LAUSR

The story of international criminal justice does not end when the verdict is read; for both the affected communities and for the individual accused, the story goes on. This article explores the situation facing some accused before the International Criminal Court (ICC) once their trial is over, their sentence (if convicted) is served, and they are released from custody. In many cases, the former ICC accused will simply return home and continue on with a life similar to the one they led before their ICC trial. But for some this will not be possible, particularly where the situation in their home country is such that they would be at risk if they returned there. In that case, they will need to find another country where they can safely reside, but such efforts will often be hindered by a reluctance on the part of states to host persons accused of international crimes, no matter the outcome of the trial. In these cases, such individuals can often become stuck in the legal limbo of being ‘undesirable but unreturnable’ (hereinafter, UbU): undesirable because they are unwelcome in other states, but unreturnable because they cannot be returned home. This article explores what the expression ‘undesirable but unreturnable’ means, how the situation that it describes arises in general international law, and in particular how the situation arises in the ICC context. The article then looks at the practice of the ICC to date in dealing with former accused who face being caught in the ‘UbU’ limbo, and goes on to set out three ways in which the ICC could play a bigger role in addressing the issue.