The Referral of the Situation in Venezuela to the International Criminal Court: The Office of the Prosecutor Should Not Step In… Yet

On 26 September 2018, six American States Parties to the Rome Statute referred the Situation in Venezuela to the Office of the Prosecutor (‘OTP’) of the International Criminal Court, regarding crimes against humanity. Those States rested on Article 14 of the Rome Statute to proceed. That referral – namely, crimes committed outside the territory of the referring State(s) – was the second of its kind received by the icc in its more than 15-year working history. The otp is currently considering the referral under the so-called ‘Preliminary Examination’ stage, wherein the admissibility test is likely to be addressed within the complementarity principle, according to Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Despite the duty to exercise their criminal jurisdiction, as the Preamble to the Rome Statue stipulates, and the fact that those six American States recognize some sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction, those States remained inactive. What should the otp do when six democracies, who are able to act, do not even try to launch an investigation for crimes they have expressed concerns about, without providing an explanation for their inactivity? This article will analyse how the otp should deal with this referral in terms of the complementarity principle, having regard to the positive approach to complementarity. Accordingly, it will be argued that the Prosecutor should refrain from intervening until those States attempt to act and/or, in case of legal or factual inability, justify the referral.