Mrs. Fatou Bensouda:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to speak to them. I am particularly happy to have the opportunity to exchange views with committee members as parliamentarians and representatives of the people. National authorities are the first line of defence against serious crimes. The system of international justice created by the Rome statute will be strengthened only if states are able to take the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting. As we all know, the International Criminal Court is a court of last resort and we rely a lot on the co-operation of states for it to be effective. Support for our work is crucially important. The work of this parliament provides critical political support for the court. It enacts the implementing legislation to codify the Rome statute on crimes at national level, which will foster co-operation. At the same time, it will stimulate universal ratification of the statute.

I take the opportunity to provide the committee with a brief overview of the activities of my office and also to emphasise the challenges my office and the entire court face. We have had a very busy year in 2013 which has been one of the busiest we have had so far. In all eight situations that we now handle - Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur, Sudan, Kenya, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire and Mali - activities are ongoing, whether at the investigations level or trial in court. The majority of cases we are handling were referred to the court by the states involved. We are mainly handling eight situations, five of which were referred to the court by the countries involved. We are also conducting preliminary examinations in eight other situations, six of which are outside Africa.

The main purpose during the initial stage of the legal process - preliminary examination - is to assess whether these situations warrant the initiation of an investigation. My office makes an assessment of the information we have available on the ground, mainly checking whether the ICC crimes have been committed there. It also checks whether the temporal jurisdiction is satisfied, whether they happened after 2002 when the International Criminal Court was established and particularly whether it would not be in the interests of justice if we were to start investigations. In doing so we also assess whether the national jurisdiction is actually investigating and prosecuting these crimes. If the national jurisdictions are investigating, the International Criminal Court must take a back seat and monitor whatever is ongoing. In some situations such as our preliminary analysis in Colombia or Guinea we are monitoring because some activities are ongoing and we want to give the countries involved a chance to do this by themselves.

During the course of the year we had confirmation of charges against the former President of Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo. This took place from 19 to 28 February. The outcome of the confirmation proceedings was that a majority of the judges decided that we should bring additional evidence to have the charges confirmed. I do not agree with this and have appealed the decision, but at the same time we are looking for additional evidence. It is a two-prong approach - appeal the decision and at the same time look for additional evidence, if we need to submit it to the chamber.

We had a surprise surrender when Bosco Ntganda surrendered himself to the court in March this year. He walked through the gates of the American embassy in Kigali in Rwanda and wanted to be surrendered to the International Criminal Court. Initially we were a little worried because neither Rwanda nor the United States were a party to the Rome statute. They are not part of the International Criminal Court. It was a request to surrender to two states that were not part of the court, but, fortunately, it went very well. We received good co-operation from the United States and in a couple of days were able to have Bosco Ntganda transferred from Kigali to the International Criminal Court. The confirmation of charges will take place early next year. I will talk briefly about the issue of resources. These are some of the challenges the court faces. We had had the file since 2006 or so and Bosco Ntganda had been charged with these crimes, but he was out of reach. We could not arrest him. He was at large for the past seven years or so and all of a sudden came to us, but because there were not enough staff, we were not actively continuing with the case. We had put it on the back burner and concentrated on the other priority cases. When he walked through the gates of the International Criminal Court, we had to pick up the file again, dust it off and recontact the witnesses, some of whom had, unfortunately, died. Some had simply disappeared and we had to do a lot of preparatory work for the case to be ready to proceed to confirmation. In that regard, we had to ask for time from the judges, which they have given us. In February next year we should be proceeding to the confirmation of charges against Bosco Ntganda.

Within the context of the situation in Libya, we had two important decisions by the judges of the International Criminal Court. These were in the case of Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi and Abdallah al-Senussi. The committee will recall that when the case was referred to the International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council, we investigated it very quickly. We had to use the momentum because even the vote at the United Nations to refer the case to the International Criminal Court was unanimous - state parties and non-state parties and African states voted to have the case taken by the International Criminal Court. We charged three people - the former President, Muammar al-Gaddafi; his son, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, and the intelligence chief, Abdallah al Senussi.

Of course, we lost Gadaffi, and the young Gadaffi and al-Senussi have both challenged the admissibility of their cases before the ICC. The judges of the ICC have decided that Libya is doing enough to address the crimes of Abdullah al-Senussi. The Libyans have presented enough documentation showing that they are actively investigating this case. As a result, the case is inadmissible before the ICC. With regard to Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, the judges have decided that the Libyans have not provided sufficient proof to show that they are actively investigating. They have, therefore, stated that the case is admissible and that Libya should transfer the young Gadaffi to the ICC. They Libyans have appealed the decision and we are waiting to see what will happen.

The trial of Kenyan Deputy President, William Ruto, began in September. He is being tried alongside Joshua arap Sang. The crimes involved relate to the post-election violence in Kenya in the period 2007 to 2008. Members will recall that when the charges against Mr. Ruto were confirmed, neither he nor President Uhuru Kenyatta were in office. However, they have since become President and Deputy President of Kenya. The trial of Mr. Kenyatta is due to begin in February of next year. I am sure the committee will be familiar with the debates which have been triggered by this case, both within the African Union and elsewhere. Kenya took the initiative of asking the UN Security Council to defer the case and launched a recent challenge for amendment of part of the rules of the ICC at the Assembly of States Parties.

These are some of the challenges we faced in the context of the situation relating to Kenya. We also face major challenges and deficits in the context of co-operation. We have being trying to the greatest extent possible to emphasise to Kenya that the co-operation we require is not just mere co-operation. It must tangible and serious and must involve their supplying to us what we have requested. This has not been happening and it has created serious obstacles to our work. Another challenge we face in the context of Kenya relates to interference with and tampering in respect of witnesses. Witness protection is a major issue for us in this instance. This has never happened before and the level of witness tampering is unprecedented. In the cases relating to Kenya, there has been a high level of attrition. Many witnesses are afraid to come forward and others have somehow been convinced to withdraw from the case. There has been a great deal of pressure exerted on them.

There have also been challenges at the appeals level. Thomas Lubanga was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. I appealed that decision because I am not happy with the sentence of 14 years that was handed down. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted by the chamber and we are also appealing that judgment. Even in the context of appeals, the office is very busy.

The Assembly of States Parties met less than three weeks ago. Again, important decisions were taken by the assembly. As members will be aware, the Assembly of States Parties is the governing body of the ICC. When it met two weeks ago, one of the positive outcomes was that it endorsed the budget of the court. It did not give us everything we requested but it at least gave us something with which we can work for this year. I thank the Irish Government for its positive engagement during the course of the negotiations on the budget. The African Union requested a special session of the Assembly of States Parties to discuss the indictment of sitting Heads of State and the impact this will have on stability, security and reconciliation. This forum provided stakeholders with the opportunity to engage in open and frank debate, mainly in respect of the current cases relating to Kenya and the fact that the President and Deputy President of that country are before the ICC.

The assembly also adopted some procedural amendments when it met. These relate to allowing the judges to consider alternative options in respect of presence on the part of an accused person, where appropriate and also in exceptional circumstances. The use of prerecorded testimony will also be allowed under restricted conditions. Rule 134 adopted by the assembly deals with the excusal of persons with extraordinary responsibilities at state level from being present at trial. We will see what the judges will decide. They will be obliged to apply that case by case.

One of the main reasons I am present in Ireland is to discuss witness protection and relocation with the authorities here. This matter is extremely important for the office, which has intensified its efforts to enter into agreements with different states on the African continent and elsewhere to discover how we might make requests for witnesses to be relocated from the countries in which they live. As stated, the issue of interference with witnesses has become a major challenge for us and we should do everything we can and as soon as possible to ensure witnesses will be either relocated or protected in some other way. Relocation is an extreme option because it involves interfering with someone's life and removing them from that which they know to a different place. Sometimes one does not even know when they will be able to return home. The court is engaging in a holistic and comprehensive examination of how it might proceed in this regard. We have invited the input of experts, where possible, and we are also working with national governments to discover how they might assist us in relocating witnesses.

We are not just sitting quietly by and allowing people to continue to interfere and tamper with witnesses. I will do everything in my power to ensure we preserve the integrity of the cases we are pursuing. In that context, we were able to trace a Kenyan national who was part of the scheme to interfere with witnesses and obtain sufficient evidence to go before the judges to ask them to issue a warrant of arrest against Walter Barasa. This warrant has not yet been executed in Kenya but I believe the authorities there will execute it soon. In the case of Jean-Pierre Bemba, we had the same problem. Two or three weeks ago we were able to move against four people who have been arrested and brought before the judges in respect of interference with witnesses. Those individuals will stand trial for obstructing justice under Article 70.

The issues to which I have referred are those which I wanted to highlight. I must re-emphasise the need for co-operation. The ICC will definitely continue to require the support of member states in order that it might continue to carry out its work in an effective and efficient manner. For this reason, I request the support of this committee and the Government of Ireland.