`CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY' MUST BE PRECISELY DEFINED SAY SPEAKERS IN PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL COURT

26 March 1996

Press Release
L/2763

`CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY' MUST BE PRECISELY DEFINED SAY SPEAKERS IN PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL COURT

19960326 Some Say Such Crimes Can Only Be Prosecuted During Wartime; Others Suggest That `Nexus' between Crimes against Humanity and War Necessary

The prosecution of crimes against humanity must be predicated upon precise definitions of those crimes, the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court was told this morning.

The representative of China said that the statute of the proposed court should make clear whether or not those crimes could be prosecuted only during time of war. Crimes against humanity, he said, had been generally defined in only four international instruments -- the Nuremberg Charter, the Tokyo Tribunal Charter, and the statutes of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. All four of those tribunals had been dedicated to the prosecution of war criminals. International humanitarian law, by definition, addressed only actions taken in time of war.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that although crimes against humanity could occur during peacetime, past experience showed that they only became of interest to the international community when they occurred in connection with armed conflict. The "nexus" with armed conflict was, therefore, necessary.

Several delegations, however, expressed the view that such a linkage between crimes against humanity and war was not necessary. It was suggested that the prosecution focus on the commission of acts by individuals representing de lege or de facto authorities -- generally, but not solely, State officials. Several speakers also said that crimes against humanity should not be limited to actions against identifiable ethnic, social or political groups.

The representative of the United States said that the use of the term "attack" in the draft statute did not imply armed conflict, though it did imply the use of force. It was not necessary to link crimes against humanity with warfare, though it was difficult to see how crimes against humanity could

take place without the application of force. He endorsed the proposed court's jurisdiction, subject to precise definition, over: enslavement; forced labour; torture, particularly as that crime had been codified in the Torture Convention; and rape; sexual abuse; and forced prostitution, particular when associated with ethnic cleansing.

The representative of Canada said it was important to screen out offenses which would be inappropriate for trial at the international level. However, such screening should not create a loophole for States to circumvent the court. Norway's representative suggested it was the widespread and systematic nature of crimes that lifted them to the international level.

The representative of Malaysia expressed concern over whether or not crimes against humanity could be precisely defined. Procedurally convenient, open-ended definitions may not be consistent with the principles of legality. The representative of South Africa cautioned that dwelling upon the motivation for the commission of crimes against humanity might increase the burden of proof upon the prosecutor.

The representative of Austria urged that difficulty in defining crimes against a humanity not be allowed to impede the development of the court statute. He suggested that criteria might include: wilful killing or extermination; mutilation; cruel treatment and torture; unlawful confinement or deportation of civilians; outrages upon personal dignity, such as rape or enforced prostitution; racial or religious persecution; the taking of civilian hostages; wilful deprivation of the right to a fair trial; and slavery, servitude or forced labour.

The representatives of China and Singapore said that since the International Law Commission was already finalizing the draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind, an attempt at a definition of crimes against humanity by the Preparatory Committee might be premature and out of order. The representative of New Zealand, however, pointed out that the International Law Commission had been discussing the draft code of crimes for 48 years.

Committee Chairman Adriaan Bos (Netherlands) said that the discussions within the Preparatory Committee remained within its mandate as contained in the relevant General Assembly resolution.

Statements on that topic were also made by the representatives of Switzerland, Czech Republic, Portugal, Egypt, Rumania, Lesotho, Uruguay, India, Mexico, Australia, Indonesia, Cameroon and Cameroon.

When it meets again at 3 p.m. today, the Preparatory Committee will begin discussing war crimes. * *** *

International Criminal Court - 3 - Press Release L/2763 3rd Meeting (AM) 26 March 1996