Nearly 300 000 have fled Burundi since the election-related violence of April 2015 to refugee camps in Tanzania (Photo: Flickr/EU/ECHO/Anouk Delafortrie)

Letting Burundi go: ICC withdrawal test for international commitment to justice

23 October 2017 by Benjamin Duerr, The Hague (The Netherlands)

As Burundi becomes the first country to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) this week, the withdrawal is a test case for the commitment of the international community to global justice. Will there be consequences for the country?

The first ever member state is about to leave the ICC silently. About a year ago the Burundian government decided to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty. It notified the United Nations, where the treaty is deposited, and now, one year later on 27 October, the withdrawal comes into effect.

Burundi's withdrawal is particularly critical because the ICC had opened a preliminary examination to determine whether the court should intervene in the on-going political violence. Despite a constitutional two-term limit, president Pierre Nkurunziza decided seek a third term in April 2015. Since then, violent protests and repression by authorities killed hundreds and forced more than 418.000 people to flee the country.

The ICC's Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has not requested permission from the judges to open a formal investigation. When the withdrawal takes effect this Friday, the ICC looses its jurisdiction. Only if it were to open an investigation before the withdrawal, the court could prosecute crimes committed in Burundi.

So far ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has remained silent on the situation in Burundi. At her latest briefing of the diplomatic corps in The Hague earlier this month on the activities of her office, she did not mention the country.

Given the scope and gravity of the crimes, and compared to other countries, it could be a conscious decision to let Burundi go and instead focus on conflicts with quantitatively larger patterns of violence, such as Libya and the Central African Republic.

Letting Burundi leave could have a severe impact on the whole system, some say. Civil society organizations warned Burundi could set a precedent which undermines the ICC. “The Burundian case might suggest to other states that face (or will face) a preliminary examination that it would be sufficient to withdraw immediately from the Rome Statute so that the initiation of an investigation could be effectively avoided,” said the Burundian Coalition for the International Criminal Court.

While this point of view is understandable with regard to the ICC system, it ignores that other avenues at the international level remain open. For example, the Human Rights Council established the UN Independent Investigation in Burundi (UNIIB) and the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Burundi which published its final report recently. Both bodies documented grave human rights abuses and called on the international community – most notably the African Union, the Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council – to take action.

The response of the international community will be decisive for future withdrawals and will reveal its true commitment to the ICC and global justice in general. If the international community lets Burundi go silently and without consequences, the case might indeed set a precedent for others.

If governments would decide, however, to strengthen other bodies or step up their activities in the prosecution and prevention of international crimes in Burundi, it would send a clear signal that the decision to leave the ICC does not mean that accountability ends. The ICC is only one of several possible mechanisms after all.

The case of Burundi is a possibility to show that a withdrawal from the ICC does not mean a country can escape all justice.

Related articles

ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (Photo: Flickr/ICC-CPI)
20 October 2016 by Benjamin Duerr

After the president of Burundi signed a law to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Tuesday, the central African country is likely to become the first state to withdraw from the court's founding treaty. Now, experts say, both Burundi and the ICC, will get caught up in making largely symbolic moves in a race against time.

When Pierre Nkurunziza signed law no 1/14 of 18 October 2016, he became the world's first president to lead his country out of the ICC. With his signature under the “law concerning the withdrawal of the Republic of Burundi from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” the president approved previous decisions by the senate and the national assembly. This is the first time a country has decided to leave the court which opened its doors in 2002. Burundi has been in turmoil and on the radar of the international community since early 2015. Both the ICC and the United Nations are looking into the violence there which has left hundreds of people dead.[IJT- 194]

South African president Jacob Zuma with his Burundi counterpart Pierre Nkurunziza in February 2016 (Photo: Flickr/GCIS)
24 October 2016 by Benjamin Duerr

Two countries announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) last week. The decisions of the governments of Burundi and South Africa are motivated by domestic politics and fit a broader development seen in other countries: scapegoating international affairs for local failures.

10 July 2006 by Didace Kanyugu

A United Nations delegation traveled to Bujumbura from March 27-31 to continue negotiations in writing with the Burundian government with a view to establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and a Special Tribunal. On May 19, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs laid out the main points to be discussed. The Burundian government responded on June 15. The negotiations appear to center on the scope of the criminal proceedings and the issue of oversight.

ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda addresses the UN Security Council in November 2015 (Photo: Flickr/IICC-CPI)
27 January 2016 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

IJT asked legal experts William Schabas and Evelyn Ankumah how they thought the ICC was doing and what remains needed. Schabas is optimistic and Ankumah shares a more reserved view. Both agree that the court must start showing it is not afraid to pursue alleged suspects from powerful states. 

Gambia election
02 December 2016 by Janet H. Anderson

There’s wild jubilation in Banjul the Gambia’s capital, after a tense 36 hours of vote-counting combined with a complete internet and messaging black-out for “security reasons”, with the news that the head of the country’s independent election commission Momor Njie has declared the 22-year rule of president Yahya Jammeh over.

Jammeh was attempting to head for a fifth term in power, and had been reported as saying he was “proud to be a dictator” and that Allah would keep him in power for a billion years.