Sentencing Problems in the International Criminal Court as Factors of Its Delegitimation

This article provides a critical analysis of the legal framework and judicial practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the context of sentencing. The author argues that the absence of a detailed and mandatory list of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the Rome Statute and the ICC Rules, especially concerning the personality of a convicted person, leads to arbitrary and inconsistent judicial practice. Specific cases (Al Mahdi, Bemba, Katanga, Lubanga, Ongwen) demonstrate the lack of uniformity and predictability in sentencing, as well as the excessive influence of such factors as cooperation with the Court to the detriment of other relevant circumstances. The purpose of the study is to identify and to analyze systemic problems in the ICC’s sentencing process that lead to its delegitimization, and to justify the need for radical reforms. Research methods: the author uses a comparative legal analysis of the ICC’s judicial practice on specific cases, a formal legal analysis of the Rome Statute norms and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, as well as a systematic approach to assess the cumulative impact of the identified problems on the Court’s legitimacy. The article concludes that there is a systemic crisis of legitimacy for the ICC, caused by an unfair and illusory sentencing procedure, and proposes radical measures, including a complete revision of the Rome Statute, to create a more just and objective system of international criminal justice.