Sometimes, I get the idea that commentators of the work of the @IntlCrimCourt aren't familiar with the Court's limitations. Sure, it could've acted expeditiously with regard to all the PEs it appears desperate to close before the end of Bensouda's term. But, with what resources?

The brunt of analysis during PE falls upon the Situation Analysis Section of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division of the OTP. That's a tiny fraction of the Office's personnel. Sometimes, teams comprise merely 2-5 people per SITUATION.

Integrated teams are usually formed *after* an investigation has been authorised. Surely this could be reevaluated, but it would mean draining scarce resources, allocated to investigation and prosecution (sometimes of cases where people may be detained), towards uncertain outcome

Add to that the growing international demand for "ICC-shaped" accountability. People and organisations request international prosecutions in sensitive cases (ranging from post-election violence to decade-long military occupation to genocide) across the world.

To make matters worse, the ASP is committed to *zero nominal growth* in the ICC's budget. This year, the *entirety* of the Court (the footprint of SAS becomes even smaller in these terms) was only allocated €150M. Hell, you couldn't afford a decent football team with that money.

So, yeah: the handling of PE needs to be overhauled, but that falls terribly short of what's required for the ICC to operate smoothly. If States are truly interested in int'l justice (and they may very well not be), they need to "put their money where their mouth is".