JURISDICTION OF PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DISCUSSED IN PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON ITS ESTABLISHMENT
Press Release
L/2772
JURISDICTION OF PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DISCUSSED IN PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON ITS ESTABLISHMENT
19960402 The statute of the proposed international criminal court should clearly define the conditions under which the court would have jurisdiction and when jurisdiction should rest with the national courts, several speakers said yesterday afternoon as the Preparatory Committee on the court's establishment continued discussing complementarity between the proposed court and national courts.The representative of New Zealand said that "complementarity" was not an established legal principle. That concept should not be used by States to shield their nationals from the proposed court's jurisdiction, she cautioned.
The representatives of Jamaica and Argentina said the proposed court should have its own discretionary power in determining its jurisdiction. Jamaica would not support a subsidiary or residual international criminal court, that country's representative said.
The international court should not be allowed to make a political assessment of national courts, according to the representative of Colombia. South Africa's representative said that the proposed court should establish the bona fides of the jurisdictional proceedings of national courts, adding that the international court should have a secondary role, acting only after national jurisdictions had already acted.
Citing the "relative vagueness" of the definition of complementarity in the draft statute, the representative of Egypt said that lack of precision in that clause could give rise to conflicts potentially threatening to the court's authority. The statute should define the minimum standard of content required for the court to have jurisdiction.
The representative of Yemen called for defining which crimes would come under national courts and which the international criminal court would have jurisdiction over. The representative of Venezuela said that if the criteria for the international court's involvement were not spelled out, it might be given too much latitude. The representatives of Indonesia and of Ukraine stressed the need for the establishment of criteria for the court's jurisdiction.
Noting that the rationale for establishing the court was the failure of national jurisdictions to prosecute certain crimes, the representative of Norway said it was essential to seek clarity with regard to the principle of complementarity. If the proposed court was unable to prosecute certain crimes, then the objectives for its establishment would not have been achieved.
The representatives of Malaysia, Argentina and Colombia said that national courts should generally enjoy priority over the proposed international criminal court, consistent with the principle of sovereignty established by the Charter.
Malaysia's representative said that the international jurisdiction should enter into action when decisions at the national level were taken in bad faith, when prosecutions were improperly delayed, and when no internationally recognized jurisdiction remained in place. The representative of Lesotho said that the court should not have supremacy over national judicial systems. The statute should elaborate the criteria to be used where national jurisdiction failed.
The representative of Singapore said that the principle of complementarity, as enunciated in the draft statute, meant that the court would play a residual role by coming in when national jurisdictions failed, but that did not imply that it would have a subservient role. Japan's representative disagreed that the principle of complementarity reduced the effectiveness of the court, stating that the court's action would be based on the full consent and cooperation of the state in question. Libya's delegate said that the statute should focus on a definition of complementarity in a way that complemented, not substituted, national jurisdiction.
The representative of Mexico called for more precise language in the statute as to when events would trigger the jurisdiction of the proposed international court. The draft statute had cited the court's role when national jurisdictions were "unavailable or ineffective". Those terms needed definition.
The representative of Argentina called for greater specificity in the court statute regarding the legitimacy of national decisions. Several cases may cause difficulties when it came to judging the effectiveness of national procedures.
The representative of South Africa endorsed an earlier proposal by Germany to introduce into the statute preamble language recalling the obligation of States to prosecute serious violations of internal law.
International Criminal Court - 3 - Press Release L/2772 12th Meeting (PM) 2 April 1996
Several speakers also addressed the question of the powers granted in the draft statute to the prosecutor. The representative of Algeria said that there should be a limiting approach to the powers of the prosecutor.
Regarding the statute provision which would allow States to challenge the admissibility of a matter before the court, several speakers said that such application should be limited to the States that were directly affected. The representative of Norway said that such application of inadmissibility should only be made by States which had jurisdiction over the matter in question.
Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Guatemala and the United Kingdom.
The Preparatory Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. today, 2 April, to continue its discussion on the question of complementarity.
* *** *