Introduction
On 28 March 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) formalized an agreement with the Republic of Latvia concerning the enforcement of sentences rendered by the Court. Judge Tomoko Akane, the ICC President and Ms. Solvita Aboltina, the Latvian Ambassador signed the agreement in The Hague, The Netherlands, in an official ceremony (see Press Release).
Agreements on the enforcement of sentences are already in force between the ICC and Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Mali, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (see Press Release). These agreements promise a broader cooperation of States and the ICC. Enforcement of sentence is an integral part of the criminal trial. With this focus, this blog will discuss the broader implications of enforcement of sentences coupled with its legal basis and some case laws from the ICC.
Meaning of Enforcement of Sentences
The ICC has the mandate to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of four major crimes viz, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. The States that have joined the ICC Statute have taken a stand to end impunity for those most responsible for having committed these grave international crimes. This is an important reason why some States are entering into an Enforcement of Sentences agreement with the ICC. The guidelines for this agreement are elaborated in the Rome Statute and in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE). This agreement enables the Court to transfer convicted individuals to a State which has indicated to the Court its willingness to accept the convicted individuals to spend their sentence in the State’s prison facilities.
Legal Basis for the Enforcement of Sentences
Kai Ambos, in his book Treatise on International Criminal Law (Volume III: International Criminal Procedure), in Chapter VIII on Enforcement of Sentences and Other Penalties1 , discusses the provisions on Enforcement of Sentences. (pp. 635-659). He highlights that Article 103 of the Rome Statute establishes two step procedures for enforcement of sentences:
a. At the time of agreement, a State must indicate to the Court its willingness to accept the convicted individuals, with or without any conditions.
b. Upon completion of trial, the ICC designates the convicted individual to a State of enforcement from the list of States who have agreed for enforcement of sentences.
In their chapter on “Post-Conviction Issues: Enforcement of Sentences and Other Residual Responsibilities”2, Martin Petrov and Dejana Radisavljević problematize several post-conviction issues, including enforcement of sentences, early release, and rehabilitation (pp. 347-382). The authors note that numerous political and economic factors may influence the decision of the States to enter into enforcement agreements, and thereby delay the process. On the topic of early release, they articulate that the ICC has developed a very structured approach and has laid down a very strict eligibility criteria in the Rome Statute and RPE in comparison to other international criminal tribunals. The convicts, in majority cases, are highly educated individuals having a political or military background before their conviction, rendering prison education programmes futile. The authors, therefore, opine that it may be challenging to rehabilitate a convict after serving a full sentence because of their profile and status.
Nevertheless, the ICC must follow the principle of equitable distribution when designating States for the enforcement of sentences, ensuring that the burden is not carried only by a few States. The Court should also take into account international treaty standards regarding the treatment of prisoners, their views, nationality and other factors concerning the sentenced person. The Court shall take into account such other factors pertaining to the crime or the person sentenced, or the effective enforcement of the sentence. Under Article 105 of the Rome Statute, once a State is designated by the ICC, the sentence of imprisonment shall be binding on the States Parties, which shall in no case modify it. This is a significant development in the ICC’s global mission to end impunity by punishing the perpetrators for the heinous crimes and to stop it from recurring (read about the Court here).
Important Decisions by the ICC
The ICC is seeking global cooperation through these agreements on enforcement of sentences in punishing the perpetrator of the crimes. Some of the cases decided by the Court are notable examples of enforcement process in practice.
In, The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC Trial Chamber II found Mr Al Mahdi guilty of the war crimes consisting in intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, Mali in 2012. He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and transferred to Scotland, United Kingdom, to serve his sentence of imprisonment (see Press Release).
In, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, ICC Trial Chamber VI found Bosco Ntaganda guilty of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed in Ituri, DRC, in 2002-2003. In 2019, Bosco Ntaganda was sentenced to a total of 30 years of imprisonment and was transferred to Belgium to serve his sentence of imprisonment at the Leuze-en-Hainaut prison (see Press Release).
In, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, ICC Trial Chamber IX found Dominic Ongwen guilty of 61 crimes against humanity and war crimes, committed in Northern Uganda between 2002 and 2005. In 2021, Trial Chamber IX sentenced Dominic Ongwen to 25 years of imprisonment. In 2022, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the decisions of the Trial Chamber IX on Dominic Ongwen’s guilt and sentence and in 2023, Mr Ongwen was transferred to Norway to serve his sentence of imprisonment (see Press Release).
Concluding Remarks
The enforcement of sentences by the ICC is a vital component of international criminal justice highlighting the role of the States in holding perpetrators of grave crime accountable. While it is concerning that only 16 out of 125 State parties to the Rome Statute have signed agreements on enforcement of sentences, this is definitely not the end. Latvia’s initiative as an inspiring example is offering hope that more countries will join this effort and encourage the ICC to have a real- world impact and uphold global justice.
References
- Ambos, Kai, ‘Enforcement of Sentences and Other Penalties’, Chapter. In Treatise on International Criminal Law: Volume III: International Criminal Procedure, 635-659. (2016; online edn, Oxford Academic). https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199665617.003.0008. ↩︎
- Petrov Martin, and Dejana Radisavljević. “Post-Conviction Issues: Enforcement of Sentences and Other Residual Responsibilities.” Chapter. In Defense Perspectives on International Criminal Justice, edited by Colleen Rohan and Gentian Zyberi, 347–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. ↩︎
Be First to Comment