and up-to-date defense.

The ICC's adoption of an explicit policy on “cyber-enabled crimes” represents a turning point in international criminal law. What was once considered unthinkable—cybercrime as a means of committing genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity—is now subject to international prosecution.

This regulatory shift requires equally sophisticated legal representation. Anyone facing accusations or risks of this nature must have access to advice with in-depth technical and legal expertise, capable of intervening effectively before the ICC.

In that context, Dr. Aldana's experience as a lawyer accredited before the Criminal Court and the practice of the team led by Venfort Abogados offer a clear strategic advantage: combining knowledge of international crimes, jurisprudence, comparative law, and the technical complexities inherent to cyberspace.

International justice evolves with technology. Those who must defend themselves or protect institutional structures must adapt just as quickly.