As always, the Prosecutor laments on the Council’s inaction and even ignorance of the ICC’s concerns. Not only is the Council still failing to enforce outstanding arrest warrants, the Council has yet to respond to the ICC’s communications. These refer to failures by state parties to fulfil their obligations under international law. Most prominently, the Prosecutor reports on the aftermath of the unfortunate incident in South Africa last year (here and here). In March 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeal had issued a judgement, in essence upholding a prior condemnation of the governments refusal to fulfill its legal obligations (a review of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgement will follow on these pages). The dreadful event in South Africa has not hindered Omar al-Bashir from traveling freely. This includes visits to Djibouti and Uganda – both state parties to the ICC-Statute – as well as non-state parties.

With regard to the Banda-trial, which had been postponed indefinitely (here and here), the Prosecutor can only repeat that there is no new date for a trial. Banda is still on the loose and not likely to appear in The Hague. The OTP monitors ongoing events in Darfur, even though new investigations are not being opened (here, here and here). The Prosecutor cites several incidents in which casualties have been reported, allegedly also by the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces. Whether or not any proceedings will be opened seems to depend on the actions by the Security Council. And because the Council fails to act, it is likely that no new investigations will be opened in the Darfur-situation.

After her briefing, the Council’s members answered. To no surprise, nothing new was stated. Some states reiterated their opposition to the Court while other members reiterated their support for the Court and joined the Prosecutor in her calls for support. As stated, however, no member state took action. And as usual, the Sudanese representative reacted to the report with the old responses of imperialism, injustice, illegality and the fact that the Darfur-situation demands a peaceful solution to be found within a political process. It is noticeable that the Prosecutor and the Sudanese representative had a bigger clash than in past briefings, even if the hostility has not reached the heights of June 2012, when the predecessor of the current Prosecutor and the Sudanese representative had a major and very personal clash (here).

Again, a report of the OTP illustrates the shortcomings of the Darfur-situation and highlights the need to act. And yet again, the Council fails to act and it will continue to fail. In December 2016, when the 24^th report is due, the report will most likely contain the same aspects, with minor changes in detail.

The Security Council is long aware of the deteriorating situation in Darfur. When the ICC prosecutor reported on the deteriorating situation in Darfur last December (here), she illustrated the situation by detailing incidents involving possible crimes. In Januar 2016, UNAMID reported back to the Council, also outlining a worsening situation (here). In addition, calls to postpone a scheduled referendum in April are publicized on an almost daily basis (here also).

Consequently, the Security Council determined that the “situation in Sudan constitutes a threat to international peace and security”.

With res. 2265 (2016), the Council extended the mandate of the panel of experts created by res. 1591 (2005) until March 2017. The panel is tasked to report to the Council and update it on recent developments. Fulfilling this task the experts regularly report a lack of cooperation by Sudan and other states – something that experts, who are not members of the panel, agree with.

As in the past, the Security Council did not address this situation in a meaningful way. No further measure was taken by the Council except the extension of the mandate. With regard to the arms embargo, travel bans and targeted sanctions, the Security Council expresses its concern for the lack of cooperation by Sudan and other states. It reminds the states of their obligations to fulfill previous resolutions.

In short, res. 2265 (2016) brings nothing new except an extension of the mandate of the panel of experts.