September 26, 2025. This withdrawal cannot take immediate effect.

On September 22, the three member states of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES)—Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—announced their withdrawal from the ICC “with immediate effect.” However, under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a state must submit a written notification to the UN Secretary-General to withdraw from the Statute, and the withdrawal only takes effect one year after this notification. Until then, Sahel states remain fully bound by their obligations under the Rome Statute, including the duty to cooperate with the Court. The withdrawal does not affect ongoing proceedings concerning crimes committed before the effective date of withdrawal.

Currently, cases related to the situation in Mali, referred to the Court by the Malian government in July 2012, are ongoing before the ICC. The reparations process in the Al Mahdi case is in its final stages. Al Mahdi was sentenced on September 27, 2016, for intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu. Additionally, the Court is expected to issue a decision on reparations in the Al Hassan case in the coming months, following his conviction on June 26, 2024, for war crimes and crimes against humanity also committed in Timbuktu. An arrest warrant remains in force against Iyad Ag Ghaly, the alleged leader of Ansar Dine, a jihadist group active in Mali.

From leadership to withdrawal: victims left behind

African states played a pivotal role in establishing the Court in 1998, ratifying the Rome Statute en masse and even referring domestic situations to the Court’s jurisdiction. This commitment provided victims of the most serious crimes with a vital international ally when justice was unattainable at the national level. The announced withdrawal contradicts this legacy of leadership, leaving victims with diminished means to seek justice.

This decision follows the January 2025 departure of the three states from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), another institution they helped shape and which has built a strong human rights record through its Community Court of Justice. These withdrawals mark a regression in the fight against impunity, leaving victims without recourse, weakening human rights protections, and increasing isolation at a time when regional and international cooperation are essential—particularly in countries grappling with atrocities linked to terrorism.

“The decision to withdraw from the ICC undermines the situation of victims, for whom the Court often represents their last hope for justice,” said Drissa Traoré, Secretary-General of the FIDH. “After their withdrawal from ECOWAS, the loss of ICC protection leaves victims in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger without recourse for the most serious human rights violations they continue to endure.” He added, “In these countries facing multidimensional crises, national jurisdictions remain unable to deliver justice and reparations to victims due to a lack of political will and an inability to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity.“

A blow to vulnerable international justice

The announced withdrawal of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger comes as international justice faces growing pressures. Earlier this year, Hungary also announced its intention to leave the Rome Statute, a move widely criticized for undermining the global fight against impunity.

While the ICC has faced criticism in the past for the selectivity of cases pursued and its perceived overemphasis on Africa, the Court has progressively worked to strengthen the universality of its mandate. It has expanded its scope far beyond the African continent, with ongoing investigations and cases in Afghanistan, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya, and the Philippines. Recent arrests of Libyan suspects and former President Rodrigo Duterte demonstrate that no region or high-ranking official is beyond the reach of justice. This universality enhances the Court’s legitimacy but also makes it more vulnerable to political attacks.

“States parties must demonstrate resilience and reaffirm their commitment to the Court, the fight against impunity, and the rights of victims worldwide,” emphasized Alix Vuillemin, Executive Director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ). “At a time when the Court faces mounting attacks, states must advance toward universality, not retreat. Turning away now only reinforces impunity.“

The role of states in saving international norms

The ICC’s role in international justice is substantial. It does not replace but complements existing mechanisms such as truth-seeking processes and transitional justice initiatives, which are vital for sustainable peace. The Rome Statute enshrines key principles that underpin international justice: no immunity for heads of state, complementarity with national jurisdictions, and victims’ rights to participate in judicial processes and seek reparations. Withdrawing from the Statute risks weakening these protections at the national level and compromising decades of progress in developing global norms against impunity.

The GIAI urges all ICC member states to reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute. As victims in Africa and worldwide face escalating violence, preserving the ICC as a court of last resort is essential.