Evidentiary Standards | Trump's War Crimes

ICC Evidentiary Thresholds

The International Criminal Court uses a graduated system of evidentiary standards. Each stage of proceedings requires a higher burden of proof than the last. These are the four levels, from lowest to highest:

1. Reasonable Basis to Believe — Article 53(1)

The lowest threshold in ICC proceedings. Used by the Prosecutor to decide whether to open a preliminary examination. The standard is "a sensible or reasonable justification for a belief" that crimes within the Court's jurisdiction have been committed. This does not require proof — it requires a rational basis for inquiry.

2. Reasonable Grounds to Believe — Article 58

The arrest warrant standard. A Pre-Trial Chamber must find reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime before issuing a warrant. Higher than "reasonable basis" but still well below proof. Think of it as: the evidence, taken at face value, points toward guilt strongly enough to justify arrest.

3. Substantial Grounds to Believe — Article 61(7)

The confirmation of charges standard. Before a case goes to trial, the Pre-Trial Chamber must find "sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe" the person committed the charged crimes. The ICC has described this as requiring "concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of reasoning." This is where the prosecution must show its hand — the evidence has to hold together as a coherent case.

4. Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Article 66(3)

The trial conviction standard. The only standard that results in a guilty verdict. The accused is presumed innocent. The burden rests entirely on the Prosecutor. If reasonable doubt remains after full presentation of evidence, the verdict is not guilty.

How the Archive Applies These Thresholds

Since the October 2026 legal review, the archive uses two of these thresholds, and only where an international crime is in play. Each record shows its threshold in the fact sheet as Evidence threshold. Most records carry none.

Probable — reasonable grounds to believe (Article 58)

Multiple independent, credible sources establish the factual elements of a specific crime, and recognized legal authorities have applied the law to those facts: UN special procedures and commissions of inquiry, the ICRC, legal analyses by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, or leading scholars of international humanitarian law. This is enough to justify an arrest warrant. It is not enough to convict.

Every record at the top grade, International Crime (Rome Statute), carries this threshold, and only those records do. A record reaches the top grade only when every element of the crime, including its contextual element, is shown to this standard.

Potential — reasonable basis to believe (Article 53(1))

Credible reporting describes facts that would constitute an international crime if they are accurate, but the record does not show every element to the Article 58 standard. Often the gap is the contextual element: whether there was an armed conflict, or a widespread or systematic attack carried out under a policy. A reasonable basis to suspect a crime is not enough for the top grade, so these records are graded lower, on the severity of the harm the record does show. The label means the question is open. It does not mean a crime has been shown.

No threshold

Most records document serious violations of rights, abuses of official power, or harms to democratic institutions that are not alleged to be international crimes. The threshold scale does not apply to them. Their fact sheet reads "No international crime alleged". That is a statement about the legal category, not about how serious the conduct was.

Court findings

The archive no longer uses a separate "confirmed" label. Earlier versions of this page said no record carried it, while some did. Where a court has ruled on the facts of a record, its legal posture reads Judicial finding and the ruling is cited. Those rulings come from domestic courts deciding domestic or human-rights questions. A ruling that conduct was unlawful is not a finding that the elements of a Rome Statute crime are met, and no international court or tribunal has yet ruled on conduct recorded here as an international crime.

Complicity

The archive also no longer uses an "enabling" label. Assisting another party's crime is now recorded as a crime type, complicity, under Article 25(3)(c) (aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting, for the purpose of facilitating the crime) or Article 25(3)(d) (a knowing contribution to a crime committed by a group). It qualifies for the top grade only when the principal crime is itself well established as an international crime, and the assistance was substantial and given with the required knowledge or purpose. Arms supply to a party committing crimes is a contested area of law. Where this test is not met, the record is graded lower.

The Crime Type Field

Every top-grade record names the crime it is characterized as, and the provision:

Genocide, Article 6: a listed act committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.
Crime against humanity, Article 7: a listed act committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, pursuant to a State or organizational policy, with knowledge of the attack. No armed conflict is required.
War crime, Article 8: a listed act committed in the context of, and associated with, an international or non-international armed conflict. The record says which.
Crime of aggression, Article 8 bis: a leadership crime, the planning or execution of an act of aggression that is a manifest violation of the UN Charter. The ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction over aggression by nationals of states that are not party to the Statute (Article 15 bis(5)), but it remains a crime under international law.
Complicity, Article 25(3)(c) or (d), as described above.

Where a record lists two crime types, the first is the primary characterization and the second an alternative. For example, the lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean are recorded as murder as a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(a), and alternatively as a war crime under Article 8(2)(c)(i) if a non-international armed conflict with the cartels exists. Whether such a conflict exists is contested, and the two readings depend on the answer.

Jurisdiction is not the test. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, and neither are many of the states involved. The archive asks whether the conduct meets the definition of the crime under international law, and notes jurisdictional obstacles separately.

You can filter the register by crime type on the browse page.

The Grading Scale and Pre-Office Conduct

Every record of conduct from the campaign launch on 16 June 2015 onward carries one of five grades. The top grade is described above. The four below it record conduct that is not shown to be an international crime:

Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern: systematic, structural attacks on constitutional or international legal protections, such as defiance of court orders, mass due-process violations, or obstruction of international accountability. A serious violation of international human rights law, such as arbitrary deprivation of life, torture or refoulement, that is not shown to meet the contextual elements of Article 7 or 8 belongs here or in the grade below.
Serious Rights Violation: a serious violation of identifiable people's rights, with concrete harm.
Major Abuse of Power: abuse of official power or office, such as corruption, retaliation or misuse of agencies, without that level of direct harm to rights.
Significant Democratic Concern: harm to democratic norms and institutions with limited demonstrated harm to individuals.

Pre-office conduct is recorded separately. These records cover private and business conduct before 16 June 2015, some of it established by courts or regulators. They are kept as context and to show patterns. They are not a rung on the scale above, because those grades measure the exercise of official power. A pre-office record has no grade, is shown with a dashed empty mark instead of the five-cell meter, and is left out of every grade statistic on the site. These records are listed by person on Before Office, together with administration officials' documented conduct from before they took office, each with its legal status.

Verification Status vs. Evidence Threshold

These are two independent axes. They answer different questions.

Verification status answers: How well corroborated are the factual claims?

Evidence threshold answers: How far does the record go towards showing an international crime?

These can diverge. An incident can be independently verified on the facts but only potential legally: strong evidence that specific events occurred, while an element of a Rome Statute crime, often the contextual element, is unclear or contested. The facts are solid, but the law is uncertain.

The reverse is also possible. The described conduct may clearly fit the definition of a crime while the facts are thinly sourced. Then the law is straightforward, but the facts are disputed.

Both axes matter. Neither substitutes for the other.

What This Archive Is Not

Not a court. We do not adjudicate guilt or innocence.
Not a prosecution brief. We do not advocate for specific charges against specific individuals.
Not a substitute for a formal investigation. The ICC, ICJ, or a competent domestic court conducts investigations. We organize public information.

Grades, crime types and evidence thresholds on this site are editorial assessments informed by legal analysis. They reflect our reading of the publicly available evidence against the Rome Statute and customary international law. They are not legal determinations, and they carry no legal weight.

If any incident on this archive proceeds to a formal legal process, the assessment here is irrelevant to that process. The court applies its own standards to its own evidence.

Rome Statute Articles Referenced

These are the articles most frequently cited across the archive.

Article 6 — Genocide. Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Includes killing, causing serious harm, inflicting destructive conditions of life, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children.

Article 7 — Crimes against humanity. Widespread or systematic attacks directed against a civilian population. Includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution, enforced disappearance, apartheid, and other inhumane acts.

Article 8 — War crimes. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws of armed conflict. Covers both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Article 8 bis — The crime of aggression. The planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position to control or direct a State's political or military action, of an act of aggression that by its character, gravity and scale is a manifest violation of the UN Charter.

Article 25(3)(c) — Aiding, abetting, or otherwise assisting. Individual criminal responsibility for facilitating the commission of a crime, including providing the means for its commission.

Article 25(3)(d) — Contributing to a group crime. Individual criminal responsibility for contributing to a crime committed by a group acting with a common purpose. The contribution must be intentional and made with knowledge of the group's criminal intent.

Article 28 — Command responsibility. Superior responsibility for crimes committed by subordinates. Applies when a commander knew or should have known about the crimes and failed to prevent or punish them. Covers both military commanders and civilian superiors, with a slightly different knowledge standard for each.