Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Maria Zabolotskaya at UNSC briefing on the ICC report on Darfur
Position of the Russian Federation as regards the so-called International Criminal Court is well known and remains unchanged. The biannual empty briefings by the ICC to the UN Security Council have become an anachronism, for the Council’s agenda is packed with truly important matters to discuss.
As far as the Darfur file is concerned, we have learned nothing new from the report of the so-called "prosecutor" of this institution. He has once again confirmed that for some twenty years the ICC has been sabotaging UN Security Council mandates, shifting the blame either to the national authorities, the difficult security situation, or the lack of resources. The fact that the ICC keeps speaking about its only trial – the process against A. Kushayb does not change anything.
In that connection, we propose that the Council withdraw the situation in Darfur from the ICC, as it did in the case of Libya. That pseudo-court is not able to help Sudan, but it can do serious harm to that country. We witnessed Libya’s statehood being destroyed by NATO under the cover of ICC-made fakes.
As we have repeatedly noted, ICC’s pseudo-justice can be easily switched on/off. And the remote control is in the hands of its Western sponsors.
This is also true for Gaza. The ICC demonstrates selective blindness regarding the situation that was referred to it back in 2015.
Back to Darfur. Dynamics of the investigation varied depending on the political demands of Western states. It started with obsessive attempts to justify the alleged genocide in the first months, then there was a sluggish imitation of work. However, lately the ICC has become interested in the developments in Sudan. It is noteworthy that this interest (as was the case in other situations) coincided with the interest of Western countries.
We would like to emphasize that the Security Council never referred the current situation in Darfur to the ICC. A decision taken twenty years ago gives no ground for thinking that the Council would want to entrust the ICC with investigating a fundamentally new conflict. Such action would overstep resolution 1593 (2005).
Neither the ICC nor its puppet prosecutor have the authority to interpret the will of the Council and to put on hold or resume investigations as they see fit. The question of how to help Sudan out of its current difficult situation must be resolved without this pseudo-judicial structure, which has little to do with the administration of justice. As rightly pointed out today by the distinguished Ambassador of Algeria, it is important that efforts to administer justice be in the hands of the Sudanese themselves so that such efforts contribute to peace. In this case, the ICC is an instrument of external interference.
The sad (if not tragic) outcome of invoking the ICC as regards the situations in Libya and Darfur teaches but one lesson. The Council made a mistake in referring those situations to the ICC. That mistake must not be repeated. It is important to assess the damage that the Court has done to specific countries.