INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS FORUM OF PARLIAMENTARIANS
Press Release
DSG/SM/19
INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS FORUM OF PARLIAMENTARIANS
19981002 Louise Fréchette Says ICC Has Become New Super-Power, 'Peoples Determined to Promote Better Standards of Life in Larger Freedom'Following is the text of the statement by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette at the twentieth annual United Nations Forum of Parliamentarians for Global Action, in New York yesterday, which is focusing on the theme, "In Defense of Human Dignity: Striking the Balance of Peace and Justice":
I am honoured to be here today to inaugurate this gathering, at which you will discuss such an important and timely theme. Rarely, if ever, has there been a time in the history of international cooperation when we have witnessed such genuine promise of achieving a world where the interests of peace and justice will no longer be seen as contradictory. For in the past two and a half months, the international community has passed two historic landmarks.
And they took place in the year in which we will celebrate a third -- the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A month ago in Arusha, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda announced the first judgement ever given by an international court in a case of genocide. This precedent-setting case was born out of one of the darkest hours of the late twentieth century. But as we stand on the eve of the twenty-first, it also provides us with one of the brightest rays of hope. For the work of the two United Nations criminal tribunals, for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, though still incomplete, has been a milestone in the age-long struggle to end the "culture of impunity"; the culture in which it has been easier to bring someone to justice for killing one person than for killing 100,000.
It has been a milestone in the quest to prove that, when crimes occur of such magnitude that they are rightly dubbed "crimes against humanity", humanity is not without recourse. We might claim it as a milestone on the road to Rome -- an essential step towards the adoption on 17 July this year of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
As you know, the road to Rome was far from smooth. Divergent and sometimes diametrically opposed national criminal laws and procedures had to be reconciled. Small States had to be reassured that the Statute would not give more powerful ones a pretext to override their sovereignty. Others had to be convinced that the pursuit of justice would not interfere with the vital work of making peace. Once the conference was convened, diplomats and lawyers from 160 States worked day and night for five weeks to draft the Statute.
As important was the participation of civil society -- not least parliamentarians like yourselves. In the run-up to Rome, the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court brought together a broad-based network of hundreds of NGOs and international law experts to develop strategies and foster awareness. More than 200 non-governmental organizations took part in the conference itself -- an unprecedented level of participation by civil society in a law-making conference.
Though many wish the court had been vested with even more far-reaching powers, what took place was a prodigious achievement. The next step will be the establishment of a commission to prepare proposals for practical arrangements regarding the entry into force of the Statute and establishment of the court. The commission will take up such important issues as rules of procedure and evidence, rules of the court, definitions and conditions relating to the crimes of aggression, terrorism, and drugs. All these are critical to the manner in which the Statute will actually be applied an implemented. Participation in the preparatory commission, which will provide an opportunity to formulate these important rules, is open to all States -- whether or not they are signatories to the Rome Statute.
Some have expressed fears that the Court might be used as a tool to influence or sabotage the outcome of a political process or to target peacekeepers; or even that its very premise is in contradiction with the fundamental principles of international law.
We must keep reassuring them. The judges and prosecutors, according to the Statute, will be persons of high moral character, with extensive competence and experience either in criminal law and procedure, or in relevant areas of international law.
Here again, we may seek reassurance in the language of the Arusha judgement a month ago.
And I quote: "Despite the indisputable atrociousness of the crimes and the emotions evoked in the international community, the judges have examine the facts adduced in a most dispassionate manner, bearing in mind that the accused is presumed innocent."
The judges of the International Criminal Court will be chosen by secret ballot in an Assembly of all States that have signed and ratified the Statute
- 3 - Press Release DSG/SM/19 2 October 1998
-- and at least 60 States must have done so before the Court can come into existence. So if any States are worried that the judges or prosecutors of this Court may be inclined to malice, or frivolity, or bias, by far their best remedy is to sign and ratify the Statute, and to ensure that as many like-minded States as possible do the same.
Still, misgivings continue to abound. They are perhaps best answered by Justice Richard Goldstone, who as a judge played such a vital part in South Africa's historic transition and who served as the first Prosecutor of the two United Nations criminal tribunals. In a characteristically trenchant essay, published in Time magazine, Justice Goldstone made the point that "the careful procedures and demanding qualifications for the selection of the prosecutor and judges will serve as an effective check against irresponsible behaviour". He added: "If a prosecutor or a judge at the court were to act in a biased or otherwise unprofessional manner, the institution would die. Few nations would tolerate the spectacle of an international judicial institution targeting citizens of any other country for political or malicious reasons."
As of this moment in our history, we have before us an opportunity to take a monumental step in the name of human rights and the rule of law. The main challenge before us now is to encourage States to ratify and implement the Statute. The Statute will stay open for signature until 31 December 2000. It is our fervent hope that by then a large majority of Member States will have signed and ratified it, so that the Court will have unquestioned authority and the widest possible jurisdiction.
Much of the Court's promise also rests in your hands. As much as anything, the achievement in Rome was a victory for civil society. It brought home to us just how much civil society actors, empowered by information technology such as e-mail and the World Wide Web, have become guardians of democracy, good governance and justice everywhere. Oppressors cannot hide inside their borders any longer. A strong civil society, bound together across all borders with the help of modern communications, will not let them.
In that sense, it has become the new super-Power -- the peoples determined to promote better standards of life in larger freedom.
Indeed, the role of civil society in Rome reminded us again that although the United Nations is an association of sovereign States, the rights that it exists to protect and promote belong to people. It follows that individuals everywhere have a responsibility to help defend the ideals of human rights. The voice of the people was the premise that brought us to Rome; the voice of the people is the promise that gives this gift of hope to succeeding generations. I know all of you here will do your utmost not to allow it to fail them.
* *** *