{"id":253008,"date":"2016-04-01T10:25:49","date_gmt":"2016-04-01T08:25:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.npwj.org\/?p=253008"},"modified":"2024-01-02T10:30:54","modified_gmt":"2024-01-02T09:30:54","slug":"npwj-submission-on-the-icc-office-of-the-prosecutor-draft-policy-on-case-selection-and-prioritisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.npwj.org\/it\/press-release\/npwj-submission-on-the-icc-office-of-the-prosecutor-draft-policy-on-case-selection-and-prioritisation\/","title":{"rendered":"NPWJ submission on the ICC Office of the Prosecutor draft Policy on Case Selection and Prioritisation"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Hague, 1 April 2016<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n

No Peace Without Justice (NPWJ) welcomes the consultations undertaken by the\u00a0Office of the Prosecutor (OTP)<\/strong>\u00a0of the\u00a0International Crimimal Court<\/strong> (ICC) on the\u00a0draft Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation<\/a>\u00a0and the opportunity to provide written comments. We have participated in consultations on other draft OTP policies and continue to believe such consultations are important not just in terms of the content of submissions the OTP may receive, but also in terms of a concrete expression of the OTP\u2019s commitment to transparency and cooperation, including with civil society.<\/p>\n

NPWJ Submission\u00a0on the Draft OTP Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation is divided into three parts. The\u00a0first par<\/strong>t concerns elements of the draft that NPWJ particularly welcomes and supports (\u201cPositive elements<\/strong>\u201d). This part highlights those elements and concepts that NPWJ believes should be retained and for which reasons. The\u00a0second part<\/strong>\u00a0concerns elements of the draft that NPWJ believes could usefully be clarified, amended or expanded (\u201cSuggestions on specific elements<\/strong>\u201d). This part focuses both on language and concepts, including some aspects that may seem less significant, but which could cause confusion. The\u00a0third part<\/strong>\u00a0concerns elements that NPWJ believes should be included in the draft policy that are currently absent (\u201cSuggestions for additions<\/strong>\u201d). This part contains specific recommendations and the reasoning behind the suggestions.<\/p>\n

The submission covers the following\u00a0main areas<\/strong>:
\n– the Policy’s statement on prosecution policies – namely that the Office will focus on those who bear the greatest responsibility and in so doing it will not consider the group to which defendants belong, since impartiality does not mean equidistance – are welcomed and should be retained
\n– the Policy needs to be clear on accountability for implementation of the Policy, particularly when elements are considered confidential (such as the case selection plan)
\n– the prioritisation of cases needs to consider policy elements like deterrence and the impact on a country’s political and social life, not just operational or resource issues. All else being equal, policy considerations should be given higher weight in determining which cases to prioritise.
\n– there needs to be a clear communications strategy concerning both the policy and its implementation
\n– charges should be representative of the experience of victims and affected communities<\/p>\n

These points reflect\u00a0NPWJ’s policies on these issues<\/strong>, including our\u00a0policy paper on prosecutorial policy<\/a>\u00a0and on\u00a0outreach<\/a>\u00a0as well as the\u00a0intervention<\/a>\u00a0made during the First Public Hearing of the OTP in 2003.<\/p>\n