Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 11 47. The Republic of Congo claimed before the International Court that the universal jurisdiction asserted by Belgium was a violation of the sovereignty of the Republic of Congo and that the non-recognition of the international law immunity of its Minister of Foreign Affairs was a violation of the diplomatic immunity to which the Republic of Congo and its officials were entitled to in international law. Unfortunately, the International Court did not consider the question of universal jurisdiction in its judgment because the parties decided that universal jurisdiction was not in contention between them. The Court decided that it was restricted to the pleadings submitted before it. lxx 48. However, in their respective separate and dissenting opinions some of the judges considered the concept of universal jurisdiction and its applicability in international law. President Guillaume stated that piracy was the only true case of universal jurisdiction and that certain international conventions provide for the establishment of “subsidiary universal jurisdiction” where an offender is within national territory of States and is not extradited to another State for trial. He concluded that apart from piracy and instances of “subsidiary universal jurisdiction” under international conventions that “international law does not accept universal jurisdiction; still less does it accept universal jurisdiction in absentia.” lxxi 49. The controversial and unsettled scope of the concept was accepted by the various judges in their opinions. Judge Oda was of the view that universal jurisdiction is controversial and has increasingly been recognised for the international crimes of terrorism and genocide. He supported the Majority Decision in refraining from addressing universal jurisdiction in its judgment because of the undeveloped state of the law with regard to the concept and also because the International Court was not requested to make a decision on the issue. lxxii The likelihood and potential for abuse of the concept was highlighted by Judge ad hoc Bula Bula in his critique and description of universal jurisdiction as “a ‘variable geometry’ jurisdiction selectively exercised against some States to the exclusion of others.” The Judge argued that even if universal jurisdiction were established in international law that it did not apply to exclude the international law immunities applicable to Mr Ndombasi, irrespective of the crimes alleged against him. lxxiii 50. The decision of the majority of the International Court of Justice not to address the issue of universal jurisdiction in the judgment of the Court disregarded the fact that immunities arise in a jurisdictional context and that immunity is not an independent principle of international law but is preceded by the existence of jurisdiction. In their Joint Separate Opinion, Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal correctly asserted that immunity is not “free-standing” but is “inextricably linked” to jurisdiction. lxxiv 51. Judge Al-Khasawneh did not consider the issue in his dissenting opinion while Judge Ranjeva in his Declaration supported the decision of the International Court by declining to address the issue of universal jurisdiction. Judge Rezek briefly considered the issue and stated that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 best exemplify universal jurisdiction and concluded that the Belgian courts lacked jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings against an official of the Republic of Congo “in the absence of any basis of jurisdiction other than the principle of universal jurisdiction.” lxxv 52. Among the judges, there was no settled category of international crimes for which universal jurisdiction applied. The most expansive category was adopted by Judge Koroma who stated that,