Venezuela says it will quit the ICC as court says formal notice has not arrived

# Venezuela says it will quit the ICC as court says formal notice has not arrived

Venezuela has said it will withdraw from the International Criminal Court over what its foreign minister called the tribunal's geographical bias, according to AFP reporting carried by RFI. The ICC responded that it had not yet received formal notification and that any withdrawal would not erase existing cooperation obligations or ongoing investigations.

The supplied report gives a clear picture of the political fight. Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia said Caracas had informed the United Nations of its "firm and irrevocable decision" to leave the court. He tied the move to the ICC's focus on Africa and Latin America, arguing that the court has disproportionately concentrated its work in those regions. The ICC, based in The Hague, said it regretted the decision and reminded members that withdrawal takes one year to take effect.

That timeline is important. Even if Venezuela begins the process now, the source says the country would remain bound by obligations that arose while it was still a state party. The court also said withdrawal would not affect pre-existing cooperation duties tied to criminal investigations or proceedings already underway. That distinction means the announcement is politically dramatic but legally limited in the short term.

The report places the move in a broader legal and political context. It says the ICC is currently probing alleged crimes against humanity linked to crackdowns on protestors in Venezuela since 2014. It also notes that Venezuela's parliament had moved in December 2025 to repeal the Rome Statute after the court closed its Caracas office, and that in March 2026 the ICC dismissed Venezuelan complaints about US sanctions. Those details are useful background, but the core news is the withdrawal announcement and the ICC's immediate rebuttal.

The evidence also says the announcement came as ICC member states moved to dismiss prosecutor Karim Khan over allegations of sexual assault, which he denies. That coincidence helps explain the political temperature around the court, but the article should not suggest a direct causal link unless the source does. The supplied excerpt does not say Venezuela's decision was triggered by Khan's case.

Because this is a legal and diplomatic story, precision matters. The article should not say Venezuela has already exited the ICC. It should say it announced an intent to withdraw, that the ICC says it has not yet received formal notice, and that any departure would take a year to become effective. It should also note the continued force of obligations that already exist.

In short, the story is a confrontation over legitimacy as much as membership: Caracas is signalling rejection of the court, while the ICC is insisting that its legal framework still binds the state until the process runs its course.