Abstract:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created to facilitate the prosecution of perpetrators of international humanitarian law something not within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. As an international court, it was not restricted by head of state or diplomatic immunity. In March 2005, the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter adopted resolution 1593 which referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, effectively giving the ICC jurisdiction over Sudan even though Sudan is not part to the Rome Statute. The Resolution is binding on all UN member states, including Sudan. On March 4 2009, ICC judges issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al- Bashir. The warrant holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bashir is criminally responsible for five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes, referring to alleged attacks by Sudanese security forces and pro- government militia in the Darfur region of Sudan during the government's seven year counter insurgency campaign. This ability to indict a head of state in office raised debates and animosity between the court and African leaders as well as Arab leaders after it indicted Hassan Omar Al-Bashir, the Sudanese head of state. The paper seeks to analyse the extent to which the Sudanese conflict gave rise to situation that constitute war crimes and examine the extent to which the laws have been applied worldwide. In essence, the paper makes an exposition about the law's applicability in the contemporary world. The paper espouse that the Sudanese sets as a test case were a sitting head of state could be brought before the ICC

Keywords: