How can national prosecutors bring justice for atrocities committed abroad?

In this episode, Ignacio Baeriswyl explains how domestic courts are increasingly stepping in to prosecute international crimes when global institutions cannot.

🎧 Episode Overview

In this episode Dr Miranda Melcher continues her conversation with Ignacio Baeriswyl, a Chile-qualified lawyer and PhD researcher at the University of Amsterdam. Building on the previous episode about his work at the International Criminal Court, Ignacio discusses his transition into academia and his doctoral research on an often overlooked actor in international criminal law: domestic prosecutors who pursue atrocity crimes committed abroad.

Ignacio explains the concept of Domestic Extraterritorial Atrocity Prosecutors (DEAPs)—national prosecutors who investigate and prosecute international crimes such as war crimes or crimes against humanity in their own courts, even when those crimes occurred in another country. His research examines how these prosecutors act as gatekeepers in international criminal justice, shaping which cases proceed and how victims’ experiences are represented in court.

The discussion also explores the methodological challenges of empirical legal research, the value of combining legal practice with academic analysis, and the growing importance of domestic courts in addressing the global accountability gap for international crimes.

Looking ahead, Ignacio reflects on possible developments in international criminal law and predicts that more countries may begin prosecuting atrocity crimes domestically as international institutions face increasing political and practical constraints.

👤 Guest Bio

Ignacio Baeriswyl

• Chilean-qualified attorney with experience in international criminal law.
• Former associate legal officer, Reparations Section, International Criminal Court (The Hague).
• Lecturer and Programme Coordinator, LLM in International Law, University of Amsterdam.
• PhD researcher examining domestic prosecutions of international crimes and the role of extraterritorial atrocity prosecutors.

📚 Resources & Links

• Just Access Podcast homepage – https://just-access.de/podcast
• Donate / support the podcast – https://just-access.de/donate
• Contact the show – podcast@just-access.de
• International Criminal Court – https://www.icc-cpi.int
• University of Amsterdam Faculty of Law – https://www.uva.nl

🗒️ Key Take-Aways

• Domestic prosecutors increasingly play a role in prosecuting international crimes committed abroad, helping to address the global impunity gap.
• These actors—referred to as Domestic Extraterritorial Atrocity Prosecutors (DEAPs)—serve as gatekeepers who determine which cases proceed to trial.
• Empirical research, including interviews with prosecutors and practitioners, can provide new insights into how international criminal law functions in practice.
• Academic research benefits from practical legal experience, which helps bridge the gap between law “on paper” and law “in action.”
• As international institutions face resource and jurisdictional limits, national courts may become increasingly important for achieving accountability for atrocities.
• Future cases may expand beyond Syria to other conflict contexts where victims have struggled to obtain justice.

📢 Call to Action

• Subscribe to the Just Access Podcast to receive future episodes.
• Share the episode with colleagues and networks interested in international criminal law and human-rights advocacy.
• Leave a review on your preferred podcast platform to help others discover the show.
• Support the podcast’s continued production by donating at https://just-access.de/donate.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode Dr Miranda Melcher speaks with Ignacio Baeriswyl, a Chile‑qualified lawyer who served as an associate legal officer in the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Reparations Section and is currently a lecturer and PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam. Ignacio outlines his professional trajectory—from domestic economic criminal law in Chile to his work at the ICC—explains the functions and challenges of the reparations team, and discusses the structural limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and authority. He also offers practical guidance for individuals aspiring to work in international criminal justice.

Ignacio Baeriswyl

• Chilean‑qualified attorney, specialised in economic criminal law.
• Former associate legal officer, Reparations Section, ICC (The Hague).
• Lecturer and Programme Coordinator, LLM in International Law, University of Amsterdam.
• PhD candidate researching reparations, victim‑centred justice, and trans‑generational harm.

• Just Access Podcast homepage – https://just-access.de/podcast
• Donate / support the podcast – https://just-access.de/donate
• Contact the show – podcast@just-access.de
• ICC Reparations Section – https://www.icc-cpi.int/reparations
• Rome Statute (reparations provisions) – https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rome-statute

1. Internship experience is essential for entering the ICC; it functions as an informal prerequisite for paid positions.
2. Reparations remain an evolving area of ICC jurisprudence because the Rome Statute provides limited guidance, leaving substantial scope for judicial development.
3. Jurisdictional constraints limit the Court’s ability to act; the ICC relies heavily on cooperation from States parties.
4. Organisational compartmentalisation means judges, prosecutors, and outreach staff operate largely independently, influencing case outcomes.
5. Precision in legal drafting is critical; minor wording variations can affect victims’ eligibility for reparations.
6. Career guidance: acquire domestic legal experience, target internships strategically, and align academic qualifications with the specific ICC unit of interest.

• Human‑rights practitioners & NGOs seeking insider perspectives on ICC operations.
• Law students eyeing a career in international criminal law.
• Policy makers interested in the mechanics of reparations and victim‑centred justice.
• Anyone interested in defending human rights

• Subscribe to the Just Access podcast to receive future episodes.
• Share the episode with colleagues and networks interested in international criminal law and human‑rights advocacy.
• Provide a review on your preferred podcast platform to increase visibility.
• Support the podcast’s continued production by donating at https://just-access.de/donate.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the second part of our conversation with Sabina Grigore, PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, we take a closer look at the discretionary power of prosecutors and how their decisions fundamentally shape access to justice.

Building on the discussion of domestic prosecutions of international crimes, this episode focuses on prosecutors as institutional gatekeepers. Sabina explains how prosecutorial discretion determines what evidence is included in a case, whose experiences are legally recognised as victimhood, and which cases ultimately reach a judge. These decisions, often made long before any courtroom proceedings begin, have profound implications for both alleged perpetrators and survivors of atrocity crimes.

The conversation unpacks how prosecutorial choices influence what can be considered a “just outcome,” highlighting the structural and human factors that shape legal processes in practice. Rather than viewing justice as a neutral or automatic outcome of the law, Sabina invites listeners to examine the layers of power, interpretation, and responsibility embedded within prosecutorial work.

Throughout the episode, one message becomes clear: access to justice is mediated by institutions and individuals alike. Understanding how prosecutors operate — and the limits of their accountability — is essential to understanding where justice is enabled, constrained, or denied.

• How prosecutorial discretion shapes access to justice
• What it means to view prosecutors as institutional gatekeepers
• How evidence selection affects victims’ recognition and legal outcomes
• Why justice is shaped long before cases reach a courtroom
• What a “just outcome” means for victims and accused in practice

• Prosecutorial discretion in international and domestic criminal law
• Access to justice and institutional power
• Victim recognition and evidentiary choices
• Gatekeeping roles within criminal justice systems
• Structural limits of accountability in atrocity crime prosecutions

Sabina Grigore is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, specialising in international criminal law. Her research examines domestic prosecutions of atrocity crimes committed abroad, with a particular focus on prosecutorial discretion, cooperation, and access to justice. Her work critically explores how legal systems shape — and sometimes limit — just outcomes for victims and defendants.

• Just Access Podcast – https://just-access.de/podcast
• Support Just Access – https://just-access.de/donate
• Contact the show – podcast@just-access.de

• 00:00 – Prosecutors as gatekeepers to justice
• 02:10 – Deciding what evidence makes it into a case
• 04:30 – Who is recognised as a victim under the law
• 07:00 – Prosecutorial discretion and “just outcomes”
• 10:15 – Structural power and accountability gaps

Help Just Access keep critical conversations alive — share this episode, leave a review, and support our work at

👉 https://just-access.de/donate

Because everyone can be a human rights defender.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.