International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review

This article focuses on how using the “Admission of Guilt” (AOG) mechanism provided in Article 65 of the Rome Statute would support and enhance – not diverge from – the overriding purposes of that document’s goals and structural designs. A move by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to implement AOG would provide the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC (OTP) an important practice tool for developing mode-of-liability evidence sufficient to meet the chambers’ demanding proof requirements for “organization” in assessing criminal culpability. With AOG enabled at the Court, the OTP could begin to negotiate the cooperation of defendants as part of agreements for individual admissions of guilt using the Article 65 mechanism. While each defendant admitting guilt would be protected by the substantial review procedures available in Article 65(4)(a), a regular AOG practice would put the OTP in a position to convert those defendants into proof-of- organization informants. This redirection by the OTP toward implementing consensual procedures would place its prosecution policies well within the boundaries of AOG usage as presently manifested in both civil law (inquisitorial) and common law (adversarial) jurisdictions. The “next steps” suggested at the end of this article focus on the OTP gathering further information about how AOG is implemented by various Assembly of State Parties (ASP) members and major non- members, how AOG has functioned at the other major international tribunals, and how the OTP’s existing policies regarding Article 65 admissions of guilt could encompass a more regular use of consensual procedures.