Open letter to the Assembly of State Parties regarding the OTP’s engagement with Situation in Palestine

We, the undersigned scholars and practitioners of law, international relations, and politics express our grave concern over the integrity of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The conduct of the OTP under Karim Khan's mandate has prompted urgent concerns about its adherence to impartiality and non-discrimination. During the mandate of former chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, the Office has allocated efforts and resources in an attempt to address the fierce criticisms of the OTP’s selective accountability, with a view to correcting the shortcomings that characterized its performance during its early years. Recalling that the criticisms referred-to had contained claims about anti-Global South bias especially in relation to the standards applicable to situation and case selection, we are concerned that the international community is witnessing the erosion of years of dedication to ensure that the ICC is indeed international, impartial, and independent. The possible negative impact that informs our concerns pertains to the future of international criminal justice as a whole, and to the perception that the Court is the last resort for victims of international crimes.

OTP’s Visit to Israel & Palestine: Breach of Impartiality and Non-Discrimination Principles 

The Prosecutor’s Duty of Impartiality and Non-Discrimination 

According to Article 42 (5) of the Rome Statute “neither the Prosecutor nor a Deputy Prosecutor shall engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with his or her prosecutorial functions or to affect confidence in his or her independence.” Confidence in the independence of the Prosecutor is reliant on upholding impartiality and non-discrimination, among other principles. 

In accordance with theICC Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor, the OTP and all its members are guided by principles of independence; professional ethics and integrity; fair, impartial, effective and expeditious investigation and prosecution; non-discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, among others. Impartiality, one of the core principles governing the work of the OTP, includes “refraining from expressing an opinion that could, objectively, adversely affect the required impartiality, whether through communications media, in writing or public addresses, or through any other actions outside the context of the proceedings before the Court”. As such, the OTP should conduct their internal and external dealings impartially, abstain from being directly or indirectly in conflict with the discharge of their official duties, and uphold the highest standards of integrity. 

The ICC Prosecutor, as an international civil servant, is contractually required to comply with the relevant standards of conduct, inter alia, the ICSC Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. Thesestipulate the need of international civil servants to “work without bias with persons of all nationalities, religions and cultures; it calls for constant sensitivity as to how words and actions may look to others. It requires avoidance of any expressions that could be interpreted as biased or intolerant.” In reaffirming the principle of non-discrimination, the Standards of Conduct reiterate that “[i]nternational civil servants are expected to respect the dignity, worth and equality of all people without any distinction whatsoever”. 

The Prosecutor’s Public Communications visit 

During the course of Khan’s mandate thus far, there have been a number of questionable decisions on the Situation in Palestine. These include considerabledelays,lack of responsiveness, as well as policies ofunderstaffing and under-resourcing. No more problematic is Khan’s latest meetings, visit and subsequent statement. The Courtannounced on 30 November 2023 Prosecutor Khan's visit to Israel at the invitation of victims, after havingmet with some of them in the Hague previously. In doing that, the Prosecutor has neglected the longstanding pleas fromUN special rapporteurs,scholars and international lawyers,NGOs, and Palestinian victims who haveardently requested the Prosecutor's visit to Palestine and meetings in the Hague for years. The Prosecutor explicitly asserted that the visit, which was carried out without a publicly accessible agenda or transparent funding, is non-investigative, and intended solely to express sympathy and engage in dialogue, acts which fall outside of his mandate as a prosecutor. A lack of transparency also shrouded his subsequent visit to Ramallah. These actions raise serious concerns about the OTP’s commitment to its mandate underlying which are the principles of non- discrimination, and impartiality. 

The Prosecutor’sstatement further demonstrated selective application of international criminal law, and an extralegal interpretation of its principles. While addressing Israel’s conduct of hostilities, Prosecutor Khan refrained from making any conclusive statements at this stage. In this, he followed the Office’s prosecutorial standards and the language satisfying the evidentiary standards specific to each of the investigation’s stages, and adhered to his announcement that the mission was “not investigative in nature.” However, Khan seems to have already concluded that international crimes have been committed by Palestinian armed groups, thereby undermining thefundamental rules, including on the presumption of innocence and relevant standards.

Prosecutor Khan has used alarming extralegal, political notions, in contravention of the ICSC Standards of Conduct. The Prosecutor has used the term 'terror organization’ to describe a Palestinian armed group . The terms “terrorism” and “terror organizations” appear nowhere in the Rome Statute or international humanitarian law. Further, in some of the Prosecutor’scommunications, Khan uses the adjective ‘innocent’ to describe Israeli civilians. While he does not use the same adjective to refer to Palestinians, this choice of extralegal wording – which was popularized in the U.S. “War on Terror” –  insinuates that some civilians deserve more protection than others, and undermines the cardinal principles of international humanitarian law, including the principle of distinction and that civilians cannot be the target of an attack.

In his references to Israeli victims, the Prosecutor has repetitively emphasized the necessity of holding those responsible for the crimes to account. However, when referring to Palestinian victims, he avoids using terms like 'accountability' or any equivalent. It appears as if the victims are presented without a corresponding crime or criminal. Notably, he did not make any reference to the risk of genocide in Gaza, which required special procedures under his mandate, despite warnings by theUN andAcademic experts. Instead, the Prosecutor hasinsisted several timeson describing Palestinian population and victims in Gaza as civilians “caught in the crossfire”, seemingly concluding that the Israeli military’s conduct of hostilities has respected the principles of “distinction” and “proportionality”. This framing has formed the core of the Israeli official discourse since the 7th of October, but also during the 2014 Gaza War. By adopting it, the Prosecutor seems to have abruptly accepted Israeli officials’ framing, and to have undermined reports on various crimes committed as part of state plans or policies. Further, Prosecutor Khan’s hasty insistence on the “caught in the crossfire” framing stands in opposition to thefindings that the Office itself has announced after five years of preliminary examination activities on the 2014 Gaza War, where it found a reasonable basis to believe that members of the Israeli forces have been “intentionally launching disproportionate attacks” and “wilful killing and wilfully causing serious injury to body or health”. Such basis was strongly affirmed in reports bythe UN Independant Mission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict, among others. 

Further, we observe a noticeable acceleration in the work and activity of the Office of the Prosecutor since October 7. While we commend this step, we are concerned that the Prosecutor, in view of his consecutive statements, is acting according to a belief that crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court have taken place only since this date, and is thus “deprioritizing” the crimes that have formed the object of the Office’s activities for almost a decade. We recall the Prosecutor’s controversial “deprioritization” of US personnel conduct in Afghanistan as we observe that Prosecutor Khan has mentioned nowhere in his statements any alleged crimes committed by Israel, including in relation to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Instead, he consistently maintains that Israel, with its legal experts, “should be able to justify its actions.”

Finally, the Prosecutor’s statement refers to the West Bank and Gaza, while ignoring East Jerusalem. Here it is important to note that in publicizing the Prosecutor’s visit to Israel, the Court posted aphoto on X of Prosecutor Khan in occupied and annexed East Jerusalem. Annexation is a grave violation that is supposedly at the center of the Court’s investigations. This lack of foresight in this regard is not acceptable for an office tasked with investigating this context.

In view of this, the prosecutor’s approach to the case of Palestine as exemplified in the extra-legal wording of the statement and the parallel social media publication are in infringement of the prosecutor’s duty to respect the sensitivity of how words and actions may look to others (Para. 14 of the ICSC Standards of Conduct), and poses questions as to whether or not the prosecutor or members of his office were expressing their personal opinion (Para. 9 of the the ICSC Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service).

Our requests to the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, 

In leading up to the 22nd Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP), human rights and civil society organizations, includingAmnesty International,Human Rights Watch and theAnti-Apartheid Movement, have called on States to vehemently oppose double standards, selective justice, and any obstruction of the ICC's investigation in the Situation in Palestine. Amnesty International warned that the legitimacy of the Rome Statute and the ICC is in jeopardy due to this approach, while emphasizing that the "ICC’s legitimacy and effectiveness depend on the OTP demonstrating – without fear or favour – that it will pursue accountability equally in all situations, including situations where perhaps only its intervention will ensure that certain crimes, perpetrators or situations are investigated." 

Considering the above, it appears that accountability for grave breaches that constitute international crimes committed in Palestine is unforeseeable under the current Prosecutor’s mandate, his actions and policies, as outlined. 

Furthermore, we demand the Assembly of State Parties to:

• Provide adequate political and financial support to the Court, ensure that the Prosecutor disburses resources on the basis of investigative needs as opposed to politically-motivated prioritization, and urge it to expedite its investigation into the Situation in Palestine. 

• Investigate the adherence of the Prosecutor’s Office to ICSC Standards of Conduct, particularly in relation to impartiality, and non-discrimination.

• Investigate the conduct of the current prosecutor of the international criminal court, Karim Khan, and take appropriate measures in accordance with the mandate of the Assembly derived from Article 112 of the Rome Statute.

1. Raji Sourani, Human Rights Lawyer, Palestinian Center for Human Rights

2. Darryl Li, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Associate Member of the Law School, University of Chicago

3. Dr. Lex Takkenberg, Senior Advisor on the Question of Palestine, Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development

4. Dr. Luigi Daniele, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Law School (NTU)

5. Dr. Ata Hindi, Lecturer at Birzeit University

6. Susan M. Akram, clinical Professor and Director, International Human Rights Clinic, Boston University School of Law

7. Dr Alice Panepinto, Reader in Law, Queen's University Belfast

8. Dr. Shahd Hammouri, Lecturer in Law, The University of Kent

9. Maha Abdallah, Graduate Teaching Assistant & PhD Researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp

10. Ihsan Adel, Chair, Law for Palestine

11. Mandy Turner, professor of conflict, peace, and humanitarian affairs, University of Manchester, UK

12. Nicola Perugini, Associate Professor, University of Edinburgh

13. Jessica Whyte, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales

14. Laleh Khalili, Al Qasimi Professor of Gulf Studies, University of Exeter

15. Mohammad Shahabuddin, Professor of International Law & Human Rights, University of Birmingham

16. Rania Madi, Law for Palestine

17. Dr.Christopher Gevers, University of KwaZulu-Natal

18. Sadhvi Dar, Reader, Queen Mary University of London

19. Eric Loefflad, Lecturer in Law, University of Kent

20. Dr Marina Velickovic, University of Warwick

21. Jo Bluen, PhD candidate, London School of Economics

22. Khalil Dewan, Head of Legal Investigations at Stoke White Law Firm

23. Ryan Glauser, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan

24. Gerhard Kemp, Professor of Criminal Law (UWE Bristol); Extraordinary Professor of Public Law (Stellenbosch University)

25. Randa Naffa, Director, SADAQA

26. Santosh Anand, PhD researcher, City University of London

27. Dr Sheetal Soni (School of Law, University of Kwazulu Natal, South Africa)

28. Felipe Bley Folly, Research Associate, Law Faculty, University of Tuebingen

29. Dr Ruth Sacks, University of Johannesburg

30. Nicola Whitear-Nel, University of KwaZulu Natal

31. Att. Bassam Abu-Rumman. Founder & managing partner at IQSATLAW

32. Suhayfa Bhamjee, University of KwaZulu-Natal

33. Miha Marčenko, PhD, Fellow at the European University Institute

34. Hala Ahed , lawyer & Human rights advocate

35. Prof Salim Vally, University of Johannesburg

36. Dylan Asafo, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland

37. Emilio Dabed, Lawyer and activist 

38. Naoual El Yattouti, PhD student, University of Antwerp 

39. Jared Sacks, Teaching Fellow, Columbia University

40. Rasigan Maharajh, Chief Director, Institute for Economic Research on Innovation

41. Saydoon Nisa Sayed, Coordinator of GNRC, South Africa

42. Professor Nicola Pratt, University of Warwick

43. John Reynolds, Associate Professor, Maynooth University

44. Professor Alison MacKenzie, Queen's University Belfast

45. Nisreen Alaraj, regional advisor on sustainable cities and climate change, freelance consultant

46. Bana Abu Zuluf. PhD Researcher, Maynooth University

47. Dr.Fiammetta Bonfigli, University of Vienna

48. Micòl Savia, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

49. Dr Thomas Phillips, Liverpool John Moores University

50. Dr James Allinson, University of Edinburgh

51. Bana Abu Zuluf. PhD Researcher, Maynooth University

52. Dr. Fiammetta Bonfigli, University of Vienna

53. Micòl Savia, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

54. Dr Thomas Phillips, Liverpool John Moores University

55. Dr James Allinson, University of Edinburgh

56. Fausto Gianelli- ELDH European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights in the World

57. Dr Lisa Tilley, SOAS, University of London

58. Dr Souheir Edelbi, Lecturer in law, Western Sydney University

59. Dr. Nadia Kornioti, Associate Lecturer, University of Central Lancashire - Cyprus (UCLan Cyprus)

60. Dr Cristina Sáenz Pérez, University of Leeds

61. Reeju Ray , Associate Professor, O.P. Jindal Global University

62. Dr Nicola Palmer, Reader in Criminal Law, King’s College London

63. Rania Muhareb, Irish Research Council and Hardiman PhD Scholar, Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, University of Galway

64. Selbi Durdiyeva, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Conflict Studies, Philipps University Marburg

65. Rawan Arraf, Executive Director, Australian Centre for International Justice

66. Danya Nadar, University of Antwerp

67. Alia Gilbrecht, Director of Virtual Exchange and Innovative Partnerships, Head of U.S. Programming and U.S. Fulbright Scholars. (Institution) An-Najah National University in the West Bank, Palestine

68. Mohammad Almoghabat - International Constitutionalization Ph.D. Candidate - Vrije Universiteit Brussels

69. sahar Francis, director, Addameer prisoner support and human rights association

70. Claudia Saba, Adjunct Professor of International Relations, Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations, Ramon Llull University

71. Kirsten Larson, PhD researcher at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway

72. Asad Kiyani, Associate Professor, University of Victoria Faculty of Law

73. Alreem Kamal, Legal Officer, SLDP

74. Aman, Associate Professor of Legal Practice, Jindal Global University

75. Palvasha Shahab, Visiting Faculty, Department of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, IBA, Karachi, Pakistani

76. Felipe Chahuan, Instructor del Departamento de Derecho Privado, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Chile

77. Fabrizio Clementi Italian jurist - CRED

78. Dr Tom Pettinger, University of Warwick

79. Marcela Chahuán Zedan. Lecturer at Faculty of Law, University of Chile

80. Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR)

81. Kiran Kaur Grewal, Professor of Human Rights, Goldsmiths, University of London

82. Anissa Bougrea, PhD Researcher, Ghent University

83. Thomas MacManus, Senior Lecturer in State Crime, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London

84. Patrick Bond, Distinguished Professor, University of Johannesburg

85. Dr. Saajidha Sader, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

86. Koenraad Bogaert, Associate Professor, Middle East and North African Research Group (MENARG), Ghent University (Belgium)

87. Dr Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan, Adjunct Professor in Law at Woxsen University (India)

88. Marie Ruyffelaere, PhD candidate/ FNRS research fellow, REPI/OMAM, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

89. Samer Aljarousha, practicing lawyer

90. Dr. Oishik Sircar, Professor, Jindal Global Law School

91. Joshua M. Makalintal, University of Innsbruck

92. Dr Simon Robins, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Human Rights, University of York

93. Sarah Bracke, Professor of Sociology, University of Amsterdam

94. Avishek Konar, Faculty, O.P. Jindal Global University 

95. Dr. Lana Sirri, University of Amsterdam

96. Jan Fermon, lawyer at the Brussels (Belgium) bar, secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers

97. Fatiema Haron-Masoet  Imam Haron Foundation 

98. Daniel Stein, Assistant Professor, OP Jindal Global Law School

99. Dr Jaya Josie Adjunct Professor University of the Western Cape 

100. José Henríquez Leiva, University of Galway, Ireland

101. Triestino Mariniello, Professor, Liverpool John Moores University

102. Aleta Alston-Toure, Cooperative Member of the Parable of the Sower Intentional Community Cooperative, Members of the National Black Liberation Movement Network (NBLMN)

103. Marie Labussière, postdoctoral researcher, University of Amsterdam

104. Luis Eslava, Professor of International Law, La Trobe University & University of Kent

105. Dr Kevin Hearty, SSESW, Queen's University Belfast

106. Omar Jabary Salamanca, Co-Director Observatory of the Arab and Muslim Worlds, Université libre de Bruxelles

107. Sujith Xavier, Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of Windsor

108. Mervyn Bennun, Lecturer in Law, Exeter University (retired); Honorary

109. Carles Fernández-Torne, School of Communication and International Relations - Ramon Llull University

110. Amy Strecker, Associate Professor, UCD Sutherland School of Law

111. Beatrice Canossi Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway, Ireland

112. Judy Favish, University of Cape Town

113. Muna musbah ahmed qasem, Practicing lawyer 

114. Anastasiya Kotova, PhD candidate, Lund University

115. Emily Jones, Newcastle University

116. Niloufer Bhagwat Advocate Vice President Indian Association of Lawyers 

117. Amal de Chickera, Co-Director, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion 

118. Noha Aboueldahab, Assistant Professor of International Law, Georgetown University in Qatar

119. Aziza Kaddouri, Talsa Law Firm, Netherlands

120. Ramy Abdu. Assist. Prof of Law & Finance. Chairman of EuroMed Human Right Monitor

121. Dr Khawla mattar,  independent writer 

122. Karinna Fernandez neira, human rights defender, Chile

123. Jeff Handmaker, Associate Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

124. Devanshi Saxena, doctoral researcher, University of Antwerp

125. Dr Haytham Ereifej, Practicing Lawyer

126. Mahmoud Hanafi - Palestine association for human rights 

127. Noura Erakat, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

128. Dr Rose Parfitt, Senior Lecturer, Kent Law School 

129. Gertrude Lamare, PhD Student, London School of Economics and Political Science

130. Camilo Pérez-Bustillo: Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild (NLG)-San Francisco Bay Area chapter; co-chair, NLG Task Force on the Americas

131. Hans Ulrich Jessurun d' Oliveira,Professor emeritus, migration law, University of Amsterdam, migration law, University of Amsterdameritus

132. Huwaida Arraf, Human Rights Attorney

133. Jeanne Mirer,  President International Association of Democratic Lawyers

134. Rob Howse, Professor of International Law, NYU Law School

135. Jordan Manalastas, practicing lawyer

136. Oumar Ba, Cornell University

137. Micaela Frulli, professor of international law, Università di Firenze 

138. Dr Silvina Sánchez Mera, La Trobe University

139. Yasmin Omar - International Human Rights Lawyer, Director at POMED, DC

140. Luis Carlos Moro Secretario General de Asociación Americana de Juristas

141. Shaheen Khan, MA, North West Unoversity, Potchefstroom

142. Ahmed Raza Memon, Lecturer, Cardiff School of Law and Politics 

143. Professor Ziyad Motala, Howard Law School

144. Ahmed Raza Memon, Lecturer, Cardiff School of Law and Politics 

145. Edre U. Olalia, Chairperson, National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (Philippines)

146. Tanvee Nandan, Associate Professor, OP Jindal Global University

147. Dr Amina Adanan, Maynooth University 

148. Julie Webb-Pullman, Investigator, Gaza Centre for Human Rights

149. Dr Ntina Tzouvala, Associate Professor, ANU College of Law

150. Vanessa Ramos, President-Asociación Americana de Juristas

151. Halla Shoaibi, Assistant Professor of Law, Birzeit University 

152. Lana Habash, practicing lawyer
     
     
     

Names with no affiliation or not a practitioner or scholar

Wael mattar 

Mr Justin Winchester, Student, University of Oxford
Vinesh Kumar Ramnarian PAO
Jordanian bar association

Luiz Felipe Peralta

Fatima Aghla
Nadeen Yousef, Full-Time LLM student, University of Galway
Marie Griehl, HR consultant, Palestine solidarity campaign
Mohammad Dweib
Maha thweib
Suleiman Essa

Dr. Salam

Fathima Lakhi 

Souheila yildiz

Nazley Khan

Goolshan E.Gaffoor PSC

Evin Sofia, individual

Walter von Sturler

Guy Slingsby Retired with a disability
Amanda Adams, Activist at BDS

Mrs Madafi Hendricks
Dr. Stephen M. David, retired. 

Hocine Bouchaoui

Jamal Haggi . Financial auditor

Shuaib Manjra

Kutubuddin Dawood Pangarker Mr.

MIREILLE FANONmfmfonu@gmail.com
.

To sign on this statement follow this link

Annex: the backdrop of these demands

Nine years at the ICC: Accountability is Still Out of Sight

The Prosecutor opened a preliminary examination on the situation in Palestine in 2015 following the request of the State of Palestine. Following the appointment of Fatou Bensouda, a series of intricate procedures and protracted steps played out, during which Palestinian human rights organizations and victims provided the OTP with thousands of pages of factual and legal analysis and evidence establishing bases to bring concrete cases for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely persecution and apartheid, the international crimes underpinning the settlements, forced displacement and transfer, pillage, and various other crimes arising out of Israel’s unlawful actions and practices, including the 2014 assault on Gaza and the Great March of Return, the Gaza blockade and siege, grave breaches against Palestinian children, amongst others. 

Subsequently, Prosecutor Bensouda, in 2019,concluded that "war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip." Finally, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, in February 2021,declaredits jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, being the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) and encompassing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, dating back to June 2014 - in line with Palestine’s 12(3) declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction in March 2021, Prosecutor Bensouda officially initiated the investigation declaring that the Court’s “investigation will cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed in the Situation since 13 June 2014”. However, since then, the ICC's engagement with the persistent and well-documented violations of international law in the State of Palestine/oPt has been significantly delayed and sluggish in pace without yielding tangible results for thousands of victims, and under the oversight of the current Prosecutor Khan Karim A. A. Khan.

Differential Treatment of Cases: Comparison with the Situation in Ukraine

A conspicuous contrast emerges when comparing Prosecutor Khan’s conduct in relation to the Situation in Ukraine to other situations involving allegations against certain geopolitical actors. In the latter, Prosecutor Khan issued arrest warrants within a year of opening an investigation. By contrast, the preliminary activities on the Situation in Afghanistan lasted for fourteen years, after which Prosecutor Khan decided to drop the conduct of the U.S. forces from his probe, a conduct that brought back to the legal and public debate platforms some of the serious claims against the Office’s impartiality. 

With regards to the Situation in Palestine, the Prosecutor’s engagement and communication with on-the-ground Palestinian human rights organizations and victims have been largely nonexistent 32 months since the investigation began despite numerous submissions and calls by Palestinian, Israeli and international organizations. Further, in a recentreport on outreach to victims and affected communities in Palestine, the Court's Registry delineates the profound disappointment expressed by victims to their legal representatives, noting, "Clients have been profoundly disappointed, even before the current crisis, at the complete absence of the Court." Such discrepancies prompt questions about procedural reluctance that do not meet the requirements of justice. 

Funding Allocation Policies Undermine the Urgency of the Case

While no resources were designated for investigations into the Situation in Palestine in 2022, the mere allocation of approximately one million euro in 2023 signifies progress but raises concerns about its adequacy considering the extensive, intricate, and ongoing grave breaches that may amount to international crimes. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the oPt, Francesca Albanese, hasaffirmed that the Court’s investigation is "understaffed and under-resourced," portraying a situation that appears to be at an impasse. In March 2023, Albanese, along with 31 other Special Rapporteurs, voiced apprehension about the state of the investigation and advocated for increased allocation of resources in light of "solid evidence of allegations of human rights violations that may have been committed intentionally and systematically".