CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF ROME CONFERENCE TELLS LEGAL COMMITTEE STATES SHOULD BE OPEN TO DIALOGUE ON CONCERNS ABOUT ICC STATUTE

22 October 1998

Press Release
GA/L/3079

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF ROME CONFERENCE TELLS LEGAL COMMITTEE STATES SHOULD BE OPEN TO DIALOGUE ON CONCERNS ABOUT ICC STATUTE

19981022 Philippe Kirsch (Canada) Calls Solutions Found to Complex Issues in Statute 'Remarkable', ICRC Disappointed by Non-Inclusion of Other Crimes, Certain Weapons

Member States should be open to dialogue and consultation on legitimate concerns about the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to ensure that the Court was credible and responsible, the representative of Canada said this morning, as the Sixth Committee (Legal) continued its exchange of views on the establishment of the Court.

Canada's representative, Philippe Kirsch, who chaired the Rome Diplomatic Conference which adopted the 128-article Statute, said concerns that had been expressed should be met by a careful reading of the provisions of the Statute and that States would be reassured once the Court began its operations. The challenge in Rome was to create a balanced and credible Statute, broadly acceptable to the international community. The solutions found to complex issues, such as jurisdiction of the Court, complementarity, the role of the prosecutor and the definition of crimes, were remarkable.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was disappointed that the Statute distinguished between war crimes and other crimes, its representative said. Subjecting war crimes to a different regime gave the impression that they were not as serious as other crimes. The use of weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines and blinding weapons should be added to the list of war crimes at a future review conference, he added.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of Congo said crimes against humanity and war crimes were being perpetrated in his country while the international community awaited the establishment of an international criminal court. If that body had already existed, it could have deterred such acts, and would have tried and condemned those responsible. The authors of the criminal acts of aggression against his country had participated in the adoption of the Statute, he added.

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

Most speakers welcomed the adoption of the Statute, while some expressed regret that the crime of aggression was not included. That issue would be dealt with by the preparatory commission being set up to prepare the groundwork for the Court to begin operations. Many representatives said a draft resolution to be approved by the Sixth Committee should ensure that the commission began its work early in 1999 and with resources to complete its tasks.

Also statements were made by the representatives of Slovenia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Hungary, India, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Armenia, Lesotho, Sweden, Venezuela, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Pakistan, Israel, Australia, Cyprus, Portugal, Iran, Liechtenstein and Ireland.

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

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to continue its discussion of the establishment of the International Criminal Court. (For background information on the item, see Press Release GA/L/3077 of 21 October.)

Statements

DANILO TÜRK (Slovenia) said the Statute adopted at the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Rome, June/July) fell short of his country's expectations, but it was nevertheless a good basis for the functioning of the future Court. The Statute could be improved in some respects, but in its present form, it represented a solid edifice for making international criminal justice a realistic possibility. Slovenia believed that the Statute contained the necessary prerequisites for the Court's effective functioning. It was confident that it would be possible to progressively build upon it in the future, based also on the experience of the Court after it began functioning. He welcomed the inclusion in the Statute of jurisdiction over crimes committed both in internal and external conflicts.

Slovenia strongly supported an early convening of the preparatory commission for eight weeks in 1999, and was ready to contribute to the tasks entrusted to the commission, he said. He hoped the Statute would enter into force without delay. Slovenia signed it on 7 October and would do its utmost to accelerate the process for its ratification.

L.A. SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) said the Statute contained a number of elements that would enable the Court to complement and contribute to the system for maintaining international peace and security. Outlining some of those, he said the relationship between the Court and the Security Council was not based on subordination, but rather on cooperation in the best interests of the international community. The Court was established to complement rather than substitute for national authorities. The Statute stipulated democratic principles of criminal justice ensuring fair trial for the accused, and spelled out the powers of the prosecutor, to provide solid guarantees against attempts to manipulate the Court for political purposes.

The determination of definitions of corpus delicti in cases of aggression should be formulated so as to be directly linked to the Security Councils' prerogatives to qualify a State's actions as an act of aggression as a necessary prerequisite for bringing charges against a specific person, he continued. The Statute contained guarantees for the protection of information affecting national security interests. The method of funding for the Court guaranteed its independence while the envisaged Assembly of States Parties would ensure that the Court's activities harmonized with the international community's efforts to maintain international peace and security.

Sixth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

Those were some of the elements that had allowed the Russian Federation to support the Statute, he said. However, the Russian Federation regretted the fact that several reasonable proposals had not been included in the Statute and that the document had been passed by voting. Regarding the preparatory commission, he said that by drafting accessory documents, it should not only preserve the balance of interests reached in Rome but also attempt to address concerns of those nations which did not support the adoption of the Statute last summer. It was absolutely necessary to strive for universal recognition of the future Court. The Russian delegation would take an active part in the work of the preparatory commission.

ENRICA TADDEI (San Marino) said her delegation welcomed the establishment of the preparatory commission and was confident that it would conduct a fruitful work on the definition of the crime of aggression and the adoption of the rules of procedure. She called upon all States to make an additional effort to enable the International Criminal Court to start working effectively as soon as possible. Legal experts of San Marino, one of the first signatories of the Court's Statute, were studying its text for ratification. Her country associated itself with the recommendation of the Rome Conference on the convening of a Review Conference to consider inclusion of terrorist acts and drug trafficking as crimes under the Court's jurisdiction.

JANOS GOROG (Hungary) said that based on the premise that there could be no peace without justice, those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity must be held personally responsible. As Hungary neighboured an area where dreadful crimes had occurred, it had welcomed the Security Council's decision to establish ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and fully supported those bodies. The permanent International Criminal Court would guarantee equal treatment for all violations, wherever and by whomever they were committed; exercise its jurisdiction without undue delays caused by the need to create ad hoc tribunals; would make use of the special expertise of its permanent staff; and would eliminate the need for the Council to take a decision on establishing ad hoc tribunals.

The Court had inherent jurisdiction over the core crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, whether committed in internal armed conflict, in times of peace or in an armed conflict, he said. Perpetrators would not be exempt from criminal responsibility because of their official status. The Statute excluded statutory limitations for crimes falling within the Court's jurisdiction. States parties were obligated to comply with requests for assistance and cooperation, and no reservations were allowed. The 60 ratifications required for the Statute to enter into force would occur as soon as possible. His Government had taken steps to sign the Statute and ratify it in due course.

Sixth Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

Turning then to the preparatory commission, he said it was important that all States that signed the final act in Rome, or those invited to participate, took part in the work of that body to draw up the necessary documents. He hoped that in the course of that work, some of the outstanding concerns raised by some States would be addressed to enable broader consensus. Only the expeditious accomplishment of the task of the preparatory commission would enable the Court to start functioning in the foreseeable future. His delegation was ready to make efforts to ensure success in that endeavour.

PREM SINGH CHANDUMAJRA (India) said the Statute, in terms of substance, fell short of India's expectations on several normative issues. It failed to include international terrorism in the crimes covered and also failed to provide flexibility in the nature of the Court's jurisdiction. The distinction between customary law and treaty obligations were blurred in respect of definitions of internal conflicts and crimes against humanity. The Statute also failed to respect, at all stages, the sacrosanct principle of consent of States, and the principle of territoriality in exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

What was even worse, he said, was that the Statute had legitimized the overstretched interpretation of the powers of the Security Council by subordinating the future Court to the discretion of the Council's five permanent members. It was ironic that the Statute treated offences such as murder as international crimes while ignoring the first use of nuclear weapons. Consequently, India was not sure whether an International Criminal Court founded on such a Statute had prospects of ever becoming truly universal.

He emphasized that the preparatory commission should, on a priority basis, prepare proposals for a provision on terrorism, including the definition and elements of the crime of terrorism. The commission should submit such proposals to the proposed Review Conference.

NASTE CALOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said his delegation associated itself with the statement made by Austria on behalf of the European Union and associated States. His country had signed the Final Act of the Conference and the Statute and would in due time ratify it. The Sixth Committee could claim credit for the achievement of the Diplomatic Conference. His country, which had several times this century been victim of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, favoured the establishment of the Court. He commended the contributions of non-governmental organizations to the success of the Conference. He hoped the spirit of Rome would positively influence the work of the preparatory commission. Efforts should be geared towards promoting the Statute so that it would enter into force to enable the Court to start functioning at the beginning of the twenty- first century. The Statute should not be changed, he stressed.

Sixth Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

It was true that the Statute was not a perfect instrument, he continued. He regretted that some major countries could not join in its adoption and hoped that they would be able to do so at a later stage. The Statute should in future clarify the following: the relationship between the United Nations and the Court; the relationship between non-State parties and the Court, and the principle of universality in the Statute; and the crimes under the Statute.

He said he had attended a round-table conference at San Remo, Italy at which the Statute had been analysed. The general conclusion was that the Rome Statute was not a perfect one, but it was the best that could be fashioned in the light of the current international situation. The expectation was that the Court would function as an independent body, but full cooperation with the United Nations was essential. He thought the conclusions of the round table would be of interest to members of the Sixth Committee and that he would provide copies to the Secretariat.

CHRISTINE SIMONE (Armenia) said that carving out a final document in Rome, amidst the competing concerns of so many different delegations, had been no small accomplishment. As a result of compromise, the crime of aggression had been included with no definition. While Armenia had supported including aggression, it was with the understanding that a clear definition would be drafted. It was problematic to have included the crime without any definition, even with the proviso that the Court would only be able to exercise jurisdiction after a definition was approved by the Assembly of States Parties. Armenia also supported the inclusion of the crime of terrorism, but in that case it was appropriate to leave the crime for consideration at a later Review Conference, rather than include it in the Statute without a clear definition acceptable to the majority of delegations. That would have been a better approach.

She said her Government was satisfied with the final compromise reached on the provision governing the Court's prosecutor. The built-in checks and balances would satisfy the range of concerns of all Member States, while preserving the prosecutor's independence. To address the concerns of a number of States that there not be any encroachment by the Court on matters under consideration by the Security Council, the Council would have the right to defer investigation or prosecution for renewable one-year periods. Armenia would have preferred to see a more restrictive time limit on the Council's deferral right, but accepted the compromise. The Court's jurisdiction should not be reopened for further negotiations.

Upon the entry into force of the Statute, the world would have an international entity in which to try individuals guilty of genocide, she said. For the Court to accomplish its intended purpose, a number of provisions would need to be drafted by the preparatory commission. The Statute would need to be ratified by 60 States, which would not be an easy task, since there was an

Sixth Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

inherent tension between international treaties and the perception of national sovereignty. Parliamentarians would have to be convinced that ratifying the Statute would not infringe on national sovereignty. Seen in its proper light, the International Criminal Court Statute would be heralded as a remarkable achievement in the advancement of human rights. It would fill the current void in international law and eliminate the need for independent tribunals.

PHAKISO MOCHOCHOKO (Lesotho) said the Statute was the international community's proud bequest to future generations. While it was not a perfect document, its positive aspects outweighed the negative. Notable compromises had been reached on a number of issues, including the crimes to be covered by the Court, the principle of complementarity, the Court's jurisdiction, the independence of the prosecutor, and the prohibition of reservations. The Statute paved the way for prosecuting those who committed the most serious crimes of international concern and thus countered the failure of States to bring such criminals to justice. He called on all States to sign and ratify the Statute so the Court could begin its operations at the earliest possible date.

The success of Rome would remain hollow unless the Court came into operation soon, he continued. He welcomed all initiatives to accelerate the ratification process, and hailed efforts to promote awareness of the results of the Rome Conference and the Statute. Also, he counted on the unflinching support of non-governmental organizations. It was urgent that the preparatory commission be provided with the necessary resources and services to perform its functions efficiently and expeditiously. Lesotho believed that a maximum of eight weeks should be allocated for the commission to finalize its work.

To create a universal Court, all voices must be heard, he said. The trust fund which had contributed to ensuring the participation of least developed countries in the Conference should be continued. He urged States to make voluntary contributions to it. His country appreciated the close collaboration and helpful contributions of non-governmental organizations throughout the process leading up to and including the Rome Conference. Many of the successes to date were the results of their efforts. Those organizations should participate in the preparatory commission's work on the terms and conditions that had so far enabled cooperative partnership.

PER NORSTROM (Sweden) said the Statute was a compromise document and its many contentious issues should not be reopened. Sweden wholeheartedly supported the Statute in its entirety because of its firm belief that it represented the best package which could possibly be obtained under the prevailing circumstances. It also believed that an efficient, viable institution was decided upon in Rome -- a Court that would eventually command a very wide support and act as a deterrent and give hope to future victims of oppression and atrocities. Regardless of what positions States might have taken under pressure of time, they should look at the totality of what was

Sixth Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

achieved. He hoped they would come to the same conclusion as Sweden and realize what was now within reach.

Member States should look forward to ensure the Statute's early entry into force, he said. Sweden was among the 58 countries that had already signed it and had started the laborious work on its ratification. It was important that every encouragement and support was given to countries during the ratification process. The common goal should be having the Court in place not long into the next millennium. It was also important to push forward with the process of negotiating the necessary secondary instruments, like the rules of procedure and evidence, to ensure they were ready for adoption by the proposed Assembly of States Parties to the Statute. He urged the Sixth Committee to approve the necessary draft resolution giving the preparatory commission the resources to meet in 1999, and if necessary, in the first half of the year 2000.

PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada), who chaired the Committee of the Whole of the Rome Conference, said the International Criminal Court would have a profound effect on the lives of ordinary people. A clarion call had gone out to perpetrators of unspeakable atrocities that the world was not going to stand by silently and watch the commission of outrageous violations of international law, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As a permanent institution, the Court would overcome the delays and other shortcomings inherent in an ad hoc approach. It would serve as a significant deterrent, and help to isolate and stigmatize war criminals in post-conflict situations. Canada strongly supported the framework for the Court which emerged in Rome as it would give the Court the capacity to carry out its indispensable mandate.

He said the challenge in Rome was to create a balanced and credible Statute, broadly acceptable to the international community. The solutions found to complex issues, such as jurisdiction of the Court, complementarity, the role of the prosecutor and the definition of crimes, were remarkable. On those and other issues, the views of all delegations were heard and every State had the opportunity to influence the outcome of the negotiations. The Statute produced a delicate balance, weighted heavily towards the right and responsibility of States to investigate and prosecute, but allowing the Court to assume jurisdiction in special cases to ensure that justice was served. The checks and balances achieved would permit the Court only to exercise jurisdiction in well defined circumstances.

Canada believed that some concerns that had been expressed should be met by a careful reading of the provisions of the Statute and that States would be reassured once the Court began its operations, he went on. Nevertheless, States must be open to dialogue and consultation on any legitimate concerns to ensure that the Court was credible and responsible. Important details of the Court's operation still required work, such as the rules of procedure and evidence, the elements of crimes, and the definition and elements of the crime

Sixth Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

of aggression. On those items, the role of the Government of the Netherlands, which had offered to host the Court would be important. To achieve those objectives, the Committee should ensure that the General Assembly adopted a resolution establishing the preparatory commission with a clear and unequivocal mandate and which provided adequate support for the commission to complete its tasks.

MILAGROS BETANCOURT (Venezuela) said that in Rome her delegation had upheld clear and consistent positions while maintaining great flexibility during the negotiation process to enable the elaboration of a Statute acceptable to all. It had always supported the need to establish an autonomous and complementary Court. The Statute was not a perfect document. It could not be and still reflect the diversity of the views. The preparatory commission should begin its work by the beginning of next year. The elaboration of basic rules of procedure and other matters should be taken up as quickly as possible.

The support of the international community was essential for the Court's functioning, she said. What was required was the signing of the Statute and the beginning of the work of the preparatory commission. Venezuela had signed the Statute on 14 October. Her country was ready to participate with enthusiasm and flexibility in the preparatory commission. Venezuela understood but did not share concerns of many States regarding the future of the Court, and that body's effectiveness. The Court's objectives should be placed above national interests.

VLADIMIR GALUSKA (Czech Republic) said the core provisions of the Statute represented a compromise between the different positions of different delegations. Weaknesses in the document could always be found, since each country had its own expectations and it defied logic to expect they would all be reflected in the text. The Statute was a balanced document, able to serve as a good foundation for the much-desired strong, independent and effective Court.

His Government was pleased with the fact that the Statute provided for inherent Court's jurisdiction over crimes under international law, which were crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, he said. It was an important achievement that the Statute provided for the Court's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, despite the fact that it was not defined and the Court would thus be unable to exercise its jurisdiction in that respect. The debate over the "trigger mechanisms" for the Court had been particularly difficult. The principle that a State which became party to the Statute automatically accepted the Court's jurisdiction was a wise solution. However, that principle was weakened by the transitional provision enabling a ratifying State to declare that for a period of seven years it would not accept the jurisdiction of the Court over war crimes committed by its nationals or in its territory.

Sixth Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

The Czech Republic had already taken steps to sign the Statute, he said. While his Government advocated the speedy establishment of the Court, the responsible approach would be to analyse the potential impact of the Statute on domestic legislation before signature. Upon signing the Statute, it was important to be sure that the domestic legal system would enable it to honour all obligations, or at least to know what adjustments would be required.

RYTIS PAULAUSKAS (Lithuania) said the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court was a critical step in the battle against impunity. The Court would supplement the national judicial systems already in place, and would be a catalyst for the continued change and development of those systems. Until recently, the International Criminal Court had been referred to as "the missing link" in the international legal system. Now that link was no longer missing, and the world would have a means to deal with the terrible crimes addressed in the Statute, all of which had too often gone unpunished.

While his country was satisfied that the crime of aggression had been included in the Statute, it regretted that delegations had been unable to agree on a definition of the crime for purposes of the Statute, he said. Differences of opinion among countries on the definition of aggression could be worked out. Through the preparatory commission, delegations would provide political and legal input to overcome existing disagreement. The preparatory commission must be given the resources needed to perform the tasks entrusted to it.

Just as "Rome was not built in one day", it would take time for the work of the Rome Conference to result in an operational Court, he said. However, the number of States that had signed the Statute to date was cause for optimism. Lithuania would sign the Statute before the end of the year, and would make certain that the ratification process was not delayed in Parliament. He urged all States to sign and ratify the Statute, to bring the Court into force and continue striving for a more peaceful world.

MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN KANJU (Pakistan) said the Court should complement, not supplant, national legal systems. In Pakistan's view, there were certain provisions in the Statute which undermined that principle. The trigger mechanism for initiating the Court's jurisdiction -- provided for in the Statute -- would undermine that principle, as was the role given to the Security Council to initiate proceedings through referral of cases. Only a State party should be competent to activate the trigger mechanism. Pakistan was opposed to any role for the Security Council in relation to the Court. That role for the Council would not be conducive to the development of a non-discriminatory and non-selective uniform legal system. Provisions in the Statute that tended to challenge the legal processes of States were incompatible with the principle of complementarity. Pakistan had also some concerns with provisions of the Statute relating to internal armed conflicts.

Sixth Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

Pakistan supported the permission of reservations to the Statute to enable States with concerns with some of its provisions to do so, he said. While it had serious concerns with some of the Statute's provisions, Pakistan had joined others and voted in favour of its adoption at the Rome Conference. It was confident that the preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court would make every effort to alleviate those concerns. Clear and unambiguous rules on the practice of the Court would encourage States to become parties to the Statute.

ALAN BAKER (Israel) said his country supported the concept of the establishment of the Court. Several of the war crimes listed in the Statute as serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, had, in his delegation's view, been formulated in a selective manner. Israel had consistently pointed to certain formulations that had been deliberately and openly drafted, adapted and included to meet a political agenda of certain States, with little affinity to what genuinely constituted the gravest of war crimes. Clearly, the Statute should not be subject to abuse for political ends.

Israel also had concerns about the way the Statute dealt with a State's right to withhold the disclosure to the Court of information or documents it considered could prejudice its national security interests, he said. It was also concerned about the system for selecting judges for the Court -- based, among other things, on the standard United Nations equitable geographic representation formula. As had become very evident in previous elections to international judicial bodies, the system lent little hope for the successful election of an Israeli candidate, however competent professionally, as long as Israel continued to be excluded from the United Nations regional grouping system.

PENNY WENSLEY (Australia) associated herself with the statement made yesterday on behalf of countries from the South Pacific region. The creation of an International Criminal Court to deal with crimes of concern to the international community as a whole had been a long standing goal of many countries. The adoption of the Statute with overwhelming support represented a substantive step towards realizing the goal of establishing the Court. The Court would stand as a strong deterrent to potential perpetrators.

It was crucial that the momentum established by the adoption of the Statute be sustained, she said. Australia looked forward to the next phase of work in the same spirit of cooperation and energy that had produced the successful outcome of the Rome Conference. It was important to recognize that the Statute represented a balanced document that took into account a range of national positions and concerns and did justice to the guiding principles of an independent, balanced and fair Court that could be supported by the international community.

Sixth Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

Having adopted the Statute, it was now important to move expeditiously to the next phase of the work, with the preparatory commission, to make the practical arrangements for the establishment and operation of the Court, she said. The commission must be accorded adequate meeting time and resources to carry out its mandate. The rules of procedure and evidence and the elements of crime must be finalized before 30 June 2000. The Commission should begin its work early next year to meet that deadline. Australia stood ready to cooperate with other delegations in the elaboration and conclusion of those rules. Rather than looking backward to Rome, it was time to look ahead to the task of making the Court a reality, which was a goal to which the international community had committed itself.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said the tragic experiences of two world wars and the genocides that had marked the twentieth century had shown the necessity of an effective permanent international machinery to ensure the respect of human rights and to bring an end to a culture of impunity. Cyprus supported an effective, truly independent criminal court capable of carrying out its mandate. It hoped the preparatory commission would study the issue of the crime of aggression, and produce a definition of it as well as work out the conditions under which the Court was to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to that crime.

Cyprus attached great importance to the inclusion in the Statute of the crime described in the second paragraph of article 8, he said. That was the direct or indirect transfer by an occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupied, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside that territory. His Government attached particular importance to attacks against places of worship, historic monuments, hospitals, and buildings dedicated to education, art, science, or charitable purposes. The establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and the unlawful deportation of the population of that territory in order to change its demographic composition fell within the definition of crimes against humanity and war crimes. As a victim of aggression, continued military occupation, colonization in occupied areas, and systematic destruction of its cultural heritage by the occupying Power, Cyprus could not but denounce such crimes wherever they occurred.

Cyprus had signed the Statute on 15 October and hoped that it would fast come into force, he said. Adopting the Statue had given the world a message of hope. The international community was today closer to a new international legal order, based on justice and respect for human rights.

TIAGO CUNHA (Portugal) said his delegation was profoundly satisfied with the outcome of the Rome Conference, adopted on the last day of its session. Participants in the Rome Conference had overcome numerous legal and political matters. Just as peace and development were indivisible, the establishment of

Sixth Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

the International Criminal Court told the world that justice was an inherent element of peace.

The Court had the potential for deterring acts of violence and ending the culture of impunity, he said. Atrocities and heinous crimes must not go unpunished. He emphasized the committed participation of delegations in the Rome Conference, which was the cause of its success. Adoption of the Statute was not the end of the road, and the international community must now turn to the future. To ensure that the Court came into existence the preparatory commission must be promptly convened, in no case later than spring of next year. That body must be given adequate service and funding to enable it to fulfil its tasks by the deadline of June 2000. The Committee had been told that 58 States -- including Portugal -- had already signed the Statute. He hoped that number would rapidly increase. He urged all States to sign and ratify the Statute to enable the Court to have the widest possible jurisdiction.

SAED MIRZAEI YENGEJEH (Iran) said the Statute was far from perfect. It was a complex text which incorporated a number of issues which fell within the jurisdiction of sovereign States. Those issues were currently being studied by the competent government departments in his country. Iran had supported the establishment of the preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court which should take all the necessary measures to ensure the early functioning of the Court. The commission had been entrusted with a multifaceted responsibility, including the preparation of instruments for the Court to begin its operation. The commission should begin its work as early as possible, and it should consist of representatives of States that had signed the Final Act of the Conference and others invited to participate in the Conference as stipulated in the resolution establishing the commission.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that his country, which was among the first to sign the Treaty embodying the Statute, remained committed to the Court and stood ready to ensure the Statute's early entry into force. The Statute was a solid basis for the international community to contribute to the prosecution of perpetrators of heinous crimes and, most importantly, the prevention of the commission of such crimes. It was important that the Statute recognized sexual crimes, such as rape. The inclusion of crimes committed in internal conflicts was welcome. A lot of very difficult work remained to ensure that the Statute entered into force for the Court to begin its operation.

He said the outcome of the Rome Conference was a great success and steps should be taken to provide the preparatory commission the necessary resources to carry out its tasks. His delegation looked forward to the consultations that would take place in the Committee on the matter. Concerted efforts would be required to bring on board those States which had expressed concerns about some of the provisions of the Statute.

Sixth Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

ZENON MUKONGO NGAY (Democratic Republic of Congo) said his country, because of its geopolitical location and its natural resources, had long suffered from war and human rights abuses. It had fallen victim to plots that threatened its territorial integrity. The Government had been engaged in clearing the way for a democratic life that would have restored dignity to its citizens, but violence had once again come to the country, and the civilian population was suffering. Criminal aggression had occurred only 15 days after the adoption of the Statute. The authors of that crime had participated in the adoption of the Statute and their acts flouted the will of the international community.

The International Criminal Court must get down to work and relentlessly prosecute those who act against humanity and disguise their work by making others seem responsible, he said. While the Secretary-General had said that the horrors of the Second World War must never occur again, the Great Lakes region of Africa was suffering from large-scale acts of deportation and odious crimes in occupied areas. Invading soldiers, who lacked popularity in the occupied territories, were settling all issues through the use of arms.

For example, outlaws had placed the mutilated corpse of the pregnant wife of a village chief on a religious altar, he said. But the horrors being committed against the Congolese people in the occupied territories could not be described in the current setting. Such acts were crimes against humanity and war crimes and were being perpetrated against the peaceful civilian population while the international community was waiting for the establishment of an international criminal court. If that body had already existed, it would have deterred such crimes, and would have tried and condemned those responsible for those actions.

The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in favour of a court to investigate crimes against humanity and genocide, he said. Complex issues had been addressed and settled in a satisfactory manner. In general terms, he endorsed the terms of the Rome Conference, but a great deal remained to be done. He regretted that definitions were not established for certain crimes. The Sixth Committee should consider the establishment of working groups to take up certain matters pending the establishment of the preparatory commission. He thanked Governments that had contributed to the trust fund to enable developing and least developed countries to participate in the Conference. No army should be able to violate human rights with impunity.

JAMES FARRELL (Ireland) said work must now continue to ensure that the Court was established as soon as possible. Ireland signed the Statute on 7 October and looked forward to participating in the work of the preparatory commission which would prepare proposals for practical arrangements for the Court to begin its operations. It also looked forward to the continuation of work in the commission on satisfactory provisions to govern the crime of aggression to ensure the Court's jurisdiction over it. Much valuable work

Sixth Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/L/3079 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998

already done on the question -- both before and during the Rome Conference -- should be built upon.

RENE KOSIRNIK, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the ICRC was, on the whole, satisfied with the Statute adopted in Rome. Not all serious violations of international humanitarian law were included in the definition of war crimes, but many were. The ICRC welcomed the fact that the Court could try crimes committed during non-international armed conflicts, which was a key factor in combating impunity. It regretted, however, that the provisions relating to the use of certain weapons were reduced to a minimum and were not included with respect to non-international armed conflicts. Acts such as the use of weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines and blinding weapons should be added to the list of war crimes at a future review conference.

The ICRC's greatest disappointment arose from article 124, which created a distinction between war crimes and other crimes, he said. Under that article, a State, on becoming a party to the Statute, could declare that it did not accept the Court's jurisdiction for a period of seven years when war crimes were alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory. Subjecting war crimes to a different regime gave the impression that they were not as serious as other crimes in the Court's jurisdiction. Yet international law placed States under an obligation to prosecute war criminals irrespective of their nationality or the place where their crime was committed. Therefore, the ICRC urged States not to make such a declaration and trusted that eventually the provision would be deleted.

* *** *