Sahel states withdraw from international criminal court: consequences for victims

The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI)—a coalition including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CCPI), Redress, Trial International, and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ)—strongly condemns the decision by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move represents a significant setback, undermining decades of African leadership in the global fight against impunity and weakening both the ICC and the broader international justice system at a time when unity is critical.

withdrawal process: immediate claims meet legal delays

On September 22, the three Sahelian states—members of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES)—announced their withdrawal from the ICC “with immediate effect.” However, under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a state must submit a written notification to the UN Secretary-General, and withdrawal only takes effect one year after this submission. Until then, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger remain fully bound by the Statute’s obligations, including cooperation with the Court. Withdrawal does not affect ongoing proceedings for crimes committed before its effective date.

Currently, the ICC is handling cases related to Mali, including the Al Mahdi case, where the defendant was sentenced in 2016 for intentionally attacking religious and historical sites in Timbuktu. Reparations in this case are in their final stages. Additionally, the Court is expected to rule soon on reparations in the Al Hassan case, following his 2024 conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Timbuktu. An arrest warrant also remains active against Iyad Ag Ghaly, the alleged leader of the jihadist group Ansar Dine.

abandoning victims: a reversal of progress

African states played a pivotal role in creating the ICC in 1998, ratifying the Rome Statute in large numbers and even referring domestic situations to the Court. This commitment provided victims of grave crimes with a vital international ally when justice was unattainable at the national level. The announced withdrawal contradicts this legacy, leaving victims with diminished avenues for justice.

This decision follows the states’ withdrawal from ECOWAS in January 2025, another institution they helped shape with a strong human rights record through its Court of Justice. These withdrawals signal a regression in the fight against impunity, leaving victims without recourse, weakening human rights protections, and increasing isolation at a time when regional and international cooperation are essential—particularly in countries grappling with terrorism-related atrocities.

Drissa Traoré, Secretary-General of FIDH, stated: “The decision to withdraw from the ICC jeopardizes the situation of victims, for whom the Court often represents their last hope for justice. After leaving ECOWAS, the loss of ICC protection leaves victims in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger without recourse for the most serious human rights violations they continue to endure. In these countries facing multidimensional crises, national jurisdictions remain unable to deliver justice and reparations due to a lack of political will and an inability to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

a blow to vulnerable international justice

The announcement comes as international justice faces mounting pressure. Earlier this year, Hungary also declared its intention to leave the Rome Statute—a move widely criticized for undermining global anti-impunity efforts.

While the ICC has faced criticism for perceived selectivity and overemphasis on Africa in the past, it has progressively expanded its mandate beyond the continent, with ongoing investigations and cases in Afghanistan, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya, and the Philippines. Recent arrests, such as those of Libyan suspects and former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, demonstrate that no region or high-ranking official is beyond accountability. This universality strengthens the Court’s legitimacy but also makes it more vulnerable to political attacks.

Alix Vuillemin, Executive Director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), emphasized: “State parties must show resilience and reaffirm their commitment to the Court, the fight against impunity, and the rights of victims worldwide. Now is not the time for retreat; it’s time to advance toward universality. Turning away now only reinforces impunity.”

the role of states in preserving international norms

The ICC’s role in international justice is substantial. It complements existing mechanisms like truth-seeking processes and transitional justice initiatives, which are vital for sustainable peace. The Rome Statute enshrines key principles: no immunity for heads of state, complementarity with national jurisdictions, and victim participation and reparations. Withdrawal from the Statute risks weakening these protections nationally and compromising decades of progress in establishing global anti-impunity norms.

The GIAI urges all ICC state parties to reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute. As violence escalates against victims in Africa and worldwide, preserving the ICC as a court of last resort is essential.

co-signatories

• Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI)
• International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
• Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CCPI)
• Redress
• Trial International
• Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ)