This article examines whether the ICC Prosecutor has complied with its statutory obligation under Article 54(1)(a) of the Rome Statute to investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally. By way of a number of striking examples of deficient investigations, it demonstrates that the ICC Prosecutor has so far failed to comply with this obligation. As a matter of competence and diligence, the Prosecutor is expected to conduct thorough investigations: this requires a critical assessment of each case and the supporting evidential material. An examination of the pending ICC cases shows that the Prosecutor has not met this expectation. The investigations conducted in all of these cases have been incomplete as far as both incriminating and exonerating circumstances are concerned. This article, however, also suggests that the defence is in a better position to search for exonerating evidence than the Prosecutor, and questions whether Article 54(1)(a) can be applied effectively under any conditions.

The question whether the International Criminal Court may use its review powers to determine the admissibility of a case during the arrest warrant phase has gone widely unnoticed in legal literature on the International Criminal Court. This article treats the question from different perspectives. It presents the different stages at which admissibility questions may arise in response to a state party referral. Then it analyses the first jurisprudence of Pre-Trial Chambers I and II of the Court on the treatment of the question of admissibility at the arrest warrant stage. The article concludes that the Court may, proprio motu or based on a Prosecutor's request, rule on admissibility questions during arrest warrant proceedings per Article 58.