Icc Jeanne Sulzer

ICC skill

Core discipline

For any case-specific document — judgment, decision, warrant, filing, OTP

statement — verify before citing. Verification means retrieving the

document from a Tier 1 source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org, asp.icc-cpi.int)

in the current conversation. The four foundational texts (Rome Statute,

Elements of Crimes, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Regulations of the

Court) are the only exception, and only when they are present in project

knowledge.

Nothing else may be cited from memory. Inventing a document number, a date,

or a paragraph reference is the single failure mode this skill exists to

prevent.

When to use this skill

• The user asks a question that requires citing ICC case law, decisions,

warrants, OTP statements, ASP resolutions, or ICC procedural texts.

• The user supplies an ICC filing or judgment for analysis or audit.
• The user is drafting something — a memo, a brief section, a research

note — that will reference ICC instruments or case law.

• The user asks about Rome Statute interpretation, command responsibility,

modes of liability, war crimes / crimes against humanity / genocide /

aggression elements, victim participation, reparations, or other

Statute-grounded questions.

If the question is about another tribunal (ICTY, ICTR, MICT, SCSL, STL,

ECCC, KSC, or hybrid mechanisms), this skill does not apply — use the

relevant tribunal's skill or, if none exists, surface that to the user.

Workflow

The full procedure is in references/verification-workflow.md. The short

form:

• Identify the document. Read what is actually in front of you; if the

user names a case or document, disambiguate against the document's own

header before proceeding. (Bemba TJ vs. Bemba AJ; Ntaganda 2017

interlocutory vs. 2021 final appeal — identity errors propagate.)

• List every citation that will appear in the planned output, with the

proposition each supports.

• Verify each citation. Work the fallback ladder:

icc-cpi.int → legal-tools.org → search-result snippet from a Tier 1

domain → ICC press release → authoritative secondary database (e.g.

OUP ORIL) → ask the user. Stop at the first level that satisfies what

the claim needs.

• Match verification level to claim. Three levels: Existence

(document, number, date, chamber), Content (the document holds, in

substance, what the output says it holds), Paragraph (the cited

paragraph contains the cited proposition). Pinpoint quotations require

paragraph-level verification. If verification stops short, soften the

claim or flag it explicitly.

• Draft using verified material. Use the citation formats in

references/citation-format.md.

• Self-audit. Walk every citation in the draft: from project knowledge

or from this conversation's retrieval? Does the proposition match? Is

the verification level appropriate to the claim?

Reference materials

Read these as needed; they are the operational detail behind the workflow

above.

• references/authoritative-sources.md — Tier 1 / Tier 2 / do-not-cite

source hierarchy; the icc-cpi.int 403 fallback ladder.

• references/citation-format.md — exact formats for the Rome Statute,

Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations, decisions, warrants, OTP

statements, ASP documents. Includes the Article 28 numbering discipline

— the Rome Statute uses 28(a) (military commanders) and 28(b) (other

superiors), with no numbered paragraphs; the non-statutory 28(1)/(2)

form is the trap to avoid.

• references/verification-workflow.md — the full operational procedure,

the three-level verification gradient, a worked Bemba example.

• references/foundational-texts.md — the four foundational texts and

what is *not* foundational (case law, OTP policy papers, most ASP

resolutions, Regulations of the Registry/OTP, professional codes).

Worked examples

• examples/example-verification.md — two end-to-end examples: full

paragraph-level verification (Bemba effective control) and partial

verification when icc-cpi.int blocks (Ntaganda 2017 jurisdiction).

• examples/example-audit.md — two audit modes: working draft (the user

wrote it; citations are claims to be checked) vs. finalised Court record

(the Court issued it; citations are part of the record, and the audit

is about how downstream work uses them).

What this skill is not

• Not legal advice. Outputs are research and drafting aids for users

who understand international criminal law.

• Not a substitute for primary documents. A skill that follows this

workflow can produce accurate citations and disciplined drafts; only the

user can decide what to do with them.

• Not endorsed by the Court. Independent open-source project.

Hard rules

These are non-negotiable. Edits or workarounds that weaken them defeat the

skill.

• No case-specific citation from memory. Verify in-conversation.
• Public-redacted (-Red) versions only in public outputs. Confidential

filings (-Conf, -Conf-Exp) are not citable from a public output,

ever — even when the user has lawful access to the confidential version,

cite the -Red counterpart.

• The Statute's own numbering governs. For Article 28, that means

Article 28(a) (military commanders) and Article 28(b) (other

superiors) — not the non-statutory 28(1)/(2) form — in anything that

will be filed, read by judges or counsel, or quote the Statute.

• Secondary sources (HRW, Amnesty, UN bodies, academic commentary, news)

are clearly separable in the output and never used to establish what

the Court has said or held.

• icc-cpi.int 403s are structural, not failures. Work the fallback ladder;

do not abandon a real citation because the direct fetch was blocked.