 The Rome Statute occupies but one place in a vast array of global human rights instruments, but it's a significant place. As ICC prosecutor Fatou Ben-Souda's principal objectives are to hold perpetrators of the worst crimes to account, bring a measure of justice to victims and affected communities, and deter others from committing mass atrocities. The work of the ICC therefore constitutes the sharp edge of the protection of global human rights. The prosecution of international crimes contributes to the development of global human rights law in significant ways. With respect to the ICC, of course, we're dealing with the most extreme violations of the most fundamental human rights, given that the court deals with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Punishment of such grave breaches of international humanitarian law gives teeth to human rights law through enforcement, and also by reinforcing the values the law enshrines. Effective prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide signals to potential perpetrators that they may not act with impunity. There will be a reckoning. If belief in and accounting takes hold, then the prosecution of international crimes will have a deterred impact and contribute to the prevention of mass atrocities. Breaking the cycle of impunity through effective prosecution is thus vital to the protection and development of global human rights. The ultimate goal of the ICC is to deter the commission of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and so to prevent the worst excesses. Fundamental to the ICC's mission. Thus, one of the most significant contributions to global human rights law to be expected from the ICC is simply the enforcement of essential elements of that law. The prosecution of international crimes contributes to the development of global human rights in another way, too. Human rights may remain abstract legal formulations until they are translated into enforceable reality through practical application in real situations. In this way, human rights take on shape and meaning. For example, until prosecutions for genocide were conducted before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Genocide Convention of 1948 was a law gathering dust on the shelf of history. It is now a practical reality with vitality and significance. Genocide and related crimes form part of the cluster of serious crimes that fall within the ICC's jurisdiction under the Rome Statute. Thus the practical application of abstract legal concepts to real situations informs and develops the law pertaining to human rights and gives weight to those rights themselves. At the ICC we are engaged in the same process of translation from abstract concept to practical reality. Each one of the cases we bring before the court compels us in the office of the prosecutor as well as the defense and the chambers of the court to seek to give definition and meaning to the legal concepts, the evidentiary requirements, and the procedural rules found in the Rome Statute. It's an exciting but sometimes frustrating process. We will, where we can do so on a reasonable and principled basis, push the envelope of the law in order to enhance the protection of human rights and the prevention of atrocities. As an example, we're attempting in one of our cases to extend to child soldiers the protection from sexual exploitation that international law and particularly international humanitarian law secures to children generally. Let me explain. The law of armed conflict normally deals with how one treats one's enemies. For example, prisoners of war or enemy combatants who are wounded and out of action, leaving any mistreatment of one's own rank and file to the processes of military justice within one's own army. However, respecting war crimes, we are advocating a different approach in the case of children under the age of 15 who are conscripted or enlisted into armed forces or groups or used to participate actively in hostilities. We maintain that the protection international humanitarian law extends to them as children, remains with them, not withstanding their enlistment or conscription into such forces. Commanders, we argue, are individually criminally responsible for war crimes involving sexual exploitation of child soldiers, even where these children are illegally, I might add, within their own armed forces and the sexual violence occurs at the hands of members of the same armed force or group. This, we suggest, is not an expansive interpretation of the law, but rather a purpose of one, consistent with the special protections that international law affords to children. It is also a response to the particularly cruel sexual expectation, particularly of girls, which seems to be a feature of the child soldiering we encounter in our cases. If we succeed in this effort, it will be a significant advancement in the law of armed conflict as it applies with respect to children. The ICC and its governing statute are fully integrated within the body of global human rights law. Allow me to speak briefly about the role of the ICC in holding perpetrators of the worst crimes to account. Fundamental to the Rome Statute System of International Criminal Justice are two concepts, namely complementarity and cooperation. Respecting the concept of complementarity, under the Rome Statute, states parties bear primary responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The ICC can only intervene where national authorities can't or won't. The ICC is thus established as a court of last resort. Given how the Rome Statute System of International Criminal Justice is designed to work, the Office of the Prosecutor endeavors to encourage national authorities to assume their responsibilities and take action. This is what we call a positive approach to complementarity. Thus, where the prosecutor has opened a preliminary examination of a situation, prior to taking a decision, whether to open a formal criminal investigation, we continue to monitor closely the response of national authorities and encourage them to act. Where genuine national proceedings are taking place, there's no need for the court to intervene. And indeed, any case relating to the same circumstances and suspects would be inadmissible before the court, by virtue of the provisions of the Rome Statute. An appropriate response to crimes at the national level has value, potentially, for two principal reasons. First, action at the national level supports the spread of the rule of law. Promotes local responses to the plight of victims and makes dispensing justice particularly relevant to the people and places where the crimes have been committed. It also reinforces the way in which the Rome Statute System of International Criminal Justice is supposed to function, with primary jurisdiction residing with the state's parties. Secondly, encouraging action at the national level addresses the very real challenge of what is sometimes termed the impunity gap. In attempting to do justice in conflict situations, the major challenge is not only to bring those bearing greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes to account, which is often the work of the ICC. The challenge is also to hold lower level perpetrators accountable in proceedings at the national level, where judicial and law enforcement systems may yet remain fragile. Our focus, for example, respecting the conflicts in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, has properly been upon those we judge to be the most responsible perpetrators of the worst atrocities. This, however, leaves a considerable impunity gap respecting others under the command of those warlords who have been involved in terrible crimes. Thus, support for capacity building and transitional justice measures at the national level of states requiring assistance is of vital significance to the prevention of mass atrocities generally. It is an essential feature of the endeavor to promote human rights. Where the court does intervene, its ability to enhance the protection of human rights will ultimately depend upon how effectively it does its work. A court that is able to achieve results will be a court that has a preventive impact upon the commission of mass atrocities. To achieve greater results, we've been seeking to obtain the allocation of sufficient resources from the assembly of states parties through the budget process, to apply those resources effectively, to improve our working methods, to promote a culture of excellence within the office of the prosecutor, and to secure greater support and cooperation from states parties, non-states parties, and others. On this last point, I must emphasize just how vital to the ability of the ICC to succeed is the full and timely cooperation of states parties with the court. Where national authorities fail in their duty or are unable to discharge their responsibilities, no justice is possible for victims and affected communities without the intervention of the court. Unlike national courts, the ICC does not exercise jurisdiction over its own territory. It is not supported by its own police service and its direct powers of compulsion are in some respects limited. Thus, the preventive impact of ICC operations will ultimately depend upon the level of support and cooperation the court receives from states parties, non-state parties, non-governmental organizations, civil society, and others. The Rome Statute is designed that way. States parties in particular are obliged under the statute to cooperate fully with the court and the statute provides for the forms of cooperation that are expected, covering a broad range of activities from evidence collection and witness protection to the execution of arrest warrants. There can exist, however, a gap between what the law provides and what states are willing or able to provide. In her work, the prosecutor must rely upon international cooperation and judicial assistance of states. The challenges faced by the court are many and varied. The effort to translate the noble ideals of the framers of the Rome Statute into reality was bound to provoke some pushback as the court applied the law in specific situations. This is not surprising and is not cause for alarm. It simply requires patience and determination. The challenges, however, are real and they must be confronted. To illustrate, I will touch upon three areas where state cooperation is vital to the ability of the court to overcome the challenges it faces. Witness protection, investigations, and the execution of arrest warrants. I can only deal with these complex topics in the briefest terms. However, effectively, we're able to diversify our evidence collection. We will always have to rely to a significant degree upon witness testimony to prove our cases. The well-being and security of witnesses, therefore, is a major preoccupation of the court. A continuum of services is provided to victims and witnesses beginning with the basic steps the prosecutor under the statute's provisions must take to secure their well-being and protection. The Victims and Witnesses Unit, or VWU, which is located in the registry of the ICC, provides a more elaborate range of services and protection measures to prosecution and defense witnesses. Witness security is an important consideration in all ICC cases, but it has become particularly acute. It has become particularly acute in certain of them. We have encountered in one of our current trials an unprecedented level of interference, corruption, and intimidation designed it would appear to dissuade witnesses from testifying and to bring community pressure to bear on them not to cooperate with the ICC. We've employed various protection measures in an effort to counter these pressures. We've even gone so far as to bring charges under the Rome Statute against one person for alleged offenses against the administration of justice. Other charges may follow. Such steps are taken in an effort to protect the integrity of the ICC's trial process. We need to increase the cooperation of state's parties in the provision to the Court of Witness Protection Measures. The Office of the Prosecutor carries out investigations in a wide variety of ways. For example, by the collection and analysis of open source information. Through developing investigative leads applied on a confidential basis, with the assistance of experts having specialized knowledge and experience via requests for assistance to obtain records, documents, and other materials. Through in-country forensic examination of crime scenes and mass grave sites by taking, analyzing, and cross-checking witness statements and so on. Our strategic plan calls for us to diversify our evidence collection so that we do not remain so heavily dependent on witness testimony which for many reasons can prove to be vulnerable. We're trying to make more intelligent, efficient, and systematic use of various information technologies to enhance our capacity to gather and analyze information and evidence. Many of our investigative techniques must involve the cooperation of states' parties and others. As I mentioned, states' parties are obliged under the statute to cooperate fully with the Court and the statute provides the forms of cooperation that are expected, including a range of activities relating to the collection and preservation of evidence. Where we operate in-country or request assistance from state agencies, we necessarily rely upon the cooperation of those, notably states' parties, on whose territory we operate, or who are the recipients of our requests for assistance. We're thus seeking to improve our operational abilities by expanding a new model for international cooperation. Under this approach, the prosecutor's international cooperation section develops a cooperation framework at the diplomatic level with the state concerned, which then permits direct operational contacts to be established between our investigators and state police and prosecution officials. These operational contacts facilitate follow-up for our requests, for assistance, and speed the process of cooperation. This way of working is already functioning well in certain states. Nevertheless, cooperation with certain other states' parties has proven more problematic for a variety of reasons, relating, for example, to capacity, political will, or the sensitivities of the particular case. Other obstacles may stand in the way of investigative activities, a chief concern being the security of the environment in which our people need to work. State cooperation comes into play once again. We may only be able to operate securely if the armed forces of cooperative states or UN missions are in a position to provide us with the necessary level of security. Only think back to the forensic investigations carried out by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, with respect to the mass grave sites associated with the massacres ensuing from the fall of Srebrenica, or the conflict in Kosovo. These would have been impossible, except for the armored cordon of security provided by NATO forces. We face similar security challenges in Northern Mali and Eastern Congo. In addition, the level of the willingness of states to cooperate may affect the degree to which witnesses, who may be state actors or agents, are ready to assist us with evidence. I believe I've made my point clearly enough. The level of state cooperation will necessarily affect our ability to affect, to carry out, efficacious investigations, and thus our ability to conduct prosecutions based on cogent evidence. The court relies upon states' parties for the enforcement of the orders and decisions of the chambers of the court, including the execution of arrest warrants. The timely execution of arrest warrants represents one of the most glaring difficulties the court faces. The court does not have its own police service, but must rely on the cooperation of states to affect arrests. Failure to execute arrest warrants is not always due to unwillingness to enforce the court's orders, but sometimes due to a lack of capacity in the state concerned. Once again, support by donor states for the development of viable and independent judicial institutions and law enforcement capacity in states in need is vital to the overall strategy of combating impunity. Failure to arrest suspects in a timely way remains a serious problem. Victims of appalling atrocities continue to suffer and fugitives from justice continue to evade and accounting for the crimes they are led to have committed. Failure to arrest also means that with no suspect appearing before the court, we have to shelve the case for the time being with a consequent loss of momentum and need to absorb additional costs and a potential blunting of deterrent impact. The Assembly of States parties through its Hague Working Group is endeavoring to improve prospects for timely arrest and surrender of fugitives from justice to the ICC. There are some good examples of cooperation with respect to arrests. However, in some other notorious cases, outstanding arrest warrants remain unexecuted. Before I close, I would like to mention one feature of proceedings under the Rome Statute that has significance for global human rights law, namely the participation of victims in the trial process and their ability to seek reparations and compensation. The statute and rules of procedure and evidence provide for legal representation of victims and their participation at every stage of the process. Giving voice to victims allows the court to recognize in important ways the suffering and legitimate interests of victims. Victims are important participants in the legal proceedings of the ICC. The prosecutor has a particular concern for those most vulnerable of victims, namely children, and the victims of sexual violence. In my remarks today, I've outlined a few ways in which the international criminal prosecution contributes to global human rights law. I've touched upon the way the court must work on the basis of complimentary jurisdictions and state cooperation, and I've described some of the challenges the court faces in pursuing its mandate. To conclude, I would like to underscore the need for the assembly of state's parties to hold fast to the bedrock principles upon which the Rome Statute is built. Those who believe in the purposes of the ICC must stand up for the integrity of the values it encompasses. I include in these core values accountability before international criminal law of even the most powerful and privileged individuals. No one should be above the law. Moreover, it is to be hoped that one day the jurisdiction of the court will be truly universal. There's a thirst for justice among people caught in situations such as Syria, where the court as yet has no reach. International criminal prosecution is important to global human rights law by virtue of its focus upon the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law. The ICC inspires hope in many, but the struggle for the achievement of the ideals it represents is a hard one. It is one that needs the support and encouragement of people of determination and goodwill everywhere. Thank you for your kind attention.