To be elected a judge at the International Criminal Court was long considered an honor. For Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, the distinction has become an ordeal.
Ms. Ibáñez was a prosecutor in her native Peru, where she oversaw trials of Shining Path terrorists, of military officers accused of human rights abuses and of government officials charged with corruption. Death threats were common.
But since the Trump administration imposed sanctions on her and on some of her colleagues in retaliation for the court’s decision to investigate U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, she has faced different kinds of challenges, she said. The penalties effectively cut the judges off from all American funds, goods and credit cards, and prohibit individuals and business in the United States from working with them.
“We’re treated like pariahs, we are on a list with terrorists and drug dealers,” Ms. Ibáñez said.
On Dec. 18, Washington blacklisted two more I.C.C. judges, making 11 of the court’s top officials — eight judges and the three top prosecutors — subject to American sanctions.
Some have been punished for a 2020 decision to investigate accusations that American military and C.I.A. personnel committed war crimes in Afghanistan, even though the prosecutor effectively shelved the U.S. component of that case in 2021.
But the main thrust of Washington’s sanctions is to press the court to cancel arrest warrants issued in 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and for Yoav Gallant, a former Israeli defense minister. The warrants allege that the two were accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The court is busier than ever, investigating claims of atrocities in Afghanistan, Libya, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela, as well as Gaza. The trial of Rodrigo Duterte, a former president of the Philippines, is expected to begin soon. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, though, has called the court “a national security threat,” and warned that the United States could impose further penalties.
“We judges will be undeterred,” Ms. Ibáñez said. “I’m not here because I need the work. I’m here because I think it’s my mission to adjudicate on behalf of the most vulnerable victims.”
Kimberly Prost, a Canadian judge, has also been targeted by Washington in connection to the shelved Afghan investigation. She noted the irony that she used to work on the sanctions process at the United Nations as she described the “pervasive, negative impact on daily life” of the restrictions she faces.
“You lose immediate access to all the main credit cards that go through the Swift system, which is controlled by the U.S.,” she said. “My Amazon and Google accounts were closed. You cannot pay for your utilities, your subscriptions. You’re completely crippled when it comes to booking hotels, trains, flights. You can’t buy dollars because your name is flagged.”
“These coercive measures are intended to intimidate,” Ms. Prost added. “They may have had a psychological impact on all of us judges. But I can speak for my colleagues: We are not going to be intimidated.”
Other governments have attacked the I.C.C. In December, a Russian court announced that the court’s chief prosecutor and eight judges had been tried in absentia and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. In 2023, the I.C.C. issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on charges linked to the invasion of Ukraine.
The American decisions, however, pose an existential threat. In addition to the sanctions, the Trump administration has urged friendly governments to withdraw from the court and has weighed measures to paralyze its operations.
In response to the hostility, the court is overhauling its American-dominated tech and financial systems. The court’s records and other data storage have been backed up at different sites, and finance and communications systems are being shifted to European platforms, according to several experts familiar with the court’s work who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. They added that there were workarounds for safeguarding payments to roughly 1,100 staff members and for receiving fees from the 125 government members of the court.
The I.C.C.’s service providers, banks and insurers that are not subject to American laws have been questioned to determine whether they would maintain their ties if the entire institution were subjected to sanctions. Those that replied they wanted to avoid that risk have been replaced.
In September, the court announced that it would transfer its office software from Microsoft to an open-source platform developed by a German government-owned company.
Some European Union countries have urged Brussels to invoke its “blocking statute,” which would give member states the right to refuse to enforce American laws that conflicted with European legal rules. But experts say that protection might be limited; European companies that fear repercussions on their U.S. interests could cut off services to the court for commercial reasons.
“We have made a number of changes and put measures in place to protect the court,” said Osvaldo Zavala Giler, a registrar at the court who is leading the overhaul of the I.C.C.’s systems.
“But,” he added, “the risk of an operational disruption continues to be real.”
The post No Amazon, No Gmail: Trump Sanctions Upend the Lives of I.C.C. Judges appeared first on New York Times.
