AWARDED: Stronger responses provided brief background on ICC and Special Tribunals before turning to criticism. Stronger responses provided both knowledge and analysis and discussed numerous criticisms including length of time to prosecute, state disagreement with court decisions, prosecutions only in certain states, questionable deterrent value, low number of prosecutions, value for money. MISSED: Weaker responses provided only brief outline of criticism with very little analysis. ADVICE: None specific. KEY PRINCIPLE (from ER 2025, applicable to all questions): Address the question directly. For this question, briefly establish what the institution or concept is supposed to do, then systematically assess the specific criticisms with evidence. EXAMINE TECHNIQUE: This is a 12-mark question requiring you to identify, explain and illustrate. Structure around two or three clear points with specific evidence for each. You do not need a full evaluative conclusion, but showing awareness of contrasting perspectives will reach the top marks. EXAMINER RECOMMENDATIONS (from ER 2025, applicable to all questions): 1. ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED: Focus on the specific comparison or examination demanded. Do not drift into evaluation or general description of each item separately. If the question asks for differences, give differences -- not a general account of both things. 2. CONSIDER BOTH SIDES: Even in a 12-mark question, showing awareness of alternative perspectives or complications lifts your answer into the top band. 3. USE EVIDENCE EFFECTIVELY: Each point of comparison needs specific supporting evidence -- named institutions, specific powers, concrete examples of how they operate in practice. 4. VALUE TIMED PRACTICE: The more practice you have of responding in exam conditions, the better you will perform. For the final question on each paper, time pressure is real -- practise to a strict timer.