Follow Us:

Libya: Latest Statements, News and Opinions

08 Aug 2011

Dear all,

Please find below information about recent developments related to the International Criminal Court's investigation in Libya.

This message includes latest statements by members of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, the European Union, and the International Criminal Court (I), as well as news and opinions (II) related to the situation in Libya.

Please also take note of the Coalition's policy on situations before the ICC (below), which explicitly states that the Coalition will not take a position on potential and current situations before the Court or situations under analysis. The Coalition, however, will continue to provide the most up-to-date information about the ICC.

Best regards,

CICC Secretariat
www.coalitionfortheicc.org

*************************************

I. LATEST STATEMENTS

A. COALITION MEMBERS STATEMENTS AND OP-EDS

1. "Open letter to Mr Luis Moreno Ocampo, ICC Prosecutor," International Federation for Human Rights, 29 July 2011, http://www.fidh.org/Open-letter-to-Mr-Luis-Moreno

"... We are writing to alert you to the findings of an international fact-finding mission, conducted by FIDH at the Libya-Egypt border, from 8-14 May 2011. The mission collected numerous and consistent testimonies about crimes committed against migrants originating from Sub-Saharan Africa in Eastern Libya. You will find the report of the mission enclosed.

The FIDH mission conducted interviews with over 50 migrants, mainly young men who had been working in Libya and who originated from Chad, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia and other Sub-Saharan African countries, at the Salloum Land Port on the Egyptian side of the Eastern Libyan border. FIDH documented numerous allegations of targeting and killing of migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, falsely accused of being mercenaries. These crimes are said to have been perpetrated by armed groups in Eastern Libya, including in Benghazi and other areas now under the control of the Interim National Council. The evidence collected by the mission, from victims and witnesses to these crimes, indicates that such crimes were widespread. Other crimes allegedly targeting the Sub-Saharan African population in Libya since the outset of the crisis, include theft, pillage and arbitrary arrest and detention.

As you indicated in your report to the Security Council on 4 May 2011 and subsequently, such crimes may amount to crimes against humanity or war crimes and as such fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This analysis was confirmed in the report of the Commission of Inquiry of the United Nations Human Rights Council presented to the Council on 6 June (see in particular pages 6 and 7).

FIDH welcomed your announcement at press conferences on 16 May and 29 June 2011 that a priority focus of the ongoing ICC investigation is "allegations of attacks against sub-Saharan Africans wrongly perceived to be mercenaries". However, we are concerned that during the latter event, you also indicated orally that your investigations would not focus on these allegations for the time being. FIDH has repeatedly warned against the consequences of sequential investigations (i.a. risk loss of evidence and perception of lack of impartiality) and we reiterate them here. We call upon the ICC to continue such investigations and to send a strong signal that such crimes cannot go unpunished.

A democratic and peaceful Libya must be built on foundations of truth, justice and accountability. FIDH encourages your office to investigate all crimes falling within the ICC's jurisdiction, committed by all sides to the conflict. ..."

SEE ALSO:

2. "Double tragedy for Sub-Saharan Africans", FIDH, press statement, 30 June 2011, http://www.fidh.org/Double-tragedy-for-Sub-Saharan-Africans

3. "Exiles from Libya flee to Egypt: Double tragedy for Sub-Saharan Africans," Report, FIDH, June 2011, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_1543.pdf

4. "Handing Qaddafi a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card," Richard Dicker, Human Rights Watch, New York Times, 1 August 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/01iht-eddicker01.html?_r=3

"When the United Nations Security Council unanimously referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court prosecutor on Feb. 26, it made clear that impunity for crimes against humanity threatens international peace and security. The referral sent a strong message that systematic attacks with deadly force against peaceful protesters have criminal consequences.

Now, the governments that took the lead in the 15-to-0 Security Council vote - Britain, France and the United States - seem to be negotiating a deal that, if it goes through, would short-circuit justice by sidelining the court's proceedings for victims in Libya....

After setting the wheels of justice in motion, all Security Council members - and these three countries in particular - should be reaffirming the message that impunity is no longer an option, instead of proffering a get out of jail free card to end a military stalemate. Amnesty for mass atrocities, whether explicit or de facto, has no legal validity internationally.

Fortunately, we have moved past the point where governments can offer immunity to people implicated in serious international crimes. Indeed, the Security Council's unanimous referral of the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court reflects its choice to hold international criminals accountable, including senior officials....

Now that there is an independent international judicial process in place the process should be allowed to play out. Moreover, the I.C.C. prosecutor should apply the law impartially and investigate alleged crimes by the Libyan rebels as well as any committed by NATO forces. It is simply too late to turn back the clock.

An offer of amnesty to an accused sitting head of state can make the situation a lot worse by sending a signal that there will be no cost for slaughtering as many people as possible in the effort to cling to power. If more brutality works, the leader is home free. If it doesn't keep him in power, there's no penalty for having tried. This is an awful message to abusive leaders around the world - if they hang on long enough, tiring out the opposition forces, all will be forgiven.

While Qaddafi cannot be granted a formal amnesty for serious crimes committed in Libya, diplomats may be thinking of using a possible escape hatch contained in the I.C.C.'s treaty. Under Article 16 of the I.C.C. Statute, the Security Council may, citing the needs of international peace and security, defer the proceedings against Qaddafi for 12 months. This truly unfortunate provision authorizes political interference in a judicial proceeding, and it should be used only in exceptional circumstances.

Since a suspension under Article 16 is limited to a renewable 12-month duration, if the Security Council granted a deferral there would be enormous pressure to renew it after a year and then again at the expiration of each succeeding year. This would spawn the ugly optic of Security Council members voting each year for continued immunity for Qaddafi.

Of course, a deferral of an I.C.C. investigation also risks setting a dangerous precedent for accused senior officials from other countries. By effectively bartering away accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, the Council would be encouraging all those alleged to be responsible for major atrocities to negotiate, as Qaddafi is now attempting to do, to void the rule of law. Indeed, a deferral for Qaddafi may lead other accused war criminals such as President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan to renew his claim to suspend the I.C.C. warrant against him for crimes committed in Darfur....

In the short-term, it is easy to understand the temptation to forego justice in an effort to end an armed conflict. But instead of putting a conflict to rest, a de-facto amnesty that grants immunity for crimes against humanity may just spur another cycle of grave abuses while failing to bring peace."

5. "Libya: Gaddafi Must Be Held Accountable for Crimes Against Humanity" by Richard Dicker, Human Rights Watch, Jurist, 19 July 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/07/18/libya-gaddafi-must-be-held-accountable-crimes-against-humanity

"Amid preparations for the Libya contact group meeting in Istanbul on Friday, which sought a solution to the conflict in Libya, some states reportedly were-behind the scenes-exploring the possibility of offering Muammar Gaddafi the option of internal exile in exchange for relinquishing all power.

The Istanbul talks are a chance to end the nearly five-month-long conflict in Libya. However, to achieve this much-needed peace, governments involved in peace-brokering should bear in mind that the prosecution of people who are wanted for grave crimes should not be bargained away. Indeed, any political solution that avoids meaningful justice will undercut prospects for a long-lasting peace.

On June 27, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Seif al-Islam, and Libya's intelligence chief, Abdullah Sanussi.

... By issuing arrest warrants, the ICC has taken an important step toward providing the victims of serious crimes in Libya the chance for redress. The ICC's action sends a strong message that the law can reach even those long thought to be immune to accountability. Justice should not be abandoned as efforts to end the devastating conflict are pursued. Human Rights Watch research in countries such as Sierra Leone and Angola shows that the failure to hold perpetrators of the most serious international crimes to account can contribute to future abuses.

The record from other conflicts also shows that arrest warrants for senior leaders can actually strengthen peace efforts by stigmatizing those who stand in the way of conflict resolution. For example, the indictments of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are credited with keeping them sidelined during the Dayton peace talks, which led to the end of the Bosnian war. In this way, accountability for the most serious international crimes can serve not only the interests of victims who want to see justice for their suffering, but also the longer-term interests of peace and stability.

Libya came before the ICC in February as a result of a unanimous referral by the Security Council under Resolution 1970. The states on the council showed support for accountability by voting for the ICC referral. After setting the wheels of justice in motion, council members-among them France, the UK, and US-should stand by the strong action they took in February and reaffirm the message that impunity is no longer an option.

Handing Gaddafi a 'get out of jail free card' would not only be inconsistent with the international community's expressed commitment to justice for crimes in Libya, but would also have serious consequences for a durable peace. Sidestepping accountability in Libya would send a message to abusive leaders around the world that if they hang on long enough, all will be forgiven."

6. "Africa Should Work With, Not Against, the ICC in Resolving the Libyan Crisis," Antoinette Louw, Institute for Security Studies, 27 July 2011, http://www.iss.co.za/iss_today.php?ID=1323

"On 27 June, the judges of Pre-trial Chamber 1 of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, for alleged crimes against humanity committed in Libya since mid-February this year.

... The judges' ruling was widely welcomed. However, for some African leaders and the African Union (AU) the arrest warrants are of major concern. At its 17th Assembly on 1 July, the AU decided that because the Gaddafi warrant complicates efforts to negotiate a political solution in Libya, member states would not cooperate with the ICC in Gaddafi's arrest and surrender. South Africa's President Jacob Zuma, who hosted a meeting of the AU's High Level Ad Hoc Committee on Libya the day before the warrants were announced, expressed 'extreme disappointment' with the timing of the ICC's decision.

Relations between the AU and the ICC have been frosty for some time. Added to this is the opposition by many African leaders to the NATO-led military operation in Libya authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. The AU has also repeatedly stated that only political solutions can bring peace to Libya - a position that explains the tendency on the continent to separate efforts to achieve justice and accountability from those aimed at negotiating political settlements.

Criticisms of ICC action in Libya overlook the context within which Resolution 1970 was passed, and the fact that justice was an explicit part of the international community's response to the unfolding crisis. All 15 members of the UN Security Council - including Gabon, Nigeria and South Africa - voted in favour of Resolution 1970. The decision was based on widespread expressions of concern about government led attacks on civilians from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Council of the League of Arab States, the AU and the UN's Human Rights Council. Libyan diplomats who had distanced themselves from their government also called for the ICC's intervention.

Five months down the line, the urgency and unanimity that prevailed in the international community is easily forgotten. At the time, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the Security Council's firm action stating that although it would not, by itself, end the violence and repression, it was a clear expression of the will of a 'united community of nations'. Security Council members expressed solidarity with the people of Libya, hoping that their 'swift and decisive' intervention would help bring them hope and relief.

The ICC did indeed act swiftly. After completing the preliminary investigations, the prosecutor requested the pre-trial chamber to issue arrest warrants for Gaddafi and his co-accused on 16 May. Less than two months later the warrants were confirmed. This prompt action has drawn criticism for being poorly timed. Looking back, it is arguably some of the decision makers who agreed to vote for Resolution 1970 that miscalculated the timing of events, rather than the ICC.

Coming so soon after the long-time presidents of Tunisia and Egypt were toppled within a month and 18 days respectively by popular uprisings, some states supporting ICC action in Libya no doubt anticipated that Gaddafi would also soon be ousted. The odds were that with one of Africa's longest serving rulers removed by his own people, those voting in favour of ICC intervention would find themselves on the right side of history, and the ICC could then proceed with its work in a relatively uncomplicated political environment. Instead, the conflict has dragged on for five months (and counting) with little prospect of resolution.

... As the humanitarian cost of the crisis has mounted, so too has pressure to find a political settlement. With negotiations now the priority, some in the international community, including no doubt the African states that voted in favour of ICC intervention, see Resolution 1970 as an impediment rather than an expression of 'swift and decisive' action on behalf of the Libyan people.

Resolution 1970 did however make it clear, from the outset, that justice and accountability would be central to the international community's response. Justice cannot now be set aside because investigations reveal that Libya's leader may be responsible for the attacks on civilians.

... Ways need to be found for the ICC to work alongside diplomatic (political) and humanitarian efforts to resolve the crisis. To date, efforts by the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for Libya, the AU committee on Libya, the Libya Contact Group, and individual states have not succeeded in breaking the military and political deadlock. Statements by both sides to the conflict show that the stalemate between Gaddafi and the opposition National Transitional Council pre-dates the issuing of ICC arrest warrants. It is moreover unlikely that after ruling for 42 years, a dictator who is as brazen as Gaddafi about the lengths he will go to remain in power, and who has led Africa's charge against the ICC, would feel cornered by the court's indictment.

When deciding how to respond, the starting point for the 31 African ICC states parties should be that in issuing the warrant for Gaddafi, the ICC acted independently in accordance with its political mandate from the Security Council and the legal provisions of the Rome Statute. Africa and the AU are right to be concerned about developments that limit opportunities for resolving the conflict in Libya. But can peace and stability be achieved by setting aside justice to appease one of the continent's longest serving dictators who is wanted by the ICC for allegedly directing violence against his citizens, and has repeatedly threatened to fight to the last man, woman and bullet? If Gaddafi now finds himself in a corner, this should be attributed, first and foremost, to his regime's actions since mid-February. In direct response to these actions, UN Security Council Resolution 1970 has deliberately aimed to undermine Gaddafi's legitimacy and isolate his regime through an ICC referral, travel bans, assets freezes and an arms embargo in the hope that these measures will help end his government's repression of the Libyan people."

7. "Gaddafi Must Go," Carly Colombo, Citizens for Global Solutions, 27 July 2011, http://globalsolutions.org/blog/2011/07/gaddafi-must-go

"Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi will not escape the consequences of justice...or will he? An article posted yesterday in The Guardian cites Great Britain's foreign secretary, William Hague, as being much more lenient with Gaddafi than many would hope. Although Secretary Hague is still demanding that Gaddafi relinquish power, he has stated that the Libyan people should have the ultimate decision on Gaddafi's fate because they have been most strongly affected by his actions. This however, undermines the purpose of the ICC, which is to hold criminals who commit crimes against humanity to justice. Olara Otunnu, a Lawyer and the President of the Uganda Peoples' Congress, has publically disagreed with the statements made by Mr. Hague. Mr. Otunnu described the ICC's arrest warrants as 'legal facts' which 'cannot go away.'....

Gaddafi has escaped justice for long enough. Despite what Mr. Hague might believe, the ICC was established for a purpose, to deliver justice to those who have committed heinous crimes. Gaddafi's crimes against humanity will not go unpunished thanks to the efforts of the ICC, and Mr. Hague along with the rest of the international community should respect that."

B. COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: CONCLUSIONS ON LIBYA

1. "Council Conclusions on Libya" European Union Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Brussels, 18 July 2011, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/123915.pdf

"...The Council adopted the following conclusions:

'1. Firmly committed to the full implementation of UNSCRs 1970 and 1973, the EU remains unwavering in its commitment to protecting Libyan civilians, including through the intensification of pressure on the Kadhafi regime.

2. The EU condemns the grave violations of human rights and the breaches of international humanitarian law perpetrated by the regime. It reiterates the importance of accountability, justice and the need to fight against impunity. It takes note of the decision of the International Criminal Court's Pre-Trial Chamber I on 27 June to issue arrest warrants against Muammar Kadhafi, Saif al Islam Kadhafi and Abdullah al-Sanussi in connection with alleged crimes against humanity in Libya and calls for full co-operation with the International Criminal Court. It also welcomes the extension of the mandate of the International Commission of Inquiry by the UN Human Rights Council. Kadhafi has lost all legitimacy and must relinquish power immediately. Noting continuing defections from the Kadhafi regime, the EU calls on its remaining followers to disassociate themselves from its crimes...."

C. ICC-OTP STATEMENTS

1. "ICC prosecutor says Libya obligated to arrest Qaddafi," AFP/ Al-Arabiya, 28 July 2011, http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/28/159673.html

"Libya has "an obligation" to arrest Col. Muammar Qaddafi, the world crimes court's prosecutor's office said Wednesday, after suggestions that the Libyan autocrat might be allowed to stay if he quits power.

"This is a legal issue," prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's office said in a statement in The Hague, where the world crimes court is based.

"Libya is not a state party to the (court's founding treaty) Rome Statute but it is a member of the United Nations. Therefore, according to Resolution 1970, the Libyan government has an obligation to implement the arrest warrants," the statement said.

"Any future government will have the same obligation," it added.
... Libya's rebel National Transitional Council chief Wednesday said in Benghazi that a deadline for Colonel Qaddafi to step down and stay in the country has expired as the warring parties remain at daggers drawn on ways to end the conflict.

... "Negotiations have to respect UN Security Council Resolution 1970 to do justice in Libya as well as the Court's decision." the statement from the ICC prosecutor's office added."

2. "Gaddafi can't be left in Libya, says international criminal court", Richard Norton-Taylor and Chris Stephen, The Guardian, 26 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/26/gaddafi-in-libya-hague-icc

"The international criminal court has dismissed suggestions by Britain and France that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi could be allowed to remain in Libya as part of negotiated deal to remove him from power, insisting that a new government would be obliged to arrest the dictator under warrants issued by the court.

The ICC, which Britain and France have signed up to, said that Gaddafi could not be allowed to escape justice. "He has to be arrested," said Florence Olara, spokeswoman for the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

On Monday the foreign secretary, William Hague, said Britain was prepared to agree to a political settlement in Libya that would see Gaddafi remain in the country after relinquishing his hold on power.

"What happens to Gaddafi is ultimately a question for the Libyans," Hague said. "It is for the Libyan people to determine their own future. Whatever happens, Gaddafi must leave power.

"He must never again be able to threaten the lives of Libyan civilians, nor to destabilise Libya once he has left power."

But Olara said the decision to seek justice had been made in the UN, adding that the ICC's arrest warrants were "legal facts" which "cannot go away".
"Any negotiation or deal has to respect (UN Security Council resolution) 1970 and the ICC's decision," Olara said.

... The "primary responsibility" for respecting the UN and ICC decisions and arresting Gaddafi lay with the national transitional council, Olara said. ..."

II. RELATED NEWS AND OPINIONS

1. "Peace, Justice and Libya - the Gaddafi who Threatens it All?", Mark Kersten, Justice in Conflict, 2 August 2011, http://justiceinconflict.org/2011/08/02/peace-justice-and-libya-the-gaddafi-who-threatens-it-all/#more-1128
2. "Gaddafi war-crime charges cannot be bargained away," Narnia Bohler-Muller, Business Day, 2 August 2011, http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=149697
3. "NATO risks becoming a paper tiger," By Linda Heard, Arab News, 3 August 2011,
http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article481372.ece
4. "Political Activist: Libyan People Determined to Put Qaddafi on Trial," FNA, 31 July 2011, http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9005094089
5. "UK recognizes Libyan rebels, expels Gadhafi envoys," Raphael G. Satter, AP, 30 July 2011, http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/UK-recognizes-Libyan-rebels-expels-Gadhafi-envoys-1608154.php
6. "Doubts about the crisis in Libya," John Attard Montalto, The Times of Malta, 29 July 2011, http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110729/opinion/Doubts-about-the-crisis-in-Libya.377807
7. "Lawsuit filed vs NATO regarding Libya bombing," Slobodan Lekic, AP, 28 July 2011, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/07/28/international/i070434D49.DTL
8. "It's time to tempt Gaddafi out of power", Business Daily, 28 July 2011, http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion+++Analysis/It+is+time+to+tempt+Gaddafi+out+of+power/-/539548/1208778/-/ihjkmuz/-/index.html
9. "Muammar Gaddafi could stay in Libya, William Hague concedes", The Guardian, 26 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/25/gaddafi-libya-william-hague-plan
10. "Britain may be altering stance on Libya", Dalje.com, 26 July 2011, http://dalje.com/en-world/britain-may-be-altering-stance-on-libya/373142
11. "Gaddafi must face trial: Libyan rebel spokesman", AP, 23 July 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-23/middle-east/29807241_1_gaddafi-brega-tripoli
12. "Rebels Want Qaddafi to Face ICC", Al-Arabiya, 22 July 2011, http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/23/158974.html
13. "Libya talks could see ousted Muammar Gaddafi stay in country", The Guardian, 22 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/21/libya-talks-muammar-gaddafi-stay
14. "Libyan rebels insist dictator be tried for crimes, citizens decide his fate", Washington Post, 22 July 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebel-spokesman-says-gadhafi-must-face-trial-before-an-international-court/2011/07/22/gIQAhB7UTI_story.html
15. "Getting Kadafi to leave is Libya's best option", Los Angeles Times, 22 July 2011, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-libya-20110722,0,1102432.story?track=rss
16. "Libyan rebel spokesman: Gadhafi must face trial", by France D'Emilio, AP/Yahoo News, 22 July 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-rebel-says-gadhafi-must-face-trial-142911350.html
17. "Libya - Meeting between Frattini and Isawi: Italy renews its support for the TNC", Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy, 22 July 2011, http://www.esteri.it/MAE/EN/Sala_Stampa/ArchivioNotizie/Approfondimenti/2011/07/20110722_Libia_Frattini_Isawi.htm
18. "Libya: Who's right and who's wrong?" by Kourosh Ziabari, Iran TV, 21 July 2011, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/190157.html
19. "Who thinks Qaddafi could stay in Libya?" by Robert Zeliger, Foreign Policy, 21 July 2011, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/20/who_thinks_qaddafi_could_stay_in_libya
20. "France Says Qaddafi Can Stay in Libya if He Relinquishes Power" by Steven Erlanger, New York Times, 21 July 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/world/europe/21france.html?_r=1
21. "Could Gaddafi escape justice?" by Anthony Tucker-Jones, Defence Management, 21 July 2011, http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=17109
22. "Ideas mulled for Gaddafi to give up power, stay in Libya", Monsters and Critics, 20 July 2011, http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1652236.php/Ideas-mulled-for-Gaddafi-to-give-up-power-stay-in-Libya
23. "EU Urges Cooperation with ICC on Gaddafi Arrest", Cri News China, 19 July 2011, http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/07/19/197s649163.htm
24. "Over 1,100 civilians killed by Nato bombing: Libya", AFP, 14 July 2011, http://www.emirates247.com/news/world/over-1-100-civilians-killed-by-nato-bombing-libya-2011-07-14-1.407825
25. "Gaddafi arrest warrant serves no one's cause", The Times of Oman, 13 July 2011, http://www.timesofoman.com/viewcolumndetails.asp?.ratopic_nd=432
26. "Gaddafi might agree on stepping down on conditions", Ahram Online, 13 July 2011, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/1 6316/World/Region/Gaddafi-might-agree-on-stepping-down-on-conditions.aspx

*************************************
CICC's policy on the referral and prosecution of situations before the ICC:

The Coalition for the ICC is not an organ of the court. The CICC is an independent NGO movement dedicated to the establishment of the International Criminal Court as a fair, effective, and independent international organization. The Coalition will continue to provide the most up-to date information about the ICC and to help coordinate global action to effectively implement the Rome Statute of the ICC. The Coalition will also endeavor to respond to basic queries and to raise awareness about the ICC's trigger mechanisms and procedures, as they develop. The Coalition as a whole, and its secretariat, do not endorse or promote specific investigations or prosecutions or take a position on situations before the ICC. However, individual CICC members may endorse referrals, provide legal and other support on investigations, or develop partnerships with local and other organizations in the course of their efforts. Communications to the ICC can be sent to: ICC P.O. box 19519 2500 CM the Hague The Netherlands