Your question, as formulated, could be described as having a little political angle, but I can address it from another angle.
The central theme that has been evoked about the court since its inception is the possibility that it could carry out politically motivated prosecutions; that's always been the argument that has been raised. You have to realize that in 1998, when states created the court, they had no idea what the court would actually deal with--situations were unknown, states were unknown. Therefore, when they created the court, the states had every interest in ensuring that the court would be unable to act in any way that would not be purely judicial.
In the three years I have been on the court, my observation is that this approach must have worked, because I have not heard in three years a single comment of a political nature by anyone in the court—not in the chambers, not in the prosecutor's office, not in the registry. All those people are only interested in administering justice, when national systems are unable to do it in the worst possible situations.
So my view of this is that it is the responsibility of the court to demonstrate, through its action, that it is indeed faithful to the strict judicial, limited administration of justice. I do not believe it is possible to sustain indefinitely arguments and misapprehensions that are never substantiated by anything. So it follows, in my view, that as the court demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt—as lawyers say—that it is indeed a purely judicial institution, apprehensions will fade and support will increase. Already you can see that in the past three years...the atmosphere surrounding the court is much more relaxed than it was three years ago.
I don't think I can go much further on this question, but that is my general answer.