NEED OF STATES TO RECOGNIZE INTERNATIONAL COURT JUDGEMENTS DISCUSSED IN CRIMINAL COURT PREPARATORY COMMITTEE

Press Release
L/2783

NEED OF STATES TO RECOGNIZE INTERNATIONAL COURT JUDGEMENTS DISCUSSED IN CRIMINAL COURT PREPARATORY COMMITTEE

States should be obliged to recognize decisions and judgements of the proposed international criminal court, the Preparatory Committee on the establishment of the court was told this morning, with several speakers saying that there should be automatic recognition of such decisions and judgements by the State parties to the statute of the court.

The representative of the Netherlands said that States parties should recognize the judgements of the court, as they would judgements rendered by their national judiciaries. The statute should provide a rule of "burden- sharing", which would oblige States to carry out the verdict of the court.

The representative of Germany said that sentences by the court should not be considered as "foreign statements " which have to be translated into national law. State parties should recognize sentences by the court automatically, but the statute should include a provision referring to the principle of complementarity.

The representative of Portugal said that judgements of the court should be automatically executed by States parties. The court should set minimum national standards for the treatment of offenders. Balance had to be reached between the interests of the convicted and other interests.

The representative of China said that recognition of the judgments of the court was essential and the court should not be seen as a foreign court or a super-national body. It should be on equal footing with the national courts. The statute should take into consideration the conditions of imprisonment in the countries concerned and whether the rights of the prisoner could be guaranteed. There should also be agreement on the types of penalties to be imposed by the court.

The representative of Australia agreed that States could indicate a willingness to accept prisoners. There must be consistency in the sentences imposed by the court and in their implementation. Where necessary, States

should have an obligation to cooperate. The observer of Switzerland said that the court must ensure that refusals by States party to execute its judgements were kept to a minimum. The place of execution of sentences should be designated by the court. Those States should be made to recognize safeguards -- such as for the rights of convicted persons -- required by the court.

France's representative said that it was logical for the judgements of the international court to be recognized and executed by States. By becoming parties to the court, the States parties should automatically recognize its judgements. Difficulty might arise with sentences involving matters such as fines and restitution. States should recognize that international court judgements were enforceable in their national jurisdictions, although the statute should not oblige States to imprison individuals within their territories. States parties that were willing to have prisoners serve their sentences in their territories should so indicate to the court. In France, the head of State had a right to pardon. If France accepted convicted prisoners, the President of France should still maintain that right towards those prisoners.

The representative of the United States said that with the international court, States would be called on to enforce the judgements of a judiciary other than its own. He was concerned over a regime that would require States that had not accepted the court's jurisdiction to enforce its judgements. Such a provision might be open to legal challenge in many States. It might be that States could only be obliged to recognize judgements of the court to the extent allowable national law. Regarding the enforcement of sentences, that conditions of incarceration may have to be governed by the laws of States parties. State prison systems should be made to comply with international norms of incarceration, but the court could not be expected to field every complaint from prisoners. Once States have established a threshold regarding norms of incarceration, the court may have to leave it to them to administer incarceration.

The representative of Jamaica said that in many States, questions such as those relating to parole and pardon were not questions for judicial bodies, since, very often, they involved extra-legal considerations. He proposed that a body might be established by States parties to the statute to deal with such questions. The representative of Austria proposed that a convict should serve his sentence in his State of nationality.

The representative of Ireland said that no criminal would fear for the court's judgements if he knew that conviction in the court would have no consequences. He agreed with Netherlands that States should immediately apply the judgements of the international court at the national level. But Ireland had constitutional concerns similar to those expressed by the United States. Under Irish jurisdiction, murder was punished by life imprisonment, but

International Criminal Court - 3 - Press Release L/2783 23rd Meeting (AM) 10 April 1996

manslaughter contained provisions for parole. Those kinds of issues would have to be settled.

The representative of Singapore said that the role of national courts in allowing pardons needed to be discussed further. Could one speak of pardoning the perpetrators of serious -- even unpardonable -- international crimes? Those decisions must be made by the court. They should not be left to the discretion of incarcerating States. The length of penalties and types of punishment should be determined by the court, not by national authorities. Also this morning, the Preparatory Committee undertook a discussion of general rules of criminal law, as contained in a working paper. That paper summarizes proposals from various delegations, citations from the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and excerpts from the "Siracusa draft" concerning possible elements to be included in the draft statute. Those text suggestions deal with the non-retroactivity of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law), individual responsibility, irrelevance of official position, age of responsibility, statutes of limitation, act and omission, mistake of fact or law, attempt, conspiracy, command responsibility, insanity and mental capacity, intoxication, ability to stand trail, self defence, necessity, duress and coercion, lesser of evils, superior orders, possible defences under public international law, and lists of defences. The working paper will be discussed in detail at the next session of the Preparatory Committee.

General points were raised by the representatives of Austria, Japan, United States, France, Sweden and the observer of Switzerland.

When it meets again at 11:30 a.m. Thursday, 10 April, the Ad Hoc Committee will discuss its report on the current session and the programme of work of its August session.

* *** *