UNITED STATES WILL NOT SIGN STATUTE ESTABLISHING INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN ITS PRESENT FORM, SIXTH COMMITTEE TOLD

21 October 1998

Press Release
GA/L/3077

UNITED STATES WILL NOT SIGN STATUTE ESTABLISHING INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN ITS PRESENT FORM, SIXTH COMMITTEE TOLD

19981021 As Legal Committee Discusses Rome Conference, China's Representative Adds that Court Statute Riddled with Deficiencies

The United States would not sign the Statute establishing the International Criminal Court in its present form, nor was there any prospect of its doing so in the future, that country's representative told the Sixth Committee (Legal) this morning as it began discussion of the outcome of the Diplomatic Conference on the establishment of the Court held in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998.

The representative of the United States said the advantages derived from his country's strong support for the Court should not be sacrificed for a concept of jurisdiction that might not be effective and that might even run the risk of dividing all on an issue of international justice. It was the United States' view that the preparatory commission, provided for under the Statute, should afford the opportunity for governments to address their more fundamental concerns. His delegation feared that without the United States, the effectiveness of the Court would fall far short of its potential, he added.

So far 58 countries had signed the Statute, which was open for signature at the Office of Legal Affairs, Jargalsaikhany Enkhsaikhan (Mongolia) Committee Chairman, said this morning. The treaty will come into force with 60 ratifications.

The representative of China said that owing to the pressure of time, the final text of the 13-part, 128 article Statute, was riddled with deficiencies that should have been remedied. That was bound to affect the Statute's authority. The deliberations of the Rome Conference, despite the adoption of the Statute, had been less than satisfactory and the Statute still contained major problems.

The representative of Italy said the text reflected a number of compromise solutions to crucial aspects of the negotiations, and he considered it satisfactory. The preparatory commission should be convened as soon as

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

possible in New York, to elaborate a number of instruments to make the Court operational. Italy envisaged a minimum of eight weeks of meetings of the commission in 1999 and, if necessary, three additional meetings before June 2000. Non-governmental organizations should be allowed to participate in its work under the same conditions as their participation in the Rome Conference.

For the Court to succeed in its task, it would need the widest support of the international community, the representative of Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said. States should consider the benefits, in particular for international peace and security, of a universal Criminal Court, he added.

Statements were also made by the representatives of South Africa, Malawi, Spain, Bangladesh, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Trinidad and Tobago, Samoa, Malaysia, United Republic of Tanzania, Panama and Switzerland.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. this afternoon to continue its discussion of the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to begin consideration of the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

It has before it a note of the Secretary-General (document A/53/387) which gives an account of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the establishment of the Court held in Rome from 15 June to 17 July.

At its close, the Conference adopted (by an unrecorded vote of 120 in favour and 7 against, with 21 abstentions) the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (document A/CONF.183/9) and the Final Act of the Conference (document A/CONF.183/10). The Final Act is a narrative of events leading to the convening of the Conference and the mandate provided by the United Nations General Assembly.

The 13-Part Statute, containing a total of 128 articles, was opened for signature in Rome on 17 July and will remain open for signature at United Nations Headquarters until 31 December 2000. The Statute is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States, and to accession by all States. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession are to be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General.

In accordance with the relevant provision, the Statute will enter into force after 60 countries have ratified it. The seat of the Court will be in the Netherlands, but it will be authorized to try cases in other venues when appropriate.

Key provisions of the Statute include: automatic jurisdiction of the Court over the core crimes of genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity as soon as the Statute is ratified by the required number of States; a well defined and limited role for the Security Council in certain circumstances; jurisdiction of the Court over internal armed conflicts; an independent prosecutor, subject only to controls by the Court; and issues concerning gender and children. The Statute contains a number of provisions that protect the interests of victims, the accused and the States concerned. Other provisions are designed to ensure that the Court will not be used for politically motivated investigations or prosecutions, but that it will act only when States concerned are unable or unwilling to do so.

In one of six resolutions it also adopted, the Conference recognized that terrorist acts were serious crimes of concern to the international community, and that the international trafficking of illicit drugs was a very serious crime, sometimes destabilizing the political, social and economic order in States. The Conference regretted that no generally acceptable definition of the crimes of terrorism and drug crimes could be agreed upon for inclusion within the jurisdiction of the Court. It recommended that a review

Sixth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

conference -- provided for in the Statute -- should consider them, to arrive at an acceptable definition and their inclusion in the list of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction.

The Conference also decided to establish a preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court, to take all possible measures to ensure the coming into operation of the Court without undue delay and to make the necessary arrangements for the commencement of its functions. Among the measures are preparation of rules of procedure and evidence; elements of crimes; a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations; basic principles governing a headquarters agreement to be negotiated between the Court and host country (Netherlands); and a budget for the first financial year. The draft texts of the rules of procedure and evidence and of the elements of crimes shall be finalized before 30 June 2000.

The commission shall prepare proposals for a provision on aggression, including the definition and elements of crimes of aggression and the conditions under which the International Criminal Court shall exercise its jurisdiction with regard to that crime. The commission, which shall meet at United Nations Headquarters, shall remain in existence until the conclusion of the first meeting of the Assembly of States parties.

The Rome Conference expressed deep gratitude to the International Law Commission for its outstanding contribution in the preparation of the original draft of the Statute, which constituted the basis for the work of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court. It paid tribute to the Preparatory Committee and its Chairman, Adriaan Bos (Netherlands), for their hard work and outstanding commitment and dedication. It similarly thanked the President of the Conference, Giovanni Conso (Italy), Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of the Conference, and Cherif Bassiouni (Egypt), Chairman of the Drafting Committee, for their skilful efforts and wisdom in steering the work of the Conference.

According to the note of the Secretary-General, 33 least developed countries and 19 specially designated developing countries made use of trust funds set up for their participation in the Preparatory Committee and the Diplomatic Conference. The Governments of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and the European Commission made contributions to the trust fund for the least developed countries. The Government of the Netherlands also made a contribution to the trust for the developing countries.

Statements

JARGALSAIKHANY ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said he understood that 58 States had signed the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Rome, and that others were waiting to do so in the months ahead. The adoption of the Statute

Sixth Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

represented a giant step in international law, in the words of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, he said. It had been heralded by many as no less important than the adoption of the United Nations Charter itself. He congratulated those delegations which participated in the landmark achievement. He also thanked the Government of Italy for hosting the Conference and expressed gratitude to the Secretariat for its important role during the Conference.

ERNST SUCHARIPA (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union and its associated States of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Cyprus and Iceland, said they were satisfied with the outcome of the Rome Conference. The Rome Statute represented a great achievement, he said, reiterating the European Union's conviction that the Court would make the world a safer, more just and a more peaceful place. The culture of impunity had no place in the world. The purpose of the Court was not only to prosecute and punish those who perpetrated heinous crimes but, through its existence, it would deter and prevent individuals from committing them in the first place. The Court, indeed, would add a new dimension to international relations, in general, and to the effectiveness of international law, in particular.

The major achievement in Rome would not have been possible without the large and extensive participation of delegations and the close cooperation and commitment of a great number of national and international institutions, as well as numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals, he said. The European Union had consistently and strongly supported the idea of the creation of the International Criminal Court. It would continue its efforts to enable the Court to start its work and operations efficiently, as soon as possible. He said 13 member States of the European Union had already signed the Statute. Others would follow soon. They would do their best to complete the constitutional procedures required for ratification without delay.

For the Court to succeed in its task, he said it would need the widest support of the international community. All States should consider the benefits, in particular for international peace and security, of a universal Criminal Court, and would take the necessary action to ensure that the Court would soon become operational. The European Union called for the convening of the preparatory commission provided for in the Statute. The commission should be convened for three sessions in the course of the forthcoming year and, if needed, it could be reconvened in 2000 prior to the target date of 30 June 2000. That schedule might seem ambitious, he said, but the European Union felt it was absolutely necessary.

MAURO POLITI (Italy) said the adoption and opening for signature of the Statute of the International Criminal Court represented a milestone in the development of International Criminal Law. The Statute's adoption would not have been possible without the cooperation of all delegations, he said,

Sixth Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

praising the contribution of NGOs and other representatives of civil society. He said the interest in the preparatory meetings and in the Rome Conference had been unprecedented in the history of multilateral negotiations and testified to international demand for justice and people's wish to be the protagonists of a new era of civil progress.

He said the text of the Statute reflected a number of compromise solutions to crucial aspects of the negotiations. Together with the other "like-minded" countries, Italy constantly promoted legal solutions that would make the future Court a strong, independent institution based on the consensus of the largest possible number of States. Italy considered the text adopted in Rome satisfactory.

He said the Court would be competent to adjudicate the so-called core crimes under general international law: genocide; war crimes; and crimes against humanity. The complementarity of the Court, with respect to national jurisdictions, was correctly established on the basis of criteria that allowed the Court to intervene when national systems of criminal justice were unavailable or unwilling to genuinely prosecute and punish perpetrators of crimes covered by the Statute. Not only States were allowed to make recourse to the Court, but the Prosecutor might also initiate investigations proprio motu (on his own initiative). He said that very important element of the Statute underlined the Court's character as a body acting in the interests of the entire international community. The Security Council was likewise authorized to utilize the Court, thus limiting the need for it to establish other ad hoc tribunals. The Court was provided, he said, with automatic jurisdiction over crimes covered by the Statute.

He said that while concessions from all sides were necessary to achieve the successful conclusion of the Conference, the Court remained a solid institution, provided with the necessary effectiveness and independence essential for a judicial organ called to adjudicate the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Those characteristics must be preserved, he said.

While Italy was aware of the difficulties encountered by certain States, it was convinced that a rapid entry into force of the Statute would be beneficial to the entire international community. At the same time, he said the widest support of the members of the international community was essential for the effective performance of the Court's functions. The preparatory commission should be convened as soon as possible in New York, to elaborate a number of instruments to make the Court operational. Italy envisaged a minimum of eight weeks of meetings of the commission in 1999 and, if necessary, three additional meetings before June 2000. The commission should be provided with the resources and services required to enable it to perform its functions efficiently and expeditiously. He said NGOs should be allowed to participate in its work under the same conditions as they had participated in the Rome Conference.

Sixth Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

He reiterated Italy's firm commitment to the process of creation and prompt functioning of the International Criminal Court.

SABELO SIVUYILE MAQUNGO (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), expressed concern that the achievement of an African renaissance had been delayed by conflict in various regions in Africa, including his own. However, he believed that by entrenching respect for the rule of law, Africa would wean itself from conflict and the culture of military coups. The Statute of the International Criminal Court would go a long way towards entrenching that respect for the rule of law. It served as a message to those who ruled through murder, extermination, torture and other crimes against humanity that the international community would no longer stand by and watch the perpetration of such horrendous crimes. It also served as a reminder to those engaged in conflict that even during armed conflict the rule of law must be upheld.

States who still entertained misgivings about the course that had been embarked upon to establish the International Criminal Court must surely be aware that the strengths or weaknesses of the Court would not rest solely upon the Statute of the Court. Thus, fears of any State that the Court may be used against it could be laid to rest by the participation of the State in the process of establishing the Court, he said. He asked States who had voted against the adoption of the Statute to put aside their misgivings. He called for early establishment of the preparatory commission and of a fund to enable wide participation.

TREVOR PASCAL CHIMIMBA (Malawi) said the international community had managed to put in place the missing link in the international legal order. While the Rome Statute was not a perfect document, it was nevertheless a product of well crafted compromises; an outcome of laborious negotiations; and, above all, an instrument that signified in a clear and unequivocal way the political will of all to bring an end to impunity. The process itself was as significant as the outcome was monumental.

It was essential that the preparatory commission be given sufficient time and adequate resources to successfully complete its mandate, he said. In light of the finalization date of June 2000, time was of the essence. A trust fund for the continued participation of as many countries as possible would assist greatly in achieving universality.

JUAN ANTONIO YANEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain) said that the Rome Statute might be considered imperfect by some -- either for its defects or its excesses. However, Spain was convinced that, although it was not an ideal text, it was a valid and fundamentally solid document, as much for its substance as for its organic and procedural process. Above all, it was an instrument that had created and brought into being a permanent and independent International Criminal Court.

Sixth Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

Noting that Spain had been one of the first States to sign the Rome Statute, he said it was necessary to convene the preparatory commission as quickly as possible and for it to be accorded the necessary meeting time. A date for beginning the work of the commission should be approved at the current session of the General Assembly. International public opinion anxiously awaited a functioning Court, he said, "We must make it a reality without delay".

ANWARUL KARIM CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said his country, itself a victim of genocide during her liberation struggle, had a particular interest in seeing progress in the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court that would deter such heinous crimes in future. Bangladesh believed in unfettered and non-discriminatory justice which could not be denied under any pretext. He wished to have a Court that would be more independent and have jurisdiction over such crimes as use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

The preparatory commission should be convened no later than the first trimester of 1999, he said. He supported the request of the Secretary-General to provide all services and assistance required by the Commission. He also called for a fund for participation by least developed countries' delegates.

QU WENSHENG (China) said that it had always been China's contention that the International Criminal Court should be rooted in reality and not in a conception of the ideal, and that its Statute should accurately and fully embody international political realities and the current state of development of international law. That was the only guarantee that the future court would be able to stand the stern test of time in the real world. It was therefore regrettable, he said, that the Rome Conference had not been able to reach consensus on a number of important questions and had had to resort to a vote to adopt the Statute. Some of the Statute's provisions did not fully and accurately reflect international political realities and the development of international law. Due account had not been taken of the legitimate rights and interests of countries. Moreover, he said the way the Conference conducted its work was not the best to fully ensure the participation of all countries in the elaboration of the Statute on a basis of equality, democracy and transparency.

In the negotiation of certain key articles, he said, a majority of countries had been left out in the cold. Some draft articles had not even been the subject of open discussion and had been circulated to delegates only at the last moment before voting, denying them the time required to study the texts closely before the vote. Owing to the pressure of time, he said, the final text of the Statute was riddled with deficiencies that should have been remedied, and that were bound to affect its authority. China looked forward to the early establishment of the International Criminal Court, but the pressure of time was no reason to sacrifice the quality of the document or depart from a democratic and transparent method of work. The deliberations of

Sixth Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

the Rome Conference, despite the adoption of the Statute, had been less than satisfactory, and, more importantly, the Statute still contained major problems, he said.

Commenting on some of its provisions, he said China had serious reservations on the universal jurisdiction of the Court as it directly impinged on the judicial sovereignty of States. It had doubts about the inclusion of war crimes in domestic conflicts in the Court's jurisdiction, because provisions in international law concerning war crimes in such conflicts were still incomplete. He said the power of the Prosecutor to initiate investigations was another controversial issue. Instead of sidestepping those issues, a realistic approach should be taken to find a proper solution on the basis of democracy and transparency, he stressed. His delegation, imbued with a responsibility towards history, would continue to take an active part in the work of the preparatory commission.

H. ABENI KOFFI (Côte d'Ivoire) said the establishment of the International Criminal Court would give hope to mankind, putting an end to the age of impunity. His country believed that the Court would be able to administer penalties for perpetrators of heinous crimes. There had been an historic opportunity in Rome to outlaw the crime of aggression. That essential objective had been within reach with the consensus proposal presented by Germany and other countries. He believed all was not lost and that the preparatory commission -- which his country supported -- or the Review Conference, would be able to prepare provisions to penalize the crime of aggression. He was convinced mere logic would make States change their minds on the subject.

It was in support of that provision that his country had signed the Statute in Rome on 7 October and was prepared to take part in the work of the preparatory commission, he said. He encouraged Member States to work together for the groundwork to be laid for the Court to begin functioning. The victims of recent genocide would be calling, international public opinion would be watching, while non-governmental organizations would be insistent, he said. History would judge Member States, he added.

GAILE RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community, expressed regret that despite tremendous effort, it had not been possible to adopt the Rome Statute by consensus. A number of difficult and controversial issues remained outstanding and would require intensive and lengthy negotiations, such as the independence of the Prosecutor, the principle of complementarity, the definition of crimes and the relation of the Court to the United Nations.

She expressed disappointment that two issues of particular concern to her region had not been included in the Rome Statute -- that of illicit traffic in drugs and the question of the death penalty as a penalty available to the Court. The nature of the crimes within the Court's jurisdiction

Sixth Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

warranted the harshest penalties. Both issues should be revisited during the first review conference. She also expressed concern that the provision for a seven year "opt out" could impede the Court's ability to function. She supported the early convening of the preparatory commission.

DAVID SCHEFFER (United States) said that all understood that a permanent International Criminal Court was a bold experiment. The treaty negotiated in Rome had many provisions that the United States supported, "though we have reluctantly had to conclude that the treaty, in its present form, contains flaws that render it unacceptable", he said. The United States also recognized that the final text represented an effort to promote values important to the American people -- justice, due process, and respect for the rule of law. It had been its strong hope, in Rome, that the Conference would achieve a consensus on the resolution adopting the treaty.

The Clinton Administration had a record that pointed towards that objective, and had ensured that the United States support for the two existing International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda was second to none, he said. Not only did the United States provide both Tribunals with significant financial resources -- both assessed and through voluntary contributions -- but it also used its diplomatic resources to make in-kind contributions of personnel and equipment. In addition, it offered the Tribunals important information, and had even brought its military capabilities to bear to ensure that the Tribunals were effective.

The United States feared that without it, the effectiveness of the permanent international criminal court would fall far short of its potential, he said. All had shared a common goal in Rome that an international court should be able to prosecute tyrants who committed mass murder, mass rape, or mass torture against their own citizens, while at the same time inhibiting States from contributing to efforts to help protect international peace and security. He said the irony of the Rome outcome on Article 12 of the Statute covering preconditions for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction had not been lost on the United States.

The complementarity regime offered as the solution was not the answer, he said. The United States had other concerns of principle about the relationship between Article 12 and international law. Its fundamental concern was that, in the absence of a Security Council referral of cases to the Court, the Court would be able to assert jurisdiction over non-party nationals. Another fundamental concern was the way that amendments to crimes were adopted and applied at the Conference. The United States was also concerned about the inclusion of an undefined crime of aggression. He said aggression carried with it a problematic process of definition.

The United States would not sign the treaty in its present form, nor was there any prospect of its doing so in the future, he said. Recalling that it had been agreed in Rome that the preparatory commission sessions could be

Sixth Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

funded from the United Nations annual budget, he said the cost of those sessions must be absorbed so that the United Nations budget did not exceed $2.533 billion. It was the United States' view that the preparatory commission should afford the opportunity for governments to address their more fundamental concerns. The United States preferred a policy of positive and forward-looking engagement in the hope of ensuring a treaty that would stand for values and goals common to all. The advantages deriving from strong United States support for the International Criminal Court should not be sacrificed for a concept of jurisdiction that might not be effective and even run the risk of dividing all on an issue of international justice.

TUILOMA NERONI SLADE (Samoa), speaking on behalf of the members of the South Pacific Forum, said the establishment of the International Criminal Court was an important step towards ending the culture of impunity, but it was also a strong deterrent to potential perpetrators of heinous crimes. While the adoption of the Rome Statute was an enormous step in the right direction, "we cannot afford to be under any illusions about the amount of hard work and the commitment that will be required to make this Court a functioning reality", he said.

The work of the preparatory commission should be accorded high priority and given adequate time and resources to fulfil its mandate. "Too many atrocities have been left unaccounted for since the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, and we owe it to those who suffered, and are suffering still, to prove that we are serious about the rights of victims -- and the responsibility of the international community -- both to see justice done and to see potential perpetrators of international crimes deterred in the future", he said.

DATO SALLEH SAID KERUAK (Malaysia) said there was an urgent need to establish the International Criminal Court as soon as possible. The preparatory commission would have a difficult task in addressing unresolved issues regarding a definition of elements of aggression, as well as the conditions of the Court's jurisdiction. The difficulty in creating consensus on the definition of the crime of aggression had led, inter alia, to the need for the preparatory commission to be established. Malaysia believed that not every act of a State which amounted to a crime of aggression should entail individual criminal responsibility. A balance had to found in the definition of the crime. He added that Malaysia was not inclined to support inclusion of the so-called "treaty crimes".

DAUDI MWAKAWAGO (United Republic of Tanzania), in the context of a reference to reparations to the victims of the Nazi holocaust, expressed regret that the Rome Statute did not provide for attribution of some form of criminal responsibility to legal persons. The failure to criminalize and impose punitive measures on the potential role of legal persons in aiding and abetting the commission of crimes against humanity would continue to remain a serious flaw requiring redress.

Sixth Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

In 1994, close to 1 million had been killed in a planned and systematic carnage in Rwanda in what was now known as the fastest genocide in recorded history, he said. Survivors' accounts had clearly revealed that it could not have been as swift without the support of some legal persons, whose degree of involvement had been, in certain instances, critical. "That our minds were turned away from the activities of such entities in the abetting of genocide in order to protect corporate interests will continue to be a matter which questions the conscience of those who opposed such efforts", he said. He added that the broad-based movement which had been born out of the endeavour to establish the Court, and which had been the best of the relationship between governments and non-governmental organizations, must be sustained and developed.

NATALIA ROYO (Panama), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group -- Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela -- recalled that member States of the Group had expressed support for the establishment of an International Criminal Court. They welcomed the fact that it had been possible finally to adopt the treaty establishing the Court. She said the Rome Statute confirmed that the primary responsibility for prosecuting heinous crimes rested with governments. The Statute demonstrated the will of the international community to punish perpetrators of such crimes. She noted that the Statute was not perfect, and members of the Group would have preferred different solutions on important questions. The Rio Group realized the need to compromise ideals with national aspirations.

A great deal remained to be done to refine the Statute, she said. The Group would participate in the work of the preparatory commission and help fashion such provisions as its rules of procedure. They hoped that the resolution on the Court which would be adopted by the Sixth Committee would lead to the functioning of the Court.

LUCIUS CAFLISCH, Observer for Switzerland, said that, as a depository State of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the Protection of War Victims, his country had actively participated in the work leading to the adoption of the Statute of the new International Criminal Court, and had been among the first signatories of the new instrument. Switzerland considered that individuals, as the traditional subjects of international law, should not only enjoy rights, but also have obligations, the violation of which the international community should be able to punish. More specifically, he said the establishment of the Court would offer a mechanism allowing for more effective punishment of war crimes than had been the case in the past.

Sixth Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/L/3077 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1998

He said the Statute did not meet all the expectations of the Swiss Government, which would have preferred a more complete list of war crimes and one that would be more easily amendable. It would also have preferred a system of automatic or inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Nonetheless, the text adopted in Rome had many positive features. The experiences of the Tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda showed that the new institution would be able to fully play its role only if parties to the Statute cooperated with it. His Government was about to start preparing legislation for its ratification of the Statute.

* *** *