Assembly/AU/11 (XIII) Annex II Page 21   proceed with a request under article 89(1) for the surrender of a person to the Court if this 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. The provision makes no reference to the personal immunity of heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers, but the object and purpose of the provision demands that the term ‘diplomatic’ immunity be interpreted to encompass these other immunities of the same genus. Article 98(1) applies only in respect of persons and property of a third state: as regards States Parties inter se, the immunities from foreign legal process otherwise available under international law pose no bar to the surrender of persons to the Court. 32. The ICC regime is premised on the principle of ‘complementarity’.167 Complementarity is embodied in article 17 of the Rome Statute and relies on the concept of admissibility. What it means in practice is that states (and not just states parties) are entitled to pre-empt the prosecution of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction: if a state investigates and/or prosecutes a given case itself or has done so, and does or has done so genuinely168, the case becomes inadmissible before the ICC. At the same time, a state is not obliged to prosecute first but may instead refer the case directly to the Court. IV. THE KEY POINTS OF AU-EU CONCERN OVER UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IV.1 African concerns 33. African states welcome the principle of universal jurisdiction, and are committed to addressing impunity, as shown by Article 4(h) of Constitutive Act of the African Union 2000 and as emphasized in subsequent AU decisions.169 Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act, in laying down the right of the AU to intervene in a Member                                                              167 The preamble’s tenth recital emphasises ‘that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national jurisdictions’, and article 1 provides that ‘[a]n International Criminal Court is hereby established ... and shall be complementary to national jurisdictions’. 168   Article  17(2)  of  the  Rome  Statute  indicates  that  in  order  to  determine  a  state’s  unwillingness  to  prosecute  genuinely  in  a  particular  case,  the  Court  shall  consider  whether  ‘(a)  The  proceedings  were  or  are  being  undertaken  or  the  national  decision  [not to prosecute] was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  referred  to  in  article  5;  (b)  There  has  been  an  unjustified  delay  in  the  proceedings  which  in  the  circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; (c) The proceedings were not or are not  being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is  inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.’  169 Decision Assembly/AU/Dec. 199(XI), 1 July 2008 and Decision Assembly/AU/Dec. 240(XII), 4 February 2009. Version 31 March 09(FINAL)