ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AMONG ISSUES DISCUSSED THIS AFTERNOON AT UN CONFERENCE
Press Release
L/2877
ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AMONG ISSUES DISCUSSED THIS AFTERNOON AT UN CONFERENCE
19980616 Assistant UN High Commissioner for Refugees Says Jurisdiction Should Include Armed Attacks against Civilians in UN 'Safe Areas'(Reissued as received from an Information Officer.)
ROME, 16 June -- Any preeminent role of the Security Council in triggering the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court would constitute a violation of sovereign equality, the representative of India told the United Nations Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court this afternoon, as the Conference continued to hear general statements.
This would be the case, he continued, because it would assume that the five veto-wielding States do not by definition commit the crimes covered by the court's statute, or, alternatively, that they are above the law and thus posses de jure impunity from prosecution.
The Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan declared that if the international criminal court existed 20 years ago, Afghanistan would have had fewer victims, horrors and atrocities. The Security Council was unable to address this aggression at that time. The General Assembly adopted resolutions over a period of nine years calling on "foreign troops" to withdraw from Afghanistan without ever daring to name the aggressor.
Also this afternoon, the Minister of Justice of Germany declared that States must be prepared to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the core crimes. The crime of aggression should be included in the list of core crimes, respecting, however, the role conferred on the Security Council in the United Nations Charter. No compromise would be acceptable that included the possibility for a State to pick and choose where to accept the rule of law for itself and its nationals and where to disregard it, he added.
The Minister of Justice of Austria said that in ensuring that the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern could not act with impunity, a truly effective permanent court would play a major role in upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law. It would also have a deterrent effect on potential perpetrators, thereby strengthening efforts to maintain peace and stability in the world.
The Assistant United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees urged the Conference to include in the Court's jurisdiction under war crimes, armed attacks against civilians, including in United Nations-declared "safe areas"; denial of humanitarian assistance; forceful displacement with the deliberate aim to achieve ethnic homogeneity in a given geographical area, and attacks on humanitarian workers.
Other statements this afternoon were made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Albania and the Ministers of Justice of Namibia and Spain, as well as the representatives of Andorra, Singapore, Senegal, Syria, Colombia, Portugal, Burkina Faso, Ukraine, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Chile. Representatives of the League of Arab States and the International Committee of the Red Cross also spoke, as did the representatives of Inter-African Human Rights Union, the International Commission of Jurists and the Victims Rights Working Group.
The Conference plenary will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 17 June, to continue to hear general statements.
Conference Work Programme
The United Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court met this afternoon to continue to hear general statements.
Statements
JULI MINOVES TRIQUELL (Andorra): The statute of the Court must be strong. Andorra is concerned with matters related to children and youth, and hopes that its concern will be taken into account in the statute.
The independence of the Court and the prerogatives of the Security Council must be well balanced in the statute. The death penalty must not be part of the statute. Linguistic access to the activities of the Court should be balanced. Andorra this morning had joined the group of like-minded States who are working for the establishment of an International Criminal Court.
LIONEL YEE WOON CHIN (Singapore): The Conference must create a Court which dispenses justice in accordance with the highest legal standards and which consequently can command the credibility and moral authority which are essential to its effective functioning. Particular care must be taken to
- 3 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
ensure that while those who perpetrate crimes of grave concern to the international community are brought to justice, fundamental norms of due process, such as respect for the rights of the accused and the establishment of guilt according to strict evidential standards, must be upheld.
The Conference must be realistic about what it wants to establish. The exercise of creating an International Criminal Court should be seen as giving tangible recognition to the fact that there are some acts so universally abhorred by the international community that their perpetrators should not escape punishment, either by national criminal justice systems or, in their absence or failure to act, by an international judicial body.
LAURO L. BAJA, Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Philippines: National judicial systems should have primacy; the International Criminal Court should complement national judicial systems and come into primacy only when national institutions are non-existent, cannot function or are otherwise unavailable. The Court should have jurisdiction over the "core crimes" of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. In addition, there should be a provision allowing for the future inclusion of other crimes that affect the very fabric of the international system and the existence of human beings. The use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, must be considered among such crimes.
The prosecutor of the Court should be independent. The statute should provide an age below which there is exemption from criminal responsibility. Children nine years of age or under should be exempt from criminal responsibility; those between the ages of nine and 18 should be entitled to a presumption of an absence of discernment. Sexual abuse of women committed as an act of war or in a way that constitutes a crime against humanity should be deemed particularly reprehensible. The crime of rape should be gender-neutral and classified as a crime against persons and not just against chastity. A schedule of penalties should be prescribed for each core crime defined in the statute. For the Court to be established, well-guarded notions of sovereignty may have to be adjusted.
PASKAL MILO, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Albania: Public opinion is growingly concerned by the insufficiency of action on the part of the international community towards the prevention of monstrous crimes produced by criminal governmental policies and practices, as well as the punishment of the perpetrators. The most convincing example are the Serbian massacres in Bosnia, the perpetrators of which are still left unpunished. Such crimes are being repeated today in Kosova following the same scenario and with the same scale of gravity.
The genocidal massacres of the Serbian authorities in Kosova are a consequence of an institutionalized policy of genocide, of State terrorism realized through the military, para-military and police machinery against
- 4 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
Albanian elders and minors. The Albanian people of Kosova, who are the only people of the former Yugoslavia of non-Slavic origin, are becoming victims of a policy of ethnic cleansing. The self-defence resistance of the Albanian population against this policy can never be identified with so-called terrorism.
Albania strongly supports vesting the Court with universal jurisdiction against the crime of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, the crime of aggression and other crimes against humanity. It supports the idea of compiling a nominative list of crimes which could fit into a category of crimes against humanity, against international peace and security, and which also include institutionalized State terrorism that threatens international order and coexistence. The international community should face this challenge in order to discourage all criminal abuses against human rights.
Albania favours the establishment of an International Criminal Court to re-establish justice, and rehabilitate victims. The Court must be vested with the attributes of integrity, autonomy and an independent jurisdiction.
JACQUES BAUDIN (Senegal): At the end of the twentieth century impunity is part of today's reality; that situation must be changed. Despite those that think otherwise, "we must at the end of our work establish an independent International Criminal Court".
There are principles on which Senegal will not compromise, including a Court that is permanent and universal, that had complementarity with national courts, and that has an independent prosecutor who is able to initiate ex- officio prosecution. To this end it must ensure the human rights of victims. Peace engenders stability; it is necessary for democracy and the rule of law.
MOHAMMAD SAID AL BUNY (Syria): The Court should be an international judicial establishment, representative of the will of the General Assembly and based on an international convention. The relationship between the court and the United Nations should be clear in order to ensure the global aspect of the court, particularly its independence from the Security Council. The crime of aggression has already been defined by the General Assembly in a 1974 resolution; there is no need to create another definition.
To include crimes whose definition is not yet clear is a violation of the nullum crimen sine lege mechanism. That is indicated in the draft statute of the Court. To include other crimes will confuse matters. The Court should have a complementarity jurisdiction when national courts cannot do their job, so sovereignty of States will be respected. The Court should be financed by the States parties to the convention and not by the United Nations budget.
- 5 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
EDZARD SCHMIDT-JORTZIG, Minister of Justice of Germany: Germany is committed to the creation of a Court with automatic universal jurisdiction over the core crimes, including war crimes in internal conflicts, to the principles of complementarity, to an independent and strong prosecutor and to a strict obligation for all States parties to cooperate without reservations. The crime of aggression should be included in the list of core crimes, respecting, however, the role conferred on the Security Council in the United Nations Charter. In accordance with historic precedents, the definition of this crime should focus on obvious and indisputable cases of aggression only.
For the Court to deserve the name of a truly international institution, the nations of the world must be prepared to accept its jurisdiction over the core crimes. In an interdependent world and a global society, sovereignty will be served better by cooperation than by a futile attempt to stand alone. Under the system of complementarity already incorporated in the draft, nations do not surrender their national sovereignty to some other institution. They are simply fulfilling their task towards the international community by plugging the gaps which have enabled the worst criminals to escape punishment until now.
Germany is committed to the concept of universal jurisdiction of the Court over the core crimes in order to promote the rule of law in international relations. There can be no exceptions to the rule of law. No compromise will be acceptable that includes the possibility for a State to pick and choose where to accept the rule of law for itself and its nationals and where to disregard it. Nor should it be left to States to decide whether a matter may be investigated. It is necessary to provide for proper judicial control in the investigative stages, but apart from that, the prosecutor should be entitled to initiate investigations without having to wait for a complaint by a State.
ALBERTO ZALAMEA (Colombia): The Conference has the great responsibility to make sure that the statute will establish an independent Court. The material jurisdiction must extend to the most serious international crimes, so its trigger mechanism must be clearly established. Colombia proposes that the International Court of Justice be responsible for solving controversies among States concerning the implementation or the interpretation of the Court's statute which are not under the scope of the Court this Conference was convened to establish.
JOSE MANUEL DE MATOS FERNANDES (Portugal): There is a need to learn the lessons of history at the end of a century that has seen so many innocent victims. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are already mentioned in the domestic legislations of many countries. It is a question of allowing action by an international body where national jurisdiction is
- 6 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
lacking, including the crime of sexual abuse against women. The crime of aggression should also be part of the jurisdiction of the Court, provided there is an agreeable definition.
Ad hoc tribunals should not continue to be established. The judges must be protected from all forms of pressure. The death penalty should not be included and there should be special provisions to protect the victims, including provision of compensation.
MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso): The terrible barbarity of man against man in recent years, in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are being dealt with by ad hoc tribunals. But the international community is persisting in its aim of having a permanent tribunal which will constitute one of the means to prevent major crimes and other violations that frustrate the world.
Non-governmental organizations and humanitarian bodies should be praised for their roles as catalysts in leading to the convening of this Conference. The draft statute has no less than 1,700 square brackets; there is a need to overcome national selfishness and Burkina Faso is determined to do that. Burkina Faso has always demonstrated its commitment to human rights, including at the regional level. There is no more time or right to hesitate on the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Future generations demand that the task now be accomplished in Rome.
VASILIY TATSHIY (Ukraine): The draft statute is a good basis for achieving consensus. The issue of complementarity is one of the most fundamental elements in the establishment of the Court. Ukraine supports this principle and hopes to see it properly reflected in the draft. Ukraine, which suffered the consequences of the Second World War, and at one stage became one of the most powerful nuclear States of the world, has voluntarily given up that power.
Crimes against United Nations staff should be covered in the statute of the Court. The Court should be financially independent and its seat should be in The Hague.
AANAA ENIN (Ghana): The establishment of an International Criminal Court should not be regarded as an end in itself. Should this happen, mankind may be besieged by even greater horrors.
Ghana acknowledges that for the Court to be a credible judicial institution, it must be based on a number of essential principles. It is essential that the Court be granted inherent jurisdiction over core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Any regime that permits a State to ratify the statute, and also grants that same State the choice of accepting or rejecting the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of particular crimes, can only lead to the establishment of a moribund Court. The
- 7 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
requirement of State consent as a precondition for the exercise of jurisdiction would not in any way enhance the effectiveness of the Court. Ghana cannot support such a requirement.
It would also be equally vital to the credibility of the Court, and for its universal acceptance, to have embodied in its statute provisions that will guarantee its independence and impartiality. The International Criminal Court must not, as a matter of principle, operate to supplant national criminal systems; nor should it be a supervisory body over national criminal systems. However, it should be able to investigate and prosecute in instances of inability of national systems to act. Another cornerstone on which the Court must be structured, and by which its acceptance would be measured, will be the extent to which it is sensitive to gender issues relating to the experience of women and children in situations of armed conflict, and the extent to which these are incorporated in the mainstream of the Court's functions.
NIKOLAUS MICHALEK, Minister of Justice of Austria: The tragedies in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia have made the need for the Court abundantly clear. Valuable as the two ad hoc Tribunals established by the Security Council undoubtedly are, they cannot act as a substitute for a permanent institution. In ensuring that the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern cannot act with impunity, a truly effective permanent Court would play a major role in upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law. By its very permanence and independence, such a court would ensure that those fundamental principles of criminal law are applied regardless of what happens to be the political opinion of the day. This would also have a deterrent effect on potential perpetrators, thereby strengthening efforts to maintain peace and stability in the world.
There is no doubt that an effective system of State cooperation is a prerequisite for an effective Court. Requests of the Court should in principle be given priority over requests from States, and sentences should be effectively enforced by States parties that have expressed their willingness to accept convicted persons. The procedural provisions have to ensure a fair and effective operation of the Court, safeguarding the rights of the accused and easing the procedure of giving evidence by victims.
GORGI SPASOV, Minister of Justice of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: An international Court is necessary to address impunity when the international community fails to do so. The actions of the Security Council establishing the ad hoc tribunals clearly signalled to the principles of individual liability for crimes under international law. The court should be a guarantee for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia has actively supported and participated in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. It welcomed the outcome of the final session of the Preparatory Committee for the
- 8 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
Court. The Committee has paved the way to establishing the court and in Rome that path should be followed.
Too many people have already been victimized this century and the international community should not allow that to be repeated in the next century. The Court should give impetus to combating international organized crime. The crime of aggression should be included in the statute and, if there is agreement, the Government will accept the inclusion of the crimes of terrorism and illicit drug trafficking under the court's jurisdiction.
DILIP LAHIRI (India): There is now general agreement on the principle that the Court's jurisdiction should be complementary or supplementary to the primary jurisdiction of nation states. The Court can only step in when a national judicial system is non-existent or unable to deal with the particular crimes covered by the statute. This is in conformity with the principle of territorial jurisdiction well accepted by all legal systems of States and also with the principle of State sovereignty.
India can understand the need for the Court to step in when confronted by situations such as in the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, where national judicial structures had completely broken down. But the correct response to such exceptional situations is not that all nations must constantly prove the viability of their judicial structures or find these overridden by the Court. It is inconceivable to India, as to other States, that States with well established and functioning judicial and investigative systems should be subjected to a "star chamber" procedure. This would be a travesty of the concept of complementarity.
India strongly believes that the impartiality and independence of a judicial institution such as the international Court should be respected fully. Any preeminent role of the Security Council in triggering the Court's jurisdiction constitutes a violation of sovereign equality, as well as equality before the law, because it contains an assumption that the five veto- wielding States do not by definition commit the crimes covered by the Court's statute, or in case they so commit, that they are above the law and thus posses de jure impunity from prosecution, while individuals in all other States are presumed to be prone to committing such international crimes. Politically, the composition of the Security Council and the veto vested in five permanent members is an anomaly which cannot be reproduced and recognized by the International Criminal Court.
FODE M. DABOR (Sierra Leone): The international community had the unique opportunity to summon the courage to punish the perpetrators of atrocities on a universal basis. Sierra Leone urges a fair, effective, independent, impartial and unfettered criminal Court.
- 9 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
The success of the present effort lies with the ability of the Conference to guarantee the independence of the Court. It must have inherent jurisdiction, with the prosecutor empowered to initiate investigations. If this principle is not accepted, the consequence will be to subordinate the Court to "a generalized veto power", a result that is "clearly unappealing and unacceptable". The prosecutor must be able to receive information from victims, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to initiate investigations and prosecutions.
The Court should also have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but first and foremost, there should be agreement on the definition of the crime. It is important that the Security Council be able to refer situations to the Court, but the Court must not be subordinated to Council vetoes. Moreover, State cooperation is a prerequisite for the success of the Court and must be full and prompt.
The Court's independence would be weakened by acceptance of any State funding option, since the Court would have to rely on economically better off nations. State funding would also be likely to discourage ratifications and would unevenly hit smaller nations and less developed countries. The best solution in funding the Court would therefore be from the United Nations budget.
Had the Court already been established, those responsible for the atrocities committed over the past seven years by rebel forces in Sierra Leone who have escaped or who may escape the jurisdiction of Sierra Leone would not go with impunity. An independent Court would represent an invaluable step towards a new international order, where human rights are adequately protected. Ratification of the treaty establishing the Court would not only be a testimony to the common desire to overcome long neglected failures of national legal systems, but would also provide a unique chance for international stability, deterrence and hopefully the prevention of these atrocious crimes.
E.N. TJIRIANGE, Minister of Justice of Namibia: It is not acceptable for the International Criminal Court to be subjected to the political decisions of the Security Council. The Court must be completely independent and on the same level as the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court must have inherent jurisdiction over the core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. If an appropriate definition could not be agreed upon on aggression, this should not delay the establishment of the Court.
The prosecutor must be able to initiate investigations and prosecutions without seeking the consent of the State party concerned. If the Court is to be effective in punishing and deterring international crimes, the prosecutor must have such ex officio power. The effectiveness of the Court and the
- 10 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
credibility of the regime put in place will depend on the cooperation the Court will receive from State parties.
A. ABDULLAH, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan: Afghanistan was and still is the victim of aggression and the theatre of actions against humanitarian law and it is thus best placed to insist on the necessity of an International Criminal Court. If such a Court existed 20 years ago Afghanistan would have fewer victims, horrors and atrocities.
In the 1980s, the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan as occupying Power and faced the just resistance of the people as a legitimate defence. To suppress the resistance, the aggressor resorted to all means, including bombardment of civilians, forced displacement of population, massive deportation, massive imprisonment, indiscriminate attacks against villages, destruction of irrigation systems and torture. These acts either constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity. The main source of these heinous acts lay in aggression.
It is with great dismay that Afghanistan recalls these events and reminds the Conference how the United Nations and the Security Council were unable to address, under the Charter, this aggression at that time. The Security Council did not deal with the subject and the General Assembly just adopted resolutions for nine years calling on "foreign troops" to withdraw from Afghanistan, without daring to name the aggressor. After 1992 and the establishment of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the nation again became the victim of foreign intervention and aggression. This time the aggression comes from the south and the cold war no longer exists.
MARGARITA MARISCAL DE GANTE, Minister of Justice of Spain: Spain supports jurisdiction of the Court over the crimes that horrify human conscience. The differences that exist over the crime of aggression cannot be hidden. Spain supports the nature of the Court as a complementary organ to national systems, as this will promote full cooperation with the Court. The statute of the Court cannot depart from existing provisions of international criminal law. It is important to pay attention to the victims -- women and children in particular. World public opinion will not understand if this Conference ends in failure.
JOSE ANTONIO GOMES URRUTIA (Chile): The work of establishing an International Criminal Court is one of the most important challenges confronting the international community in recent years and reflects a critical ethical attitude towards impunity that has prevailed many times in recent years. Chile supports the Court. National courts have not always combatted impunity and that has led to skepticism. The principle of complementarity is a proper reflection between the two legal jurisdictions.
- 11 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
The structure of the Court must be independent of any interference by States or international organizations. This will be the first attempt to establish a permanent international jurisdiction. It is essential that the Court's mechanism guarantee its independence. Universality requires general agreement, but the price should not be the establishment of a weak Court. The Court should have inherent jurisdiction over core crimes. Crimes against women, particularly including sexual violence, should be included under crimes against humanity, as well as the crime of forced disappearance. Chile, because of its recent history, gives great importance to punishing crimes that affect human dignity.
HUSSEIN HASSOUNA of the League of Arab States: Arab States are determined to contribute to the success of the work of the Conference. Despite disagreements over some of the provisions of the statute, they support the Court's jurisdiction over the core crimes. A distinction should be drawn between an act of aggression and the legitimate struggle of peoples for self- determination. Any definition of the crime of aggression should be based on the 1974 United Nations General Assembly resolution on aggression. Terrorism should not be included as one of the crimes over which the Court would have jurisdiction, as there is no internationally agreed definition.
It is important to grant to the Court all the necessary independence, including independence from the Security Council. The League does not favour any interference from the Council, and does not think that the Council should be granted the right to interfere in investigations.
CORNELIO SOMMARUGA, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): The ICRC is deeply involved in conducting relief and protection operations in the very midst of armed conflicts, but it also has a mandate conferred on it by the States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions to work for the faithful application of international humanitarian law by all those who have a duty to apply it.
States must continue to bear primary responsibility for instituting legal proceedings; this obligation is stipulated in the Geneva Conventions and still applies. Greater efforts must also be made to encourage States to meet their existing obligations and bring suspected war criminals before their own courts. To this end, the ICRC provides States with technical assistance to promote the adoption of the legislative measures necessary to repress war crimes.
Nevertheless, the present system has its shortcomings, which is why it is essential to set up an International Criminal Court so as to make certain that suspected was criminals are prosecuted in cases where they are not brought to justice before national courts. Impunity can no longer be tolerated.
- 12 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
The Court must have jurisdiction in all types of armed conflict, whether international or otherwise. This is all the more important in view of the fact that most of today's conflicts are internal ones. It should have inherent automatic competence to try crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. To require the additional consent of States before a particular case is submitted to the Court would clearly be a retrograde step in relation to existing law. It is difficult to accept that war criminals could enjoy legal protection from prosecution.
The prosecutor must be empowered to conduct investigations and institute proceeding on his or her own initiative, although in such an event, the principle of complementarity must be respected.
SOREN JESSEN-PETERSEN, Assistant United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: What we are seeing in Sierra Leone -- just as we saw in the former Yugoslavia and in the Great Lakes region before -- highlights the critical importance and relevance of a permanent International Criminal Court. The Court will ensure a more effective implementation of the "exclusion clause" contained in the international refugee instruments, whereby individuals who have committed crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity are excluded from international protection as refugees. It should do so by providing more authoritative guidance on the interpretation of the clause and by making sure that those "excluded" are brought to justice. Failure to achieve the latter in a timely way can have very serious consequences.
In the present context, in which civil war is more prevalent than war between States, the Court's statute must also cover war crimes committed during internal conflicts. Crimes carried out during civil war are just as heinous as those committed in international conflicts, and must not go unpunished.
The UNHCR urges the Conference to include in the Court's jurisdiction armed attacks against civilians, including in United Nations-declared "safe areas". Denial of humanitarian assistance, such as deliberately starving out populations to weaken, demoralize or pressure the "other side", is particularly reprehensible. Forceful displacement with the deliberate aim to achieve ethnic homogeneity in a given geographical area and attacks on humanitarian workers should also fall under the ambit of the Court. It is important that any court provide adequately for witness protection, non- closure, and inviolability of United Nations records.
HAHDOU OUEDRAOGO, of the Inter-African Human Rights Union: There should be an independent international criminal Court. Mankind has seen too many violations of human rights, particularly of the weak. The Court must benefit from substantial funding that should not be subject to any blackmail. A member of the "no peace without justice" campaign, his organization has been fighting for a strong, just and impartial Court, which eradicates impunity,
- 13 - Press Release L/2877 16 June 1998
renders justice and creates the opportunity for liberty and conditions for real development of people.
MONA RISHMAWI, of the International Commission of Jurists: The Court should have jurisdiction over the three core crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While the Commission does not take a position on the crime of aggression, a mechanism should be established to add jurisdiction to the Court, either through an additional protocol to the statute or through other conventions. While the crimes should be precisely defined, the definition should be wide enough to apply in situations of international and internal armed conflict, as well as in peacetime. The statute should apply to state agents as well as non-state actors and should be a universal body associated with the United Nations and funded from its regular budget.
FIONA MCKAY, on behalf of the Victims Rights Working Group: There will be no justice without justice for victims. And in order to do justice for victims, the Court must be empowered to address their rights and needs.
There is increasing recognition at both international and national levels of the need to ensure that criminal justice does take account of victims's rights. Victims have a wide range of needs which must be met if the process of healing and reconciliation is to take place. Among others, they need to have the opportunity to speak the truth about what happened to them, however painful that might be. It is essential that the Court be able to guarantee protection for victims and other witnesses in the proceedings. This means a strong and effective victims and witnesses unit, with adequate power and resources.
* *** *