Part 1
General Provisions
9. Obligation to consult, and rejection of requests from the International Criminal Court
1. Matters arising shall be resolved through consultations with the International Criminal Court, in particular where the execution of a request from the International Criminal Court would:
(1) run counter to a fundamental legal principle (article 93(3) of the Statute);
(2) prejudice national security (articles 72 and 93(4) of the Statute);
(3) violate the State immunity or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State (article 98(1) of the Statute);
(4) conflict with international obligations whereby the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court (article 98(2) of the Statute).
2. During the consultations, consideration shall be given to executing the request in other ways or under specific conditions.
3. If a matter cannot be resolved through consultations, the International Criminal Court shall be requested to amend its request. If such an amendment by the International Criminal Court cannot be considered, the request shall be rejected.
4. Any such refusal, in the cases referred to in paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 2 to 4 above, shall be decided on by the Federal Minister of Justice with the consent of the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs. The case in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2, further requires the consent of the competent federal minister. The International Criminal Court shall be informed of any refusal of a request and the grounds thereof.
Part 2
Specific provisions
Section 2
19. Disclosure and transmission of information affecting national security
2. Should the documents relate to national security, and in particular to military information, the International Criminal Court shall be consulted to ascertain whether the information can be provided by another source or in another form.
3. If the matter cannot be settled through the consultations in paragraph 2 above, the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the consent of the competent federal minister, prior to granting access to records or to the transmission of photocopies, shall check whether the interests of confidentiality significantly outweigh the interests of providing evidence for an international prosecution. Should that be the case, the International Criminal Court shall be asked for assurance of the maintenance of confidentiality and for details as to how it will be maintained.
4. The Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs shall, with the consent of the competent federal minister, check whether the assurance given as to maintaining confidentiality is to be deemed sufficient. Access to records or the transmission of photocopies is to be refused where confidentiality cannot be ensured and if there are concerns that disclosure could prejudice national security.
5. Paragraphs 2 to 4 above shall also apply where a person who has been called upon to provide information or evidence refuses to do so on the grounds that disclosure would prejudice national security.
2. Where the person sought for surrender brings a challenge before a national court on the basis of the principle of ne bis in idem as provided in article 20, the requested State shall immediately consult with the Court to determine if there has been a relevant ruling on admissibility. If the case is admissible, the requested State shall proceed with the execution of the request. If an admissibility ruling is pending, the requested State may postpone the execution of the request for surrender of the person until the Court makes a determination on admissibility.
4. If the person sought is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the requested State for a crime different from that for which surrender to the Court is sought, the requested State, after making its decision to grant the request, shall consult with the Court.
4. Upon the request of the Court, a State Party shall consult with the Court, either generally or with respect to a specific matter, regarding any requirements under its national law that may apply under paragraph 2 (c). During the consultations, the State Party shall advise the Court of the specific requirements of its national law.
3. Where execution of a particular measure of assistance detailed in a request presented under paragraph 1, is prohibited in the requested State on the basis of an existing fundamental legal principle of general application, the requested State shall promptly consult with the Court to try to resolve the matter. In the consultations, consideration should be given to whether the assistance can be rendered in another manner or subject to conditions. If after consultations the matter cannot be resolved, the Court shall modify the request as necessary.
(i) In the event that a State Party receives competing requests, other than for surrender or extradition, from the Court and from another State pursuant to an international obligation, the State Party shall endeavour, in consultation with the Court and the other State, to meet both requests, if necessary by postponing or attaching conditions to one or the other request.
3. Upon the request of the Court, a State Party shall consult with the Court, either generally or with respect to a specific matter, regarding any requirements under its national law that may apply under paragraph 2 (e). During the consultations, the State Party shall advise the Court of the specific requirements of its national law.
Where a State Party receives a request under this Part in relation to which it identifies problems which may impede or prevent the execution of the request, that State shall consult with the Court without delay in order to resolve the matter. Such problems may include, inter alia:
(a) Insufficient information to execute the request;
(b) In the case of a request for surrender, the fact that despite best efforts, the person sought cannot be located or that the investigation conducted has determined that the person in the requested State is clearly not the person named in the warrant; or
(c) The fact that execution of the request in its current form would require the requested State to breach a pre-existing treaty obligation undertaken with respect to another State.