Gender Report Card on the International Criminal ... - YWCA Canada

States Parties/ASP Elections 2011
Work of the Search Committee
The Terms of Reference governing the Search
Committee process contained a requirement to
inform the Bureau regularly and in detail about
the progress of the nomination and election,
and that the Bureau subsequently would
keep States Parties informed of the progress
of nomination and election. However, these
minimal requirements under the heading of
‘transparency’ were on their own insufficient
to guarantee a transparent and accessible
process. Throughout, many States expressed
quiet frustration at not being made more aware
of the nomination process and concern at the
lack of transparency regarding the methodology
utilised by the Search Committee for assessing
candidates. There were also no provisions
requiring either body to share information
about the candidates or selection process with
civil society, in the Terms of Reference. 360 In
practice, the Search Committee did not make
such information readily available to States.
The Terms of Reference contained limited
provisions for confidentiality. Specifically, only
potential candidates who had expressed interest
themselves could request the Committee that
their information (name, nationality, gender
and current affiliation) not be shared with
the Bureau, however such confidentiality
agreements do not apply to individuals who
have been shortlisted for consideration by the
Bureau. 361
Nonetheless, throughout the Search Committee
process, up-to-date and detailed information
was for the most part not available to States
Parties, civil society or the general public prior
to the release of the Committee’s final report, as
discussed below, with the Search Committee and
Bureau often citing confidentiality constraints.
The Search Committee’s final report notes
360 ASP Bureau Search Committee, Terms of Reference, 6
December 2010, para 7.
361 ASP Bureau Search Committee, Terms of Reference, 6
December 2010, para 8.
that it gave a number of briefings on request
to representatives of civil society and other
interested parties. 362 However, the report does
not specify how many briefings or to which
representatives such briefings were provided,
and insufficient information was made available
on how to access the Committee to receive such
briefings. While the Search Committee did
receive, and specifically mentioned, 363 a letter
containing recommendations from a small
group of NGOs, the letter did not examine the
Search Committee process itself. Critically, the
letter from civil society leaders also overlooked
the gender related issues regarding the Search
Committee as well as the gender competencies
relevant for the position of Chief Prosecutor.
According to the letter, it was prepared ‘with the
active involvement of the Coalition for the ICC’,
but without consultation of the Coalition’s 2500
members, for the reason that it was ‘not feasible
to seek global endorsement’. 364
As of 8 September 2011, according to the
decisions adopted by the Bureau of the ASP
at its twelfth meeting on 8 September 365 the
Search Committee had received a total of 42
suggestions and expressions of interest. Twelve
potential candidates were female, while 30 were
male; 21 were nationals of the African Group,
one of the Eastern European Group, three of
GRULAC Group and 16 of the WEOG Group.
According to the Search Committee’s final
report, it considered a total of 52 individuals,
362 ASP/2011/117, para 24.
363 ASP/2011/117, para 18.
364 The letter, dated 16 March 2011, is available at , last visited on 21
November 2011. Unfortunately, the Steering Committee
of the CICC was not consulted about the contents of the
civil society letter prior to it being sent to the Search
Committee.
365 Agenda and Decisions adopted at the twelfth ASP-
Bureau meeting, 8 September 2011, available at
, last visited
on 24 October 2011.
105