What did the March procedures paper say about the two-step sequence?

Question

Accepted Answer

The March procedures paper outlined a two-step sequence for determining misconduct and removal.

The March procedures paper, reportedly drafted by the ICC's political bureau, detailed a sequential process for addressing allegations against the Chief Prosecutor. This sequence involved first establishing whether serious misconduct had occurred, followed by a separate determination on whether to remove the individual from their post. This approach was intended to ensure a more methodical and transparent process for accountability.
Determination of Misconduct First

According to the procedures paper, the initial step required the Assembly of States Parties, comprising 125 member countries, to vote on whether serious misconduct had been established. This determination would necessitate a two-thirds majority of the delegates present and voting. The focus of this vote was solely on the existence of misconduct, independent of any subsequent decision regarding disciplinary action.
Subsequent Vote on Removal

Only after a successful vote establishing serious misconduct would a second, distinct vote be held concerning the removal of the Chief Prosecutor. This subsequent vote would require an absolute majority of the Assembly of States Parties. This structure ensured that a finding of misconduct was a prerequisite for considering removal, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between the two processes.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What did the March procedures paper say about the two-step sequence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends