1. 1
Preliminary Examinations at the International Criminal Court: A Purpose-Oriented Analysis
(Working title)
by Ana Cristina Rodríguez Pineda
1. General Problems
The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has received over 10,000
communications pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute and out of those thousands of
communications has to date opened investigations into nine situations. What are the factors that have
guided the Prosecutor's use of discretion, are there limits to the use of that discretion, what limits should
there be.
Preliminary examinations afford opportunities for the OTP to deter ongoing or future crimes and
encourage national authorities to conduct their own investigations. 1
This however, may lead the OTP to
sideline from its main task: to determine whether or not to open an investigation. A careful balancing,
therefore, of different statutory goals is required.
Preliminary examinations are not criminal investigations rather, they establish whether there is a
reasonable basis2
to conduct a full criminal investigation and whether the Court has jurisdiction. Still,
they rely on cooperation, collect evidence and set in motion complementarity aspects while requiring no
judicial involvement throughout their duration. At least until the decision is taken to proceed with an
“investigation”.
As we have seen preliminary examinations are initiated and can go on for years, some date back to 2006.
Currently there are nine underway that have neither been closed nor advanced to the criminal
investigation stage. There are no timelines provided in the Rome Statute for a decision on a preliminary
examination. Having too many preliminary investigations ongoing for too long can result in diluting their
potential deterrent and preventive effects.
A factor to keep in mind is the limited capacity of the ICC. Since it can only take a limited number of
cases, does the preliminary examination work effectively to weed out unmeritorious cases or does it allow
the Prosecutor to pick and choose based on political factors. It is fair to wonder what purpose preliminary
examinations serve for the OTP’s prosecutorial strategy.
2. Analysis of Preliminary Examinations by the OTP
The OTP has developed a policy paper which describes the relevant Rome Statute principles, factors and
procedures applied by the Office in the conduct of its preliminary examination activities. Nevertheless the
application of the criteria listed in the policy paper remains vague. Until now, the OTP has made public
its preliminary examination of 21 situations. In three situations, the decision was made not to proceed to
investigation. Nine preliminary examinations have proceeded to investigation.
1
In 2011 the OTP’s report on Preliminary Examinations stated the “Office will also consider, as a matter of policy, the extent to which its PE activities can serve to
stimulate genuine national proceedings against those who appear to bear the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes. In accordance with its positive
approach to complementarity, based on the goals of the preamble and article 93(10) of the Statute, the Office will seek to encourage and cooperate with efforts to
conduct genuine national proceedings.” See para 15 ICC-OTP Report on Preliminary Examinations (December 13, 2011). In addition, its draft policy paper on
PE of 2010 asserted the “Office may decide to make public its activities in relation to the preliminary examination activities in order to contribute to the prevention of
future crimes and encourage genuine national proceedings.” See para 89 ICC-OTP, Draft Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations (October 4, 2010).
2
See articles 15 (3), (4), (6) and 53 (1) of the Rome Statute

2. 2
According to the policy paper, once a situation is identified, article 53(1) (a)‐(c) of the Rome Statute sets
out the legal framework for a preliminary examination. It provides that, in order to determine whether
there is a “reasonable basis” to proceed with an investigation into the situation the Prosecutor shall
consider: jurisdiction (temporal, material and either territorial or personal jurisdiction); admissibility
(complementarity and gravity); and the interests of justice. In addition it states that the standard of
evidence for proceeding with an investigation into a situation under the Statute is “reasonable basis”.3
A preliminary examination of a situation by the OTP may be initiated on the basis of: a) information sent
by individuals or groups, States, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations; b) a referral from
a State Party or the Security Council; or c) a declaration accepting the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Court pursuant to article 12 (3) lodged by a State which is not a Party to the Statute. Interestingly
preliminary examination activities are conducted in the same manner irrespective of whether the Office
received a referral or acts on the basis of information of crimes obtained pursuant to article 15.
Serving as a filtering process the OTP applies four successive assessment phases to distinguish which
cases warrant investigations from those that don’t:
 Phase 1: Initial assessment
 Phase 2: Subject matter assessment
 Phase 3: Admissibility assessment
 Phase 4: Interests of justice assessment
Depending on the facts and circumstances of each situation, the Office may either decide (i) to decline to
initiate an investigation where the information manifestly fails to satisfy the factors set out in article 53(1)
(a)-(c);4
(ii) to continue to asses relevant national proceedings; (iii) to continue to collect information in
order to establish sufficient factual and legal basis to render a determination; or (iv) to initiate the
investigation, subject to judicial review as appropriate. Can these decisions be considered legal, policy or
part of a public relations exercise? What if any is their subsequent status?
3. Methodology
This is a project for a PhD dissertation aimed at addressing the nature, scope and purpose of ICC
Preliminary Examinations in light of the fundamental goals of international criminal law and the
international criminal justice system (i.e. the ICC, its Statute and the role of domestic courts).
The research to be undertaken intends to focus on the study and analysis of “preliminary examinations”,
to assess their usefulness, their function in the ICC system, their potential deterrent effect and their impact
on the fulfillment of the mission of the Court to contribute to ending impunity and preventing atrocities.
While certain aspects of this topic have been the object of publications and studies, it has not yet been
comprehensively examined in the purpose-oriented manner proposed herein.
Naturally, the role and the powers of the ICC Prosecutor will be at the core of the analysis and more
specifically scrutiny of all the legal policy documents pertaining to preliminary examinations will be
carried out, setting out in detail their function, usefulness and limits. In so doing, the research activity will
also aim at determining whether or not the Court should play a role during preliminary examinations and
3
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 of the OTP policy paper on preliminary examinations See at: http://www.icc-
cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Documents/OTP%20Preliminary%20Examinations/OTP%20-
%20Policy%20Paper%20Preliminary%20Examinations%20%202013.pdf
4
The Pre-Trial Chamber may, on its own initiative, review a decision of the Prosecutor not to proceed if it is based solely on article 53 paragraph 1 (c) or 2 (c). In such
a case, the decision of the Prosecutor shall be effective only if confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

3. 3
to what extent. Finally, the broader question of the relationship with other actors, including States and the
Security Council will also be tackled.
This is initially a three-year project. In the first phase, the institutional profile of “preliminary
examinations” will be outlined against the background of the role and function of the ICC Prosecutor. On
the basis of research focusing on the Statute of the ICC and its provisions, travaux preparatoires,
commentaries, books and articles, as well as the policy documents issued by the Court and the statements
by the OTP and any relevant decisions by ICC Chambers. This will also allow taking stock on the way in
which this procedural mechanism has developed. Qualitative research will be complemented by in-depth
interviews. In the second phase, the results of the first will be measured against the overall objectives and
goals of the ICC system, including deterrence, and issues pertaining to the selection of cases at the ICC,
as well as prosecutorial discretion and judicial oversight. In the last and third phase the two aspects will
be brought together to outline a general theory of “preliminary examinations” and assess whether the ICC
Prosecutor has utilized the tool in a satisfactory manner, taking into account the broader framework of
international criminal justice institutions and mechanisms. Case-studies will be integrated in the context
of particular substantive arguments throughout the chapters and a comparative assessment will be carried
out to analyze the current practice of the OTP. This work is intended to have practical and applied effects
such as influencing policy. Therefore recommendations concerning the enhancement, improvement and if
necessary reform of preliminary examinations will be formulated.
4. Provisional Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter I. Context, nature and functions of Preliminary Examinations
1.1.Nature, role and function of PE
1.2.Relationship to the goals of the ICC
1.2.1. Ending impunity
1.2.2. Deterrence and Prevention
1.2.3. Advancing the interests of justice
1.2.4. Complementarity
1.2.5. Cooperation
1.3.Role of the Office of The Prosecutor (Prosecutorial discretion)
1.3.1. Independence, impartiality and objectivity
1.3.2. Confidentiality
1.3.3. Accountability
1.4.Similarities and differences with other national, regional and international systems
1.4.1. PE in domestic systems
1.4.2. PE in international mechanisms, including other international courts and tribunals
1.4.3. PE in regional courts and mechanisms
1.5. Existing impact and policy dilemmas
1.5.1. Maintaining the credibility of ICC action
1.5.2. A preventive or coercion tool
1.5.3. Encouraging genuine national proceedings
1.5.4. Possible imbalance between prosecutorial discretion and judicial review

4. 4
1.5.5. Resource constraints
1.5.6. Political implications and due process concerns
1.5.7. Interaction with human rights treaty bodies and fact-finding missions
Chapter II. Legal Framework of the ICC
2.1.Drafting history
2.2.Triggers
2.2.1. A decision of the Prosecutor
2.2.2. A referral from a State party or the Security Council
2.2.3. A declaration accepting the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court by a State which is not a
party to the Statute
2.3.Phases (Filtering Process)
2.3.1. Initial assessment
2.3.2. Subject matter assessment
2.3.3. Admissibility assessment
2.3.4. Interests of justice assessment
2.4.Evidentiary Standards (Reasonable Basis)
2.4.1. Reasonable Basis findings
2.4.2. Preservation of evidence
2.4.3. Commissions of Inquiry
2.5.Time period for the completion of a PE
2.5.1. Initiation
2.5.2. Suspension
2.5.3. Closure
2.5.4. Inactivity
2.6.Judicial Review
Chapter III. Preliminary Examinations in Operation, including practice
3.1. Practice of the OTP
3.1.1. Policy Paper on PE
3.1.2. Evolution in the OTP’s approach to PE
3.1.3. Lessons learned from practice to date
3.2. Interaction with other actors
3.2.1. Relationship with the Pre-Trial Chamber
3.2.2. Dynamics with States
3.2.3. Interplay with the United Nations Security Council
3.3. Overview of the current status of PE
3.3.1. Strategy and priorities
3.3.2. Analysis of national proceedings
3.3.3. Transparency
3.3.4. Public profile of PE
3.3.5. Timing
3.4. Review of the OTP’s decisions on PE
3.4.1. Comparative assessment of case-studies
Chapter IV. Recommendations for more effective Preliminary Examinations
4.1. Could the existing system be improved? What aspects? How?

5. 5
4.1.1. Review of the existing legal framework
4.1.2. Enhance consistency and effectiveness
4.1.3. Enhance predictability and legality
4.1.4. Implications of publicity of PE
4.1.5. Improve reporting and transparency aspects of PE
4.1.6. General guidance on timelines for PE
4.1.7. Increase the involvement of national and regional mechanisms
4.1.8. Equipping the ICC with the necessary resources
Conclusion
5. Sources-Provisional Bibliography
 Ambos, Kai and Stegmiller, Ignaz, Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal
Court: Is there a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecutorial Strategy?, 58 Crim, L & Social Change
at 4 (2012)
 Bantekas, Ilias, The Need to Amend Article 12 of the ICC Statute: Remedying the Effects of
Multilateral Treaties upon Third Parties; New Criminal Law Review: An International and
Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Fall 2009), pp. 485-497
 Cassese, Antonio, Gaeta, Paola, Jones, J.R.W.D., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court: a commentary; Oxford University Press (2002)
 Cassesse, Antonio, International Criminal Law, Third Edition, Oxford University Press (2013)
 Bassiouni, Cherif, International Criminal Law Vol. I-III, Third Edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
(2008)
 Bassiouni, Cherif, The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court; Ardsley, NY:
Transnational Publishers; ed. (2005)
 Borjas Monroy, Alma C., The Regional Practices before the International Criminal Court: The
Situations in Northern Uganda and Sudan; European Society of International Law (ESIL) Conference
Paper Series No. 9/2012
 Bothe, Michael Complementarity: Ensuring compliance with international law though criminal
prosecutions — whose responsibility?; Die Friedens-Warte, Vol. 83, No. 4, 10 Jahre Rom-Statut —
IStGH (2008), pp. 59-72
 Brubacher, Matthew, Prosecutorial Discretion within the International Criminal Court, 2 J. Int’l
Crim. J. (2004)
 Caban, Pavel, Preliminary Examinations by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International
Criminal; Charles University in Prague - Law Faculty; (November 9, 2011); Czech Yearbook of
Public & Private International Law, Vol. 2
 Çakmak, Cenap, The International Criminal Court in World Politics; International Journal on World
Peace; (Mar 2006), Vol. 23 Issue 1, p3-40. 38p.
 Chernor Jalloh, Charles, Akande, Dapo and du Plessis, Max, Assessing the African Union Concerns
about Article 16 of the Rome State of the International Criminal Court; African Journal of Legal
Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 5-50, (2011), U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-14, Oxford
Legal Studies Research Paper No. 6/2011
 Chikeziri, Sam Igwe, The ICC's favourite customer: Africa and international criminal law; The
Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, Vol. 41, No. 2 (JULY 2008), pp. 294-
323

6. 6
 Cogan, Jacob Katz, The Problem of Obtaining Evidence for International Criminal Courts; Human
Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (May, 2000), pp. 404-427
 Danner, Allison Marston, Navigating Law and Politics: The Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court and the Independent Counsel; Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 5 (May, 2003), pp. 1633-
1665
 Danner, Allison Marston, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion
at the International Criminal Court; The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Jul.,
2003), pp. 510-552
 Delmas-Marty, Mireille, Interactions Between National and International Criminal Law in the
Preliminary Phase of Trial at the ICC; Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 2-
11, (2006)
 de Wet, Erika, The relationship between the International Criminal Court and ad hoc criminal
tribunals: competition or symbiosis?; Die Friedens-Warte, Vol. 83, No. 4, 10 Jahre Rom-Statut —
IStGH (2008), pp. 33-57
 Dondé Matute, Javier, La política criminal de la Fiscalía de la Corte Penal Internacional para el
inicio de investigaciones; Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, vol. XIV (2014)
 Fairlie, Megan A., Establishing Admissibility at the International Criminal Court: Does the Buck
Stop with the Prosecutor, Full Stop?; The International Lawyer, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 2005), pp.
817-842
 Fish, Eric S., Peace Through Complementarity: Solving the Ex Post Problem in International
Criminal Court Prosecutions; The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 119, No. 7 (MAY 2010), pp. 1703-1714
 Fuentes Torrijo, Ximena, El principio de complementariedad en la práctica de la Corte Penal
Internacional / The principle of complementarity in the practice of the Internacional Criminal Court;
Estudios Internacionales, Año 44, No. 169 (MAYO - AGOSTO 2011), pp. 119-140
 Gegout, Catherine, The International Criminal Court: limits, potential and conditions for the
promotion of justice and peace; Third World Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 5 (2013), pp. 800-818
 Greenawalt, Alexander, Justice Without Politics? Prosecutorial Discretion and the International
Criminal Court; 39 NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. (2007)
 Hassanein, Ahmed Samir, The Complementary Regime of the International Criminal Court: From
Theory To Practice – Scholar’s Press (November 27, 2013)
 Jacobs, Dov, A Samson at the International Criminal Court: The Powers of the Prosecutor at the Pre-
Trial Phase; The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 6 (2007) 317–341.
 Jon Heller, Kevin, Situational Gravity Under the Rome Statute; University of London - School of
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS); Future Directions In International Criminal Justice in Carsten
Stahn and Larissa van den Herik, (Eds.), TMC Asser/CUP, 2009
 Jurdi, Nidal Nabil, The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really
Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?; International Criminal Law Review 10 (2010)
73–96.
 Kaye, David, Who's Afraid of the International Criminal Court? Finding the Prosecutor Who Can Set
It Straight; Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 3 (MAY/JUNE 2011), pp. 118-122, 123-126, 127-129
 Kersten, Mark, The ICC and the Ivory Coast: Proprio Motu is the Way to Go; EJIL: Talk! (April 11
2011)
 Kleffner, Jann, Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions
(International Courts and Tribunals Series)– Oxford University Press February 15, 2008

7. 7
 Kuenyehia, Akua, The International Criminal Court: Challenges and Prospects, Annual Lecture on
Human Rights and Global Justice, Center for International Law and Justice (CILJ) March 21, 2011;
6 Fla. A / M U.L. Rev. 89 2010-2011, pp. 89-108
 Kyprianou, Despina, Comparative Analysis of Prosecution Systems: the Role of Prosecution Services
in Investigation and Prosecution Principles and Policies; 6 Cyprus & Eu. L. Rev at 14 (2008)
 Lee, Roy, The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute--Issues, Negotiations,
and Results; Springer; 1 edition (Sep 6, 1999)
 Ludwin King, Elizabeth B., Does Justice Always Require Prosecution? The International Criminal
court and Transitional Justice Measures; 45 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 85 2013, pp.86-120
 Lyons , Scott W., Introductory Note to the International Criminal Court: Decision Pursuant to
Article 15 Of The Rome Statute on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the
Republic Of Côte D’Ivoire; International Legal Materials, 2012, Vol. 51, Issue 2, p. 225-267
 Olásolo, Héctor, Essays on International Criminal Justice – Hart Publishing (January 6, 2012)
 Olásolo, Héctor, The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural
Treatment of the Principle of Complementarity, and the Role of
Office of the Prosecutor; International Criminal Law Review 5: 121-146, (2005)
 Olásolo, Héctor, Corte Penal Internacional ¿dónde investigar?– Editorial Tirant Lo Blanch; 1 edition
(November 1, 2003)
 Olásolo, Héctor, The Prosecutor of the ICC before Initiation of Investigations: A Quasi-Judicial or a
political Body? 3 Int’l Crim.L Rev (2003)
 Olásolo, Héctor, El Principio de Complementariedad y las estrategias de actuación de la Corte Penal
Internacional en la fase de examen preliminar: ¿Por qué la Corte Penal Internacional mantiene su
examen preliminar, pero no abre una investigación, sobre la situación en Colombia?; (Iter Criminis
(INACIPE) núm. 7, Quinta época, (2012)
 Obel Hanson, Thomas, A Critical Review of the ICC’s recent practice concerning admissibility
challenges and complementarity; Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 12, (2012)
 Meron, Theodor, and Bensouda, Fatou Twenty Years of International Criminal Law: From the ICTY
to the ICC and Beyond; Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law),
Vol. 107 (Apr. 3, 2013), pp. 407-420
 ‘O Brave New World’: The Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; William A.
Schabas; Die Friedens-Warte, Vol. 83, No. 4, 10 Jahre Rom-Statut — IStGH (2008), pp. 11-31
 Rubin, Alfred P.; The International Criminal Court: Possibilities for Prosecutorial Abuse; Law and
Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64, No. 1, The United States and the International Criminal Court
(Winter, 2001), pp. 153-165
 The Independence and Accountability of the Prosecutor of a Permanent International Criminal
Court; Guido Ruegenberg; Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 32. Jahrg., H. 2 (February 1999), pp. 68-69
 Kirsch, Philippe and Holmes, John T. The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The
Negotiating Process; The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 2-
12
 Meierhenrich, Jens, The Practices of the International Criminal Court, Law and Contemporary
Problems (2013) Volume 76, Numbers 3&4
 Minow, Martha, True-Frost, C. Cora, Whiting, Alex, The First Global Prosecutor: Promise and
Constraints (Law, Meaning & Violence), University of Michigan Press (28 April 2015)
 Murphy, Ray, Gravity Issues and The International Criminal Court; Criminal Law Forum; (Dec
2006), Vol. 17 Issue 3/4, p281-315, 35p

8. 8
 Mnookin, Robert H. and Marra, William, Rethinking the Tension between Peace and Justice: The
International Criminal Prosecutor as Diplomat; Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 1,
2012, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 12-21;
 Newton, Michael A., A Synthesis of Community Based Justice and Complementarity
International Criminal Justice and Local Ownership: Assessing The Impact of the Justice
Intervention, in Carsten Stahn, (Ed.),Cambridge University Press, (2012), Vanderbilt Public Law
Research Paper No. 12-22;
 Pacewicz, Lawrence, Introductory Note to International Criminal Court Code Of Conduct for The
Office of The Prosecutor; International Legal Materials, Vol. 53, No. 2 (2014), pp. 397-412
 Paust, Jordan J et al., International Criminal Law Cases and Materials, Second Edition, Carolina
Academic Press (2000)
 Schabas, William, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford
Commentaries on International Law) – Oxford University Press (May 6, 2010)
 Schabas, William, Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court,
6 J. Int’l Crim. Just. (2008)
 Shany, Yuval, Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts (International Courts and
Tribunals)– Oxford University Press (March 30, 2014)
 Sluiter, Goran, Friman, Hakan, Linton, Suzannah, Zappala, Salvatore, Vasiliev, Sergey, International
Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules – Oxford University Press (May 19, 2013)
 Stahn, Carsten (Ed.), El Zeidy, Mohamed M. (Ed.), The International Criminal Court and
Complementarity 2 Volume Set: From Theory to Practice; Cambridge University Press (November
21, 2011)
 Stahn, Carsten, (Ed.), Göran Sluiter (Ed.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal
Court- Brill Nijhoff (2008)
 Stahn, Carsten, Taking Complementarity Seriously: on the Sense and Sensibility of “Classical”,
“Positive” and “Negative” Complementarity (2011)
 Triffterer, Otto (Ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
Observers' Notes, Article by Article– Beck/Hart; 2 edition (June 1, 2008)
 van der Vyver, Johan D., Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir; The American Journal of
International Law, Vol. 104, No. 3 (July 2010), pp. 461-467
 Ventura, Manuel J., The 'Reasonable Basis to Proceed' Threshold in the Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire
Proprio Motu Investigation Decisions: The International Criminal Court's Lowest Evidentiary
Standard? Law & Practice of International Courts & Tribunals; (2013), Vol. 12 Issue 1, p49-80. 32p.
 Wise, Edward M. et al., International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Third Edition, Lexis
Nexis,(2009)
 Wouters, Jan, Verhoeven, Sten, Demeyere, Bruno The International Criminal Court’s Office of the
Prosecutor: Navigating between Independence and Accountability? International Criminal Law
Review 8 (2008) pp. 273-318, Marthinus Nijhoff Publishers
 Human Rights Watch Policy Paper; Course Correction: Recommendations to the ICC Prosecutor for
a More Effective Approach to “Situations under Analysis” (June 16, 2011)
 Human Rights Watch Policy Paper: The Meaning of “The Interests of Justice” In Article 53 Of The
Rome Statute; Peace Palace Library; (June 2005)
 ICC-OTP, Draft Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations (October 4, 2010)
 ICC-OTP, Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations (November 2013)
 ICC-OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014 (December 2, 2014)
 ICC-OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2013 (November 2013)

9. 9
 ICC-OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2012 (November 22, 2012)
 ICC-OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (December 13, 2011)
 ICC-OTP, Communications Received Between July 2002 and 8 July 2003 (July 16, 2003)