You will understand, of course, that I cannot comment on specific situations, but I would make two points.
One is that the criterion the prosecutor has been using to determine whether he starts an investigation is gravity. He is going to start an investigation where, for example, the number of victims is very high and not where the number of victims is very low because the court has not been created to deal with everything, everywhere, but rather to deal with the most serious situations of crimes and probably within each situation with a limited number of individuals.
He certainly has made it clear in the situation that you mentioned that he would make no difference--if the criterion of gravity is met--between people who belong to one side of the story or the other. He has made that very clear.
With respect to the second situation you mentioned, that brings me back to ratification. Africa has ratified the statute of the court massively, for different reasons than Canada and the Europeans have ratified the court statute.
In the case of countries like ours, states have ratified the statutes because of humanitarian values and because they thought the court would be a contribution to regional stability--if crimes diminish, the flows of refugees, malnutrition, all these disruptions, are avoided.
African states ratified the statute because they saw the court as a protection in the future against the crimes they had suffered on their own territory. They said very clearly, we know what the consequences of those crimes are; we want legal protection.
My point in this is that if a state feels vulnerable one way or another, the best way of obtaining that legal protection is to ratify the statute. The court is bound in law not to go beyond the statute, obviously. It cannot deal with situations pertaining to non-states parties unless the Security Council intervenes.
The court executes, applies the statute; it cannot re-interpret the statute loosely.