RECALLING 'SUFFERING ALMOST UNKNOWN IN HUMAN HISTORY', RWANDA URGES CREATION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TO ERADICATE GENOCIDE
Press Release
L/2881
RECALLING 'SUFFERING ALMOST UNKNOWN IN HUMAN HISTORY', RWANDA URGES CREATION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TO ERADICATE GENOCIDE
19980617 Israel Recalls Role of Nazi War Crimes In Current Deliberations, Libya Says Work of Court Should Not Be Held Hostage to Super-Power Whims(Reissued as received from an Information Officer.)
ROME, 17 June -- The United Nations Diplomatic Conference on Establishing an International Criminal Court heard this afternoon the Minister of Justice of Rwanda recall a history of suffering in his country almost unknown in the history of humankind. The proposed Court, he said, should not be subject to any hegemonistic interest or body and should only deal with crimes defined by international legal bodies -- war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The Attorney General of Israel said "As we meet to establish an international criminal court we cannot help but have in our minds the unspeakable Nazi crimes of the Holocaust, in which a third of the Jewish people was exterminated." This tragedy first prompted the General Assembly to ask the International Law Commission to consider the establishment of an International Criminal Court 50 years ago. "Needless to say we wholeheartedly support the sacred mission of prosecuting war criminals", he added.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that support for the establishment of an international criminal court was part of the election platform of the new Labour Government. Although fiercely proud of their common law system, the British are not so insular as to think that it offers all the answers, or indeed the only answers, to the myriad problems inherent in creating a truly international system. "So we do not come here wedded to a single stereotype, but we are wide open to good ideas from any region or any legal tradition."
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of France stressed the need to go beyond ad hoc tribunals to a permanent one to address war crimes, adding that no substantive question should be evaded, as "we want to succeed". He also stressed the need for the Conference to be inventive and to find creative compromises.
Libya's representative warned against anything that would encourage States not to abide by the rulings or decisions of the International Criminal Court. Libya had accepted the rulings of the International Court of Justice while the United States had not. "We must be guided by international law", he emphasized, adding that the work of the Court should not be held hostage to the whims of some super-Power.
Argentina's Minister of Justice said the creation of the ad hoc tribunals demonstrated the determination of the international community to apply individual responsibility for war crimes. The question today was not whether but what type of Court the international community would create.
Also making statements were the Foreign Ministers of Belgium, Finland, Greece and the Netherlands; the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform of Ireland; the Minister for Law and Justice of Nepal; and the Ministers of Justice of Luxembourg and Gabon. Representatives of New Zealand, Paraguay and Morocco also spoke, as did representatives of the Organization of African Unity, the International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Parliamentarians for Global Action and the International Federation for Human Rights.
The plenary of the Conference will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 18 June, to continue to hear general statements.
Conference Work Programme
The United Nations Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court met this afternoon to continue to hear general statements.
Statements
ERIK DERYCKE, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium: We are about to end a century marked by unprecedented violence. The establishment of an International Criminal Court is a most appropriate way of responding to this fact.
Belgium favours the inclusion under war crimes of the recruitment of children for armed conflict. Universal jurisdiction on war crimes is actually part of Belgium's national jurisdiction.
The integrity of the powers of the Security Council should be maintained while guaranteeing the independence of the Court. Smooth cooperation beyond States and the Court is essential. The statute of the Court cannot be accommodated with reservations. The statute should include provisions for reparations to victims. The Court should be financed from the United Nations budget in its first phase and after that other modalities should be discussed.
- 3 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
MARY WALLACE, Minister of State, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform of Ireland: The future Court would not only serve as an instrument of justice to be used against the perpetrators of crimes, but could also play a significant role in the deterrence of such conduct in the future. Its establishment would represent a significant achievement in global efforts to deal with crimes of the nature envisaged. It would be a unified response from the international community to those crimes, and would, for the first time, provide a permanent international mechanism to ensure that they will not go unpunished.
Ireland would support the Court having jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The Court's jurisdiction should be complementary to that of domestic courts, and it should be able to act when national courts are unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute. States parties to the future statute of the Court and the Security Council should be able to refer matters to the Court.
The ability of the Security Council to refer situations to the Court will remove the need in the future for individual ad hoc tribunals to address particular situations. The Court's prosecutor should also have the power to initiate investigations and prosecutions on the basis of information from sources other than States or the Security Council. This power would strengthen the Court's ability to act.
Sir FRANKLIN BERMAN (United Kingdom): Support for the establishment of an International Criminal Court was part of the election platform of the new Labour Government of the United Kingdom. If we know that ad hoc tribunals are not enough, only a permanent court is capable of becoming a permanent deterrent. The obligations of States to cooperate with the Court is of great importance. This is not a question of the surrender of indicted defendants or of the proper operation of the complementarity mechanism. At least as important is cooperation over the provision of evidence for prosecutions before the Court. It is widely known that the United Kingdom has been able to supply intelligence information to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. This cooperation should be replicated on a permanent basis for a permanent Court.
"We British are, as you would expect, fiercely proud of our common law system, but we are not so insular as to think that it offers all the answers, or indeed the only answers, to the myriad problems inherent in creating a truly international system, one which will be universally accepted and will stand the test of time. So we do not come here wedded to a single stereotype, but we are wide open to good ideas from any region or any legal tradition."
TARJA HALONEN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland: The exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court is limited by the principle of complementarity. The Court's role should not be marginalized through further restrictions, as
- 4 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
they would hamper its functioning and compromise its objectivity in dispensing justice. The Court must be furnished with a jurisdiction that will enable it to act speedily when a need arises. It must be able to exercise its jurisdiction without any additional consent requirements, as these could block the investigation altogether or delay it significantly.
Giving the prosecutor ex officio powers to initiate investigations would be essential for an effective Court. This would bring the Court within the reach of civil society. Victims and their organizations could submit information directly to the prosecutor. Adequate judicial safeguards should be included in the statute to prevent the prosecutor from abusing these powers. Tragic events taking place today in Europe, Africa and Latin America are evidence of the clear need for a permanent International Criminal Court.
ELYAKIM RUBINSTEIN, Attorney General of Israel: As we meet to establish an international criminal court we cannot help but have in our minds the unspeakable Nazi crimes of the Holocaust, in which a third of the Jewish people was exterminated. This first prompted the General Assembly to ask the International Law Commission to consider the establishment of the Court 50 years ago. Needless to say we wholeheartedly support the sacred mission of prosecuting war criminals.
The Conference must retain a clear focus on the most heinous of international crimes and the non-availability of national criminal justice. Also there is need to exercise utmost caution in trying to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the Court. The Conference must find the correct balance between recognizing terrorism as an international crime, and focusing on the most practical and effective means of cooperation in bringing international terrorists to justice.
YANNOS KRANIDIOTIS, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece: Our own vision is one of a Court which would be truly independent and completely unhindered from bringing to justice perpetrators of grave crimes of concern to the international community. Greece cannot envisage the possibility of non-inclusion of aggression in the list of crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. It would indeed be unthinkable if the world chose to ignore it and let its perpetrators go unpunished. Greece attached importance to the crime of establishing settlers in occupied territories as well, as the crime of directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, the arts and sciences and to historic monuments. We have repeatedly witnessed the commission of these crimes, which hit hard at a nation's and a people's very existence.
The attribution to the prosecutor of the power to initiate investigations ex officio would insure that no grave crimes would be left uninvestigated and, ultimately, unpunished in case of lack of interest by States.
- 5 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
The relationship of the Court with the Security Council required careful consideration and refined balancing. The Court should in no way be hindered from or influenced in the exercise of its own jurisdiction and powers. It should also pronounce and execute the appropriate sentences in accordance with its statute.
SIDDHA RAJ OJHA, Minister for Law and Justice of Nepal: The proposed Court should be impartial, independent, permanent and an effective world body. It should be independent to the extent that no entity, within or outside the framework of the United Nations, should have the authority to control or unduly influence it in any manner.
The principle of complementarity to national criminal justice systems should be at the heart of the statute of the Court. It should be endowed with the necessary power to prosecute individuals in war or peace-time and regardless of whether the perpetrators are leaders or subordinates, civilians or members of the military, paramilitary or police forces. It would be in the interest of justice if the victims also could be made parties to the trial and be given the opportunity to obtain restitution, compensation and rehabilitation from the assets of the perpetrator.
HANS VAN MIERLO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands: The Netherlands favours the establishment of an independent and effective International Criminal Court with strong institutional and organizational links with the United Nations. The Court's jurisdiction should cover genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, on the basis of international law as currently applied. The Netherlands would also support the inclusion of the crime of aggression, if a generally acceptable solution can be reached on its definition and on the role of the Security Council. It is opposed to bringing any other crimes under the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court should not depend on the ad hoc consent of States. The Netherlands fully supports the rule of complementarity,which will provide sufficient safeguards for States which have an effective and available criminal justice systems themselves. It is against the death penalty and will oppose its inclusion in the statute.
The Court must be able to adapt its organization, administration and composition to its case load. The Netherlands supports a Court that will be able to swiftly serve justice to those who deserve it, but is flexible in its organization. International cooperation is essential for the Court's effectiveness. For the Court to be truly universal, no national exceptions should be allowed to deny cooperation and assistance as requested by the Court. In this respect, the Netherlands also favours special proceedings before the Court which guarantee the confidentiality of sensitive national information. The nations of the world should share the responsibilities for
- 6 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
having the Court on an adequate footing, making it truly universal. The Netherlands favours a system of funding that would ensure the effective operation of the Court, while at the same time reflecting the responsibilities of States for a universal International Criminal Court.
JUDITH TROTTER (New Zealand): All delegations now accept that there will be a Court. But there are clearly some who do not expect to respond to this loud and universal call for justice by becoming a party to this statute unconditionally. Any attempt to withhold agreement to the establishment of a Court, which is truly worth having, would be tragic. The statute we are negotiating must be forward looking.
Two years ago the International Court of Justice issued its judgement on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The statute that we are drawing up should be consistent with and reflect the obligations set out in the judgement of that Court. Let us also create a Court that is not subordinated to the veto system of the Security Council. Attacks on United Nations and humanitarian personnel must be covered by the Court's jurisdiction.
LUC FRIEDEN, Minister of Justice of Luxembourg: Luxembourg favoured the establishment of an International Criminal Court. It is time to put an end to the culture of impunity, and to prosecute perpetrators of serious crimes of concern to the international community. It is time to make known that massive violations of human rights will not go unpunished. More than ever, today we need a permanent International Criminal Court, an effective and credible one capable of prosecuting grave and systematic violations of the rights of individuals.
The Court must have precise jurisdiction limited to the core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court must also have universal jurisdiction and be able to act when national courts are unable to prosecute. It must be independent and have the power to initiate investigations. It should be made up of independent judges, with the International Court of Justice serving as a model.
The Court must be capable of guaranteeing justice, protect women and children and condemn sexual crimes, as well as the participation of children in armed conflicts. It must apply the principles of international law and provide fair trial for the accused. Luxembourg is opposed to inclusion of the death penalty in the statute.
HUBERT VEDRINE, Minister of Foreign Affairs of France: There is a need to go beyond ad hoc tribunals to a permanent one to address war crimes. France made many proposals in the negotiations and no substantive question should be evaded; we want to succeed.
- 7 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
The competence of the Court should be limited to core crimes, very serious violations of international humanitarian law. Other crimes could be added in a review conference to be held a few years after the Court's establishment.
The statute should describe precisely the proceedings of the Court and its relationship with States. France also favours adding provisions relating to victims, including compensation to them. The competence of the Court should be automatic from the moment of ratification.
Good coordination between the Security Council and the Court is essential. If the work of the Court is not part of the international legal system that already exists, it would be a weak beginning to that endeavour. There is a need to be inventive and find creative compromises.
KAMEL HASSAN AL-MAGHUR (Libya): We warn against anything that would encourage States not to abide by the rulings or decisions of the International Criminal Court. Libya had accepted the rulings of the International Court of Justice while the United States had not. States must cooperate in ensuring adherence to the statute of the International Criminal Court. We must be guided by international law. It is necessary to respect the sovereignty of States and their nationals.
We must prevent the exercise of control by political organs in the work of the Court. Solutions to these problems cannot be found in legal texts. Competence of the Court should be created, and we cannot take for granted that States would respect such competence. The Court's statute must include such crimes as terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and aggression against the environment. We cannot ignore the fact that other legal systems and practices exist apart from Western systems. The work of the Court should not be held hostage to the whims of some super-Power.
HUGO SAGUJER CABALLERO (Paraguay): The Court must be impartial and independent, complement national legal systems but not be subordinated to them or to other bodies. It would not be realistic to state that it is possible to create a perfect International Criminal Court. A restrictive approach would help to assure its universality.
The independence of the prosecutor must be guaranteed. The Court should be complementary to national legal systems but should not become higher than national jurisdiction. The principle of sovereignty is invaluable. Paraguay is flexible towards achieving a solution to the relationship between the Security Council and the Court.
RAHANDI CHAMBRIER, Minister of Justice of Gabon: The world community must not fail in the attempt to establish an International Court and Gabon is
- 8 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
optimistic in that respect. It is essential to set up an effective Court which will provide for international penal justice.
Gabon supports the principle of complementarity. It is up to the State and the Court to achieve the proper balance. The exercise of the prerogatives of the Court cannot be subjected to the decisions of the highly politicized Security Council. As for the crimes, aggression must be included in the jurisdiction. The Court should be financed at the beginning by the United Nations regular budget until it is able to finance itself.
RAUL GRANILLO OCAMPO, Minister of Justice of Argentina: The creation of the ad hoc tribunals demonstrated the determination of the international community to apply individual responsibility for war crimes. The question today is not whether but what type of Court the international community will create. The Court should also address the crime of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.
The principle of complementarity should be part of the statute. Also, cooperation of States is essential to ensure the future functioning of the Court. It is appropriate to establish a close relationship between the Security Council and the Court, having in mind that justice is a prerequisite to international peace. Victims should be given clear access to the Court and not be just "guests of stone".
SAAD EDDINE (Morocco): The establishment of the Court will bring perpetrators of crimes of international concern to book. The Court should consider the rights of all peoples, weak and strong, big and small. It should be a permanent institution, impartial, independent and not under the political whims of any body.
The Court must be impartial in its functions and must have properly delineated terms of competence in its relationship with other international bodies. Its jurisdiction should be confined to the core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The Court should steer clear of political issues such as the question of aggression. The relationship of the Court with national courts should be complementary. It should not interfere in actions of national courts unless they are unable to handle them. The Court's prosecutor should be able to follow up on cases brought to it.
The Court should be independent of United Nations bodies, particularly the Security Council. It should be financially independent and its relationship with States should be based on mutual respect and confidence. Morocco hopes for the establishment of a Court that would help bridge the gap in international law that must be filled to ensure peace and justice for the next generation.
- 9 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
FAUSTIN NTEZILYAYO, Minister of Justice of Rwanda: The people of Rwanda in 1994 experienced "suffering almost unknown in history of humankind". The Government alerted the international community about the events. The Security Council, recognizing that there had been a genocide in Rwanda, established the Rwanda Tribunal. Even if a large number of provisions are far from achieving the aspirations of the Government of Rwanda, it supported the Tribunal, hoping that the perpetrators of the genocide would be punished.
Rwanda adheres to all efforts to eradicate impunity, hoping that the twenty-first century will see a more respectful world. The Court should not be subject to any hegemonistic interest or body and should only deal with crimes defined in international legal instruments -- war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The Court should not assume the responsibility of national courts. There should be a possibility given to the judges to pronounce the death penalty. The Court should be able to accord compensation to victims. Rwanda is resolved to help eradicate core crimes. May the Court to be established help to eradicate genocide throughout the world.
TIYANJANA MALUWA, Legal Counsel of the Organization of African Unity (OAU): In endorsing the proposed Court, the OAU is only too aware that Africa has a particular interest in its establishment. African peoples have been victims of massive violations of human rights over the centuries: slavery, wars of colonial conquest and continued acts of war and violence, even in the post-colonial era.
Two weeks ago at the OAU summit in Burkina Faso, the establishment of an international panel of eminent persons on Rwanda was announced. The panel will investigate the events leading up to the genocide in Rwanda and the response or lack thereof by the international community to those events.
The panel is not a court, and does not seek to replicate the work of the Rwanda Tribunal; it is intended to go beyond the limitations of the judicial process and try to find answers to the type of questions that a tribunal may not be in a position to establish. The panel's creation demonstrates the OAU's resolve to act in concert with the international community to ensure that such crimes are never again committed with impunity, with the perpetrators escaping punishment.
The adoption of the statute establishing the International Criminal Court should not be delayed a day longer than necessary. The celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the opportunity to strengthen the current international human rights instruments more vigorously.
- 10 - Press Release L/2881 17 June 1998
IRIS ALEIDA of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development: The Court can be a potentially significant step and a credible instrument in the process of democratization, only if it is based on the rule of law. The Court must not be a political tool of any particular State; it will lose credibility if some States are able to use it for their own political motives, or if some individuals are beyond its reach because of their position within a State.
Human rights will also continue to be violated and democratic development stifled. Granting of powers to a political body such as the Security Council is incompatible with the establishment of an effective judicial body. The Court requires total independence to guarantee the highest standards of international justice.
ELENA POPTODORA, Convenor of the International Law and Human Rights Programme of the Parliamentarians for Global Action: The International Criminal Court must not be a political instrument or politically motivated.
Parliamentarians for Global Action shares the broadly expressed view of a strong, independent and effective Court. The Conference will have to determine the number of ratifications necessary for the entry into force of the treaty establishing the Court. This number should be prohibitively high.
It is parliamentarians who must ensure both ratification by their parliaments and implementation by their governments. They are crucial players and could be useful for political persuasion and, when necessary, pressure.
Last month in Port-of-Spain, at a conference held in cooperation with Trinidad and Tobago, parliamentarians from the Latin American and Caribbean region agreed, by consensus, on principles for a permanent, impartial, independent and effective body associated with the United Nations to operate within the highest standards of international justice. The resolution contained an important provision that the actions of the Court must not be stopped by the veto of the Security Council. It supported an independent prosecutor, empowered to initiate investigations on his or her own initiative.
PATRICK BAUDOUIN, President of the International Federation of Human Rights: Public opinion and civil society have broadly demonstrated that they can no longer tolerate the judiciary being subjected to political control, and more generally can no longer tolerate State interventions which destroy the independence of the judiciary. The credibility, independence and legitimacy of the future Court would be destroyed if the Security Council could, in each case, and upon the political decision of any government, paralyse the investigations undertaken by the prosecutor or make impossible the continuation of any trial.
The exercise of the right of veto by the Security Council permanent members with the view to impede the Court's actions must be prohibited. Suspending the Court's activities in any manner should only be undertaken in the most exceptional circumstances, be limited in duration and occur within a transparent process of dialogue and consultation with the Court.
* *** *