Mrs. Fatou Bensouda:

I thank the Deputy. At present there are 122 states parties. However, as the Deputy indicated, over the past three or four years there have been a lot of ratifications, bringing it to the current number of 122. Unless I am mistaken, the last country to ratify was Côte d'Ivoire. It at least was one of the last ones and I note this was even after all the controversies about the ICC targeting Africa and only taking cases in Africa. Côte d'Ivoire ratified either earlier this year or last year. Moreover, the Philippines also has ratified the statute, as has Tunisia. In the past three years, we have seen a good number of countries ratifying the Rome Statute. Moreover, I believe there are some others in the pipeline which still are thinking about and discussing joining the ICC. However, other member states can play a role in this regard by encouraging those who are not yet part of the ICC to so do. Sometimes, it is not deliberate policy on the table of not ratifying but is just that attention is not drawn to the court and no one actually is following up the ratification. It also will be important for member states to remember that they should encourage those which are not yet members to join the ICC. I hope we can soon boast of universality in respect of the Rome Statute.

As for state referral, members are aware that the ICC can have jurisdiction mainly in three ways. The first is when a state that is a party to the Rome Statute refers a situation to the ICC. Thus far, we already have seen this in five situations, not counting the recent request from Comoros for the ICC's intervention in the flotilla incident. In addition, the ICC can have jurisdiction when the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter 7, refers a situation to it. A third way is when a state, non-party to the ICC, makes a declaration and accepts ICC jurisdiction - Côte d'Ivoire, for instance, did that - as well as when the prosecutor uses proprio motu powers to start an investigation in a state party where such crimes have taken place and the state is not doing anything to address it. In respect of communication, we can receive communications from everywhere, including NGOs and private persons, drawing attention to crimes being committed where we have jurisdiction. We also get communications from where we do not have jurisdiction but we must assess and then reply stating that we do not have jurisdiction.

This perhaps brings me to the Deputy's question on Syria. We receive a lot of communications about Syria, as well as questions about the reason the ICC is not involved there. However, Syria is not a state party to the Rome Statute, which means that I, as the prosecutor, cannot use proprio motu powers to go to Syria. The only ways in which we could be involved in Syria would be were we to have a referral from the United Nations Security Council, as in the case of Libya and of Sudan - and this has not happened - or in the unlikely event that Syria was to make a declaration to accept ICC jurisdiction. I do not know whether that will happen under the circumstances but these are the two ways in which the ICC would have had jurisdiction. I am aware that states parties to the ICC have been trying a lot to encourage the United Nations Security Council to refer the case to the ICC. Earlier this year or perhaps late last year, there was an initiative on the part of the Swiss in which 64 countries signed a memorandum urging the United Nations Security Council to refer the serious situation to the ICC. However, as the Deputy noted, this has not happened yet.

In respect of enforcement, we enter into agreements with different states parties to the Rome Statute to receive persons who have been convicted by the ICC. At present, we use the Dutch detention facilities in Scheveningen for those who are in detention in the ICC. However, once there is a conviction and the final appeal is done, we have agreements with one or two countries that are willing to receive such persons when they are convicted.