THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AS A VERITABLE TOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ETHNIC MINORITIES: EXAMINING THE ICC’S DECISIONS REGARDING THE PEOPLE OF ROHINGYA

Notwithstanding obstacles to the power and jurisdiction of the ICC, the judges’ posture is that the court is ever ready to protect ethnic minorities against any form of violations. Regarding the situation of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, the Pre-Trial Chamber 1 and III of the ICC held that the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over Myanmar, a non-party State to the Rome Statute, for the deportation of the Rohingya people to Bangladesh. With these decisions, international observers hope for accountability for those responsible for the crimes committed against the Rohingya people. It examines the applicable law and history of discrimination of the Rohingya people using the descriptive method and then examines the jurisprudence behind these rulings using the analytical method. Finally, this article suggests that the Rome Statute should be consistently interpreted by the ICC judges to advance the Rome Statute’s intention, especially when ethnic minority groups are involved.


A. Introduction
Over the years, there have been agitations by ethnic minorities worldwide to protect their rights against violations by different actors like States, 1 multinational corporations, 2 or even other citizens in their various countries. 3 The ethnic minorities face various acts of violations, including the  5 , the effectiveness of the ICC in protecting some of the identified human rights abuses, and most importantly, the ICC as a veritable tool to protecting the rights of ethnic minority groups.
Again, in 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber III (The PTC III) gave the prosecutor authorization to carry out a full investigation into the situation in Myanmar. 6 These issues are even more important seeing that The Gambia has gone ahead to institute an action ABC, 30 May 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/religion/citizenship-exclusion-and-the-denial-of-indigenoussovereign-rig/10095738 (accessed 28 January 2021). Here, the writer, a professor of Indigenous Studies, pointed out "that the majority of white Australians voted in favour of a referendum that did not give Indigenous people citizenship rights" in the 1967 referendum organised by the Australian government. 4 The against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), 7 and a court in Argentine has accepted a petition to try Myanmar officials under the universal jurisdiction principle in an apparent conviction that the rights of the Rohingya people must be established and protected. Therefore, this article gives a historical background to the Rohingya people's situation, the jurisdiction of the ICC, its legislative history, and the mischief it was set to remedy. The article also reviews the majority decision and the dissenting view of Judge Marc-Perrin de Brichambaut 8 of the PTC I, a summary of the ruling of the PTC III authorizing a full investigation into the crises, and finally, some of the factors that oppose the ICC regarding the protection of the rights of ethnic minority groups. Again, countries are beginning to stand up for the rights of the Rohingya people, like the Gambian case at the ICJ and the Rohingya case in Argentina under the universal jurisdiction, and this is an indication that the world is ready to hold the Myanmar leadership accountable for decades of their persecution of the Rohingya people.
From these decisions, a question that this article would answer is whether the ICC is creating a new norm of customary international law where the court can exercise jurisdiction over States that are not party to the Rome Statute? Put differently, is the jurisdiction of the ICC and the Rome Statute now part of customary international law so that States that are not parties to the Rome Statute would be bound by its provisions, especially when ethnic minority groups are involved?

B. Research Method
This article is on two decisions by the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC regarding the situation in Myanmar where the members of the Rohingya ethnic minority group were displaced and deported to Bangladesh. First, using the descriptive research method, this article tells the history of the Rohingya people, why they were deported from Myanmar to Bangladesh, and their difficulties in obtaining justice. Again, using the same method, this article traces the history of the ICC and the various resolutions adopted at the Rome Conference in 1998 that finally culminated into the Rome Statute. Second, the analytical research method is employed to look at the Pre-Trial Chamber I and III decisions critically. The merits of the majority decisions in PTC I are analyzed to discover if the judges followed the Rome Statute's intention. The  of the PTC I and III. Also, the analytical method enables us to discover that the core crimes provided in the Rome Statute and the jurisdiction of the ICC, even though the jurisdiction has been objected to by a small percentage of States, are gradually becoming part of customary international law.
Primary and secondary data sources are used in this article. For instance, international legal instruments, previous decisions of the ICC and other international courts, and national laws serve as the primary source of data. Opinions in textbooks and journal articles of recognized scholars on the ICC and minority groups are the secondary data sources.

Historical Background and the Situation of the Rohingya People
The Rohingya people, an ethnic minority group in Myanmar, were stripped of their citizenship for failing to establish that their forefathers inhabited Burma before 1823, 9 making them one of the seven stateless populations of the world. 10 The stance of Myanmar, a non-party State to the Rome Statute, is that the Rohingya people are nationals of Bangladesh, but because of the British partitioning, they found themselves in Myanmar. 11 Myanmar's stance is despite evidence that shows that the Rohingya  THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AS A VERITABLE TOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS  OF ETHNIC MINORITIES: EXAMINING THE ICC'S DECISIONS REGARDING  THE PEOPLE OF ROHINGYA people have been in Myanmar since 1799. 12 The Myanmar government has gone ahead to classify them as "illegal immigrants from Bangladesh". 13 Being stateless implied that they would not be allowed to work at the civil service jobs, they were denied state education, and their freedom of movement was restricted. 14 Their situation is only comparable to the apartheid regime in South Africa, 15 the Rohingya people were in 2013 described as the most persecuted group of people in the world by the United Nations. 16 The immediate cause for which the ICC Prosecutor initiated a case was killing the Rohingya people in August 2017 as a response by Myanmar's military to an attack on a police post. 17 Because of the "clearanceoperation" launched by the military, many of the Rohingya people fled the country to Bangladesh. Many people were killed while fleeing. Within weeks, among the one million Rohingya people in Myanmar, around 700,000 were already taking refuge in Bangladesh. 18 From August to November 2017, reporters alleged that the Burmese Military (Myanmar was officially known as Burma) had killed, raped, detained arbitrarily, and committed arson against the Rohingyas. 19 Landmines were laid by the military, which killed many when they attempted crossing the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh. 20 In an attempt to conceal evidence of international crimes, especially crimes against humanity, Myanmar's authorities allegedly bulldozed graves of murdered Rohingya people. 21 It has been recognized that the long persecution and prosecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar reveals the shortcomings of current international attempts to thwart abuses of human rights and the need for systemic solutions to address gaps in moral and political ideology. 22

Jurisdiction, Legislative history, and the mischief prior to the ICC.
The ICC's substantive jurisdiction is restricted to the most severe offenses of concern to the international community. These crimes are war crimes, the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, and genocide. 25 They are the so-called core crimes, and they constitute a violation of "jus cogens 26 norms of international law, giving rise to so-called erga omnes (State) responsibility to either prosecute or extradite." 27 The debate on the ICC's territorial jurisdiction was heated, unlike its substantive jurisdiction during the Rome Conference of 1998 (the Rome Conference). 28 Many representatives of States at the Rome Conference, it should be remembered, had proposed that the ICC be given universal jurisdiction over the four core crimes so that it can prosecute any international crime regardless of whether it was committed on the territory of or by a citizen of a State Party. 29 States like India, China, and the USA that opposed the idea of the conferment of universal jurisdiction on the ICC feared for their sovereignty, and they envisaged a possibility of them being unable to protect their citizens; they instead favored a "weak and more symbolic court" Generally, for the ICC to have jurisdiction over persons and territories, one of the following preconditions must be present, 1) the core crimes have been committed by a citizen of a State Party to the Rome Statute, regardless of where they committed the crime; 31 and for States not being parties to the Statute 2) if such a State accepts ICC jurisdiction on an ad-hoc basis; 32 and 3) where the United Nations Security Council (the Security Council) refers a matter to the ICC 33 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. 34 Referral by the Security Council would mean that in the case of a non-party State, the jurisdiction of the ICC will remain dormant until triggered by a referral. 35 In other words, the ICC jurisdiction remains inactive until a state party makes a referral or the Security Council and/or the ICC Prosecutor makes an initiation in line with article 15. 36 The initiation must be concerning crimes committed 'within the jurisdiction of the Court.' 37 As seen already, the territorial jurisdiction is limited to state 30 ibid, 19 -20. 31 The Rome Statute (n 5) art 12 (2) The mischief/defect the Rome Statute remedied was, therefore, the lack of a single source of international criminal law for the prosecution of persons who commit crimes that 'deeply shock the conscience of humanity,' 42 'reveal the vanity of man and wickedness of the human heart' 43 and 'threaten the peace and security of the world'. 44 The remedy is more so seeing that the 'horrors of the Second World War' 45 did not prevent a repeat of such heinous crimes. Because of the reason for the establishment of the ICC, we will argue later that the legislative history of the Rome Statute should not have more weight and indeed should not be preferred over the mischief rule whenever the Rome Statute is to be interpreted and applied. This preference is because relying on the legislative history, rather than the defect for which the Rome Statute was set to correct, would still lead to the international community's inability to prosecute acts that "deeply shock the conscience of humanity".

The Majority and Dissenting Decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber I
The preceding part looked at the ICC jurisdiction and how, during the Rome Conference, the participants rejected the idea of universal jurisdiction for the ICC.  The Rome Statute (n 5) art 7 (1) (d). 47 The Majority Decision (n 4) para 73. 48 The Dissenting Decision (n 8) para 40.
We shall now consider the PTC I's majority decision to discover whether the court followed sound international jurisprudence or not.
The ICC Prosecutor's request was for the ICC to determine if it can exercise its jurisdiction over the forcible deportation, a constitutive element of the crime against humanity, 46 against the Rohingya people. The majority decision by Judges Peter Kovacs and Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou is that the ICC has jurisdiction over the expulsion from Myanmar to Bangladesh of members of the Rohingya people 47 despite Myanmar not being a state party to the Rome Statute. Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut dissented on the ground that a Request to rule on jurisdiction is premature at this stage until the Prosecutor must have done 'preliminary investigation and subsequently seeking authorization to commence an investigation according to article 15 (3)'. 48 a. Areas of Novelty

1). Article 19(3) of the Rome Statute -Compétence-de-la-Compétence
The power of courts to rule on their jurisdiction is referred to as Kompetenz-Kompetenz or the Compétence-de-la- Compétence principle. 49 Relying on the ICJ's judgment in Liechtenstein v Guatemala, the PTC I ruled on this concept thus: "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, an international tribunal has the right to decide as to its jurisdiction and has the power to interpret for this purpose the instruments which govern that jurisdiction." 50  since article 119 was not mentioned in the Request, it should not be relied upon by the PTC can be countered on the ground that whenever a court is interpreting a statute, the court must make a wholistic interpretation of that statute. All the articles of the statute must be read as a whole to find the intention of the draftsmen. 58 Historically, article 119 elicited some commentaries. Since the International Law Commission has the practice of not drafting the final provisions of any article, it merely suggested that the ICC should have the power to "determine its own jurisdiction" and would have to deal with any issue that may arise with regards to the interpretation and application of the statute. 59 The final draft report of the Preparatory Committee contained Four Options in Article 108 on how disputes should be settled: Option 1) disputes should be settled by the decision of the Court; Option 2) disputes on the interpretation or application of the Statute which is not resolved through negotiations should be referred to the Assembly of States Parties which shall make recommendations on further means of settlement of the dispute; Article 119 (1) is of more importance to this article. According to Timothy O'Neill, there are two limitations to the ICC's competence regarding this provision -there must be a "dispute" and the dispute must relate to "the judicial function" of the ICC. 65 As the ICJ has held, a dispute exists "where there is a disagreement on the point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interest between parties" 66 and "it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other". 67 Although Myanmar vehemently refused to engage with the Court in any formal reply, perhaps because Myanmar has consistently made it known that they are not a party to the Rome Statute. 68 Their refusal to engage the Court should not be interpreted as no case or dispute or positive opposition between the ICC Prosecutor and the Republic of Myanmar. Rather the ICC Prosecutor's Request should be seen as merely asking the Court to rule on its jurisdiction. Again, an authorization request to commence an investigation under article 15 is based on a "reasonable basis". A reasonable basis is arrived at after the Prosecutor has determined 1) the seriousness of the allegation; 2) whether the ICC has material or territorial jurisdiction; 3) admissibility issues and the interest of justice to be served by commencing such trial. 69 So, the Prosecutor merely wanted to be sure that the ICC has jurisdiction before seeking authorization.

2) International Legal Personality (ILP) of the ICC
In what could be judicial activism, the PTC I established the ICC as having an international legal personality, even though the argument for it was not advance by the ICC Prosecutor. 70 By doing so, the PTC I successfully navigated through the complex request of the ICC Prosecutor. The ICC's international legal personality would mean that the ICC has been "clothed it with the competence" required to enable it [to] perform its functions effectively. 71 The reasoning that the ICC has been conferred the status of international legal personality, and by implication, jurisdiction over all countries because 'over 120 States have ratified the […] Statute', 72 has a far-reaching effect in international criminal law. In justifying its decision, the PTC 1 has this to say: "…it is the view of the Chamber that more than 120 States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, in conformity with international law, to bring into being an entity called the "International Criminal Court", possessing objective international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone, together with the capacity to act against impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and which is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions". 73 In 2001, before the Rome Statute entered into force, Scharf had opined that the ICC's universal jurisdiction does not give it the power to prosecute States not parties to the Rome Statute without referral by the Security Council. 74 It would seem that the conferment of international legal personality on the ICC does not mean that it has universal jurisdiction. If the ICC had such jurisdiction, then there would have been no need for countries to sign up to the Statute as its jurisdiction, in any case, would bind them. The provision that consents of a nonparty State be obtained or that the Security Council should refer a case involving States not being parties to the ICC, 75 shows that 73 The The Majority Decision (n 4) para 36. 82 Vienna Convention (n 80) art 38. 83 The Majority Decision (n 4) para 36.
the drafters of the Statute never intended it to have universal jurisdiction 76 as it would present some difficulties, 77 including States pulling out or refusing to ratify the Statute. This fact was also recognized by the PTC I when it decided to limit the Prosecutor's investigatory power to deportation only. In this way, an element of deportation, border crossing, happened on the territory of Bangladesh, a state party to the Rome Statute.
It is important to note that the initial thought regarding the obligation of States that are not parties to the Rome Statute is only to assist. 78 While recognizing the importance of the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt -"a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for third parties without their consent" 79 -reiterated in article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 80 the PTC I held that there are exceptions to it. 81 These exceptions include rules recognized by nations as customary international law rules 82 and peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens). 83 The PTC I brings the ICC into a relationship with the UN, whose Security

3) Elements of Deportation
To expand its jurisdiction to protect the rights of ethnic minority groups, the PTC I held that since an element of deportation, that is crossing the border, occurred in a State-Party's territory, the ICC has jurisdiction. 88 The PTC I held that "the inclusion of the inherently transboundary crime of deportation in the Statute without limitation as to the requirement regarding the destination reflects the intentions of the drafters to, inter alia, allow for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction when one element of this crime or part of it is on the territory of a State Party". 89 The PTC I arrived at this after analyzing article 12(2)(a), which provides that where conduct has taken place in a stateparty, the ICC will be vested with jurisdiction because there is no contemplation regarding 84 ibid, para 43. 85 ibid. 86 Latin for "a thing done between others does not harm or benefit others". 87 ibid, para 43. 88 The the destination of those deported. Whether those deported were taken to a no man's land provided an element of it, that is, the crossing of a border, took place in a state party to the Rome Statute, the ICC would exercise its jurisdiction.
The PTC I decision also confirmed that article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute contemplates two distinct offenses, as confirmed by the Elements of Crimes 90 -"deportation and forcible transfer" because of the use of "or" in article 7 (1)(d). The said article provides that "crime against humanity means… [d]eportation or forcible transfer of population". 91 Therefore, in this reasoning, a "forceful transfer" entails the displacement of a group within a state's borders. At the same time, deportation involves the displacement of persons lawfully residing in a country to another country. 92 In support of this argument is article 12 (2)(a) that provides that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction if "… [t]he State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred" is a State party to the Rome Statute. 93 International law allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over a criminal act if an element of that crime occurred in its territory. 94 This decision is significant on two grounds: Gomez has argued that the PTC I's broad interpretation of the jurisdiction of the ICC "may not have been the best approach", 96 and he goes ahead to recommend that the PTC should have followed the alternative of "propos[ing] an amendment to the Rome Statute." 97 He argues that such amendment should be made to article 12(2)(a), which provides that the ICC can exercise jurisdiction to investigate crimes over "[t]he State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred" 98 to now read that the ICC has jurisdiction over " [t]he State on the The Prosecutor in 2019 initiated a series of processes for authorization to commence an investigation into the whole scenario. As a result, the authorization was granted to her in the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber III.

The Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision
On the 4th of July 2019, the Prosecutor requested the Chamber for authorization to commence an investigation into the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar from 9 October 2016 and continuing. 103 The Prosecutor must make this Request, accompanied by relevant materials, for the commencement of investigation into any situation if the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis for an investigation. 104 After this request has been made, "[i]f the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the jurisdiction and admissibility of a case." 105 At a closer look at the emphasized phrase, it would appear that even after the Pre-Trial Chamber has authorized the commencement by which a state (party or not) grants the Court jurisdiction over a situation that took place when such state had not accepted the application of the Rome Statute" ( see Souza Dias (n 100) 67. 103 Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15, ICC-01/19-7 and 10 annexes (hereinafter referred to as the Investigation Request). 104 The Rome Statute (n 5) art 15 (3).  105 ibid, art 15 (4). Emphasis added. 106 The PTC III Decision (n 6) para 20. 107 ibid, para 22. 108 ibid, para 29. 109 ibid, para 31. 110 ibid, para 32.
of investigation and had determined its jurisdiction, the ICC is not precluded, during the trial, to revisit the issue of jurisdiction. In order words, the ICC can still conclude that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain a case already investigated.
During the PTC III, the victims were represented, wherein their views and concerns were collected as per article 68 (3) of the Rome Statute. Three hundred thirtynine representations in English were received (311 representations were submitted in written form, and 28 were put forward in video format). 106 These representations were either from families or those living in the same refugee camp, and multiple other representations from individuals were also made. 107 The victims' representation presented gory abuses of human rights perpetrated against the Rohingya, including indiscriminate shootings of villagers, especially targeting children, and some of them were thrown into water or fire to die. 108 Many women were gang-raped, and their sexual organs mutilated, 109 homes and schools belonging to the Rohingya people were burnt, and some of their valuables were taken away. 110 All of these, the victim representations claimed, were done Based on the victim representation, the PTC III determined that authorizing an investigation would be in the interest of justice and that the case passed the admissibility test. The PTC III also decided that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC. While agreeing with the PTC I on ICC jurisdiction, it held that "[f]or the reasons given below, the Chamber agrees with the conclusion of Pre-Trial Chamber I that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over crimes when part of the criminal conduct takes place on the territory of a State Party." 113

a. Types of jurisdictions
The PTC III decision was extensive in its discussion of jurisdiction and "conduct" that constitutes a crime. Four components of jurisdiction must be considered while determining whether a court has jurisdiction or not -jurisdiction ratione materiae, jurisdiction ratione temporis, jurisdiction ratione loci, and jurisdiction ratione personae. These components will be discussed below and how the PTC III justified them to arrive at the fact that the ICC has jurisdiction over Myanmar.

1) Jurisdiction ratione materiae and jurisdiction ratione temporis
Jurisdiction ratione materiae also known as subject matter jurisdiction, implies that a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate only on those cases "that raise those factual and legal questions which the constitutive instruments have defined and/or that one or more of the parties have agreed to refer to adjudication." 114 For the ICC, its jurisdiction ratione materiae is limited to those core crimes mentioned in article 5 of the Rome Statute. In the case of Myanmar, the atrocities committed against the Rohingya are covered under the Rome Statute as the victim representations indicated. 115 An international court's jurisdiction may also be time-bound; that is to say, a court cannot adjudicate a case until the statute establishing the subject matter comes into force. It "denotes the effect of the passage of time on obligations or a tribunal's power to decide a dispute" 116 and that treaties should not be applied retroactively. 117 This is called jurisdiction ratione temporis. Article 11 (1) of the Rome Statute provides that "[t] he Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute", and for a state that becomes a party to the Rome Statute after

2) Jurisdiction ratione personae
Under jurisdiction ratione personae, a court is limited to try a specific type of persons. The ICC is to "have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern," 121 and these persons must be nationals of a state party to the Rome Statute, 122 or a non-party State by special arrangement 118 The Rome Statute (n 5) art 11 (2). 119 The PTC III (n 6) paras 63 -91. 120 ibid, para 110. 121 The Rome Statute (n 5) art 1. 122 ibid, art 12 (2) It has been noted elsewhere that prosecutions at the ICC have all been based on territoriality rather than the accused person's nationality. 127 The ICC Prosecutor had investigated but dismissed the prospect of nationality-based cases instead of territorial claims in 2003. In his first report on communications submitted according borders of Bangladesh (a State party) would be investigated.

3) Jurisdiction ratione loci
This is the most important in this ruling by the PTC III because of its interpretation of "conduct" and "crime" as used in article 12 (2) (a). Jurisdiction ratione loci is the power of a court to prosecute crimes committed within its locality or territory. The "territorial theory" represents the acceptance of the global community that a State does not exist without the right to regulate actions or events occurring within its territory. 133 As earlier indicated, this principle is embodied in article 12 (2)  The PTC III, in maintaining the decision arrived at by the PTC I that the ICC has jurisdiction over the situation in Myanmar, interpreted the word "conduct" as used in article 12 (2) (a) with regards to deportation. It defines it as "a form of behavior encompassing more than the notion of an act" 136 Although the drafters of the Rome Statute deliberately used the word "conduct" with regards to a state's territory and "crime" committed on vessel or craft, the PTC III concluded, "that the notions of 'conduct' and 'crime' in article 12 (2) that the Crime of deportation was completed when the Rohingya fled their ancestral homes to Bangladesh due to the "clearance operation" initiated by the Myanmar military. 138 While agreeing with the Prosecutor, the PTC III concluded that the crossing of the border of Bangladesh was conducted that "clearly establishes a territorial link on the basis of the actus reus of [deportation]". 139 The PTC III rationalized this using the constructive and the constitutive territorial principles as bases to assume jurisdiction since the crime of deportation was completed in a state party and that a constitutive element of the crime, that is the crossing of a border, all happened in Bangladesh. 140 The objective territorial principle allows national courts to assume jurisdiction over activities that occurred outside their national borders but with impacts and effects on their territories. In other words, this principle allows a state to prosecute and punish crimes committed outside the State consummated within its territory. 141 Again, the authorization granted the ICC Prosecutor is so broad that it even covers "investigation to alleged crimes committed at least in part on the territory of other States Parties or States which would accept the jurisdiction of this Court in Md. Kamruzzaman, "Argentinian court decision brings hope for Rohingya", AA, 2 June 2020 https://www.aa.com. tr/en/americas/argentinian-court-decision-brings-hope-for-rohingya/1861967#:~:text=A%20court%20 in%20South%20American,and%20persecution%20against%20Rohingya%20community.&text=1%20 has%20accepted%20its%20petition,information%20on%20the%20Rohingya%20genocide (accessed 3 February 2021); Arunav Kaul, "Argentina Is Taking a Unique Route to Try Myanmar's Leaders for Crimes on Rohingya", The Wire, 10 December 2020 https://thewire.in/rights/argentina-universal-jurisdictionmyanmar-rohingyas (accessed 3 February 2021). 148 Tun Khin, "Universal Jurisdiction, the International Criminal Court, and the Rohingya Genocide", OpinioJuris, 23 October 2020 http://opiniojuris.org/2020/10/23/universal-jurisdiction-the-international-criminalcourt-and-the-rohingya-genocide/ (accessed 3 February 2021). 149 Gomez (n 22) 6. 150 Thomas Van Poecke, Marta Hermez, and Jonas Vernimmen, "The Gambia's gamble, and how jurisdictional limits may keep the ICJ from ruling on Myanmar's alleged genocide against Rohingya" EJIL: Talk, 21 November 2019, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-gambias-gamble-and-how-jurisdictional-limits-may-keep-the-icj-fromruling-on-myanmars-alleged-genocide-against-rohingya/ (accessed 16 November 2020).
the universal jurisdiction principle. According to the petition, genocide and crimes against humanity can be prosecuted in any country, notwithstanding where those offenses took place and the nationality of the offenders and victims. 147 Even though these cases would complement one another in bringing justice to the Rohingya people and sending a strong signal to Myanmar leadership that the whole world is determined to hold them accountable for the persecution of the Rohingya people, 148 a final decision by the ICC will be most effective. 149 ICC judgment would have more far-reaching effects, including holding persons accountable for the crimes committed, unlike the ICJ's decision that would merely establish Myanmar's responsibility. 150 The PTC decisions established the ICC's jurisdiction over Myanmar through the judges' ingenuity and desire for justice for the Rohingya people. This ingenuity is despite oppositions from different States and actors that try to

D. Conclusion
Despite some difficulties, justice for the Rohingya people is gradually obtained, firstly, by the creative interpretation of the Rome Statute by the PTC I and III, and secondly, by other countries taking innovative steps regarding the plight of the Rohingya people. The Majority Decision of the PTC I and the PTC III decision are a welcome development in international criminal law. They establish the fact that the jurisdiction of the ICC has been recognized by many nations who have signed and ratified the Rome Statute. While it is good to look at a law's legislative history while interpreting it, it is even better to consider the mischief that existed before the law. In the case of the Rome Statute, it codified the hitherto scattered sources of international criminal law and aimed at holding accountable those who commit acts that "deeply shock the conscience of humanity," 152 "reveal the vanity of man and wickedness of the human heart," 153 and "threaten the peace and security of the world". 154  followed the spirit behind the Rome Statute as the ICC is the first permanent international criminal court charged with prosecuting those that threaten the peace and security of the world. Finally, these ICC decisions have reiterated that the core crimes under article 5 of the Rome Statute are customary international laws. With these decisions also, the trend is that the jurisdiction of the ICC, in the bid to protect all human beings from "the wickedness of the human heart", is being elevated to universal jurisdiction.