Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Prosecutor's Statements on Israel and Palestine

Israel probably committed war crimes in an episode in Gaza, but the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction over them - so said the Court's Prosecutor last week. In May 2010, Turkey sent a flotilla of chartered ships to deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Three of the ships, which Israeli special forces violently intercepted, flew the flags of member countries of the Court: the Comoros, Cambodia and Greece. These memberships enabled the Prosecutor to begin a preliminary examination of the event. She concluded that the probable war crimes committed in the interdiction did not meet the ICC's statutory requirements that they "be on a large scale or pursuant to a plan or policy." The Court  therefore had no jurisdiction over them.

The Prosecutor strongly rejected here claims that she had yielded to political pressure not to bring charges against Israel. She had done the same in an earlier statement that the enhanced status the UN General Assembly has given Palestine, now qualified it to become a member state of the ICC or to obtain its jurisdiction over a particular situation.

These two reports establish that Palestine can use either of these options to bring claims of alleged Israeli crimes to the Court which its Prosecutor will take seriously. However, should Palestine do that, the Court will have jurisdiction to entertain Israeli charges against Palestine. This is almost certainly why Palestine continues to hesitate to use the Court.

By these decisions, the Prosecutor  strongly confirmed and demonstrated that she will stand off politicization and external influences on her work and decisions. Her guide and mandate will remain the Rome Statute. This staunch position will come under future heavy pressure if a case begins to develop at the Court, which powerful countries including the United States contend vigorously is interfering with Israel - Palestine peace negotiations.

Written by John Washburn

Monday, October 20, 2014

Kenyatta case at the ICC: three options available for the ICC judges The issue The importance of the status conferences for the international community and for the African countries



The two status conferences held by the Trial Chamber V (b) of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the case of the Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on 7 and 8 October 2014 represent a significant and important test for the ICC’s accountability and credibility in Africa and around the world. In fact, for the first time in the history of the international justice system, a sitting head of state appears before an independent and permanent Court as an indirect co-perpetrator for crimes against humanity which include murder, rape and persecution committed during the 2007-2008 post-election violence which left over 1,000 people dead and half a million displaced.  Several human rights NGOs have emphasized the uniqueness of the case. For the NGO Physicians for Human Rights, the President’s participation at the second status conference on the 8th October, although reluctant, is a “remarkable step forward in holding the most powerful officials accountable for their action[1] ”. For the International Federation for Human Rights, these conferences should be seen as the “opportunity to place victims’ rights to truth and justice at the center of the ongoing debates on the fate of this case”[2]. The conferences discussed the status of cooperation between the Court and the Kenyan government. According to the Prosecutor, the Kenyan authorities failed to ensure full cooperation with the Court and have obstructed the course of investigation by intimidating witnesses and victims. As time progressed, more and more witnesses disappeared, changed their accounts or simply refused to give their testimony. The victims are now represented in a number of 725 by the Legal Representative for victims Fergal Gaynor. The status conferences were not about the determination of the guilt and innocence of Uhuru Kenyatta but rather considered whether the trial should continue or not. This required hearing all parties on specific issues relating to the extent of cooperation between the Kenyan Government and the Court. A defense lawyer for the President, Mr. Steven Kaj, asked the Court to terminate the case as the prosecutor had failed to submit evidence establishing Kenyatta’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the case is dismissed due to the lack of evidence, this would be a serious setback for the Court and its reputation. Victims of the crimes have not obtained adequate and comprehensive redress at the national level. Therefore, only the ICC as most African NGOs have pointed out, remains their hope to obtain justice. In fact, there is no alternative to the ICC for some African countries as domestically there is little political will to prosecute perpetrators of atrocity crimes. Furthermore, the Kenyan government has no intention to comply with its constitutional obligations deriving from the ratification of the Rome Statute. However, all aspects of the case and more specifically, Kenyatta’s compliance with the Court’s order that he attend the hearing has sparked fierce criticism among African heads of state. They are heavily divided over the ICC, with East African leaders hostile to the court and their West African counterparts in favor of it. Opposition towards the 11-year-old ICC runs deepest in East Africa - not surprising as two of the region's presidents - Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta - have been indicted, while Kenya's Deputy President William Ruto is already on trial on charges of crimes against humanity. The countries in East Africa that are most vocal in their opposition to the ICC are: Kenya, Sudan and Uganda. West African countries like Nigeria and Ghana are more supportive of the court. However, there is a fundamental divide between African leaders and many African people. About 130 non-governmental organizations wrote an open letter to the African Union (AU), warning that "any withdrawal from the ICC would send the wrong signal about Africa's commitment to protect and promote human rights and to reject impunity". Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has also warned African leaders not to quit the ICC. The two conferences at the ICC are considered a proof of the accountability of the Court against accusation of politically motivated trials in Africa.





 Before the conference

 An important issue discussed before the conference was the requested attendance of the President to the second hearing which was criticized by Kenyatta as an intensely politically motivated threat to Kenyan sovereignty. His defense lawyer, Mr. Kaj, asked the chamber to excuse the President from participating to the conference pursuant to Rule 134 quater or to adjourn the status conferences and to let the defendant to attend on another date via video link pursuant to rule 134 bis of the Rule of Procedure and Evidence. However, the Chamber refused to allow this request not only underlining the misuse and misplacement of rule 134 quater and bis, but also taking into consideration the importance of the issues to be addressed and the interest of justice which requires the defendant’s presence in person. The day before the hearing, President Kenyatta announced that he would not appear in the Court as Head of State, but instead as a private individual. "I chose not to put the sovereignty of more than 40 million Kenyans on trial since their democratic will should not be subject to another jurisdiction," he said before the Senate and the National Assembly the day before the hearing. In this speech, he proclaimed his innocence and accused the Court of partiality. However, Kenyatta made his appearance more as a political charismatic leader than a private citizen; his convoy received a presidential welcome. Flag-waving crowds of Kenyan citizens surged as his police-escorted car pulled up. International TV crews jostled to get him in their frame. Around 100 politicians flew to The Hague, paying themselves air fares, a public demonstration of support for their president. As a result, some newspapers have argued that the President and his Deputy Ruto have skillfully managed to turn their indictments for crimes against humanity to their political advantage, easily slipping into the role of victims.


The two status conferences

On the 19th of September, Trial Chamber V (b) postponed the beginning date of Kenyatta case scheduled previously for the 7th of October in order to hold a hearing request made by the defense to dismiss the case and by the Prosecutor to adjourn the case indefinitely pending delivery of records requested from the Kenyan government. The Chamber considered art. 64(2) of the Rome Statute of the ICC and made this decision to postpone to ensure that the trial was fair and expeditious with full respects for the rights of the accused and due regards for the protection of victims and witnesses. With the same decision, the Chamber convened the two status conferences to discuss the status of cooperation between the Government of Kenya and the prosecutor. For the first conference, the Chamber asked the presence of one representative of the Government, for the second conference, it asked the accused to be present. The hearing was held before Trial Chamber judges (Ozaki, Fremr, Henderson), in the presence of the Prosecution (Bensouda, Stewart, Gumpert), the Defense (Kay, Higgings) and the legal representative of the Victims (Gaynor).          
The Court wanted Mr. Kenyatta to explain allegations that evidence against him had been withheld by the Kenyan government - a claim rejected by Kenyan Attorney-General Githu Muigai, who appeared before the court at the first conference.
Both two status conferences took place in a similar way. The hearings were divided into two parts. During the first part, the three trial judges asked the prosecution questions related to the lack of evidence and the two specific reasons why the option to dismiss the charges against Kenyatta was not considered appropriate by the prosecution in the notice of the 5th September 2014. In this notice, Prosecution stated that “ it would be inappropriate for the Prosecution to withdraw the charges against Kenyatta before the Government complies with the cooperation request. First, doing so would undermine the purpose of the Chamber’s decision to ensure that the Government of Kenya fulfills its cooperation obligations to the Court. Second, the accused person in this case is the head of a government that has so far failed fully to comply with its obligations to the Court, and, under the Constitution of Kenya, is ultimately responsible for that failure.” 
 In the second part of the hearing, each lawyer from the Prosecution, Defense and legal representation of Victims submitted final considerations to the judges. At the conferences, scores of Mr. Kenyatta's supporters packed the public gallery as the hearing got under way.


Why an indefinite adjournment of the case
The Prosecutions’ arguments

 The Prosecutor’s statement included two parts. In the first part, Prosecutor Bensouda explained how the case should be handled going forward, in the second one, prosecution lawyer Gumpert described the evidence against Kenyatta. The adjournment of the trial and its dismissal were considered the only two viable options to encompass the deadlock of the case. “Any other solution, including the adjournment of the case to a fixed date or by a deferral to a decision of the Assembly of States Parties will be ineffective as the Government of Kenya has already been granted six months to comply with the cooperation request and from an evidentiary point of view it did not show any willingness to provide the required evidence”, the prosecution said. “Although one could imagine ways to fix a specific date to resume the trial, for instance the next political elections in Kenya, the only realistic date is when the Republic of Kenya does what it is bound to do under the Rome Statute”. Additionally, the prosecution explained why an indefinite adjournment would be consistent with the accused’s rights and as well as with the integrity of the proceedings and the interest of justice. “When an accused comes before any tribunal accused of very serious crimes and where investigation of those crimes has been impended by a third party, there is obviously a very great interest in sending the message that such interference, such obstruction will not bring proceedings to an end, that the Court will be resolute in pursuing the case which has been brought before it, despite any obstruction in investigations. This would be the case even if there was not the extra dimension of the defendant.”

The Prosecution concluded his argument warning the Chamber about the consequences that a termination of the case could have on the international community and on the ICC states parties. “It would not be in the interest of justice….for the Court to make a ruling which will effectively be interpreted as the Court saying, if a country sticks out for long enough obstructing proper inquiries being made by the prosecutor, despite the Court having made a finding that the obstruction is improper, then the case against that person that country wants to protect will go away”.    
When the presiding judge asked the Legal Representative of the Victims (LRV) how an indefinite adjournment of the case was compatible with the accused’s rights, lawyer Gaynor replied that it is in the defendant’s power to ensure that his trial could be expeditious. He also mentioned as case law, a precedent from the ICTY, its decision of the 11th February 2009, “Prosecution motion for an adjournment”. In its decision, the Court was aware of the fact that an adjournment of the trial could have a detrimental effect on the promptness of the proceedings, but by majority it held that it is duty to preserve the fairness of the trial and that the fairness of the trial must prevail over time considerations. Unlike the prosecution, the LRV asked the Chamber to allow an adjournment of the trial until the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) decides what to do with the non-cooperating state.

Kenyatta’s constitutional obligation to comply with international duties

The prosecutor added that some witnesses claimed to have received money from the President, but that no allegation has been made that Kenyatta as President has taken action to prevent the prosecution from obtaining the records they were seeking from the Government of Kenya. The prosecutor added that “There is no evidence of action or inaction that he has taken or refrained from in the course of the period between our request of cooperation and today” but that Kenyatta since 2013 had a specific duty under the Kenyan constitution to ensure that the republic of Kenya complies with its international obligations.  

Outstanding evidence missing

The prosecutors mentioned also what kind of evidence the Government of Kenya failed to provide. The evidence outstanding includes Kenyatta's bank statements, tax records and telephone records relating to the period of unrest, believing that the information could prove Kenyatta's alleged part in bankrolling and orchestrating the violence. The prosecutor confirmed that the evidence exists, but that he cannot use it as he has been obstructed from doing so. According to the LRV, Fergal Gaynor, Kenyatta as President of the Republic of Kenya is the head of the entity which failed in providing outstanding evidence and therefore he must ensure that such entity complies fully with its duty.
The LRV reiterated the Prosecution’s request regarding bank statements and mobile telephone records which are still missing but are relevant for the case.
                   
Intimidation of witnesses, obstruction of justice and failure to cooperate

“This case is about the intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of Justice”.
With this straightforward statement the LRV concluded his final submission to the Chamber asking if it would be really fair for victims to pay the price of a Government unwilling to cooperate with the Court.
“If the Chamber withdraws this case, other may think that the ICC prosecutor can be easily overcome by a combination of bribery and intimidation. Some often say that in every case where the prosecutor fails in providing evidence to support his case a price must be paid. It would be unfair for the victims to pay the price of the Government of Kenya non-compliance and deliberately frustration of its international duties.”         

The Defense arguments

The defense lawyer Steven Kay spoke on behalf of the President who decided to be silent. He said the government had co-operated with the prosecution requests where it was possible to do so and he asked the judges not only to dismiss the case, but also to enter a verdict in favor of his client. “What you heard from the prosecution was a scandalous misrepresentation of the quality of their case as well as the reasons for not pursuing this case”. Mr. Kay said that because there is no evidence, Kenyatta was entitled to his verdict of not guilty. There had been no allegations made against his client or him as a lawyer. “The head of state issue that has been brought to bear as an allegation is not founded upon substance”. 

The conference ended with the ICC spokesman stating that a ruling will be announced at a later day. As he left the Court, Mr. Kenyatta told his supporters in Swahili: "We know where we are coming from, we know where we are now, and we know where we are going. No-one will tell us where we are going and yes, we will decide for ourselves.
Several times, Kenyatta's lawyers have dismissed the requests for his bank and telephone records as a strategy designed to cover up for prosecutors' lack of evidence. "Whatever evidence we produced, further inquiries were suddenly made," Kay said.

Possible scenario: three options for the Chamber

The options that the ICC’s judges could take into consideration in this unique case are three. The first is the termination of the case and dismissal of the charges against the defendant. The Chamber may dismiss the case for lack of evidence, if it finds that the prosecutor fails to prove Kenyatta’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused will be innocent as there is no evidence enough to substantiate his responsibility for the commission of crimes of which he is accused. This is the decision that president’s defense team has asked the Chamber to make following regulation 60 of the Office of Prosecutor. The second opinion is the indefinite adjournment of the case until the Government of Kenya fully complies with the Prosecutorial request of evidence in accordance with art.64 (2) of the Statute as the OTP has asked the Chamber to do.
The third option is the adjournment of the case to a definite date in order to give the Assembly of States Parties the opportunity to act. This request was made by the LRV in case an indefinite adjournment could not be allowed. This last option has been clearly criticized by the Prosecutor as it would represent an interference of a political body into the judiciary against the independence of the judges of the Court. By deferring the case to a decision of the ASP, the impartiality and independence of the Chamber would be affected by the political relations within the ASP. Also there is no provision in the Rome Statute for a referral to the ASP.  
     
The post conferences effect on Kenya’s witnesses and public opinion

Two days after the conferences, at the United Nations Headquarters, in New York, there was a press conference on the topic where representatives of different NGOs blamed the over disclosure of information made by the Chamber in relation to the identity of witnesses. According to an NGO representative, Stella Ndirangu of the International Commission of Jurists in Kenya, six witnesses have been killed as a result of such disclosure of evidence. This criticism was brought by the International Commission of Jurists-Kenya and by the Kenyans for peace with Truth and Justice. Both NGOs argued that there had been too much time between the disclosures and the hearings in the case, which allowed the identity of witnesses to be discovered. Despite these observations, Kenyan human rights NGOs continue to support the ICC and its mandate to fight impunity of heads of states. A recent statement issued by Human Rights Network Uganda (HURINET-U) and the Uganda Coalition for the ICC has expressed concerns about remarks made by the Uganda Prime Minister Museveni and the Kenyan President about the opportunity to review their membership to the Court. The Human rights NGOs called on African states to respect their commitment to and cooperation with the ICC.   

Written for AMICC by Miriam Morfino on 10/13/2014

  



[2] Cfr., http://www.fidh.org/en/africa/kenya/kenya-icc/16189-uhuru- kenyatta-before-the-icc-judges-victims-need-truth-and-justice?utm_source=CICC

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

The International Criminal court as a promoter of justice for all African victims of atrocities: no one is above the law. An answer to Prof. Meyer’s New York Times article

On October 6, Prof. Meyer posted an article “Kenya’s dubious day in Court”, where he describes President Kenyatta’s case before the International Criminal Court as an “outright farce” and also the Court as a dispenser of “white man’s justice”.  Meyer concludes that the “World needs an International Criminal Court, not just this one”. However, Meyer’s main points  are not supported by the procedural history of the case and ignores its future impact for African domestic justice systems and for the international community.

In particular, Meyer’s analysis doesn’t mention the hundreds of thousands of African victims who died in the systematic attack during the Kenyan elections in January 2008. The violence left 1,200 people dead and displaced tens of thousands more, becoming the worst violence in Kenya since its independence. As a result, 233 persons have been granted the status of victims to participate in the Kenyatta trial. This is a remarkable result that the ICC has achieved and fits perfectly with Kenya’s historical relationship with the Court and its mandate. As Meyer states in his article, Kenya was a strong supporter of the Court and of its mandate to end impunity for perpetrators of the mot heinous crimes. The public opinion in Kenya will not forget the likelihood that their President was behind the widespread and systematic attack against the non-Kikuyu population. 

First, Meyer underlines that the Court’s reputation has fallen due to the Prosecutorial decision to postpone first and then to suspend the beginning of the Trial. These factors, according to Meyer, will support the charge that “American and European neocolonialists are conspiring to bring the President and his Deputy down”. Instead, this decision respects and complies fully with a basic criminal law principle of fair trial contained in Art.64 of the Statute:” It is in the interest of both defendants and victims that the trial will be fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witness”.

Meyer argues that the ICC is serving the interest of “white people”. However, the Court is serving instead the interest of Kenyan victims putting an end to sitting Heads of States’ impunity. In fact, the legal representatives’ team clearly states that “it’s in the interest of the victims that the accused appear in person at the Court”. The Trial Chamber has ruled that “the Common Legal Representative may file responses to documents but must first demonstrate that the subject matter at issue is directly related to the interests of victims”.


In meetings between this Unit and victims in Kenya from late January 2013 until September 2014, the issue of the ‘presence’ by video link of the accused at trial has been overwhelmingly opposed. They are aware that persons accused of far less serious crimes than Mr Kenyatta are required to be physically present in the courtroom in Kenya”. Therefore, the Court is serving the interest of Kenyan people, not of anybody else.

Furthermore, if the Court was politicized as Meyers argues, then it would be difficult to understand why most of African situations have been brought to the Court by States referrals. Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Mali – have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, and the situation in Libya – both non-States Parties. On 31 March 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecution authorization to open an investigation on her own initiative in the situation of Kenya. Therefore, the ICC’s Prosecutor has never tried to target Africa inappropriately for political reasons, nor ever has conspired against its citizens pushed by a neocolonialist idea.
The parallel drawn by Meyer between Uhuru Kenyatta’s trial and the 1952 trial of his father Jomo Kenyatta when Britain colonial authorities trumped up charges against him and created false witnesses is very anachronistic. It certainly does not apply to an independent and impartial trial whose only goal is to establish justice and to prosecute whoever was responsible for these most heinous crimes in Kenya.

The lack of evidence which caused the Prosecutor to adjourn the trial on 19 December 2013 and then the Trial Chamber to suspend it on 19 September 2014 only results from a lack of cooperation between the Government of Kenya and the Court. The Kenyan government has not complied with the outstanding cooperation request made on 8 April 2014. This circumstance shows the unique nature of the ICC: a Court of last resort on one hand and a catalyst for domestic implementation of International criminal law. If the Kenyan criminal system had been able to prosecute these crimes, then the ICC would not have had jurisdiction over any of its nationals.

Moreover, the ICC’s insistence that Kenyatta attend the status conference, as Meyer claims, is not an action of a “colonial star chamber, with the judges less concerned about administering justice than affirming the court’s own standing in the face of eroding support”. Instead, it is a clear example of the impartiality of the law, establishing that no one is above the law and enforcing the right of victims to justice.

Paraphrasing Meyer, “the World needs an international criminal court”, the ICC is it.


Written for AMICC by Miriam Morfino on 10/07/2014        

  

Monday, October 06, 2014

Minister of Justice of Senegal, Sidiki Kaba, Endorsed for the Position of President of the Assembly of State Parties

The Assembly of State Parties is the management oversight and legislative body of the ICC. It is made up of representatives of State Parties to the Rome Statute, and each State Party is represented by one representative in the ASP, who may be accompanied by a delegation. The Assembly meets in full session once a year alternately in New York or The Hague. During these meetings the ASP is responsible for, among other things, electing the President, judges and prosecutors, deciding the Court’s budget, and providing management oversight to the different organs of the Court. The ASP has a Bureau which consists of a President, two Vice Presidents and 18 members elected by the Assembly for a three year term.

Sidiki Kaba, Minister of Justice of Senegal, has recently been endorsed by the Assembly of State Parties Bureau as the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of State Parties (ASP) President for 2014-2017. It is especially significant that the African regional group, taking its turn to nominate a president, chose him by consensus among three candidates. He will take over from the outgoing Ambassador Tiina Intelmann of Estonia, who was elected by the State Parties of the Rome Statute in December 2011 as the fourth President of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute.

Mr. Kaba has a great deal of experience and qualifications that make him a suitable candidate for the position. He was appointed Minister of Justice of Senegal in 2013. He is a lawyer who has dedicated great majority of his career to issues of humans rights, particularly in freedom of press, women’s rights and political rights. He participated in the 1998 negotiations of the Rome Statute and thereafter implemented numerous campaigns to promote ratification of the Statute by Senegal and many other African countries. Senegal ratified the Rome Statute on February 2, 1999, becoming the first State Party.

Among other honors, the Minister has been granted the titles of Chevalier of the National Order of the Lion of Senegal (2001), Officer of the Legion of Honor of France (2002), and Chevalier of the National Order of Mali (2011). He holds degree in Law, Philosophy, French language and a Masters in Business Law.

In a statement at the meeting with the Bureau of the Assembly on September 30, 2014, Minister Kaba presented his vision for his presidency, and expressed the gratitude he feels regarding his endorsement. During this statement, he outlined four major goals that he intends to tackle during his tenure: The relationship between Africa and the ICC; cooperation between the ICC and the State Parties; complementarity; and the universality of the Rome Statute.

Mr. Kaba is ambitious for the Court and determined to effectively fight against impunity for serious crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. In his closing statement, Mr. Kaba asserts that he believes that “if peace is to take root in the hearts and souls, justice can largely contribute through its work of prevention, deterrence, punishment, repair, restoration of the dignity of the victim, releasing, if any, people from collective guilt. Be assured that I am ready and willing to face, with you, this legitimate struggle for rights and justice,” (Statement of Minister Kaba at the meeting with the Bureau of the Assembly, 30 September 2014)


 Written by Jessica Levy



Tuesday, September 30, 2014

American public opinion’s awareness and support for the ICC: a comparison between the Chicago Council and the online IPSOS surveys



The issue

This paper aims to assess the current trend in American public opinion’s support and acceptance of the ICC by comparing the results of the most recent opinion polls concerning the ICC in 2010 and 2012. The surveys considered have two different sponsors which have used different methods in conducting them.
This comparison of the two approaches is intended to check if the separate methods applied have resulted in different or similar results and to determine the significance of the differences. The sources analyzed are the Chicago Council Survey and the IPSOS Public Affairs. The latter is a social research and corporate reputation specialists group which is helping the American Bar Association-ICC project to determine and analyze US public opinion about the Court.
 
The Chicago Council survey and its findings

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has conducted different surveys on this topic respectively in 2008, 2010 and 2012 whose results show a significant, although modest increase in the number of American people interested in and sensitive to the involvement of the US in the Court’s work and to potential ratification of the Court’s Rome Statute.

From 68% of Americans willing to ratify the Rome Statute in 2008 [1], in 2010 the percentage reached 70% of those who not only would ratify the Statute [2] but also would support any attempt to strengthen the ICC as international institution[3]. The last survey conducted by the same organization in September 2012 did not show any difference from the previous figure, confirming the 70% of Americans are in favor of the Court.(p.44)


Methodology and criteria applied by Chicago Council

The Council’s method in its biennial surveys on American attitudes towards US foreign policy is based on a direct questionnaire involving a representative national sample of adults, including an additional sample of Hispanic respondents. The margin of sampling error for the full sample varies and fluctuates and so does the amount of time needed to complete it.
In 2008 the Council asked the respondents if the US should participate in international treaties such as the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. The result was that 68% of Americans were in favor.
In 2010, The Council limited its survey about the ICC to two questions:
1. Should the US participate in the Rome Statute?
2.   Do you think that international institutions, such as the International Criminal Court, should be strengthened or not?
As above mentioned, the percentage increased to 70%. In the 2012 survey, the Council repeated the question regarding the participation of the US in the ICC’s treaty and the 70% figure did not change.  

In its polling data research, the Council usually assigns the task of conducting the survey to polling and research firms in the United States. For instance, in the 2012 report, the GfK Custom Research, a market research firm based in California, fielded the survey to a total of 3,135 respondents. Of these there were 2,747 for the general population sample and 388 for the eighteen to twenty-nine-year-old additional sample. Those completing the survey were 1,984: 1,790 general population, 194 eighteen to twenty-nine-year-old additional sample. This yielded a completion rate of 63 percent: 65% general population, 50% eighteen to twenty-nine-year-old additional sample. The survey had a total sample size of 1,877 American adults. Of the total 1,984 completed cases, 107 (88 general population, 19 eighteen to twenty-nine-year-old in a special sample) were excluded based on four predetermined criteria. The survey was fielded using a randomly selected sample of GfK’s large-scale, nationwide research group called KnowledgePanel®.

Unlike groups whose members decide voluntarily to participate in a survey, in standard polls like the one by the Chicago survey, individuals can become members of the group to be interviewed only after being randomly selected, no one can just volunteer to be a member. This selection method provides results which more near represent the US population with a consistently higher degree of accuracy than results obtainable from volunteer opt-in groups.
In the Chicago Council  poll, the group of people interviewed was recruited using random digit dialing (RDD) telephone sampling and also address-based sampling (ABS) for households without landline telephone numbers.
Individual residing at randomly residing addresses were invited to join the panel through mailings and for non responders a telephone call in English and in Spanish was made when a telephone number could be matched to the sample address.
RDD provides some probability of selection for every U.S. household with a telephone.
Household members who were randomly selected could indicate their willingness to join the panel by returning a complete acceptance form in a postage-paid envelope or calling a toll-free hotline or visiting a dedicated recruitment website.  
Households that agree to participate in the panel are provided with free Web access and an Internet appliance (if necessary), which uses a telephone line to connect to the Internet and uses the television as a monitor. Thus, the sample is not limited to those in the population who already have Internet access.

The distribution of the sample closely tracked the distribution of United States Census reports for the U.S. population eighteen years of age or older on age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc. To reduce the effects of any non response and non coverage bias in panel estimates, a post statistical adjustment of the sample weights is applied so that sample weights sum up to the population sizes within each group.
This is possible by using demographic distributions from the most recent data from the Current Population Survey (CPS).
The post stratification variables include age, race, gender, Hispanic ethnicity, and education.
The completion rate for respondents is 65% with some variation depending on survey length, topic, and other fielding characteristics. In contrast, online groups of volunteer respondents typically achieve a survey completion rate in the 2% to 16% rate.[4]

The IPSOS Public Affairs opinion polls about the ICC
Ipsos is a global independent market research company specialized in six areas including international justice and global affairs. This specialization is also one of the reasons why the American Bar Association chose IPSOS to conduct surveys related to its ICC project. The ABA-ICC project was established to raise awareness in the US about the work of the ICC to prosecute those responsible for the most heinous crimes.

Ipsos methodology

The Ipsos survey used an online voluntary questionnaire. Its results were weighted to balance demographics and ensure that the sample's composition reflected that of the U.S. adult population according to Census data and to provide results approximating the population from which the volunteer respondents came. To reduce the effects of any non-response and non-coverage bias in panel estimates, a post statistical adjustment of the weights was applied so that they sum up to the population sizes within each group. Statistical margins of error are not applicable to online polls because they are based on samples drawn from opt-in online panels, not on random samples that mirror the population within a statistical probability ratio. In addition to that, the self-selection of respondents is likely to attract more people opposed to the Court than the traditional random selection does.

Ipsos findings

In February 2014, IPSOS Public Affairs conducted an online survey interviewing a national sample of 1,005 adults and asking a more detailed series of questions regarding specific aspects of the ICC than the Chicago Global Council survey. However, Ipsos filtered out some data so as to include just those respondents reporting that they know ‘A great deal’, ‘A fair amount’, or ‘ A little bit’ about the ICC at question 1 cutting out those who say they know ‘Nothing at all’. This reduced the filtered base size to 379 adults called audience “aware of ICC “. The filtering was based on a question that asked the respondents how much they knew about the Court and provided four possible answers. The result was that only 4% of the sample panel knew “a great deal” in contrast with the 60% of it who knew nothing at all. 8% of it knew “a fair amount” and 28% a” little bit”.

Question 2 gave five statements panelists could agree with or not.
1. The US is currently a member of the ICC,
2.  It is important for the United States to participate in international organizations that support human       rights and that hold individuals accountable for mass atrocities
3. Joining international organizations concerned with human rights and holding individuals accountable for mass atrocities is a risk to the United States because it could hurt our autonomy.
4. We should dedicate US resources (financial military, intelligence etc) to international organizations that support human rights and hold individuals accountable for mass atrocities.
5. It is not in our best interest to dedicate US resources (financial military, intelligence etc) to international organizations that support human rights and hold individuals accountable for mass atrocities.
The results were that 68% of respondents did not know if the US is currently a member of the ICC, 8% of them knew that it is not a member and 28% thought that it is a member.
By contrast, in the group of people aware of the ICC, the majority thought that the US is a member, (52%), a minority knew that it is not (6%) and the rest did not know the answer.
Answers to the other statements regarding the participation of the US in human rights organizations corroborate the favorable trend expressed by other public opinion polls with 60% of Americans without knowledge of the ICC, who would like the US to participate and join human rights organizations, and with 71% of those aware of the ICC who share the same opinion.
Furthermore, turning to a statement about possible risks in American participation in the ICC, question 3, only 24% of the unaware audience agreed with this statement, whereas 39% did not know and 37% disagreed with it. The situation changed in the audience aware of the ICC, where the majority disagreed with the statement (44%) and 39% agreed with it.

In the following series of questions, interviewers inserted in the survey a more detailed paragraph with information about the ICC and its goals and the American opinion about a future American involvement in it. This information identified issues in the current debate over ICC such as sovereignty issues and politically motivated prosecution of American soldiers at the ICC. Results show that the majority of Americans unaware of the ICC, when informed about the debate, did not know if the US should become a member of the ICC (42%), 34% thought that it should and 24% thought that it should not join the Court.
On the contrary, among those aware of the ICC, the majority agreed with an American membership in the Court, 25% disagreed and 23% did not know if the US should or should not join the Court.

Moreover, when people were asked about the different degrees of American participation in the ICC’s work, they were provided with different alternatives.
The first was the possibility to give moderate resources to support ICC’s actions without formally joining the Court. About this option, 44% of all respondents agreed and 19% disagreed, while 37% did not know.
Among the aware group, 57% agreed, 22% did not agree and 21% did not know.
The second option concerned the sovereignty issue. A majority of respondents did not know if joining the Court would compromise American sovereignty (43%), 31% thought it would not and the rest of Americans (26%) agreed that US participation in the ICC would affect American sovereignty. Instead, among those previously aware of the ICC, 40% disagreed with the statement, 36% agreed and 34% did not know if American sovereignty would be compromised.

The third option asked about a stronger involvement of the US governmental resources to support ICC actions without joining the Court.
Results are similar to the ones of the previous question: the majority of all respondents did not know if this could be a viable choice (43%); 28% thought that the US should become more involved without joining the Court and 29% disagreed with this option. Among those aware of the ICC, 44% agreed with the statement, 30% disagreed and 26% did not know.
The last option asked if the Court should become a full member of the ICC.
Similarly to the other options, the majority of respondents did not know what to answer (47%), 22% agreed with a full membership option and 31% disagreed. Consistent with the previous results, among those aware of the ICC, there is an almost equal distribution of the answers as 36% agreed with a full membership 34% disagreed and 30% did not know if the US should become a full member of the ICC.

The last set of questions involved the situation in Kenya and the charges against its President Kenyatta and the Deputy President Ruto. In particular, people were asked if sitting heads of states should have immunity from the ICC for mass atrocities charges, and whether President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto should participate in person in the trial, or through video or defense lawyers.To the first question, the vast majority of Americans (60%) replied that they would deny immunity to sitting heads of States, whereas only 9% would grant it during their time in office,
Among the aware of the ICC audience, a similar pattern can be identified with 66% of Americans against the immunity for sitting heads of States and just 18% in favor of that. Similarly, regarding President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto, 51% of all Americans thought that they should stand trial in person, 18% thought that they could participate via video conference, 9% thought that they could just send their lawyers to the Hague and 28% did not know the answer. Among the restricted sample of those aware of the ICC, for 58% of Americans they should stand trial in person, for 24% they could do the same through a video conference, for 15% their lawyers could participate on their behalf.

From this short summary of the IPSOS survey conducted in 2014, it can certainly be argued that although a majority of Americans will be willing to support the ICC without a direct membership, a wide proportion of them is still unsure and uncertain of what could be the best option for the country, and a considerable proportion of people disagree with the US involvement in the ICC’s actions.
Furthermore, turning to those who know the Court, the difference between the supporters and detractors of the ICC is not very remarkable, whereas a good percentage of people could not make a choice.        
  

Ipsos vs Chicago Council.
Similarities and differences in the opinion poll results and methodology

Comparing the results of the two opinion poll data survey, it is easy to identify three main differences in method and consequently in results.
In the Ipsos report, only 22% of all respondents answered in a positive way, while 31% were against and a majority of people could not make a choice. In the Chicago Council report instead, 70% of rspondents would welcome a ratification of the Rome Statute

The Chicago Council method, moreover, is based on randomly sample of selected people (knowledge panel). They are chosen among the American population and they are selected using a variety of criteria: such as age, race origin, income. (first difference)
The panel is then composed by respondents who accepted to be interviewed online and were given access to the Internet in case they do not have it.
The accuracy thus is very high as well as the quality of the survey as every sample unit has a known probability, and therefore it is clear of the errors coming from voluntary opt-in groups.
 The Ipsos survey was based on online volunteer panelists who decide to take the survey without being chosen before and as a result there is not a statistical probability ratio that can mirror the American population.

The second difference is the presence of verification key checks that control the way respondents take the survey. In the Chicago Council report, for instance, people who spend less than ten minutes to finish the survey were excluded. The Ipsos survey did not use any control indicator and the sample considered is significantly small as people who take the survey may decide to opt out during the survey.
The third difference is the completion rate or response rate. The completion rate is the number of people who answered the survey divided by the number of people in the sample. It is usually expressed in the form of a percentage. For the Chicago Council survey it is 65%, for Ipsos online polls is only 15%.

In results, what stands out most from this comparison is the deep gap between the Chicago Council’s and Ipsos’s findings regarding the question of the full participation of the US in the Court.
In the Ipsos survey the question most comparable to the Chicago Council’s report is whether the US should become a full member of the International Criminal Court.
Only 22% of all respondents answered in a positive way, as compared to 31% against and a majority of people who could not make a choice. In the Chicago Council report instead, 70% of respondents would welcome a ratification of the Rome Statute.

Assessing the trend
In conclusion, the Chicago Council report based on the randomly selected group may be more reliable and accurate than the Ipsos one because of the latter’s opt in method and therefore, the 70% of Americans who would be willing to ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC could be a more accurate assessment.
However, the more recent Ipsos survey may be showing a real change over time in US attitude toward the ICC. Also, the questions addressed by this last report were more specific and detailed than the Chicago poll, and therefore more likely to provide some insight into public knowledge about it.



Written for AMICC  by Miriam Morfino on 09/19/2014

   


[1] Cfr., Chicago Council Survey (2008), Anxious Americans seek a new direction in United States Foreign Policy, p.13 fig.4.
[2] Cfr., Chicago Council Survey (2010), Constrained Internationalism: Adapting to New realities, p. 16 fig. 9.
[3] Cfr., Ibidem p. 22 fig. 15.
[4] Cfr., GFK 2013, Knowledge Panel® Design Summary  (p.1-5).