## Facts

- A Belgian investigating judge issued an international arrest warrant on April 11, 2000, against Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, then the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Minister for Foreign Affairs.
- The warrant alleged grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols and crimes against humanity, tied to speeches in 1998 allegedly inciting racial hatred and contributing to violence in the DRC.
- Belgium circulated the warrant internationally through Interpol and transmitted it to multiple States, including the DRC.
- On October 17, 2000, the DRC instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice, alleging Belgium violated (i) sovereign equality/non-exercise of authority on another State’s territory and (ii) the minister’s immunity and inviolability under international law.
- The DRC requested cancellation of the warrant and notification to States to which it had been circulated; it also sought provisional measures, which the Court denied on December 8, 2000.
- Belgium raised objections to jurisdiction and admissibility, including that no legal dispute existed, the case was moot because Yerodia had left office, the dispute had changed character, and local remedies had not been exhausted.
- The Court delivered a single judgment addressing preliminary objections and the merits on February 14, 2002.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction and whether the application was admissible notwithstanding Belgium’s objections (including alleged mootness after the minister left office).
2. Whether customary international law confers an incumbent foreign minister immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction and inviolability, including for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity.
3. Whether the issuance and international circulation of Belgium’s arrest warrant violated the DRC’s rights by failing to respect that immunity and inviolability.
4. What remedy was required if a violation was found, and whether the Court could rule on the legality of Belgium’s asserted universal jurisdiction in the operative part.

## Decision

- The Court rejected Belgium’s objections and found jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute; the case was not moot and was admissible (15–1).
- The Court held that issuing and internationally circulating the arrest warrant against an incumbent foreign minister violated Belgium’s obligations to the DRC because it failed to respect the minister’s immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability under customary international law (13–3).
- The Court ordered Belgium, by means of its own choosing, to cancel the arrest warrant and inform the authorities to whom it had been circulated (10–6).
- The Court declined to rule in the operative part on the compatibility of Belgium’s asserted universal jurisdiction with international law because the DRC did not maintain that claim in its final submissions.

## Legal Principles

- Under customary international law, an incumbent foreign minister enjoys full immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction (immunity ratione personae) and inviolability while in office.
- This personal immunity applies regardless of (i) whether the alleged acts were official or private, (ii) whether they occurred before or during the term of office, and (iii) the gravity of the alleged conduct, including alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity.
- Immunity and inviolability are procedural protections ensuring effective performance of State functions; they do not eliminate substantive criminal responsibility.
- Accountability may still occur through: prosecution in the official’s own State; waiver of immunity by the State; proceedings in foreign courts after the official leaves office for certain conduct (including private acts); and prosecution before competent international criminal tribunals.
- The issuance and international circulation of an arrest warrant against an incumbent foreign minister, even without an actual arrest, can breach immunity and inviolability by exposing the official to arrest abroad and interfering with performance of official functions.
- Even where a forum State asserts broad criminal jurisdiction (including universal jurisdiction), it must still respect immunities required by customary international law.
- Under non ultra petita, the Court may not grant relief on claims not maintained in a party’s final submissions, though related matters may be discussed in the reasoning.

## Conclusion

The Court held that customary international law requires foreign States to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability of an incumbent foreign minister, and that Belgium breached those obligations by issuing and circulating an international arrest warrant; Belgium was required to cancel the warrant and notify recipients, while the Court did not decide in the operative part whether Belgium’s asserted universal jurisdiction was lawful.


Arrest Warrant of Apr. 11, 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 14)