ICC Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal – Comprehensive Study Notes

Case Background

• Situation: Darfur, Sudan (Referred by UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1593 (2005)).

• Accused: $Omar\ Hassan\ Ahmad\ Al\text{-}Bashir$ (then President of Sudan).

• Relevant proceeding: Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal ($ICC\text{-}02/05\text{-}01/09\ OA2$).

• Warrant(s) of arrest issued:
  • $4\ March\ 2009$ – war crimes & crimes against humanity.
  • $12\ July\ 2010$ – additional genocide charge.

• Bashir travelled to Jordan for the $28^{th}$ Arab League Summit on $29\ March\ 2017$; Jordan did not arrest him.

Key Rome-Statute & UN-Charter Articles

• $\text{Art}\ 13(b)$ – UNSC referral.

• $\text{Art}\ 27(1)-(2)$ – irrelevance of official capacity; removal of immunities vis-à-vis the Court.

• $\text{Art}\ 86$ – duty of States Parties to cooperate fully.

• $\text{Art}\ 87(7)$ – finding of non-compliance & possible referral to ASP/UNSC.

• $\text{Art}\ 89$ – arrest & surrender.

• $\text{Art}\ 97$ – consultations where execution problems arise.

• $\text{Art}\ 98(1)-(2)$ – waiver of immunity & prior international agreements.

• UN Charter $\text{Art}\ 25$ (obligation to carry out UNSC decisions)
  and $\text{Art}\ 103$ (UN Charter prevails over conflicting treaty duties).

Procedural Chronology (Condensed)

1. 24 Mar 2017 – Registry queries Jordan about possible visit; Jordan responds (no confirmation yet).

2. 28 Mar 2017 – Jordan’s Note Verbale formally invokes $\text{Art}\ 97$ consultations; asserts Bashir’s immunity.

3. 29 Mar 2017 – Bashir visits Jordan; not arrested.

4. 11 Dec 2017 – Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC) decision: Jordan in non-compliance; referred to ASP & UNSC.

5. 21 Feb 2018 – PTC grants leave to appeal on three issues.

6. Extensive amici participation; oral hearing Sept 2018.

7. 6 May 2019 – Appeals Chamber judgment.

Standard of Review (Appeals Chamber)

• Errors of law: no deference; must materially affect impugned decision.

• Discretionary decisions: interfere only if
  $\text{(i)}$ error of law,
  $\text{(ii)}$ clear error of fact,
  $\text{(iii)}$ abuse of discretion.

• Factual findings reviewed for reasonableness.

Issues on Appeal

1. Whether Jordan breached cooperation duty in light of Bashir’s Head-of-State immunity (Articles 27 & 98, customary law, 1953 Arab League Convention).

2. Effect of UNSC Resolution 1593 on Sudanese immunities & on Jordan’s duties.

3. Whether PTC abused discretion in referring Jordan to ASP & UNSC under $\text{Art}\ 87(7)$.

PTC Findings (11 Dec 2017)

• Customary law: Head-of-State immunity exists horizontally, but Statute removes it vertically & horizontally among States Parties.

• $\text{Art}\ 27(2)$ prevails; $\text{Art}\ 98(1)$ gives no right to States; 98(2) inapplicable to 1953 Convention.

• UNSC referral makes full Statute applicable to Sudan ⇒ no immunity to invoke.

• Jordan failed to cooperate; referral warranted (no genuine consultations).

Appeals Chamber Key Holdings

Customary International Law & Immunity

• Exhaustive survey: No State practice/opinio juris supporting Head-of-State immunity vis-à-vis international courts.

• Nuremberg Principle III, ICTY/ICTR/SCSL jurisprudence, ICC Malawi & Chad decisions confirm absence of such immunity.

• Principle of par in parem irrelevant to international courts (they act on behalf of intl. community).

Articles 27 & 98 Interaction (for States Parties)

• $\text{Art}\ 27(2)$ applies to adjudication and enforcement (arrest/surrender).

• Reading 27 with 86/89 reconciliation: States Parties cannot invoke immunity to refuse ICC requests.

• $\text{Art}\ 98(1)$ is procedural; not a source of immunity; if no immunity exists, no waiver needed.

UNSC Resolution 1593 & Sudan

• Resolution’s para 2 (“cooperate fully”) binds Sudan under UN-Charter $\text{Art}\ 25$.

• Puts Sudan in a cooperation régime analogous to a State Party for Darfur matters ⇒ Statute (including 27(2)) governs.

• Therefore Sudan could not claim Bashir’s immunity against ICC requests or vis-à-vis States Parties.

First & Second Grounds Outcome

• Jordan had a legal duty to arrest & surrender Bashir.

• PTC’s legal reasoning on Statute correct (though its view on customary law differed, result same).

• Grounds 1 & 2 rejected.

Consultations under Article 97

• No fixed procedure; essential elements:

  1. Intention to consult must be discernible.

  2. State must act “without delay”.

  3. Good-faith engagement required.

• Jordan’s 28 Mar 2017 Note Verbale was a consultation request (majority view). PTC erred in finding otherwise.

Third Ground – Referral Discretion

• Factual prerequisite for referral (87(7)) has two limbs:
  $\text{(a)}$ failure to comply; $\text{(b)}$ non-compliance prevented Court’s functions.

• Limb $\text{(b)}$ satisfied: Non-execution of warrant frustrated Court’s power to secure presence (Art 58).

• But PTC abused discretion:
  • Mischaracterised Jordan’s consultations.
  • Treated Jordan differently from South Africa (which was not referred) despite similar conduct.

• Majority (3-2) reverses referral; minority would have upheld it.

Appropriate Relief

1. Impugned Decision confirmed (unanimously) as to Jordan’s failure to arrest & surrender.

2. Impugned Decision reversed (majority) regarding referral to ASP & UNSC.

Numerical / Formulaic References

• Warrants: $2009/03/04$ & $2010/07/12$.

• Hearing dates: $10-14\ September\ 2018$.

• Consultation Note Verbale: $28\ March\ 2017$.

Practical / Ethical Implications

• States Parties cannot hide behind immunities to frustrate ICC warrants—even for non-party heads of state when UNSC referral plus “cooperate fully” clause exists.

• Court emphasises flexibility & good-faith in consultations (Art 97); States should engage early, explicitly, and cooperatively.

• Referral under 87(7) is exceptional, not automatic; Chambers must assess consultation efforts and treat like cases alike.

Links to Previous Jurisprudence

• (\textit{Arrest Warrant (2002)}) – immunity before domestic courts distinguished.

• SCSL (\textit{Taylor Immunity}) decision.

• ICC Malawi (2011) & South Africa (2017) non-compliance decisions.

• Kenyatta OA5 Appeals decision on 87(7) standards.

Study Tips / Potential Exam Prompts

• Be ready to compare vertical vs. horizontal immunity effects.

• Explain how UNSC referrals alter cooperation duties for non-States Parties.

• Analyse Art 87(7): two-step factual test + discretionary referral.

• Discuss how Art 97 consultations operate in practice; propose procedural enhancements.

• Debate merits of majority vs. dissent on referral—focus on differential treatment & timing of consultations.