Responsibility for Property and Assets Frozen or Seized by States Upon Request by the International Criminal Court

Article 57(3)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court empowers the International Criminal Court to ‘seek the cooperation of States pursuant to article 93, paragraph 1 (k), to take protective measures for the purpose of forfeiture, in particular for the ultimate benefit of victims’ while Article 93(1)(k) imposes an obligation on state parties to the statute to provide assistance to the Court in the ‘identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture’. However, the Court does not yet have sufficient jurisprudence to flesh out the conceptual and practical boundaries of these provisions, including the question of responsibility for the management of the frozen or seized property and assets. If the Court’s very limited relevant jurisprudence is anything to go by, it is urgently necessary to interrogate these provisions and their practical application, as these questions lie at the very core of the Court’s integrity and credibility. This is especially so as the Court seeks to expand its practical reach beyond (mainly indigent) non-state actors to state actors, a situation that is likely to call more attention to the Court’s powers and responsibilities specifically relating to Articles 57(3)(e) and 93(1)(k). This article interrogates the Court’s powers under Article 57(3)(e) and the extent of obligations of the Court and state parties arising from Article 93(1)(k), and the possible implications for the rights of accused persons, the rights and expectations of victims and for state cooperation.