Arrey Collins O., is an international criminal and human rights lawyer and on the List of Counsel before the International Criminal Court (ICC). He is currently serving at the Court’s headquarters in The Hague.
He has been documenting atrocities and crimes in Cameroon, exposing violations by both state and non-state armed groups. His work reflects a firm belief that those responsible for serious crimes must be held accountable under international humanitarian law.
Before joining the ICC, Barrister Arrey Collins gained extensive international experience, training with the Media Legal Defence Initiative (now Media Defence) in London, which introduced him to advocacy before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). He also trained at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in Italy and the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. A graduate of the University of Yaoundé II, he holds an LL.M. in Transnational Crimes and Justice from UPEACE/UNICRI.
In our discussion on how the ICC holds perpetrators of humanitarian and human rights violations accountable, he noted that many countries refuse to ratify the Rome Statute out of fear of accountability.
We talked about the perception that African countries are often targeted by the ICC, referencing the Ivorian Laurent Gbagbo case and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s death.
Read on for our exclusive interview.…
What is the actual mandate of the ICC?
Arrey Collins: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the world’s first permanent international criminal tribunal. As a court of last resort, it plays a crucial role in the global fight against impunity, seeking to hold perpetrators accountable for serious crimes and to prevent such atrocities from recurring through the pursuit of international justice.
How does the ICC mandate applies to a country like Cameroon?
On the 17th of July 1998, at the United Nations Diplomatic Conference, Cameroon signed the adoption of the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court and has till date refused to ratify the Treaty which in principle extend the Court’s jurisdiction over the Cameroonian territory. However, the above situation does not make anyone in Cameroon immune from accountability of what we call, atrocity crimes of concern to the international community.
Unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ), should the mandate of the International Criminal Court (ICC) apply to Cameroon, the ICC’s prosecutions would focus on individual perpetrators—particularly those in positions of authority under the principle of command responsibility. These would include senior civilian administrators, high-ranking military officers, as well as commanders of organized non-state armed groups.
What is the status of the ICC’s engagement or monitoring in relation to Cameroon?
Due to confidentiality, I cannot provide detailed information on ongoing activities. However, The Court’s operational mandate under its complementarity regime, as outlined in the preamble of the Rome Statute, is to put an end to impunity for perpetrators of atrocities and crimes and contribute to their prevention.
In principle, this responsibility complements the duty of all states, as established by the UN Charter, to refrain from actions inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Cameroon, we all observe, has not ratified the Rome Statute? Which implication does that have for ICC jurisdiction.
As I mentioned earlier, Cameroon has signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Under public international law, the treaty is not binding to Cameroon, and in principle, the Court’s jurisdiction does not automatically extend to offenses committed in Cameroon.
However, given that all states are bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), with obligations to respect, protect and fulfil, in addition to the protections established under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, there are significant avenues for the ICC to assert jurisdiction over atrocities in Cameroon, even though it is not a state party to the Rome Statute.
And which are these avenues?
There are three ways the ICC can exercise jurisdiction: referral by a State Party, investigations initiated proprio motu by the ICC Prosecutor, or referral by the UN Security Council. In Cameroon’s case, the first two are not possible since the country is not a State Party. The only remaining option is a Security Council referral, though prospects remain slim due to the potential for a veto from France.
What is particularly significant, however, is that if there is a change of government that upholds human rights, prioritizes justice for victims and ratifies the Rome Statute (Article 12(1)), it shall automatically trigger ICC jurisdiction over atrocities and crimes committed in Cameroon over the past nine years and even before. Holding individual perpetrators accountable and ensuring reparations for victims, including indirect victims who have lost family members or homes shall significantly fill the accountability gap in Cameroon.
Interestingly, ICC offenses are not constrained by statutory time limits. A ratifying State must specifically request that the Court exercises retroactive jurisdiction, which applies from the date the Statute comes into force, not the date of ratification.
Why do you think Cameroon and some other countries have refused to ratify the Rome Statute? Is it because they fear that some of their officials could one day be brought before the ICC?
The unity and commitment to upholding the equality of all lives have been the cornerstone of the ICC. Justice speaks a universal language. The refusal to the ratification of the Rome Statute stems from fear of accountability.
Who pays compensation to the victims? the state or ICC or both?
In principle it should be the convicted person. The Court has in several decisions obliged those whose criminal liability have been established for serious crimes or crimes of sufficient gravity to repair the harm they caused to the victims and ensure that offenders account for their acts.
In case the convicted person is considered impecunious, reparations are made by the Trust Fund for Victims which is an integral part of the Court which receives contributions(funds) from states parties to pay reparations to victims.
How does the ICC cooperate with countries that are not members such as Cameroon?
As a non-state party, Cameroon is not obligated to cooperate with ICC operations. However, it is noteworthy that Cameroon participated in the drafting of the Rome Statute at the United Nations Diplomatic Conference in 1998 and even submitted proposals on Article 5 crimes in multiple languages, yet it has remained unwilling to ratify the treaty to this day.
Although there is no formal obligation, Cameroon has the option to cooperate with the Court’s work. For example, during the Bemba investigations (Situation in the Central African Republic), Cameroonian authorities collaborated with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP).
How does the ICC approach situations involving alleged crimes in conflict-affected regions, such as the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon?
The ICC operates on an “evidentiary threshold”, meaning it must establish substantial grounds to believe that crimes of sufficient gravity, under the Rome Statute were committed and were perpetrated by the identified suspects.
This standard applies to all facts and circumstances before any formal investigation or prosecution can proceed.
What kinds of crimes would fall under ICC jurisdiction if an investigation were launched in Cameroon?
Under Article 5 of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s core crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Articles 6 to 8 further define these offenses, and a separate instrument adopted by the Assembly of States Parties outlines their specific legal elements.
My ongoing project documenting alleged ICC crimes in Cameroon covers three of these categories except the crime of aggression, which applies only to conflicts between two or more states.
Do you mean your project might already have names of suspects in Cameroon who would eventually face ICC prosecution? do you want to name names?
Of course, yes!! A lot of names from both sides. International criminal justice is centred on individual criminal responsibility not entities, but for confidentiality purposes I cannot disclose anything further.
Are there, so far, any preliminary examinations or reports at the ICC that involve Cameroon directly or indirectly?
Cameroon is not yet under formal consideration as a situation before the ICC, so there is no preliminary examination at this stage. However, the country remains a prospective situation, given the number of reports submitted by various non-governmental organizations documenting alleged crimes.
How does the ICC coordinate with local and regional human rights organizations when gathering information?
Civil society organizations play a crucial role in the ICC’s work.
They were instrumental in advocating for the Court’s creation and continue to serve as key partners in advancing its mandate. I encourage Cameroonian civil society organizations to join the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC)—a global network of more than 2,500 NGOs working for justice in cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
There is also an online submission link on the ICC’s website where individuals or organizations can directly share information with the Office of the Prosecutor regarding alleged crimes.
How does the ICC encourage cooperation from governments that may be reluctant or resistant?
The ICC was established through a treaty—the Rome Statute—and, under treaty law, states have the choice to ratify or not. Once a state ratifies, it assumes a legal obligation to implement the terms of the treaty. Most international treaties, including the Rome Statute, also outline consequences for non-compliance, which serve as mechanisms to encourage cooperation among member states.
You mentioned earlier that there are three ways the ICC can prosecute someone. Could you walk us through how and why former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo ended up before the ICC?
Former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo was charged with crimes against humanity related to post-election violence following the disputed 2010 presidential election, which left around 3,000 people dead and displaced more than 500,000 others—a situation comparable in some ways to what is unfolding in Cameroon. The new Ivorian government referred the case to the ICC under Article 14 of the Rome Statute, thereby triggering the Court’s jurisdiction through a self-referral process.
What do you make of the suggestion that countries and leaders who were involved in what is described as the unjust killing of for example, Libyan Col. Gaddafi should be brought before the ICC? Can Libyans not file cases at the ICC?
Hahaha! I think this question is more political, and I can’t comment on what I can’t fully justify.
How does the ICC respond to criticism that it disproportionately targets African countries and their leaders?
The ICC views such criticism as part of a broader misunderstanding of its mandate. The Court recognizes that the international community needs greater awareness of its role and operations.
That is why it continues to invest in outreach and public education efforts, working to close the information gap and ensure that its work is seen as impartial, evidence-based, and globally relevant—not regionally selective.
For instance, the famous criticism by many Africans that ICC was created to target Africans! I find that bias and unfair because most of the cases that are from the African regions to the ICC were self-referrals. There are equally cases from different regions like the Philippine, Ukraine, Isreal etc.
As we speak, lawyers of opposition candidate in the October 12 Presidential elections, Issa Tchiroma Bakary, are asking victims to provide testimonies for potential use against the Biya regime, which is now targeting lawyers and activists. Can victims feel safe coming forward to testify?
The work of the Court is mostly centred around making victim-centred justice work. For the first time in international criminal justice, the ICC prioritize the interest of victims of atrocity crimes. Unlike the days of Ad-Hoc Tribunals, victims do not only have the right of protection and participation in the entire proceedings, but they equally enjoy the right to request for reparations if a conviction is secured at trial.
In your view, what could strengthen the relationship between Cameroon and the ICC?
It ultimately depends on the will of the Cameroonian people to support a government that upholds human rights standards and ensures accountabilities for all forms of violations—social, cultural, and economic. Most importantly, there must be strong advocacy for victims of atrocity crimes committed over the past years, in line with UN General Assembly Resolution 40/34 on the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (29 November 1985).
In my view, the current government’s refusal to ratify the Rome Statute is deliberate, as it is aware of how vulnerable it could become under international criminal scrutiny. However, the Cameroonian people should not lose hope. In the event of a change in leadership, there remains the possibility of holding perpetrators accountable, either through the ICC or under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows states to investigate and prosecute core international crimes regardless of where they were committed.
Interviewed by Solomon Amabo
