Sudan has categorically ruled out challenging the admissibility of the Darfur report. Its point: being non-state member, there is no point in doing so. Period.
But will it get away? Let us just shade some light here. Put the nature or gravity of the case aside and let us look at ICC. The ICC has no jurisdiction over Sudan because it is a non-signatory of the Rome Statute. The statute said non-signatories can be referred for prosecution to the ICC if the conditions are deemed "a threat to international peace and security". The UN had referred Sudan on these grounds.
Now the question: why should any government sign the Rome statute if either way you will be prosecuted with it? Signing or not signing makes no difference. Now if Sudan does not cooperate, the arrest warrants go to Interpol for execution. I feel that Sudan is being tried as a test case and they want to succeed whatever way. Too bad.
The case is not going to end soon. And mind you, America is pushing Sudan to cooperate with the ICC, when it is no signatory itself! It is wary about Americans being dragged into the ICC! Call it double standards at global scale.