PREPARATORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES COOPERATION FROM NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO PROPOSED CRIMINAL COURT
Press Release
L/2782
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES COOPERATION FROM NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO PROPOSED CRIMINAL COURT
19960409 States party to the statute of the proposed international criminal court should designate national authorities to which requests for judicial assistance by the court could be forwarded, the Preparatory Committee on the establishment of the court was told this afternoon, as it continued its discussion of cooperation between the court and national jurisdictions.Several speakers said that the creation of such an authority by each State party would streamline the handling of requests from the court. Statements in support of the establishment of such national authorities were made by the representatives of Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, Mexico and Paraguay.
Speakers generally agreed to the need for States to include a list of the type of requests for judicial assistance which the court could make of the State parties. The representatives of Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico and Argentina stressed that such a list was important but pointed out that it must not be considered exhaustive, as to accommodate unforseen requests. The representatives of Thailand, Italy and Colombia said that the list of types of judicial assistance which the court might request from States should be as complete as possible.
Japan said that the international criminal court must be prepared to face the possibility of not receiving judicial cooperation. The use of the Security Council was not a panacea in that regard; the Council could play a role only if it deemed that a situation before the court was a threat to international peace and security.
Most speakers this afternoon expressed opposition to the proposal to grant the prosecutor the power to initiate on-site investigation on his own without the participation of relevant national authorities. Statements in that regard were made by the representatives of Malaysia, Japan, Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico.
They said that on-site investigation must only be undertaken with the consent of the State concerned. It should result from a judicial request by the court to the State party, and should be carried out with the assistance of the State. The prosecutor should only initiate investigation where the State concerned failed to accept the court's request or where there was no national capacity to carry out such investigation.
The representative of Italy said that while the prosecutor should not undertake on-site investigations on his own, he could participate. He agreed, he said, with the representative of Switzerland, that the court itself could decide when national authorities failed to carry out their responsibilities.
The representative of France said that the obligation to respond to requests for judicial assistance should apply to all States parties for all crimes which the court might have coming before it. If States were unable or if they refused to cooperate, the court might respond in different ways. In some countries, the legal system simply collapsed. But in situations in which States parties simply refused to provide requested assistance, there should be a special chamber of the court which could decide on whether the refusal was justified. If it was not, then the prosecutor should be able to act on his own initiative.
The representative of Switzerland said the prosecutor should only intervene as an exception when authorities were not able to carry out investigations.
The representative of Thailand suggested that the prosecutor could make on-site investigations, but with strict adherence and compliance with national laws.
On the question of who could make requests of States for judicial assistance, the representative of Venezuela said that the requesting authority should be the prosecutor. Australia also stressed the importance of the court itself as a conduit of requests.
The representatives of Malaysia, Colombia and Switzerland said that requests should be made through diplomatic channels.
As to the use of evidence by the court, the representative of Mexico said that evidence should be used only in connection with the request that resulted in such evidence. The representative of Venezuela said that the use of information for any purpose other than that for which it was intended should require the permission of the State concerned.
The rule of specialty (which provides that persons transferred to the court should not be subject to prosecution or punishment for any crime other
International Criminal Court - 3 - Press Release L/2782 22nd Meeting (PM) 9 April 1996
than that for which the person was transferred) should apply to all forms of legal assistance rendered to the court, the representative of Malaysia said.
On other matters regarding judicial assistance and cooperation, the representative of Japan expressed support for the proposal that the court conclude separate agreements with non-member States to enable it secure their cooperation if needed.
When it meets again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 10 April, the Preparatory Committee is expected to take up recognition of judgement and enforcement of sentences. It is also expected to discuss a paper presented by Sweden on the general rules of criminal law.
* *** *