The ICC should exercise its jurisdiction under the following preconditions: One or more of the parties involved are state parties to the Rome Statute; the accused are citizens of state parties; the crimes are committed in the territories of state parties; and a non-state party decides to accept the ICC's jurisdiction over a specific crime committed in its territory or by its citizens.

Also, the ICC is expected to exercise its jurisdiction when a state is "unwilling" or "unable" to do so. This means that Sudan's national courts have the priority to investigate and prosecute crimes to which the ICC has jurisdiction.

Sudan has put in place well established legal institutions. With its Criminal Act and Criminal Procedure Act, the country is able to try criminal suspects and defendants involved in the crimes in Darfur. In light of the legal actions it has taken, Sudan is willing to put them to trial, too.

The ICC should respect Sudan's national jurisdiction and refer the case to Sudan. If it persists in exercising its jurisdiction, it will violate the legal concept of ne bis in idem, or no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. It will also run counter to the Rome Statute as it attempts to turn its complementary jurisdiction to de-facto universal, compulsory jurisdiction.

Moreover, without the cooperation of the Sudanese Government and courts, the ICC's vision of exercising jurisdiction over the Darfur case is mere wishful thinking.

In conclusion, the Darfur case should be left in the hands of Sudan's domestic courts. The ICC can exercise its complementary jurisdiction if it finds evidence that Sudanese courts are unwilling or unable to deal with the case.