Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Maria Zabolotskaya at a UNSC Briefing on the Report by the ICC Prosecutor on the Libya File
Mr. President,
We have gathered today to consider the 31st report by the Office of the Prosecutor of the so-called “International Criminal Court” on the Libya file, which the ICC has been handling for the past 15 years.
The report highlights “impressive achievements” – the “first arrest” and the “initiation of legal proceedings.” It is worth noting that the first person arrested has no connection whatsoever to the events of 2011, which prompted the Security Council to refer the situation to the ICC.
The course taken by the ICC on the Libya case is as follows.
First, the body helped legitimize the destruction of Libyan statehood following NATO’s aggression by leveling false accusations that were never substantiated.
Then, based on these charges, it issued arrest warrants against Libyan leaders, and all of them ended up dead: first, Muammar Gaddafi was torn to pieces before the eyes of the international community, and more recently, his son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, was killed. Both cases were terminated “due to the death of the accused,” and no one cares about who was involved in these murders. This begs the conclusion that the ICC is operating as a “lynch mob.”
The ICC showed no interest in the crimes committed by NATO countries during the events of 2011 – apparently, they enjoy permanent immunity from the jurisdiction of this pseudo-court.
This is how the ICC’s investigation into the events of 2011 ended. One might think that, given all this, the ICC should have reported to the Council that it had not coped with the task to carry out the investigation and resolve the case. But that is not how so-called “international justice” operates.
The “Libya file” was reformatted to focus on alleged crimes committed in prisons in subsequent years, which also yielded no results. Then the ICC went beyond the clearly outlined mandate issued by the Security Council and decided to deal with crimes against migrants, which Security Council Resolution 1970 has no mention of whatsoever.
But on this matter, too, the ICC continues to pursue its established course.
Despite the appeals from civil society, the body is not investigating what was done by European military forces and political leaders who first triggered the migration crisis by destroying Libya’s statehood, and then distinguished themselves with a host of atrocities against migrants, including blocking access to their ports for ships carrying people in great distress.
Instead, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office is carrying out joint investigations with European institutions that may be implicated in crimes against migrants. These individuals, indeed, enjoy genuine immunity at the ICC. At the end of the day, they are the ICC’s patrons, and patrons can’t be judged.
The blame is rather pinned on pawns and middlemen from developing countries.
Mr. President,
These are the ICC’s successes on the Libya file. At the same time, this pseudo-court is boasting about eighteen missions, nearly seven hundred pieces of supposed evidence, and other activities.
We wonder: How do the Libyans benefit from all of this? The civil war, sparked by NATO aggression, has dragged on for years; thousands of civilians have died; and the country remains divided.
The portal “Just Security,” which is well-known in the West, has recently published investigative research by Alyssa Prorok, professor at the University of Illinois, who came to the conclusion that the ICC’s interference in civil wars not only fails to bring them to an end but, on the contrary, drags them out and obstructs peace negotiations. The ICC’s involvement scares parties away from the negotiation process, and the pseudo-court’s uncompromising stance regarding any amnesties – which are often an indispensable element of peace agreements – leaves fewer incentives for the warring parties to seek a political solution.
Furthermore, the ICC itself is mired in scandals and double standards. We have already pointed out who enjoys immunity from the ICC’s justice and condemnation by member States – it is the patrons of this body.
A telling example here is Italy’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Rome Statute in January 2025. The Court merely took note of the violations and formally referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties.
It was interesting for us to hear the recent revelations by the so-called ICC prosecutor, the British national Karim Khan, who stated in the media that the former British Prime Minister, his fellow countryman David Cameron, directly threatened him with repercussions should the ICC initiate proceedings against the Israeli leadership. Statements like this only confirm what is already obvious: Western countries view this pseudo-court as a purely political tool.
In this regard, it is convenient indeed to have such a person as Mr. Khan, a British citizen and so-called prosecutor, who has now decided to “take leave” amid allegations of sexual harassment.
What warrants our particular attention are reports of his attempts to harness his official position to exert pressure on the supposed victim and conceal the circumstances of the case. At the same time, notwithstanding the obvious facts, the British subject continues to assert in his interviews that he has been fully exculpated. We would not be surprised if, over time, the case against Mr. Khan would be quietly swept under the rug, just as this “gentleman” did with the numerous crimes of his Western patrons, coining the term “deprioritization” for this purpose.
Mr. President,
As we have repeatedly emphasized, a lasting settlement in Libya would only be possible through the strengthening of national institutions, rather than through externally imposed constructs. The principle of complementarity implies the primacy of national justice even if a State has made a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. The ICC systematically disregards this principle, substituting the will of the Libyan people and undermining the efforts undertaken by the Libyan authorities to establish their national accountability mechanisms.
In this regard, we would like to recall that neither the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) nor other UN representatives have a mandate to engage with the ICC. We once again call on the Security Council to acknowledge that the ICC’s actions in Libya have been unsuccessful and to withdraw the Libya file from the ICC, leaving law enforcement to the disposition of the Libyan authorities acting with the support of relevant UN entities. And the Darfur file should be handled likewise.
Thank you.
