ICC Appeals Chamber confirms the decision authorising the resumption of the investigation
1 st of March 2024, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court delivered its judgment in the appeal of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”) against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision of June 27, 2023. The Appeals Chamber, by unanimity, rejected the appeal and confirmed the “Decision authorizing the resumption of the investigation”.
The Appeals Chamber in this appeal was composed of Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Presiding, Judge Piotr Hofmański, Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze.
Judge Perrin de Brichambaut read a summary of the Judgment in an open court hearing. He indicated that the Appeals Chamber rejected all six grounds of appeal submitted by Venezuela. In examining the grounds of appeal, the Appeals Chamber, among other conclusions, recalled its recent ruling, in the Philippines Judgment , that “the burden of providing information relevant to the pre-trial chamber’s determination under article 18(2) of the Statute remains on the State seeking deferral”.
The Appeals Chamber also considered that the focus of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s assessment was correctly on “whether Venezuela was conducting or had conducted any investigations or prosecutions of the same categories of individuals, that is alleged high-ranking members of the State security forces and pro‑government individuals, in relation to the relevant criminality”.
Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber discussed the issue of whether domestic investigations must cover contextual elements of crimes against humanity, such as the existence of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population or a policy. The Appeals Chamber considered that “the legal interests protected by each crime can be discerned by reference to the elements of that specific crime”.
It also found that in order to pursue the legal interests protected by crimes against humanity, a State, which, like Venezuela, has not incorporated crimes against humanity into its domestic law, while not required to investigate the alleged criminal acts under the legal qualification of crimes against humanity, must nevertheless investigate the factual allegations underpinning the contextual elements of such crimes”. The Appeals Chamber highlighted that while the Rome Statute does not expressly impose an obligation on States Parties to incorporate the crimes against humanity into their domestic legislation, “such incorporation may facilitate the fulfillment of their duty” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over “those responsible for international crimes”.
On other issues, the Appeals Chamber considered that Venezuela misrepresented the Impugned Decision and made unsubstantiated arguments on other points.
