Personal immunities for Heads of State are irrelevant under the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Statute only applies to States that accept it. However, the UN Security Council can trigger the jurisdiction of the ICC over situations in States that have not accepted the Rome Statute. In such cases the legal consequences for the personal immunity of the Heads of States of such non-State parties is contended. Jurisprudence in the Al-Bashir case at the ICC show that the Court holds that Al-Bashir does not enjoy immunity - neither vis-a-vis the Court directly, nor vis-a-vis States Parties to the ICC, because these States are obliged to cooperate with the Court. States Parties refuse to arrest Al-Bashir when he is on their territory. This thesis examines the justifiability of the most recent ICC case law, the decisions against South Africa and Jordan. It examines different interpretations of the relationship between the UN Security Council and the ICC, how UN Security Council Resolutions should be interpreted, and how UN Security Council Resolution 1593 referring the Darfur Situation to the ICC should be interpreted. The thesis determines the viability of the ICC case law de lege lata and criticises its reasoning. It further examines the best interpretation of resolution 1593 de lege ferenda.