The International Criminal Court has found Mahamat Said Abdel Kani guilty of crimes against humanity committed in the Central African Republic, according to the court's announcement.

The verdict, returned by the ICC's Trial Chamber in The Hague, marks a conviction in proceedings the prosecutor opened in connection with alleged serious international crimes on the territory of the Central African Republic.

What the court decided

The Trial Chamber found Mahamat Said Abdel Kani guilty on the crimes against humanity count. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty, crimes against humanity cover specified acts — including murder, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence and persecution — when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. A guilty verdict signifies that the chamber concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution established both the elements of the offence and the accused's responsibility.

The category sits alongside genocide, war crimes and the crime of aggression as one of the four core international crimes over which the ICC exercises jurisdiction.

Why the court has jurisdiction

The court's exercise of jurisdiction reflects the Central African Republic's status as a state party to the Rome Statute. By ratifying the statute, states accept the court's authority over the most serious international crimes committed on their territory or by their nationals. That consent provides the jurisdictional foundation for the proceedings against Mahamat Said Abdel Kani.

What the conviction changes

The finding clears the path to a sentencing hearing, at which both prosecution and defence may lead evidence on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Under the ICC's framework, the chamber may impose a term of imprisonment of up to 30 years, or life imprisonment where the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person justify it. Any sentence will be served in a state that has concluded an enforcement agreement with the court.

Practical consequences for practitioners

The written judgment, expected to follow the verdict, will be the primary document practitioners examine for the chamber's reasoning. Defence counsel will scrutinise the judgment for grounds of appeal, including sufficiency of evidence, errors of law and procedural fairness. The convicted person retains the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence to the ICC Appeals Chamber.

For victim-participants, the conviction opens a route to participation in any subsequent reparations phase under the court's framework. The ICC's Trust Fund for Victims may consider activities addressing the harm caused by the convicted conduct, subject to the chamber's determination.

What comes next

Two procedural steps typically follow a guilty verdict at the ICC: a sentencing hearing and, where victims participate, a reparations phase. Both phases proceed under detailed procedural rules and may involve distinct evidentiary hearings. The sentencing decision will rest on a weighing of harm, culpability and any cooperation by the convicted person. The reparations phase may yield orders directing the convicted person to pay sums into the Trust Fund for Victims or otherwise support reparative projects. Practitioners will examine the Trial Chamber's findings on modes of liability — including any treatment of command responsibility — for guidance on how the ICC construes responsibility for crimes against humanity arising from the Central African Republic.