Safeguarding Civil Society Participation at ASP25: The Case for Relocation or a Split Session

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) calls on the Presidency and Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to ensure safe and meaningful civil society participation at the next ASP. The Bureau should either relocate the 25th Session of the Assembly (ASP25), scheduled for December 2026, from New York to The Hague, or adopt a split-session model by holding the judicial elections in New York and the Assembly’s substantive deliberations in The Hague. 

The current environment in the United States, the unlawful use of sanctions against ICC officials and civil society organisations cooperating with the Court, the ongoing threats of institutional sanctions, and the extensive visa restrictions make full, meaningful, inclusive, effective and safe civil society participation in New York impossible in practice. 

New York Venue: Concrete Barriers to Safe and Meaningful Civil Society Participation at ASP25 

• Civil society participation at the ASP is not discretionary: it is recognised in Resolution F of the Final Act of the Rome Conference and operationalised through Rule 93 of the ASP Rules of Procedure. The venue must enable that participation in practice. 

• Since February 2025, the United States has sanctioned 11 ICC elected officials under its ICC-related sanctions framework: the Prosecutor, both Deputy Prosecutors and eight judges. The US administration has repeatedly threatened the Court with institutional sanctions.  

• Three Palestinian human rights organisations, Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, have been sanctioned for their cooperation and engagement with the ICC. 

• ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan was unable to brief the UN Security Council in person on Darfur in January 2026 and Libya in May 2026. In May, she stated that this was due to the non-issuance of a US visa required for her travel. Other ICC staff might face visa restrictions. 

• US entry restrictions now prevent access to nationals of dozens of countries, including several ICC situation countries, impacting the participation of representatives from affected communities.  

• Numerous victims, survivors, and civil society organisations will be excluded from one of the few spaces where they can engage directly with States Parties and Court officials on the basis of their nationality or due to the risks.  

• Hybrid participation cannot remedy these risks. ASP participation includes bilateral meetings, side events, coalition coordination, engagement on resolutions and budget negotiations, and confidential exchanges that cannot be meaningfully replicated online. 

The Value of the New York Venue and Its Current Limits 

A Pattern of Escalating Obstruction 

Beginning in February 2025 with Executive Order 14203, the Trump Administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials for investigating and prosecuting crimes allegedly committed by US and Israeli nationals. By December 2025, sanctions had been applied to the Prosecutor, eight judges, both Deputy Prosecutors, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and three Palestinian human rights organisations, Al-Haq, Al-Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, due to their cooperation with the Court. It has also repeatedly threatened the ICC with institutional sanctions.  

The practical consequences of this campaign have already materialised at the UN. ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan, whose access to UN headquarters should, in principle, be covered by the US-UN Headquarters Agreement, was not issued a US visa for her briefings to the UN Security Council on the situation in Darfur in January 2026, or on the situation in Libya in May 2026. On both occasions, she was forced to deliver her briefing remotely from The Hague. These are not isolated incidents: they represent a pattern in which the US Government is willing to obstruct the ICC's mandated functions even within the UN framework, in apparent disregard of its own treaty obligations as the UN's Host State. 

If the US will not issue a visa to a sanctioned ICC official mandated by the Security Council to brief Council members, a function with the clearest possible legal basis, there is no reason to expect that civil society representatives attending ASP25 in New York would fare better. 

Why Civil Society, Victims, and Survivors Cannot Safely Attend ASP25 in New York 

The barriers to civil society and victim/survivor participation in New York are distinct from, and more severe than, ordinary visa complexity or resource constraints. They fall into three categories. 

Entry restrictions affecting key advocates 

Through various proclamations, the United States has fully suspended visa issuance to nationals of 19 countries, including several ICC situation countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Mali, Palestine and Libya) and partially suspended visa issuance to nationals of 19 additional countries, all in Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. This directly bars from attendance the very human rights defenders who work closest to affected communities and victims, the people whose presence most enriches the Assembly's deliberations. Preventing the participation of the organisations and representatives that accompany and support victims would further distance the Assembly from the communities the Rome Statute system was created to serve. 

“Visa restrictions imposed by the United States on certain African countries, the reduction in the number of US embassies issuing visas on the African continent, and bonds ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 constitute a major obstacle for civil society organizations working alongside the ICC to participate in the ASP scheduled for later this year in New York. Furthermore, the abusive searches and checks carried out on some Coalition members during the July 2025 session on the crime of aggression amount to humiliation.”  Mamadou Boussouriou Diallo, Guinean Coalition for the ICC.

The exclusion of victims and survivor voices 

Beyond restricting civil society participation, these measures risk excluding survivors and victims of Rome Statute crimes from the Assembly. The ASP is not merely a diplomatic gathering: it is one of the few spaces where affected communities can communicate their experiences, concerns and recommendations directly to States Parties and Court officials.  

“The victims will be excluded, and so will other sanctioned entities. Visas will be refused, there will be fear of being blacklisted, fear of being turned back, witnesses from situation countries will not come, and an election of judges without victims and civil society is not legitimate. The millions of victims do not need New York; they need a Court that is not afraid.” Marcel Bakanga, Fondation Congolaise pour la Promotion des Droits Humains et de la Paix and the DRC Coalition for the ICC 

Meaningful participation by survivors and victims is essential to ensuring that the Assembly’s decisions remain grounded in the realities of those most directly affected by atrocity crimes. Their presence helps inform discussions on justice, accountability, reparations, victim participation and the Court’s broader strategic direction. It also provides States Parties with direct insight into the practical consequences of their decisions and reinforces the victim-centred principles at the heart of the Rome Statute system. 

Excluding victims and survivors not only limits representation; it risks weakening the legitimacy, inclusiveness and responsiveness of the Assembly itself. Decisions concerning the future of the Court should not be taken in conditions that prevent those seeking justice from being present, heard and able to engage safely and effectively.

Sanctions and designated organisations 

Representatives of Palestinian human rights organisations sanctioned by the US Government for their essential human rights work cannot participate in ASP25 in New York. Their exclusion would deprive the Assembly of critical perspectives precisely at a time when the ICC's work in the Palestine situation is under the most intense pressure and attacks. 

“It is unacceptable that the next Assembly of States Parties would be held in the United States while the current US administration has imposed sanctions on ICC judges, prosecutors and those cooperating with the Court, including Palestinian human rights organisations. Holding the ASP there would be a profound insult to the victims whose voices, pain and demands for justice we carry, and to all those who continue to work for international justice.” Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) 

The risk of denial of entry or detention for all civil society representatives 

Unlike diplomats and UN officials, civil society representatives do not benefit from access guarantees to the UN headquarters. The US-UN Headquarters Agreement calls on the US to facilitate the entry of persons wishing to visit the headquarters district, but, crucially, expressly does not constrain the application of US immigration law. In practical terms, this means that civil society representatives have no guaranteed right of access to New York for the purposes of the ASP session, even with legitimate entry documents. 

The consequences are concrete. Any representative who truthfully declares the purpose of their visit, i.e. to participate in ICC-related meetings, could risk detention or expulsion at the US border. This is not a theoretical concern: even representatives of organisations holding ECOSOC consultative status, which in principle provides some degree of coverage under the existing legal framework, regularly face questioning, detention and denial of entry. 

“Coalition members worldwide warn that holding the ASP in New York will make safe and meaningful civil society and victim/survivor participation impossible, given visa denials, fear of intimidation or detention at the airport, and the risk of reprisals. This is not a logistical issue but a direct threat to civil society's critical role in the Rome Statute system, as recognised in the Final Act and at every ASP since.” Alison Smith, CICC Director 

There is no current legal remedy to resolve this. The only reliable guarantee of inclusive civil society participation is to hold substantive proceedings outside the US. 

Full Relocation to the Hague or a Split-Session Model: Two Pragmatic Solutions 

"As victims of crimes against humanity and war crimes, we continue to face threats and attacks as part of our daily reality. However, witnessing the weakening of the institutions entrusted with the pursuit of justice through political decisions, without the international diplomatic community activating mechanisms of response, protection, and accountability, creates a profound sense of disillusionment. If there is ever a moment to stand firm against injustice, it is now: the consequences of impunity ultimately spread far beyond national borders and affect the entire world." Luis Carlos Díaz, Venezuelan Journalist, Human Rights Defender, Prisoner of conscience (2019) and torture survivor 

The Bureau could decide to relocate ASP25 entirely to The Hague. This solution would allow full participation from all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, covering both the judicial elections, for which civil society has an important monitoring role, and substantive discussions. 

Alternatively, the Bureau could adopt the split session model. In 2020, ASP19 used a split-session model in response to COVID-19 restrictions, holding elections in New York and substantive proceedings in The Hague. That precedent demonstrates the practical and legal viability of the approach. The same model would work for ASP25: conduct the judicial elections at UN Headquarters in New York, which is most suitable to ensure the widest possible State participation, and the substantive deliberations, including the budget and omnibus resolution, in The Hague, where sanctioned individuals and entities and civil society writ large can participate safely and fully. This model preserves the NY venue’s role for the function it uniquely serves, while upholding the Assembly's constitutive commitment to meaningful civil society engagement. 

“Holding the ASP in The Hague would help safeguard inclusivity, strengthen support for the independence of the Court, and ensure that all stakeholders can contribute effectively to discussions on international justice and accountability.” Afghanistan Organization for Development of Human Rights (AODHR) 

A Question of Institutional Integrity

The Coalition wishes to be clear: this is not a question of convenience or logistical preference. Civil society participation at the ASP is not a courtesy extended to NGOs: it is a mandate, enshrined in Resolution F of the Final Act (1998) and operationalised through Rule 93 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. It is a constituent element of the Assembly’s institutional identity. 

To hold ASP25 in circumstances where significant parts of civil society and survivor groups, including sanctioned human rights defenders, nationals of ICC situation countries and organisations whose very purpose is supporting accountability, cannot attend safely, and some cannot attend at all, would be to allow the coercive policies of a non-State Party to hollow out one of the Assembly’s core commitments. 

The Assembly should not allow that to happen. The ASP25 session could be held entirely in The Hague. Alternatively, the split-session model is available, it has worked before, and it works here. We therefore respectfully and urgently call upon the Presidency and Bureau to adopt it. The Assembly should send a strong message against any attempt to weaken or disrupt the effective functioning and working of the International Criminal Court.