Talk:Complaints to the International Criminal Court

Which complaints to include

Which complaints, if any, should we discuss in this article? Do we cover every single complaint that's ever been discussed in the media, or just the serious ones?

The problem with the first option is that the ICC has received thousands of complaints to date, most of which are incredibly stupid and have no hope of ever being investigated. It's pretty clear that most of the complainants haven't even bothered to read the Rome Statute. A lot of the complaints discussed in the article at the moment are downright silly, like the one about Italy.

At the same time, it's obviously not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to be deciding which complaints are spurious and which ones are worth discussing.

Do people think we should be as inclusive as possible and strive to cover every single complaint, or can anyone suggest a simple rule we can apply to weed out the nonsense without violating WP:NOR? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, excellent article by the way, particularly the introduction which sets the scene excellently. To answer your question, I think the three policies that are most relevant are Wikipedia:Undue Weight, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Notability. My bias tends towards the inclusivist approach, but I recognise that other editors have a different approach. These are my thoughts: Any case/complaint which has "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" would qualify for an article by itself under WP:N so should certainly be included here (I would include Zimbabwe and Kenya in this category) However, this article should observe WP:UW by putting more emphasis on those complaints that are more likely to result in ultimate prosecutions. Rather than doing this alphabetically, it could be done by the different levels of likelihood. Inevitably this would need some kind of editor judgement applied, but I think that would result in the best article.

I suggest complaints are categorised into:

(a) Ones that have led to cases being opened (e.g. Ituri)

(b) Ones that have led to "intensive analysis" (e.g. Afganistan)

(c) Ones that have been subject to "basic reporting" (e.g. Burundi)

(d) Ones that would only lead to a case if a UNSC referral took place and there has been discussion of such a referral (e.g. Zimbabwe)

(e) Others

The first category - (a) - belongs in the Cases article and I think should just be briefly cross-referred to in the introduction to this article. Complaints falling into (b) could have a section and a few paragraphs for each potential case. There could be a single section on (c)&(d) with perhaps a paragraph per cases and a single paragraph at the end summarising all of (e). Any case/complaint which had a single "reliable source" would qualify for inclusion in this article, but that could even be a single word and a cross reference if the likelihood of prosecution is so remote.

How does this sound? AndrewRT(Talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I suppose you've guessed I'm a deletionist when it comes to these complaints, so I like your idea of combining them all into a single paragraph. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that any complaint that hasn't been publicly discussed by the prosecutor or the Security Council should not have its own section, but instead we should have a single paragraph saying "Complaints have also been received about Algeria,^[1][2] Bhutan,^[3] Burundi,^[4][5] etc.," with one or two good sources for each situation. That way, readers who are interested in a particular complaint can find out more, but the article won't end up having 100 subsections detailing a bunch of ridiculous complaints. Sounds great to me. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:International Criminal Court logo.svg

The image Image:International Criminal Court logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation Issue

The following item, "Amnesty International has also characterized the allegedly deliberate attacks by Israeli forces against civilian property and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip as "war crimes".[39]" gives me Amnestry's home page. Can someone fix the cite or take it out, because I suspect it was distorted. Mzk1 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the ref. It's not distorted. That is what AI said. However, it's a press release and not a complaint to the ICC so I would question whether it's required or relevant to this article strictly speaking. They may have sent a copy to the ICC, they may not. It's not clear from this document. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The situation is the same for "On September 14, 2006, Amnesty International released a report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes during the 2006 conflict with Israel.[55]" so whatever is decided needs to consistently implemented throughout the article. There are probably more instances like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Complaints to the International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/413.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Venezuela_9_February_2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030214344/http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm to http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/93.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Title of the Article should be changed

Hello,

This article should not be titled "complaints to the international criminal court", but "communications to the international criminal court". Indeed, the word "complaint" is legally inaccurate and does not appear anywhere in the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court. It is a term wrongly used by the media over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICLdsb (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Complaints to the International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure%2Bof%2Bthe%2BCourt/Office%2Bof%2Bthe%2BProsecutor/Comm%2Band%2BRef/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations%2Band%2BCases
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107224730/http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-14-05-2013.aspx to http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-14-05-2013.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919183058/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde020252006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In de vorm van het Hooggerechtshof van India als het Hooggerechtshof van India, de strikte actie van het Internationaal Hooggerechtshof om de Internationale Online Supreme Court klachtaanvraag bij te staan ​​over de foltering van een groot aantal mensen in de wereld.

Land en de wereld respect voor de Supreme Court als in de internationale rechtbank toegekend Excellentie mijn respectvolle Salueren ik Republiek India Shyam Bihari Dubey gerespecteerd Excellentie, ik smeek voor de hele wereld om je land te vergroten van een land Hu verhoogde sterkte als gevolg van het buurland en elke overtreding verkeerd voor het land en marteling en beperkingen en onbruik en World voering als Zijn bijdrage moeten het recht hebben machtige landen liever online zonder Hstcep Internationaal Hooggerechtshof bekroond met de internationale rechtbank in de wereld onder klagen over het stoppen van andere algemene Durachary zoals het stoppen - Shyam Bihari Dubey, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh, Republic Indië Shyam bihari dubey (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is English Wikipedia. Please translate your comment into the English language. KalHolmann (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)