Notes on ICC and AU Prosecution

The initial question addresses the concept of immunity from prosecution and whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be the primary prosecuting body.

Lack of Success: Many individuals who have appeared before the ICC have been acquitted or escaped justice.
Preference for African-led Prosecutions: Prosecutions within the African continent, initiated by other African states, could be more effective due to increased pressure on the accused governments.
Geographical and Political Pressure: African states prosecuting each other would exert more pressure compared to Western entities like the ICC. This excludes economic factors.
AU as an Alternative: There is a suggestion to establish an organization similar to the ICC within an African context, potentially under the African Union (AU).

AU's Current Role: The AU already facilitates investigations, though it is questioned whether this is sufficient for high-level prosecutions.
Financial Constraints: The AU and other African organizations lack the financial support that the ICC receives from wealthier countries.
Impact of Limited Resources: The lack of financial capability hinders the AU's ability to conduct high-level prosecutions.

Ideal Scenario: Ideally, African states should be prosecuted by an African organization.
Current Reality: Due to current limitations, the ICC is often the default option.
ICC Ineffectiveness: Justice is not always served effectively by the ICC, and reparations to victims may be insufficient, leaving people to continue suffering.

Rights have been agreed upon, establishing the ICC's jurisdiction to bring cases against member states that recognize its authority.
The ICC's jurisdiction extends to both states and individuals.