first thing, the warrant for Omar al-bashir's arrest from the ICC was this: "Intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property" even if these are accusations, without substantial proof, can a country really let somone who may or may not have done these things roam freely around the streets?
delegate, I have a quote from an article here "Nine witnesses, including refugees and survivors of the genocide... through questioning all arrived to the same conclusion that with the systematic extermination headed by the Sudanese Government was occurring throughout the region. Familiar terms, such as the Janjaweed, air strikes, refugee camps, rape, Musa Hilal, and Al-Bashir were circulated throughout the trial. Each questioning of the witnesses offered compelling evidence that a genocide is taking place right before our eyes and that action needs to be taken to incarcerate the perpetrators." i'm just using this as an example to explain what kind of proof will be needed. Unfortunatly it IS and WILL be difficult to find any physical proof...
my point is that some cases may depend on witnesses, but the countries security is the most important thing.
as you can see, this conviction did not seem very biased, and even though some convictions may be emotional, it's all about the safety of the country.
A step that we will be taking to try and prevent biased judgements is having many judges (about 40) which i've stated before that will be from many different countries. terrorism is a very serious issues, and some difficult choices may need to be made, making SURE that the countries security is the priority.