Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 9 Statute of the International Criminal Court. lxvi Article 27 of the Rome Statute is to be read together with Article 98 of the Statute, and they both provide, respectively, that, “This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.” and that, “ The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.” 39. Furthermore, an inherent effect of the concept, especially when misused, is that there is potential for disruption in international relations between States as well as the deprivation of rights and harassment of individuals (especially State officials) and the abuse of legal process. lxvii CONCLUSION 40. Moral reprehensibility cannot be equated to universal jurisdiction. The scope, applicability and even the effects of the concept of universal jurisdiction in international law is less than what proponents of the concept advocate it to be. This Report has undertaken an analysis of international law, customary and treaty, which shows that universal jurisdiction exists as a concept in international law and is not a new introduction into the body of international law. It has also highlighted the limited cases in which this type of jurisdiction can be exercised. The expansive approach that has been adopted by proponents of the jurisdiction is policy-oriented and not legally-oriented; and this policy approach may be reflective of a desire of law, de lege ferenda (law as it ought to be), and not law, de lege lata (law as it is). States jealously guard their sovereignty and as such are hesitant to expand the scope of universal jurisdiction, and with international law being primarily the domain of States, it is States that would determine the scope, applicability and future of the concept. Finally, because of the potentially disruptive effect of universal jurisdiction, it is imperative that disciplines be established regarding regulation of the concept. PART II: ANALYSIS OF RESOLUTIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ON UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 41. In this part, the Report provides a critical analysis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and/or decisions of the International Court of Justice on the concept of universal jurisdiction.