ICC judges should listen to all parties and deliver a fair ruling

The ICC was established to end impunity for crimes under international law: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Deputy President William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang are facing crimes against humanity cases before the court. Everyone is expecting that the rule of law will be applied equally and fairly, such that neither the individual nor the State is above the law. The International Criminal Court law states that the principle of complementary, enshrined in Article 1 of the Rome Statute (the Statute governing the ICC) recognises that the ICC will not unduly supersede or replace national courts.

On the contrary, the ICC defers to the courts of national jurisdiction. Article 17(1)(b) provides that where a case has been investigated‘ and the‚ State which has jurisdiction over it has decided not to prosecute‘, the case will be inadmissible in the ICC unless it can be shown that the State was‚ unwilling or unable‘ to genuinely prosecute the accused. By examining the “genuineness” of national investigations and proceedings, the ICC upholds the rule of law internationally with the view to end impunity. The Kenyan case faced numerous challenges especially with witnesses. The ICC majorly relied on evidence given by commissions which the suspects have claimed were politically motivated.

Its now time for ICC to listen to all parties and give the best ruling that will ensure justice to all.