The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), the more than 120 undersigned organisations from over 60 countries representing all regions, and dozens of legal experts, human rights defenders and members of the European Parliament, condemn unequivocally and in the strongest terms the decision byco the United States (US) to impose unlawful sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). This unprecedented measure represents a direct attack against the rule of law, the independence of the Court and international justice, ultimately undermining the rights of millions of victims and survivors of mass atrocities worldwide.

‍

The ICC has shown remarkable resilience in steadfastly discharging its mandate in the face of escalating attacks. Now, States Parties must match this commitment by defending the Court they themselves established and protecting those who cooperate with it. Condemnations alone are not enough; coordinated action is urgently needed to protect the Court's ability to function.

‍

On 9 October 2026, the US announced the imposition of sanctions against the ICC as an institution under Executive Order 14203. These sanctions mark the gravest escalation in the sustained campaign carried out by the US with the declared aim of dismantling the ICC "brick by brick" for having investigated crimes allegedly committed on the territory of a State Party by US nationals or their allies, in particular Israeli nationals. Under the Rome Statute, the Court may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party, irrespective of the nationality of the alleged perpetrator.

‍

Since February 2025, the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on the former ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan; both Deputy Prosecutors; the ICC President and eight other judges; a staff member and judicial candidate; a UN Special Rapporteur; and three Palestinian human rights organisations.

‍

These measures aim to undermine the Rome Statute system as a whole and to prevent the investigation and prosecution of international crimes.

‍

Executive Order 14203 prohibits US persons from providing material support or services to designated persons and entities, including financial services, and exposes non-US persons to the risk of secondary sanctions for engaging in conduct prohibited under the Executive Order. US persons who violate it may face criminal penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment and fines of up to 1 million USD, as well as civil penalties.

‍

Although the Executive Order contains a six month wind-down period and exemptions for certain services, significant risks remain. Given the global reliance on the US financial and IT systems, even non-US service providers, including banks, may stop rendering their services to the ICC out of fear of penalties or reprisals from the US Treasury. This could impact the Court’s ability to maintain a bank account, receive financial contributions from States Parties, make payments, pay staff and maintain essential operations.

‍

The Netherlands, as the host country, and all States Parties are responsible for ensuring the ICC can maintain access to services critical to its operations. The Court must be able to continue to carry out its core functions, including investigating alleged crimes; holding hearings; protecting victims and witnesses; and providing legal aid services.  

‍

For victims, survivors and witnesses in more than a dozen situation countries under investigation by the Court across the globe, the consequences could be profound. Many have waited years for justice, recounted traumatic experiences and placed their trust in the ICC as a last resort for justice. Any disruption to the ICC’s mandate and operations risks impeding their right to justice. It threatens decades of advances in accountability and justice efforts, leaving victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide without a meaningful prospect for accountability, truth and reparations.  

‍

The sanctions are already undermining justice efforts. The three Palestinian NGOs designated for cooperating with the Court immediately lost access to their bank accounts, funds, IT services and partners, impeding their work. The damage does not end with those targeted; the sanctions have created a chilling effect and impacted freedom of expression and association worldwide. Sanctions on the Court as an institution risk deepening that effect. Ultimately, victims, families of victims and survivors will pay the biggest price.

‍

The US, which is not a State Party, is blatantly attacking the world’s only permanent international criminal court through measures that leverage its position within the global financial system. If the 125 States Parties to the Rome Statute allow these attacks to undermine the Court’s ability to function, the consequences would extend far beyond the ICC, threatening the broader rule of law, states' sovereignty and systems of justice at the national, regional and international levels.

‍

Statements of concern and condemnations are no longer a sufficient response to this attack. A coordinated response can no longer be delayed. Three decades ago, States made a promise that no one, no matter how powerful, will be shielded from accountability for international crimes. Victims and survivors have waited decades for a Court capable of delivering justice regardless of power or nationality, and today, the ICC is facing unprecedented pressure precisely because it seeks to apply the law equally. States Parties established the Court and are uniquely placed to safeguard its independence and effectiveness. Failure to respond decisively risks weakening the international justice system they pledged to uphold.

‍

The CICC calls on all States Parties, individually and collectively, to:

‍

● Denounce publicly, unequivocally, in the strongest terms possible and at the highest political level the institutional sanctions against the ICC and those cooperating with it as an unlawful attack on judicial independence, the rule of law and victims.

● Immediately adopt or activate blocking measures at the national and regional level - including the immediate adoption of the EU Blocking Statute (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) and equivalent domestic legislation elsewhere - to shield those designated, including the Court and its officials, the UN Special Rapporteur and civil society organisations, from the extraterritorial reach of these sanctions.

● Guarantee that the Court and those cooperating with it can have access to banking and other essential services, including by:

○ Providing legal certainty to service providers by taking a clear legal position on the non-extraterritorial application of sanctions and making this legal position publicly available through letters or written statements.

○ Engaging proactively and regularly with banks, financial institutions, IT companies and others toreaffirm the unlawfulness of the sanctions, clarify that they should not be enforced extra-territorially, reject over-compliance or de-risking strategies and stop automatic or externalised compliance.

● Ensure that all relevant ministries, including foreign affairs, justice, finance, treasury and digital affairs,coordinate, including at the regional level, to develop whole-of-government solutions.

● Apply protection and solutions equally to civil society, human rights defenders and survivors targeted with sanctions or at risk due to their cooperation with the Court, extending every statement, solution, démarche and funding measure to include civil society organisationsdesignated and those at risk, without distinction.

● Find concrete measures to mitigate the impact of sanctions on civic space, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

● Build and invest in economic, financial and tech sovereignty and resilience to reduce structural dependency on US service providers.

● Explore all possible diplomatic and legal avenues to challenge the sanctions and their legality under international law, including by supporting any legal challenge raised by designated persons in the US and through a referral to the International Court of Justice.  

● Publicly and strongly reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute and continue to comply fully with their obligations under the Rome Statute, including funding, cooperation and the arrest and surrender of all persons subject to ICC warrants, without exception, delay, or selectivity.

● Publicly and clearly oppose any initiatives aimed at weakening the Court, including attempts to amend the Rome Statute to limit its jurisdiction or independence and attempts to influence prosecutorial priorities, including efforts to sideline specific situations, such as Afghanistan or Palestine.

● Refuse, without exception, coercion by a non-State Party to influence votes, positions, or conduct within the ASP or any other body of the Rome Statute system.

● Ensure any ICC-related meeting is held in a country that ICC officials and staff and civil society organisations, including those designated, can access safely and without threats.  

‍

List of Signatories

1. Organisations

1.      11.11.11

2.      A World Without Chemical and Biological Weapons (WWW)

3.      Action pour le Développement Intégral de l’Homme et de Tout l’Homme au Modèle de Kizito-Anuarite

4.      Action pour la Justice et Promotion des Droits de l’Homme (ARJPDH)

5.      Afghanistan Organization for Development of Human Right (AODHR)

6.      African Development and Peace Initiative (ADPI)

7.      African Initiatives for a Democratic World Order

8.      Al Haq

9.      Al Mezan Center for Human Rights

10.   ALTSEAN-Burma

11.   Amman Center for Human Rights Studies(ACHRS)

12.   Amnesty International

13.   Asia Justice Coalition

14.   Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos

15.   Association Cultures du Monde

16.   Association Marocaine des Droits Humains (AMDH)

17.   The Arab Coalition for the International Criminal Court (ACICC)

18.   Atrocities Watch Africa

19.   Australian Centre for International Justice

20.   Avocats Sans Frontières

21.   Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS)

22.   Bangladesh Integrated Social Advancement Programme

23.   Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

24.   Center for Civil Liberties

25.   Center for Constitutional Rights

26.   Center for Justice and Accountability

27.   Center for Prisoners’ Rights

28.   Centre marocain pour la loi et la paix

29.   Citizens' Assembly (Yurttaşlık Derneği)

30.   Civic Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)

31.   Civil Society Institute – Armenia

32.   Coalition Guinéenne pour la Cour Pénale Internationale (CGCPI)

33.   Coalition tunisienne pour la Cour pénale internationale

34.   Collectif de Sauvegarde de la LADDH Algérie

35.   Colombes de la Nature

36.   Comisión de Derechos Humanos de El Salvador

37.   Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ, Northern Ireland)

38.   COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding

39.   DAWN

40.   Defence of Human Rights and Public Services Trust

41.   Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past

42.   Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)

43.   Exodus Charity Organization

44.   EuroMed Rights

45.   European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)

46.   FIBGAR – Baltasar Garzon International Foundation

47.   The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

48.   Fondation congolaise pour la promotion de droits humains et la paix

49.   Foundation Sunflowers

50.   Global Justice Center

51.   Groupe LOTUS

52.   Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor

53.   Holistic Empowerment for Development

54.   Human Rights and Humanitarian Development Initiatives

55.   Human Rights Centre ZMINA

56.   Human Rights Now

57.   HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement

58.   Impact: Center against Human Trafficking and Sexual Violence in Conflict

59.   IMPARSIAL – The Indonesian Human Rights Monitor

60.   İnsan Hakları Derneği/Human Rights Association (İHD)

61.   International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

62.   International Commission of Jurists

63.   International Commission of Jurists, Norwegian Section (ICJ Norway)

64.   International Community Care e.V.

65.   Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law

66.   Kenya Human Rights Commission

67.   Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya)

68.   Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group

69.   Kimbé Rèd FWI

70.   Kurdish Organizations Network Coalition for the International Criminal Court (KONCICC)

71.   Kurdistan Organizations Network to Abolish Nuclear and Mass Destruction Weapons (KONW)

72.   Kurdistan Without Genocide

73.   LDH (Ligue des droits de l'Homme/droits humains)

74.   Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH)

75.   Legal Action Worldwide (LAW)

76.   The Legal Agenda

77.   Libya Crimes Watch (LCW)

78.   Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos

79.   Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens

80.   Ligue Pour La Paix, Les Droits De L'homme Et La Justice (LIPADHOJ)

81.   Ligue Sénégalaise des Droits Humains

82.   Ligue tunisienne des droits de l'homme

83.   LingvaLexa

84.   Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)

85.   MARUAH (Working Group for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanisms, Singapore)

86.   Mnemonic

87.   Netherlands Helsinki Committee

88.   No Peace Without Justice (NPWJ)

89.   Norwegian Council for Tolerance & Peace (NCTP)

90.   Norwegian Helsinki Committee

91.   Observatorio Ciudadano

92.   Orde van Vlaamse Balies

93.   Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles

94.   Organization Against Weapons of Mass Destruction in Kurdistan

95.   Organisatión Nationale des Droits de l’Homme du Senegal (ONDH)

96.   Organization of the Justice Campaign (OJC)

97.   Palestinian Association for Human Rights (Witness)

98.   Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)

99.   The Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO)

100.    PAX

101.    Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)

102.    Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC)

103.    Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)

104.    Platform for Peace and Humanity

105.    The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

106.    REDRESS

107.    Refugees in Libya – APS

108.    Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

109.    Rights for Peace

110.    Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center

111.    Rohingya Maìyafuìnor Collaborative Network

112.    Route Justice

113.    StoptheDrugWar.org

114.    Students for Global Democracy Uganda

115.    Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS)

116.    Synergy for Justice

117.         Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)

118.    TRIAL International

119.    Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)

120.    United Nations Association Sweden

121.    Vision GRAM-International

122.    Vous et Vos Droits

123.    Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ)

124.    World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

125.    World Without Genocide

126.    Young World Federalists

127.    Youth Compassion for Humanity Uganda

128.    Youth for Peace and Dialogue between Cultures

129.    Zarga Organization for Rural Development

130.    Zimbabwe Human Rights Association

2. Individuals

1. Ahmed Aloui, Association tunisienne de défense des libertés individuelles
2. Nadia Attaire, JURDI
3. Farhatullah Babar, Human Rights Cell, Pakistan Peoples Party
4. Andrés Mauricio Balcázar Suárez, Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
5. Edgar Boydens, Former Dean of the Brussels Bar
6. Estelle Ceulemans, Member of the European Parliament
7. Christophe Clergeau, Member of the European Parliament
8. Rafendi Djamin, Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), Indonesia's NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy
9. François Dubuisson, Université libre de Bruxelles
10. Terje Einarsen, University of Bergen
11. Penelope Faulkner, Quê Me: Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR)
12. Benjamin Fiorini, Université Paris 8
13. Claire Fita, Member of the European Parliament
14. Isabelle Fouchard, CNRS/Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
15. Raphaël Glucksmann, Member of the European Parliament
16. Sandra Gómez López, Member of the European Parliament
17. Pierre Jouvet, Member of the European Parliament
18. Sarah Kasande, International human rights lawyer
19. Murielle Laurent, Member of the European Parliament
20. César Luena, Member of the European Parliament
21. Mathilde Lutak, JURDI
22. Kaari Mattila, Academic
23. Nora Mebarek, Member of the European Parliament
24. Alessandra Moretti, Member of the European Parliament
25. Hana Jalloul Muro, Member of the European Parliament
26. Matjaz Nemec, Member of the European Parliament
27. Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Member of the European Parliament
28. Zoran Pusić, Civic Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)
29. René Repasi, Member of the European Parliament
30. Insaf Rezagui-Sbeih, Université Paris Cité; JURDI
31. Chloé Ridel, Member of the European Parliament
32. Indira Rosenthal, Independent
33. Farah Safi, JURDI
34. Sarah Sameur, Avocate au Barreau de Paris
35. Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, Member of the European Parliament
36. Eric Sargiacomo, Member of the European Parliament
37. Krzysztof Smiszek, Member of the European Parliament
38. Cecilia Strada, Member of the European Parliament
39. Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament
40. Marta Temido, Member of the European Parliament
41. Vesna Teršelič, Antifascist League
42. Thomas Verfuss, Journalists For Justice
43. Luc Walleyn, Lawyer
44. Tiemo Wölken, Member of the European Parliament
45. Lara Wolters, Member of the European Parliament
46. Dr Parisa Zangeneh, Independent
47. Mounir Satouri, Member of the European Parliament