Chapter 3. Specific duties

• Author: International Criminal Court
• Pages: 14-15

OTP2013/024322 14 / 21

Specific duties

Chapter 3.

Objective truth-seeking

Section 1.

49. In compliance with the duty to establish the truth under article 54(1)(a) of the

Statute, the Office shall investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances

equally in all steps involved in the planning and conduct of investigative and

prosecutorial activities. In particular, Members of the Office shall:

(a) conduct investigations with the goal of establishing the truth, and in the

interests of justice;

(b) consider all relevant circumstances when assessing evidence, irrespective

of whether they are to the advantage or the disadvantage of the

prosecution;

(c) ensure that all necessary and reasonable enquiries are made and the results

disclosed in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial, whether they

point to the guilt or the innocence of the suspect.

50. Staff members shall report to the Prosecutor concerns which, if substantiated, would

tend to render a previous conviction made by the Court unsafe, bring the

administration of justice into disrepute or constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Effective investigation and prosecution

Section 2.

51. In accordance with article 54(1)(b), Members of the Office shall ensure that the

standards of effective investigation and prosecution are upheld and shall:

(a) act with competence and diligence, make impartial judgments based on the

evidence and consider foremost the interests of justice in determining

whether or not to proceed;

(b) fully respect the rights of persons under investigation and the accused and

ensure that proceedings are conducted in a fair manner;

(c) refrain from prosecuting any person whom they believe to be innocent of

the charges;

(d) refrain from proffering evidence reasonably believed to have been obtained

by means of a violation of the Statute or internationally recognised human

rights if the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the

evidence or the admission of evidence would be antithetical to and would

seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings.