International Criminal Court Holds First In-Absentia Hearing: The Case of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army

By: Tiffany D. Johnson 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On September 9, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a landmark evidentiary hearing against fugitive Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony, in what has become the Court’s first-ever in-absentia proceedings. Kony, who has evaded capture since his indictment in 2005, faces 39 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for atrocities committed in northern Uganda and neighboring states. 

Image shows Judge Althea Violet Alexis-Windsor (Presiding Judge), Judge Iulia Motoc and Judge Haykel Ben Mahfoudh.
Photo credit © ICC-CPI. The confirmation hearing in the case The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony opened on 09 September 2025 at 9:30 (The Hague local time) before Pre-Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Pre-Trial Chamber III is composed of Judge Althea Violet Alexis-Windsor (Presiding Judge), Judge Iulia Motoc and Judge Haykel Ben Mahfoudh.

Background 

Kony founded the LRA in the late 1980s, leading a violent campaign of abductions, child soldier recruitment, sexual enslavement, and mass killings that terrorized Central Africa for decades. The ICC issued its first arrest warrants against Kony and senior LRA commanders in 2005, charging them with crimes including murder, rape, enslavement, and the conscription of children under 15. While several commanders have since been captured or tried domestically, Kony has remained at large despite multinational efforts to arrest him. 
 
Until recently, ICC procedure required the accused to be physically present. However, Rome Statute amendments and judicial interpretation now allow in-absentia proceedings when suspects remain fugitives but have been given reasonable opportunity to appear. The Kony case is the first to invoke this expanded procedure. 

Prosecution, Defense, and Victims 

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) argued that proceeding without Kony was essential to preserve fragile evidence and to recognize victims who have waited nearly two decades for judicial acknowledgment. The charges, brought under Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute, allege crimes against humanity and war crimes tied to widespread and systematic attacks on civilians. 
 
Although Kony was not present, the Court appointed standby defense counsel to safeguard his procedural rights. Counsel raised concerns about the challenges of mounting a defense without the accused’s participation, including difficulties contesting evidence or questioning witnesses. 
 
At the same time, hundreds of victims have registered to participate in the case, and several survivor testimonies were heard in the opening days. Victim representatives stressed that the proceedings are not only legal milestones but also critical for community healing and truth-telling. 

Judicial Developments 

The judges of Pre-Trial Chamber II ruled that in-absentia hearings were justified under the Rome Statute, citing Article 63(2) (which allows proceedings without the accused in exceptional circumstances) and recent amendments permitting such hearings when fugitives have been given a reasonable opportunity to appear. They emphasized that Kony has been under an active ICC arrest warrant since 2005, has repeatedly failed to surrender, and therefore cannot indefinitely block justice by evasion. 

 The charges against Kony include crimes against humanity (Article 7) and war crimes (Article 8), encompassing murder, enslavement, rape, and the conscription of children. While judges stressed that any final conviction and sentencing would still require Kony’s physical presence, they determined that preserving evidence, hearing victims, and formally recording proceedings outweighed further delay. Early sessions included documentary evidence, NGO reports, and expert testimony on the LRA’s command structure and Kony’s personal role in ordering atrocities. 

Significance 

The Kony in-absentia proceedings represent a historic expansion of the ICC’s toolkit for combating impunity. For victims, the hearings provide long-delayed recognition and an official record of the crimes. For international justice, the case raises important debates about how to balance fair-trial rights with the imperative to ensure accountability, even when suspects remain beyond the Court’s reach. 
 
As the hearings progress, the ICC’s handling of Kony’s case may set precedent for addressing other long-term fugitives and will test whether international criminal law can adapt without compromising legitimacy. 

For further information, please see:  

ICC opens war crimes hearing against Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony | ICC News | Al Jazeera 

International Criminal Court holds hearings on charges against Joseph Kony | AP News 

Justice must not be delayed: ICC holds hearing in absentia against Joseph Kony | Coalition for the International Criminal Court 

Q&A: Understanding Joseph Kony’s ICC Confirmation of Charges Hearing | International Federation for Human Rights 

Uganda: Victims demand justice as the International Criminal Court opens historic Kony hearing in absentia | International Federation for Human Rights 

International Criminal Court holds hearings on charges against Joseph Kony | AP News

Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger Announce Withdrawal from ICC after Longstanding Tension with the International Justice System

By: Chandler Barganier

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

CENTRAL SAHEL, Africa – on September 22, 2025, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The three countries issued a joint statement justifying their withdrawal, stating “the ICC has proven incapable of addressing and judging proven war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression,” further describing the Court as, “an instrument of neo-colonialist repression in the hands of oppression.”

From left, the heads of state of the three countries: Mali's Assimi Goita, Niger's General Abdourahamane Tchiani and Burkina Faso's Captain Ibrahim Traore [File: Mahamadou Hamidou/Reuters]
From left, the heads of state of the three countries: Mali’s Assimi Goita, Niger’s General Abdourahamane Tchiani and Burkina Faso’s Captain Ibrahim Traore. Photo courtesy of Mahamadou Hamidou/Reuters

This announcement comes amid persistent insecurity and fragile governance across the Central Sahel region. These three West African countries form the Confederation of the Sahel States (AES). While each country faces its own distinct challenges, they share a legacy of structural vulnerability and limited state authority. The regions insurgency traces back to the 2012-2013 conflict in northern Mali during the Tuareg-led National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA). Tuareg rebels joined by jihadists groups lead an improvised military coup that succeeded in destabilizing Mali. The collapse of state authority has opened the door for jihadist groups to expand their influence across Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.

The Central Sahel area has faced significant political upheaval since 2020. Amid military takeovers, regimes have taken several measures to repress civic and political spaces to reduce international scrutiny into these countries’ human rights situations. These besieged areas are being blocked from humanitarian aid, and the jihadists groups have worked to destroy places of worship, health centers, food reserves and water services.

Withdrawal from the ICC comes shortly after the AES’s departure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). On January 28, 2024, the AES announced they would leave ECOWAS after accusing the organization of becoming a threat to its members of being under the influence of foreign powers and of betraying its founding principles. They officially withdrew on January 29, 2025, marking the most significant crisis in the Western African region since the founding of ECOWAS in 1975.

AES’s departure from the ICC reflects a complex web of security concerns and institutional failures. Critics argue that withdrawal poses significant challenges to these nations, especially in the face of persistent threats of terrorism and economic dependence. This move risks weakening collective efforts to address these issues and could lead to further fragmentation among West African states. Withdrawal will only take effect one year after the official submission of the case to the UN general secretariat.

 

For further information, please see:

Amani Africa – The Withdrawal of AES from ECOWAS: An opportunity for re-evaluating existing instruments for regional integration? – 31 Jan. 2025

HumAngle Media – The Implications of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger’s Exit from ECOWAS – 31 Jan. 2025

Human Rights Watch – Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger Quit Regional Bloc – 2 Feb. 2024

Le Monde – Burkina Faso, Mail, and Niger withdraw from International Criminal Court – 23 Sept. 2025

The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect – Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger) – 15 July 2025

 

 

Japan High Courts Rule Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

By: Sarah Peck

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

 

NAGOYA AND OSAKA, Japan – In March 2025, Japan’s Nagoya and Osaka High Courts issued landmark rulings declaring the country’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, marking significant progress in the nation’s marriage equality movement.

 

 
Gay Pride Parade in Tokyo. Photo Courtesy of Erika Lu.
  

 

The Nagoya High Court ruled on March 7, 2025, that the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Register Law, which do not recognize same-sex marriages, violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14. Presiding Judge Nobuhiro Katada stated that excluding same-sex couples from legal marriage lacks a reasonable basis and constitutes unlawful discrimination. The court emphasized that same-sex couples are equally capable of forming lasting psychological connections and that denying them marriage rights can lead to serious issues, particularly for children raised by such couples. Despite this, the court did not find the government liable for compensation, citing the recent and rapidly increasing awareness of the need to legalize same-sex marriage.

Shortly thereafter, on March 25, 2025, the Osaka High Court held that Japan’s lack of recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Presiding Judge Kumiko Honda ruled that the Civil Code and Family Register Act provisions violate the right to equality as set out in Article 14 of the Constitution. While upholding the lower court’s decision not to award damages, the court recognized that the marriage ban breaches constitutional rights.

These rulings represent the fourth and fifth high court decisions in Japan declaring the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, following similar judgments from the Sapporo, Tokyo, and Fukuoka High Courts. Despite growing judicial consensus, the Japanese government has been slow to respond, and legislative action remains conspicuously absent. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi stated that the government will monitor pending lawsuits and public opinion.

Advocacy groups and plaintiffs have expressed frustration over the lack of legislative action, emphasizing that the overwhelming number of court victories should prompt the government to act swiftly in legalizing same-sex marriage. Public support for marriage equality has been growing, with surveys indicating increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage among Japanese citizens.  

These rulings underscore a significant shift in Japan’s legal landscape concerning LGBTQ+ rights. The outcomes of these cases may influence future deliberations in Japan’s Supreme Court and potentially prompt legislative changes to ensure marriage equality. As Japan’s legal institutions increasingly affirm marriage equality, the pressure mounts on lawmakers to translate these rulings into lasting legislative reform—both for Japan’s LGBTQ+ citizens and as a signal to its neighbors in East Asia.

 

For further information, please see:

The Asahi Shimbun – 4th high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional – 7 Mar. 2025

The Asahi Shimbun – Osaka High Court rules gay marriage ban unconstitutional – 25 Mar. 2025

AP News – Japan’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage in law is unconstitutional, a court finds – 7 Mar. 2025

The Nation – Another Japanese court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional – 25 Mar. 2025



No One Above the Law: President Duterte’s ICC Arrest Breaks Global Ground

By: Lela Lanier 

Associate Articles Editor

 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands—On March 11, 2025, former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was arrested in Manila and transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The ICC issued a warrant for Duterte’s arrest for crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, and rape, committed during his presidency. His arrest is a landmark moment for human rights and justice, signaling that impunity for mass atrocities is no longer a given.

 
Pre-Trial Chamber I Judges, in the initial appearance of former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Photo Courtesy of ICC-CPI.
  

Rodrigo Duterte, who served as President of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, was infamous for his brutal “war on drugs.” Under his leadership, thousands of suspected drug offenders—many of whom were never given due process—were executed extrajudicially. Human rights groups estimate the death toll to be between 6,300 and 30,000, with the poor disproportionately affected. Prior to his presidency, as Mayor of Davao City, Duterte allegedly orchestrated the Davao Death Squad (“DDS”), a vigilante group responsible for at least 1,400 killings. His tenure was marked by his open endorsement of violence, promising to kill criminals and drug users rather than subject them to trial. Despite withdrawing the Philippines from the ICC in 2018, the court-maintained jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.

The ICC issued Duterte’s arrest warrant under Article 58(1) of the Rome Statute, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a suspect committed crimes within the court’s jurisdiction and that arrest is necessary. The prosecution established that crimes against humanity, including systematic extrajudicial killings, fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Duterte’s leadership of the Davao Death Squad and Philippine law enforcement, along with his public directives to kill drug suspects, provided compelling evidence for his arrest. Testimonies from former police officers and victims’ families further substantiated these claims. Given Duterte’s extensive influence in the Philippines and his previous refusal to cooperate with the ICC, his arrest was deemed necessary to prevent obstruction of justice and to ensure the protection of witnesses.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that Duterte’s arrest was warranted, citing the gravity of his alleged crimes and the absence of any expectation that he would voluntarily appear before the court. The decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law—no individual, regardless of status, should be above justice.

Duterte’s arrest carries profound implications. The Philippines has become only the second country in history to arrest and transfer a former head of state to the ICC, setting a significant global precedent. For the thousands of victims denied due process—and for their grieving families—this moment offers renewed hope that justice is possible. More broadly, Duterte’s arrest sends a clear warning to other world leaders with outstanding ICC warrants, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and Sudan’s Omar Al-Bashir: international justice is slow, but it is relentless.

Duterte’s fall marks a turning point in the fight against impunity. His victims were denied their right to life and due process, but his arrest proves that the rule of law can still prevail.

 

For further information, please see: 

Brookings—Why did the Philippines turn over its former president to the ICC? —1 Apr. 2025

ICC—Rodrigo Roa Duterte makes first appearance before the ICC: confirmation of charges hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025—14 Mar. 2025 

ICC—Situation in the Philippines: Rodrigo Roa Duterte in ICC custody—12 Mar. 2025

ICC—Statement of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor on the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte—12 Mar. 2025

ICC—Warrant of Arrest for Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte—7 Mar. 2025 

New Lines Magazine—Duterte’s Arrest Sparks a Reckoning in the Philippines—2, Apr. 2025