International Criminal Court Regulations 2008

The Regulations rest on several key procedural concepts drawn from the Act and the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Arrest and surrender: The core procedure by which a person located in Australia is arrested and handed over to the ICC to face charges or serve a sentence. The process begins with the ICC sending a request to the Attorney‑General. The Attorney‑General must certify under section 22 that it is appropriate to proceed, then issue a notice to a magistrate (Form 1). The magistrate then issues an arrest warrant (Form 2) on application (Form 3). This separates the political or diplomatic decision (Attorney‑General) from the judicial decision (magistrate). The concept carries an implicit cost to individual liberty: the person may be detained while domestic courts verify only that the process is regular, not the merits of the ICC’s case.

Provisional arrest: A mechanism for urgent detention before the ICC provides the full surrender request. The Attorney‑General must first receive a request for provisional arrest, certify its appropriateness, and notify a magistrate (Form 4). The magistrate may then issue a provisional arrest warrant (Form 5) on application (Form 6). The person can be held for up to 60 days; if no surrender request arrives within that period and the person does not consent to surrender, the Attorney‑General must direct release (Form 7). The Attorney‑General may also direct release earlier if they consider remand should cease. This creates a time‑limited deprivation of liberty based on an anticipated request, raising due‑process concerns about detention without charge.

Surrender warrant: After surrender is approved, the Attorney‑General issues a warrant (Form 8) that orchestrates the transfer. The warrant can have two special features: temporary surrender, where the person is handed over subject to conditions (e.g., return to Australia after ICC proceedings), and deferred surrender, where the person remains in Australian custody until they finish serving a domestic sentence. These features impose logistical and coordination costs on Australian authorities and the ICC.

Registration of ICC orders: The Act allows ICC orders for reparation, fines, and forfeiture to be registered in Australian courts and then enforced as if they were domestic orders. The Attorney‑General authorises the CDPP or a proceeds of crime authority to apply for registration (Forms 9-11). Registration is only possible once all appeals in the ICC are exhausted. The enforcement then follows Australian law governing fines, reparation, and forfeiture, which may differ from ICC procedures and create compliance costs for the person affected.

Statutory forms: Regulation 4 designates these as the exclusive forms for the listed purposes. A form “mentioned in column 1” is the “statutory form” for the corresponding provision. This means users cannot substitute a different format. The forms are set out in Schedule 1 in full, including all fields, warnings, and signature blocks. The use of prescribed forms reduces litigation risk over procedural irregularity but increases the cost of error: a mistake in the form could invalidate an arrest or a registration.

The Regulations directly affect a narrow set of actors, but the indirect effects can be significant.

Persons sought by the ICC: The most directly affected are individuals whom the ICC requests for arrest, surrender, provisional arrest, or against whom the ICC has made reparation, fine, or forfeiture orders. These persons may be Australian citizens, permanent residents, or foreign nationals present in Australia. They face deprivation of liberty under a warrant (Forms 2, 5) or compulsory transfer under a surrender warrant (Form 8). They may have property rights affected by registration of ICC orders (Forms 9-11). The Regulations do not create any additional rights for these persons beyond what the Act provides, but the use of prescribed forms ensures that the grounds for detention or enforcement are documented and reviewable.

The Attorney‑General: The Attorney‑General is the central decision‑maker. They must issue notices (Forms 1, 4), sign certificates under sections 22 and 29 of the Act, direct release (Form 7), issue surrender warrants (Form 8), and authorise registration applications (Forms 9-11). This gives the Attorney‑General substantial discretion. The certificate under section 22 is a condition precedent: without it, the magistrate cannot act. The Regulations do not specify criteria for the certificate, leaving it to executive judgment. This creates political risk: the decision to proceed with an ICC request may have diplomatic consequences, and the Attorney‑General bears the accountability.

Magistrates: Magistrates in each State and Territory are responsible for issuing arrest and provisional arrest warrants (Forms 2, 5) based on the Attorney‑General’s notice and an application. The magistrate’s role is limited: they do not review the merits of the ICC’s request, only whether the procedural requirements of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Act have been complied with (as stated in Forms 1 and 4). This is a ministerial rather than a judicial function, but it imposes a workload on local court resources.

Police officers: All police officers within the meaning of the Act (which includes federal and state police) are authorised to execute the warrants. They must arrest the named person and bring them before a magistrate “as soon as practicable”. This imposes operational and logistical costs, particularly if the person is located in a remote area or resists arrest.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and proceeds of crime authorities: These agencies receive authorisation from the Attorney‑General to apply for registration of ICC orders (Forms 9-11). They must then initiate proceedings in a designated court. The CDPP would need to file documents, possibly retain counsel, and attend hearings. For proceeds of crime authorities (such as the Australian Federal Police’s Proceeds of Crime Litigation Unit), there is an additional administrative burden to assess the enforceability of ICC forfeiture orders under Australian law.

The ICC itself: The ICC relies on Australia to execute its requests. The Regulations give the ICC a standardised path: it must provide a warrant of arrest or judgment of conviction (see Form 1), and for registration orders it must request enforcement under articles 75 and 109 of the Rome Statute (Forms 9, 10). The ICC is not a “person” subject to Australian law, but its requests trigger the entire process.

Courts: Federal Court and State/Territory Supreme Courts may be requested to register ICC orders (Forms 9-11). The registration process is not a merits review but a formal step. Nonetheless, it consumes judicial time.

The broader community: Taxpayers bear the cost of the Attorney‑General’s office, police, magistrates, CDPP, and court time involved in ICC cooperation. There is also an opportunity cost: resources used for ICC matters are diverted from domestic criminal justice. The Regulations do not contain any cost‑recovery mechanism; the Commonwealth funds the process.

The Regulations themselves do not create duties or rights; they are procedural tools that give effect to duties and rights in the Act. However, the forms reveal the structure of obligations.

Duty of the Attorney‑General to issue a notice and certificate: Under Forms 1 and 4, the Attorney‑General must state that they have received an ICC request and have signed a certificate under section 22 of the Act that it is appropriate to issue the notice. This duty is a gatekeeper: without the certificate, the process cannot begin. The certificate is not reviewable on its merits by a magistrate; it is an executive act. The duty carries political and legal accountability if the certificate is issued improperly.

Duty of the magistrate to issue a warrant: On receiving the Attorney‑General’s notice and an application (Forms 2, 3, 5, 6), the magistrate “under subsection 20(3)” or “subsection 21(2)” issues a warrant. The wording of the forms is mandatory (“I … authorise you to arrest”). The magistrate has no discretion to refuse if the notice and application are in order; the Act likely makes issuance a duty. This limits judicial oversight.

Duty of police to arrest and bring before a magistrate: The warrant directs police to arrest the person and bring them “as soon as practicable” before a magistrate. This imposes a time‑sensitive operational duty. Failure to act promptly could lead to habeas corpus applications or exclusion of evidence if the ICC later alleges delay.

Right of the arrested person to be brought before a magistrate: The warrant itself states the purpose: “to be dealt with according to law.” The person has a right to be informed of the reason for arrest and to see the warrant. The Act likely provides for bail or remand hearings. The Regulations do not address those details, but the use of Form 7 (release direction) confirms that a person on provisional arrest may be entitled to release after 60 days (or earlier if the Attorney‑General directs). That is a right, albeit conditional.

Duty of the person in custody to release the arrested person under a surrender warrant: Form 8 requires the person in whose custody the individual is held (e.g., a prison governor) to release them into police custody. This is a compulsory duty; non‑compliance could be contempt.

Duty of the escort to transport: The surrender warrant authorises the ICC escort to transport the person in custody. The escort is not an Australian official, but the warrant gives them authority. The duty is to transport directly to the place specified by the ICC.

Right to challenge registration of ICC orders: Forms 9-11 require that the conviction and order are not subject to appeal. This implies that a person can oppose registration on the ground that an appeal is pending. The registration application will be heard by a court, and the person affected will have standing to argue against registration (e.g., that the order does not comply with the Act or that the person was not properly convicted). However, the merits of the ICC’s order are likely not reviewable; only procedural compliance.

Duty of the CDPP or proceeds of crime authority to apply: The authorisation from the Attorney‑General does not compel the authority to apply; it authorises but does not require. The form says “I authorise you … to apply.” The authority retains professional discretion not to proceed if it believes registration would be futile or unlawful. This is a protection against misuse.

Right of the Attorney‑General to impose conditions on temporary surrender: Form 8 includes an optional schedule for conditions. This gives the Australian government the right to negotiate safeguards (e.g., that the person be returned after ICC proceedings). This right protects Australian sovereignty and the interests of the person.

The Regulations do not create penalties. They are procedural instruments. Enforcement mechanisms operate through the Act and the Rome Statute. However, the forms themselves are part of the enforcement machinery.

Arrest and detention: Non‑compliance with an arrest warrant (Form 2 or 5) is a criminal offence under the Act, not these Regulations. A person who resists or obstructs arrest would face charges under general criminal law. The warrant itself is the enforcing document; it must comply exactly with the form. If a warrant is invalid (e.g., wrong name, missing seal), the arrest may be unlawful, and the person could seek damages for false imprisonment.

Surrender warrant enforcement: The surrender warrant (Form 8) is a direct order from the Attorney‑General. It requires the person in whose custody the subject is held to release them into police custody. If the custodian (e.g., a prison governor) refuses, they could be guilty of contempt or obstruction. The escort is authorised to take the person into custody; if the person escapes, the escort has no extra powers beyond what Australian law provides.

Registration of ICC orders: Forms 9-11 lead to registration of ICC orders in Australian courts. Once registered, the order is enforceable as if it were a domestic order. For reparation, that means the court can enforce payment or specific performance. For fines, the CDPP can recover the amount as a civil debt or through other means. For forfeiture, the proceeds of crime authority can seize property. These enforcement powers come from Australian law, not the ICC. The key limitation: the ICC order must be final (no appeals pending). If a person later appeals in the ICC after registration, the Australian enforcement should be stayed, but the Regulations do not address that. The Act may provide for variation or revocation.

Consequences of non‑use of prescribed forms: Regulation 4(1) says the form mentioned in column 1 “is the statutory form for the provision.” That implies that a notice, warrant, or application that does not use the prescribed form may be invalid. For example, if the Attorney‑General issues a notice to a magistrate using a different layout or missing a field, a magistrate may refuse to act, or the warrant may be quashed on review. This creates a compliance burden: officials must ensure they use the exact wording. The cost of error is procedural delay and potential nullification of an arrest, which could be serious if the person flees.

No penalties for officials: The Regulations do not penalise officials for misuse. However, an official who knowingly issues a false certificate or warrant could be liable under criminal fraud or abuse of office laws. The form wording is important for evidence.

Interaction with state/territory law: Police executing a federal warrant are subject to state policing laws. If a person is arrested in a state, they must be brought before a magistrate in that state. The forms do not specify any special immunities or powers beyond the warrant.

The Regulations sit within a hierarchy of treaties, federal acts, and state laws. The most important interactions are with the International Criminal Court Act 2002 (the Act), the Rome Statute of the ICC, and various domestic criminal procedure laws.

International Criminal Court Act 2002: The Regulations are made under the Act. Every form references a specific provision of the Act (e.g., subsection 20(1), 21(2), 151(2)). The Act sets out the substantive law: when Australia must cooperate, what constitutes appropriate circumstances for the Attorney‑General’s certificate, the powers of magistrates, and the effect of registration. The Regulations add no substance; they only prescribe forms. Any conflict between the Act and the Regulations is resolved in favour of the Act. If the Act were amended to change a procedure (e.g., to remove the need for a magistrate’s warrant), the Regulations would become obsolete for that purpose. The forms themselves do not create rights of review; the Act does.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: The Regulations implement Australia’s obligations under the Statute. Forms 9, 10, and 11 explicitly refer to articles 75 (reparation), 77 (fines), and 109 (enforcement of fines and forfeiture) of the Statute. The forms require that the ICC request enforcement “as if article 109 were applicable.” That means the ICC desires that its orders be enforced in Australia as they would be in states parties. The interaction is one‑way: Australian courts apply Australian enforcement mechanisms, not ICC mechanisms. For example, a fine order registered in Australia is collected according to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or other relevant law, not according to ICC rules.

Extradition law: The ICC surrender process (Forms 1-8) is distinct from extradition under the Extradition Act 1988. A person cannot be surrendered to the ICC under extradition law; the Act provides a separate regime. The Regulations reinforce that separation by using terms like “surrender” not “extradition.” A person who is also the subject of an extradition request from another country could be in a legal conflict: the Act gives ICC requests priority, but extradition requests are governed by different treaties. The Regulations do not address this.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and related laws: Form 11 authorises a “proceeds of crime authority” (likely the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police) to apply for registration of a forfeiture order. Once registered, the order is enforceable under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or analogous state laws. That may involve freezing orders, examination of assets, and third‑party claims. The ICC forfeiture order may relate to property “reasonably suspected of being in Australia.” The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 already provides for similar enforcement of domestic and foreign orders; the Regulations simply slot the ICC into that framework.

State and Territory criminal procedure: Warrants issued under Forms 2 and 5 are directed to “all police officers within the meaning of the Act.” The Act defines police officers to include members of the Australian Federal Police and state/territory police. State police are subject to their own laws on arrest, detention, and use of force. The warrant does not override state use‑of‑force laws; it only authorises the arrest. The person must be brought before a magistrate in the State or Territory where arrested, suggesting that local procedural rules apply to the hearing (e.g., bail, legal representation). The Regulations do not harmonise those rules; they rely on existing state procedures.

Human rights and international law: The Regulations engage with human rights law indirectly. International law obligations (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) require that a person arrested on a foreign request have prompt access to a court and be able to challenge the lawfulness of detention. The forms provide for a magistrate’s involvement, but the limited scope of review (compliance with Division 2 of Part 3, not the merits of the ICC’s case) may not satisfy all human rights standards. The Regulations themselves do not create any human rights defences; those would arise under the Act or other law.

Criminal Code (Cth) and state criminal codes: If a person resists arrest under an ICC warrant, they may be charged with offences such as assault of police or resisting arrest under state or federal law. The warrant is lawful authority, so the person cannot claim self‑defence against lawful arrest. The Regulations do not create any immunity for the arrested person.

The text of the International Criminal Court Regulations 2008 provided contains no amendment history. The Regulations appear to be in their original form as made in 2008. There is no indication of any amending regulations being incorporated into this version. The sole amendment‑adjacent feature is that the forms themselves refer to the Act as originally enacted (2002), but the Regulations are from 2008, so they would have been made after the Act was operative.

Given that the source is the current compilation of the Regulations, it is possible that no amendments have ever been made. This is notable because the Act itself has been amended (for example, by the International Criminal Court Amendment Act 2014), but the Regulations have not been updated to reflect any changes in the Act’s section numbers or wording. The forms still reference sections 20, 21, 25, 28, 151, 152, 155 of the Act. If those sections were renumbered or repealed, the forms would be inoperative. However, based on the source, we must assume the sections remain as originally numbered.

The lack of amendment history creates uncertainty: practitioners must verify that the Regulations are still in force and that the forms match the current Act. A diligent reader would check the Federal Register of Legislation for any later variations. The absence of amendment history here suggests a stable procedural instrument, but it also raises the risk of obsolescence if the Act is amended without corresponding regulation updates.

The source does not reference any litigation. The Regulations themselves are unlikely to be the subject of direct litigation because they are purely procedural. However, they may be litigated indirectly in cases challenging the validity of an arrest or surrender under the Act. The key grounds for challenge would be that the prescribed form was not used or was used incorrectly, thus invalidating the warrant or notice.

For example, if the Attorney‑General issued a notice to a magistrate using a non‑statutory form, or if the magistrate issued a warrant that did not comply with the wording in Schedule 1, a person could argue that the detention was unlawful. Such an argument would involve interpreting regulation 4(1) and whether “statutory form” means mandatory or directory. The courts may find that substantial compliance is enough, but the forms are precise.

No reported cases are known (based on the source). The litigation history is therefore inferred: there is no evidence that the Regulations have been tested in an Australian court. This may be because ICC requests to Australia have been rare, or because parties have not raised form challenges. The absence of litigation does not mean the Regulations are immune from challenge; it simply means no precedent exists. Practitioners should treat the forms as mandatory to avoid risk.

Several features of the Regulations could trip up practitioners who are not meticulous.

Mandatory use of prescribed forms: Regulation 4(1) states that the form in column 1 “is the statutory form for the provision.” This is not expressed as “may be used” or “should be used”; it declares the form as the statutory form. This strongly suggests that using a different form is not authorised. If a magistrate issues a warrant that deviates from the wording (e.g., leaving out the phrase “to be dealt with according to law”), the warrant could be quashed. Police executing such a warrant risk civil liability. The cost of getting the form wrong is the loss of a lawful basis for detention.

The Attorney‑General’s certificate under section 22 is a precondition: Form 1 explicitly says the Attorney‑General has signed a certificate under section 22 of the Act “that it is appropriate for me to issue this notice.” Form 4 says the same for provisional arrest. If the certificate is not signed before the notice, the notice is invalid. The certificate is an internal executive decision; it is not attached to the notice but must exist. A person could request evidence of the certificate during habeas corpus proceedings.

Magistrate’s warrant is dependent on the notice: The warrant (Form 2) references the Attorney‑General’s notice as a foundational fact: “Because the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia has given a notice.” If the notice is later found to be defective (e.g., no certificate, wrong section of the Act cited), the warrant falls. This means the validity of the entire arrest depends on the validity of the notice.

Provisional arrest time limit: Form 7 (direction to order release) arises if “a request for surrender has not been received within 60 days after the day on which [the person] was provisionally arrested and [the person] does not consent to surrender.” The 60‑day clock starts on the day of arrest, not the day of the warrant. If the 60 days expire and the person does not consent, the Attorney‑General must direct release. The form uses asterisks to indicate options: the Attorney‑General must strike the inapplicable part. If the Attorney‑General fails to issue the direction, the person may seek habeas corpus. Also note that the form allows release earlier if the Attorney‑General “considers that the remand … should cease.” This gives a discretion to release before 60 days, which could be used strategically or arbitrarily.

Temporary surrender conditions are in a schedule: Form 8 includes an optional schedule for conditions of temporary surrender. These conditions are part of the warrant. If the ICC violates a condition (e.g., does not return the person after proceedings), the Attorney‑General could potentially seek the person’s return, but the Regulations do not specify a remedy. The conditions are not publicly standardised; they are negotiated on a case‑by‑case basis. This creates uncertainty for the person surrendered.

Deferral of surrender until domestic sentence served: The surrender warrant (Form 8) can include a clause that it takes effect when the person “ceases to be liable to be detained in a prison because of a sentence of imprisonment imposed for a different offence against Australian law.” This means the ICC must wait until the person finishes their Australian sentence. The form does not address what happens if the domestic sentence changes (e.g., parole, pardon). The person cannot be transferred until detention ends.

Registration only after finality: Forms 9, 10, and 11 each require that “neither the conviction in respect of which the order was made nor the order … is subject to appeal or further appeal in the Court.” The term “subject to appeal” includes pending appeals and the expiry of the appeal period. If an appeal is filed just before registration, the registration may be invalid. Practitioners should obtain evidence from the ICC of finality (e.g., a certificate from the ICC Registry). Also note that the ICC’s appellate process includes interlocutory appeals; a conviction might not be final even if no appeal is currently pending.

The proceeds of crime authority in Form 11 is blank: The form says “To [insert proceeds of crime authority].” The Attorney‑General must identify the correct authority. The definition of “proceeds of crime authority” is in the Act (likely the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or a specific agency). Using the wrong authority could make the authorisation invalid.

Designated court for registration must be specified: Forms 9 and 10 require inserting “the name of the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of a specified State.” If the Attorney‑General inserts a court that does not have jurisdiction under the Act to register the order, the application will be rejected. The Act likely limits registration to certain courts; the Regulations do not specify which.

No provision for variation or revocation of registration: The Regulations provide only for the initial registration of ICC orders. There is no form for applying to set aside or vary a registration. If a later appeal succeeds, the person must rely on the Act or general court rules. The absence of a prescribed form could create procedural hurdles.

Compliance with the International Criminal Court Regulations 2008 involves using the correct forms at each step. The following is a step‑by‑step guide grounded in the forms.

For arrest and surrender (Forms 1-3):

1. The ICC sends a request for arrest and surrender to the Attorney‑General. This request must be in writing and include a warrant of arrest (and judgment of conviction if surrender is for sentencing). The Attorney‑General’s office should confirm the request complies with Division 2 of Part 3 of the Act.

2. The Attorney‑General signs a certificate under section 22 of the Act that it is appropriate to issue a notice to a magistrate. The certificate is an internal document; the Regulations do not prescribe its form.

3. The Attorney‑General then completes Form 1: fill in the person’s name, attach a copy of the ICC warrant/conviction, and date and sign. The form states that Division 2 has been complied with. This form is sent to a magistrate (likely a magistrate in the State or Territory where the person is believed to be).

4. An applicant on behalf of the ICC (e.g., a lawyer from the Attorney‑General’s Department or a police officer) completes Form 3 and presents it to the magistrate, along with the Attorney‑General’s notice (Form 1). The applicant must state their capacity.

5. The magistrate, upon being satisfied that the notice is valid and the application is in order, completes Form 2. The magistrate fills in the person’s name, signs, and dates. The warrant is directed to “all police officers.” The magistrate must ensure the warrant matches the notice exactly (same name, no extra conditions).

6. Police execute the warrant: arrest the person and bring them before a magistrate “as soon as practicable.” The arresting officer should show the warrant if requested. The person is then dealt with under the Act (remand, bail, etc.).

For provisional arrest (Forms 4-6):

1. The ICC sends a request for provisional arrest. The Attorney‑General must certify under section 22 that it is appropriate to proceed.

2. Complete Form 4 and send to a magistrate.

3. Applicant completes Form 6 and presents to the magistrate.

4. Magistrate issues Form 5 warrant for provisional arrest.

5. Police execute.

For release from remand (Form 7):

The Attorney‑General must monitor the time since provisional arrest. If 60 days pass without a surrender request and the person does not consent, the Attorney‑General must complete Form 7, striking the first asterisk line (the text before “Because I consider that the remand …”). If the Attorney‑General considers remand should cease earlier, they use the second asterisk line. The form directs the magistrate to order release. The Attorney‑General dates and signs, then sends to the magistrate. The magistrate must then issue an order of release. The form does not require the magistrate’s signature; the direction is from the Attorney‑General. The magistrate’s role is to give effect to it.

For surrender (Form 8):

1. After surrender is approved (including any agreement with the ICC on conditions), the Attorney‑General completes Form 8. The form requires inserting the names of the person in custody, the escort officer, and the place specified by the ICC.

2. If temporary surrender, attach a schedule spelling out the conditions. The form includes asterisked options: delete “temporary” if not applicable; delete “takes effect when …” if not deferred.

3. The Attorney‑General signs and dates. The warrant is then given to the person in whose custody the subject is held (e.g., prison governor) and to the police and escort.

4. The custodian releases the person into police custody. The police transport the person to the ICC escort. The escort transports the person to the ICC destination.

5. The surrender warrant is the legal authority for the entire chain.

For registration of reparation, fine, or forfeiture orders (Forms 9-11):

1. The ICC sends a request for enforcement, including a final order (no appeals pending). The Attorney‑General must be satisfied that the conditions in the relevant form are met (no appeal, conviction is final).

2. For reparation (Form 9) and fine (Form 10): The Attorney‑General completes the form, inserting the person’s name and the court (Federal Court or a State Supreme Court). The form is addressed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The CDPP then receives the form and uses it as authority to apply to the nominated court for registration. The CDPP should attach the ICC order to the application.

3. For forfeiture (Form 11): The Attorney‑General identifies the proceeds of crime authority (e.g., the CDPP or AFP). The Attorney‑General must be satisfied that the person has been convicted, the order relates to property in Australia, and no appeal is pending. The Attorney‑General completes the form, naming the authority and attaching the ICC forfeiture order. The authority then applies to a court for registration (the form does not specify which court; the Act likely does).

4. After registration, the order is enforced under Australian law. The person affected should be notified and given an opportunity to be heard on the registration application (though the form does not address this; the Act may).

General compliance tips:

• Always check the latest version of the Regulations on the Federal Register of Legislation.
• Never modify the wording of the forms, except to fill in blanks as indicated.
• Ensure all signatures and dates are present. The forms do not specify witness signatures, but it is good practice.
• Keep a copy of the Attorney‑General’s certificate under section 22 or 29; it may be needed to prove validity.
• For provisional arrest, diarise the 60‑day deadline; the Attorney‑General should proactively consider whether to direct release earlier.
• For registration, obtain a written confirmation from the ICC that no appeal is pending or could be filed. The ICC’s Registry typically provides a certificate of finality.
• If the ICC order is in a foreign language, obtain a certified English translation before applying for registration.

By following the prescribed forms strictly, officials minimise the risk of procedural invalidity. The Regulations leave no room for creativity; they are a checklist in document form.