UpRights’ senior legal advisor David Kinnecome co-authored with James Patrick Sexton, junior researcher at T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an analysis for the blog of the European Journal of International Law “Enforcing Sanctions Violations to Fund the Reconstruction of Ukraine”.

The article analyses the recent efforts by the European Union and the United States to pursue the enforcement of sanctions, notably concerning the violations committed in the context of the RussiaUkraineWar.

In particular, the article contends that the enforcement of sanctions violations could gather the necessary funds to pursue both compensation for victims of the conflict and the implementation of reconstructive efforts, concluding that although these approaches may not fully cover the financial needs of compensation and reconstruction, they would still offer additional legitimate sources of funding.

Read the post here

UpRights Co-Founder Alessandro Pizzuti has co-authored with Assistant Professor Giulia Pinzauti, UpRights Advisory Board Member, an article in the Journal of International Criminal Justice titled “Prosecuting Aggression against Ukraine as an ‘Other Inhumane Act’ before the ICC”.

The article, building on a past blogpost in OpinioJuris, revisits the possibility of prosecuting the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court, with specific reference to the February 2022 unlawful use of force against Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

In particular, the article contends that Russia’s unlawful use of force in breach of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people, which caused them great suffering or serious injury to mental/physical health, can be qualified as other inhumane acts under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. While this approach has its challenges, it would allow the Court to prosecute the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity avoiding the jurisdictional limitations that apply to the crime of aggression.

In a two-part blogpost (part 1 and part 2) published on OpinioJuris, UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti and Assistant Professor Giulia Pinzauti discuss the prospect of prosecuting aggression against Ukraine as the crime against humanity of “other Inhumane act” before the International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression committed by the leadership of the Russian Federation and Belarus against Ukraine has prompted several voices to advocate alternative avenues to address a potential impunity gap, including the creation of a new international tribunal. The blogpost explores whether the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over the acts underlying Article 8bis of the Statute (crime of aggression) by subsuming the relevant conduct under the framework of crimes against humanity.

The Blogpost argues that while not without challenges, the intentional and severe violation of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people caused by Russia’s unlawful use of force caused the people of Ukraine great suffering or serious injury to mental or physical health that can be qualified as an other inhumane act under Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute.

On 28 April 2022, during a regular briefing to the United Nations Security Council on the situation in Libya, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reported that crimes committed against migrants in Libya may amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes and fall within the ICC jurisdiction. Never before had the Prosecutor been so clear on the nature of these crimes or his Office’s intention to pursue such a line of investigation.

These conclusions are fully consistent with the Article 15 Communication on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed Against Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Libya filed on 17 January 2022 by UpRights, Adala for All, and StraLi. In his report the Prosecutor confirmed that the communication assisted his work and inquiry concerning relevant crimes committed against migrants in Libya.

The Article 15 Communication filed on 17 January 2022 – and now publicly available – concerns war crimes committed in Libya between 2017 and 2021 against migrants and asylum seekers. The Communication requests the ICC to investigate international crimes committed by Libyan armed groups against thousands of migrants, including women and children, trapped in detention centres in Libya following their interception at sea. Once returned to Libya, the victims were routinely and systematically subjected to various forms of mistreatments and abuse including murder, torture, rape, forced labour and forced conscription. The Communication underlines that the ICC Prosecutor must investigate war crimes against migrants and asylum seekers detained in Libya committed by Libyan armed groups and officials with the support of Italian and Maltese Authorities.

In a blog post published today on Justice in Conflict, UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti and Alice Giannini from StraLi discuss the ICC Prosecutor’s report to the United Nations Security Council and the content of the Article 15 Communication filed on 17 January 2022. The post reconstructs some of the challenges, in terms of qualification and jurisdiction, which are behind the ICC Prosecution’s conclusion that the abuses against migrants in Libya may qualify as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In a Blogpost published on Opinio Juris as part of a symposium on the current crisis in Myanmar, UpRights co-founder Valérie Gabard and Kingsley Abbott, the Director of Global Accountability & International Justice at the International Commission of Jurists. argue that post-coup violations should be investigated as crimes against humanity under article 7 of the International Criminal Court Statute.

The post argues that considering this conclusion, it is critical that: States support the mandate of the Independent investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), which has announced that crimes against humanity have “likely been committed” since the coup; possible for a for legal proceedings are actively identified, where evidence collected by the IIMM could help facilitate justice for the people of Myanmar; and the UN Security Council refer Myanmar to the ICC.

To read the full blog post follow the link

In a blogpost published on OpinioJuris, UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti and Dr. Clare Frances Moran from Edinburgh Napier University discuss the human rights implications of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Italy and Libya in 2017.

The support provided by Italy pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding has enhanced the capacity of the Libyan Coast Guard to intercept migrants at sea and return them to Libya where they are subjected to systematic abuses including torture, sexual violence, and murder. These forms of abuses may amount to violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Convention against Torture (CAT). To the extent that Italy’s support to the Libyan authorities is instrumental to such violations, these instruments may apply extraterritorially, attracting Italy’s responsibility for such acts.

Read the full blogpost on OpinioJuris!

In July, Uprights released a concluding that Italy’s cooperation with Libyan authorities under the MoU is in violation of its human rights obligations and that the agreement needs to be reframed consistently in accordance with international law standards.

The blogpost published on OpinioJuris, by UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti and entitled ICC Situation on Libya: The ICC Prosecutor Should Look into Libyan Criminal Proceedings Concerning Crimes Committed Against Migrants is now available in Arabic.

The article discusses the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) investigation in Libya and explains why the ICC Prosecutor should look into Libyan criminal proceedings concerning crimes committed against migrants.

In a blogpost published on OpinioJuris, UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti discusses the Prosecutor’s recent separate determinations concerning the proprio motu preliminary examinations of Ukraine and Nigeria.

In both situations, the Prosecutor concluded that the criteria for opening an investigation under Article 53 of the ICC Statute were met. However, the Prosecutor stated that she will not immediately proceed with a request to initiate investigations in the respective situations due to budgetary constraints and considerations related to prioritisation of the OTP’s workload.

While no doubt grounded on legitimate practical concerns, such considerations do not seem to form part of the Prosecution’s discretion on whether and when to file a request to open an investigation pursuant to Articles 15 and 53 of the ICC Statute. This post contends that instead the proper stage to make an assessment concerning the prioritisation of the OTP workload is during the investigation phase rather than during the preliminary examination.

Without any clear, set parameters, decisions prioritising between different potential investigations to be initiated following the preliminary examination phase can lead to a precarious path whereby situations ready for investigation are put indefinitely on hold (essentially left in limbo) without the possibility for such a course of action to be challenged or otherwise subject to external oversight. This seems to be inconsistent with the overall structure of the Statute and in particular of Articles 15 and 53 of the ICC Statute. If necessary, such selection (with clear and transparent prioritisation criteria) should instead be conducted at the investigation phase where the Prosecutor is in a better position to secure evidence for trial as well as reach a more informed determination regarding which situations (or cases) warrant prioritising over others.

At the same time, States Parties have a specific duty to match the budget requests (and needs) of the Prosecutor in light of the current and expanding workload, as in any domestic judicial system. The operational hurdles faced by the Prosecutor due to her office’s capacity are concrete and undeniable. To manage the challenges faced, the Prosecutor requires the support of States and other relevant actors. The ICC Chambers have frequently cited or referred to the decisions from human rights treaty bodies to emphasise the Prosecutor’s obligation to carry out an effective investigation. We should not forget that such decisions were directed at the States as a whole and not only the relevant Prosecutor that conducted the investigations.