Sahel states withdrawal from the international criminal court: a setback for victims and global justice
The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI), a coalition of leading human rights organizations including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CCPI), Redress, Trial International, and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), has strongly condemned the decision of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move represents a significant regression in the fight against impunity and undermines decades of African leadership in international justice, just when unity is most critical.
Legal realities: withdrawal is not immediate
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, according to Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a country must submit a formal written notification to the United Nations Secretary-General to initiate the withdrawal process, which only takes effect one year after submission. Until then, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger remain fully bound by their obligations under the Rome Statute, including the duty to cooperate with the Court. Importantly, this withdrawal does not affect ongoing proceedings for crimes committed before the effective date of withdrawal.
Several cases related to the situation in Mali—referred to the Court by the Malian government in July 2012—are currently underway. The reparations process in the Al Mahdi case has reached its final phase. Al Mahdi was convicted on September 27, 2016, for intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu. Additionally, the Court is expected to rule in the coming months on reparations in the Al Hassan case, following his conviction on June 26, 2024, for war crimes and crimes against humanity also committed in Timbuktu. An arrest warrant also remains active against Iyad Ag Ghaly, the alleged leader of the jihadist group Ansar Dine.
From leadership to withdrawal: victims left behind
African states played a pivotal role in establishing the ICC in 1998, with widespread ratification of the Rome Statute and even referring national situations to the Court’s jurisdiction. This commitment provided victims of the most serious crimes with a vital international ally when domestic justice was unattainable. The announced withdrawal contradicts this legacy of leadership, leaving victims with diminished access to justice.
This decision follows the three states’ withdrawal in January 2025 from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—another institution they helped shape, known for its strong human rights record through its Court of Justice. These withdrawals signal a troubling regression in the fight against impunity, leaving victims without recourse, weakening human rights protections, and deepening isolation at a time when regional and international cooperation are essential—especially in countries grappling with terrorism-related atrocities.
«The decision to withdraw from the ICC weakens 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 with no recourse for the most serious human rights violations they continue to endure», said Drissa Traoré, Secretary-General of the FIDH. «In these countries facing multidimensional crises, national courts remain unable to deliver justice and reparations to victims 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 announced withdrawal occurs at a time when international justice faces growing pressure. Earlier this year, Hungary also announced its intention to leave the Rome Statute, a move widely criticized for undermining the global fight against impunity.
While the ICC has faced past criticism for the selectivity of cases and a perceived overemphasis on Africa, the Court has since expanded its mandate beyond the continent. Investigations and cases are now underway in Afghanistan, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya, and the Philippines. Recent arrests—including of Libyan suspects and former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte—demonstrate that no region or high-ranking official is beyond the reach of justice. This expansion strengthens the Court’s legitimacy but also makes it more vulnerable to political attacks.
«State parties must demonstrate resilience and reaffirm their commitment to the Court, the fight against impunity, and the rights of victims worldwide», emphasized Alix Vuillemin, Executive Director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ). «At a time when the Court faces mounting attacks, states must move toward universality, not retreat. Turning away now only reinforces impunity.»
The role of states in preserving international norms
The ICC’s role in international justice is pivotal. It does not replace but complements existing mechanisms such as truth-seeking processes and transitional justice initiatives, which are essential for sustainable peace. The Rome Statute enshrines key principles: no immunity for heads of state, complementarity with national jurisdictions, and victim participation in judicial proceedings and reparations. Withdrawal from the Statute risks weakening these protections domestically and undermining decades of progress in establishing global norms against impunity.
The GIAI urges all ICC State Parties to reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute. As victims in Africa and worldwide face escalating violence, preserving the ICC as a court of last resort is essential.
Who is the Global Initiative Against Impunity?
The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI) is a consortium of eight international NGOs and the Coalition for the ICC, co-funded by the European Union. Its mission is to combat impunity by supporting a holistic, integrated, and inclusive approach to justice and accountability for perpetrators of serious human rights violations and international crimes. This statement does not necessarily reflect the position of all its member organizations.