I. General Provisions

Article 4
Liechtenstein jurisdiction
(1) The competence of the International Criminal Court or of an International Tribunal does not preclude the competence of Liechtenstein courts.

(2) There is no Liechtenstein jurisdiction however in respect of crimes for which a person has been sentenced or found not guilty by the International Criminal Court or an International Tribunal in an enforceable judgement.

I. General Provisions

Article 5
Challenge of admissibility of proceedings before the International Criminal Court; deferral of proceedings to the International Criminal Court or an International Tribunal

(1) Should the International Criminal Court assert its jurisdiction in respect of a case, the Ministry of Justice may claim Liechtenstein jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 18 of the Rome Statute or challenge the admissibility of proceedings or the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 19 of the Rome Statute.

Article 17
Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision 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.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.