SPEAKERS IN LEGAL COMMITTEE CALL FOR UNIVERSAL RATIFICATION OF ROME STATUTE AS REVIEW OF NEWLY ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CONCLUDES

22 October 1998

Press Release
GA/L/3080

SPEAKERS IN LEGAL COMMITTEE CALL FOR UNIVERSAL RATIFICATION OF ROME STATUTE AS REVIEW OF NEWLY ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CONCLUDES

19981022 Preparatory Commission Charged with Laying Foundations for Court Should Meet Early in 1999 So Court Can Begin Functions By Turn of Century

The preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court, provided for by the Court Statute adopted in Rome in July, should start working in early 1999 so that the Court could begin to function by the turn of the new century, the Sixth Committee (Legal) was told this afternoon.

Concluding a two-day discussion on the Court's establishment, speakers called for adequate resources for the commission to complete its tasks, which include preparing the rules of procedure and evidence of the Court, whose Statute will come into force after they have been ratified by 60 States. The preparatory commission will also elaborate the Court's elements of crimes, the relationship agreement between it and the United Nations, and the basic principles governing a headquarters agreement to be negotiated with Netherlands, the host country.

In addition, the commission will prepare proposals for a provision on aggression, including the definition and elements of crimes of aggression and conditions under which the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction. At the Rome Diplomatic Conference (15 June to 17 July 1998) on the establishment of the Court, States decided to leave those matters for the preparatory commission to consider.

The representative of Cuba said the failure in Rome to define acts of aggression had not been because the elements had been missing. Rather, what had been lacking in Rome was the political will to agree to a definition of those crimes. In the face of justice, supposedly all were equal; but, evidently some remained more equal than others.

A number of speakers stressed the importance of the principle of complementarity inherent in the Statute. The Court was neither subordinate nor superior to national judicial systems, Uruguay's representative stressed. Likewise, its relationship with the Security Council should also be

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

complementary, the representative of Cameroon said. The Court would be judging individuals while the Council judged States and groups of States, he said.

Fifty-eight countries have so far signed the Court's 13-part, 128 article Statute. The representative of the United Kingdom said it was important to begin the process of gathering signatures and ratifications, rallying political and financial support, and preparing for the election of judges and the Prosecutor -- a process which should not be rushed.

In concluding remarks, the Sixth Committee Chairman, Jargalsaikhany Enkhsaikhan (Mongolia), said the debate on the Court had been fruitful and productive, with more than 80 delegations making statements. They had voiced overwhelming support for the Statute, which was largely seen as filling a gap in the international legal order. While the Statute might not be perfect, it was the result of compromise and was viewed by many as the most effective means to put an end to impunity.

The representative of Cyprus said his delegation had taken the floor in exercise of the right of reply to respond to a comment by the representative of Turkey. He reminded that delegation that his Government was the only one recognized by the international community as the legitimate Government of Cyprus.

The representative of Turkey, also speaking in right of reply, said the representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would give the necessary reply.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Netherlands, Poland, Guinea, Uganda, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Ukraine, Honduras (speaking for Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic), Lebanon, Jordan, Georgia, Nigeria, Sudan, Djibouti, Indonesia, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Germany, Malta, Ecuador, Sierra Leone and Haiti. The representatives of Uganda and Democratic Republic of the Congo also made statements in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 26 October to begin consideration of the report of the International Law Commission.

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon 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

VICTOR TCHATCHOUWO (Cameroon) paid tribute to those who had contributed to the establishment of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was a victory in the struggle against impunity. He welcomed its achievement during the fiftieth year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cameroon hoped to see all States become parties to the Statute. However, questions of great importance had been left pending in certain areas. Cameroon strongly supported the recommendation to establish an acceptable definition of crimes related to terrorism and drugs, and to include them on the list of those crimes that fell within the competence of the Court.

The General Assembly should swiftly convene the preparatory commission, he said. Cameroon had accepted the lack of definition of aggression as a compromise, but it considered the definition as already existing in Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX). The problems in the matter had to do with relations between the Court and the Security Council. Relations between those two bodies should be complementary. The Court would be judging persons, not States. The Council would judge aggression of States or groups of States. Each body would act in its own sphere. The Council had the main -- but not exclusive -- responsibility in the area of maintaining international peace and security. The Court would be indispensable in prosecuting individuals who, under the banner of the State, planned or committed criminal acts of aggression.

To date, such instances had been responded to through ad hoc international criminal tribunals, he said. By including the crime of aggression, the international community had sent a strong signal. Peace could not be preserved unless acts unleashed by war were avoided, or at the least punished. The establishment of the International Criminal Court showed the international community's profound aversion to such atrocities. Cameroon had been among the first to sign the Statute and it called on States to become parties.

HARRY VERWEIJ (Netherlands) said his delegation endorsed the European Union statement made by the representative of Austria. He said history was made at the Rome Conference, signalling that the culture of impunity would no longer go unpunished. The three core crimes -- genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity -- were not abstracts. The Statute reflected the most acceptable compromises. The lines of communication should be left open and

Sixth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

States with sincere concerns about some provisions of the Statute should be listened to. His delegation was pleased, among others, about the independent role given to the prosecutor to initiate investigations and prosecution.

At The Hague, he said the Court would be sited near a respectable institution like the International Court of Justice. He hoped the envisaged preparatory commission would have ample time next year and in the year 2000 to carry out its tasks. The Netherlands would participate actively in its work. He urged all States to follow the example of the 58 others which had signed the Statute. The Netherlands, which had been among the first to do so, was beginning the process to ratify it.

PIOTR OGONOWSKI (Poland) associated Poland with the European Union statement. He said the successful conclusion of the Rome Conference was an event of historic proportion. The agreement on the establishment of the Court had raised high expectations that the heinous crimes of the past would not be allowed to recur. The establishment of the Court constituted an advancement of international law and respect for human rights. Its very existence should strengthen international peace and security. He noted that the primary responsibility for prosecuting heinous crimes still rested with States. It was true that the text of the Statute did not meet the hopes of all, but compromises had to be made. His delegation believed that the Court would have the necessary instruments to effectively discharge its duties. He acknowledged provisions in the Statute for the protection of victims and for State cooperation. He hoped that there would be equitable geographic representation in the selection of the judges for the Court.

Poland had started the necessary procedures for ratifying the Statute, he said. The work of the preparatory commission should be considered a priority issue and it should receive necessary resources to successfully complete its tasks.

ABDOULAYE BAH (Guinea) said when operational, the Court would put an end to the culture of impunity. The Court filled a vacuum in international penal law. The text of the Statute was not perfect, but States parties would improve it over time.

He said his delegation had participated actively in preparatory work as well as the Diplomatic Conference in Rome. The preparatory commission should be held as quickly as possible so the Court could become a living reality. He thanked all those who had participated in making the Court a reality.

JORGE PEREZ-OTERMIN (Uruguay) said Uruguay's primary purpose was to lend maximum support to the establishment of the Court. The Court could not exist without widespread support from the international community, which would enable it to operate on a representational basis and with effectiveness. Uruguay welcomed the Statute, but the style of negotiations used to achieve it

Sixth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

had been less than satisfactory. He agreed with the statement made yesterday by the representative of China in that regard. The way in which the Conference had conducted its work had not fully ensured the participation of all on the basis of democracy and transparency. A majority of countries had been left on the sidelines with regard to some key articles. Time constraints were not a sufficient excuse.

Uruguay would like to return to the basic principle of complementarity on which the Court had been established, which could have benefitted from greater precision, he said. The international community's duty was to give posterity a clear and precise text of major scope. According to the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, complementarity meant "a complement with another part by means of which a whole was established". In that spirit, the Court was neither subordinate nor superior to national judicial systems.

The task ahead was to reach a balance between the new powers created in the Court and the powers within States, he said. The Court could not replace national decisions adopted by the States legitimately. Otherwise, it would not exemplify complementarity. The principle of complementarity must be made explicitly clear. His delegation would continue to participate in a constructive manner to enabling humanity to have a serious Court.

JULIET SEMAMBO KALEMA (Uganda) said her country was in the process of studying the Statute with a view to completing the internal procedure for signature and ratification. The Statute's objective was to send a clear message that the international community could not stand by and watch heinous crimes being committed without punishing the perpetrators. Her Government attached great importance to the principle of complementarity by which the Court would only exercise its jurisdiction where national legal systems were unavailable or ineffective.

Uganda was disappointed by the provisions for opting out of the Court's jurisdiction over war crimes for seven years by a State upon becoming a party, she said. Nevertheless, the Rome Conference had been able to transcend difficulties in the interest of successfully concluding the Statute. She hoped the review process would take into consideration those crimes which should have been included in the Statute, such as the crimes of drug trafficking and terrorism.

Uganda looked forward to the early establishment of the preparatory commission, which was given the mandate of elaborating the rules of procedure and evidence of the Court, the elements of crime and the definition of the crime of aggression, she said. This was a final step towards making the Court fully operational. It was essential that the preparatory commission be given sufficient time and adequate resources. Uganda was ready to effectively participate, as it had in the past. She expressed deep appreciation to those who had contributed to the trust fund which had enabled developing countries

Sixth Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

and the least developed countries to participate in the Preparatory Committee activities and the Rome Conference, thus ensuring universal participation.

MARCOS PRADO TROYJO (Brazil) said the Rome Conference had been a milestone in the history of the international legal system. The idea of an international criminal court had been born at roughly the same time as the United Nations, yet 50 years had gone by before the international community could arrive at a Statute that contained the necessary elements for establishing an efficient, independent and impartial court.

Brazil supported the Statute, but was concerned about the mandatory character of the "surrender" of persons to the Court, which might be incompatible with certain provisions of the Brazilian Constitution which forbid the extradition of nationals. Brazil also noted that, as far as the application of sentences was concerned, its Constitution forbade life imprisonment, which could be seen as being incompatible with the provisions of the Court. However, it noted that the provision contained in Article 110 (3) of the Statute, on the revision of sentences after 25 years, might, to a certain extent, mitigate this problem. Efforts should be made to repair the technical incorrections related to Article 121 of the Statute, on amendments.

Since signing the Final Act in Rome, Brazil had undertaken internal consultations on the signature of the Statute, he said. The complexity of the matter required a full review of all aspects of the Statute, taking into account Brazil's domestic law. The process involved the three branches of Government, as well as civil society representatives. He highlighted the importance of the decision in the Rome Conference regarding the establishment of a preparatory commission to pave the way to a fully operational International Criminal Court. His delegation attached particular importance to the rules of procedure and evidence of the Court.

HENRI GNAMA BACYE (Burkina Faso) said the Rome Conference had been welcomed by international public opinion as a great diplomatic event comparable to the founding of the United Nations. The Statute was a compromise which took account of various legal systems to bring about the punishment of perpetrators of heinous crimes. His country had begun to construct laws guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms. Burkina Faso had tried to settle conflicts peacefully. Events in the former Yugoslavia reminded all that crimes against humanity knew no colour or cultures.

He hoped all States, including those which had concerns, would endorse the Statute and help make the functioning of the Court a success. He paid tribute to all those, including the host country, Italy, which helped make the Conference a success.

HENRY HANSON-HALL (Ghana) said that there were defects to the Statute. It did not take into account all the legitimate interests and concerns of

Sixth Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

certain Member States that had expressed reservations on various aspects. He appealed to those States to take a holistic view of the Statute's objectives. Any defects in the Statute must be weighed against the mischief that the Court was being set up to eradicate. The world currently faced a serious challenge to its security and safety from the barbaric conduct of a few individuals who thought they could commit heinous crimes with impunity. The international community was telling those individuals they would not be allowed to do so. That was the Court's message, he said, calling on States that had reservations to withdraw them.

The preparatory commission should be given sufficient resources to facilitate the fulfilment of its mandate, he said. It should be given the time needed to fulfil its mandate by June 2000. The commission should be convened by the beginning of the second quarter of 1999, and have three sessions during 1999. Non-governmental organizations should be allowed to participate actively in the commission's deliberations and proceedings. He also asked the Secretary-General to provide technical assistance to States drafting legislation implementing the Statute provisions. He called for the Secretary-General to establish a trust fund to help least developed and developing countries to participate.

Sir FRANKLIN BERMAN (United Kingdom) said that his Government's aim at the Rome Conference had been to create a court that would be effective and widely accepted internationally. The United Kingdom would shortly be signing the Statute of the International Criminal Court. He took particular satisfaction in two aspects of the Statute. Firstly, the United Kingdom played a key role in securing definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The inclusion of internal armed conflicts was important, as most violence in recent times had been internal. The provision empowering the Court to order reparations -- an advance on the powers of the ad hoc tribunals -- meant that greed would not be allowed to "ride on the back of barbarity". Secondly, he expressed satisfaction at the provisions governing the nomination and election of judges, a process fundamental to the success of the Court.

The United Kingdom's satisfaction was only marred by the failure to adopt the Statute by general agreement. He regretted that the final act of the drama was a contentious vote in which some delegations felt moved to vote against and others to abstain. He hoped that considered reflection would enable them to look for ways to join, as universal support remained one of the United Kingdom's major aims. The mere adoption of the Statute did not mean the Court had been achieved. The purpose of this year's draft resolution was to set in train the process of gathering signatures and ratifications, rallying political and financial support and preparing for the election of judges and the Prosecutor. Those processes needed to be purposeful, but not rushed. The United Kingdom pledged its commitment to those processes and to the Court itself. It did this consciously and specifically as a permanent

Sixth Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

member of the Security Council, because the Court would contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.

VASYL H. KORZACHENKO (Ukraine) said the international community had a unique chance to substantially strengthen the rule of law through an effective judicial institution of universal character. His country, which supported the establishment of the Court, had been actively involved in the preparatory process and in the Diplomatic Conference itself. The text of the Statute reflected, in a balanced way, basic concerns of a substantial majority of States and provided adequate guarantees for ensuring international justice through due process and a fair trial. Ukraine saw the Court as a powerful tool for securing independence and sovereignty of States. The text of the Statute also maintained an equilibrium between the universality of the Court's jurisdiction and the need to preserve judicial sovereignty of national courts.

Ukraine had launched the necessary constitutional procedures to enable it to be a signatory to the Statute, he said. His delegation underlined the significance of the follow-up work to the Conference, specifically the convening of the preparatory commission. He stressed the importance of the commission's tasks, including the elaboration of a draft provision on aggression, the definition and elements of crimes of aggression and the conditions under which the Court would exercise jurisdiction over that crime. Further work on the Statute would not be complete without those provisions. Non-governmental organizations should be given the opportunity to participate in the work of the preparatory commission, he said.

JOSE ANTONIO GUTIERREZ NAVAS (Honduras), speaking on behalf of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Dominican Republic, said they had supported and participated in all the preparatory stages leading to the establishment of the Court. The negotiating process was intensive and it was enriched by the participation of specialized agencies. The Court should be based on the basic principle of complementarity and universality. The negotiating process was a complex one because of the diversity of the participating States. The spirit which prevailed reflected a genuine need for a Court which would fill an institutional vacuum. He said the Court would provide a new concept of international justice.

HICHAM HAMDAN (Lebanon) said the large number of statements that had been made on the Court reflected the importance the international community attached to it. It was true that there were gaps in the Rome Statute and he said he understood concerns expressed by several delegations. Lebanon, too, had concerns. For example, the Office of the Prosecutor was one of the most important bodies in the Court. It should be staffed with persons of different nationalities representing different legal systems. However, he was convinced that logic would prevail so that all national legal systems could be represented.

Sixth Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

The Court should not be compared in any way to the League of Nations established at the beginning of the century, he said. The Statute marked a turning point in the history of international relations and in enabling the principles of justice and human rights to prevail. The Statute should not be rigid, but rather evolve and develop in a continuous way. It must be refined and adjusted according to needs. The preparatory commission should begin its work as soon as possible. Welcoming the contributions of non-governmental organizations, he said these should continue. Lebanon supported the establishment of a renewable fund for the participation and broad representation of developing and least developed countries.

SALAH SUHEIMAT (Jordan) said his delegation had actively and positively participated in the work of the Preparatory Committee. Like others, his delegation's determined goal was to complete the work on the establishment of the Court. From the beginning, his Government had called for speed in that process; a process which should continue in regard to the preparatory commission. Jordan had signed the Statute and begun the procedures to ratify it. The Court must be brought into being so those guilty of heinous crimes against humanity would be brought before it.

ALEXANDER CHKHEIDZE (Georgia) said his country had experienced the horrors of armed conflicts spawned by manifestations of aggressive separatism. It had from the outset supported the idea of the creation of the Court as an indispensable tool of international justice -- a tool that would guarantee that the perpetrators of heinous crimes would be held responsible. Georgia viewed the Court not only as a means to punish, but also as a deterrent. It was confident that the operation of the Court would create conditions for more secure and peaceful co-existence.

Georgia was among the signatories of the Final Act of the Rome Conference, he said. Taking account of the seriousness of the tasks before the preparatory commission, he said Georgia and the other members of the "like-minded States" were calling for early commencement of the commission's work in New York. In their view, the commission should, in 1999, have at its disposal at least eight weeks divided into three sessions and, if necessary, an additional two or three weeks in 2000. It should be provided with the necessary resources to ensure the success of its work.

BUKHARI BELLO (Nigeria) said the adoption of the Statute was a landmark achievement. His country supported the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court and was convinced that, complementary to national criminal justice systems, it would contribute towards the maintenance of international peace and security. All possible measures should be taken to ensure the Court's operation without undue delay. Nigeria therefore supported the proposal to set up the preparatory commission. It shared the disappointment of some delegations about the failure of the Conference to unequivocally

Sixth Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

include the crime of aggression in the core crimes subject to the Court's jurisdiction.

He drew attention to a fundamental error in Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Statute which, he said, contradicted the provisions of resolution F -- adopted by the Rome Conference -- relating to the work of the preparatory commission. The resolution, among other things, tasked the preparatory commission with preparing proposals for a provision on aggression, including the definition and elements of crimes of aggression and the conditions under which the Court would exercise its jurisdiction over it. He said the Secretariat should make the appropriate changes in the drafting of the Statute provision.

He said the preparatory commission should start its work earnestly in the first quarter of 1999, and it should be provided with the necessary resources and services to carry out its tasks. Nigeria also supported the convening of a review conference to consider the crimes of terrorism and drug crimes to arrive at an acceptable definition and subsequent inclusion in the list of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction.

ELFATIH MOHAMMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said his country's position was to support all judicial and other forms of peaceful settlement of disputes and other violations that encroached on human rights and led to the disruption of international peace and security. Sudan was among a few countries that had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It also supported the idea to abridge the existing gap in the international legal order by establishing the International Criminal Court.

However, he said certain countries had selectively employed a major United Nations organ -- the Security Council -- to protect their acts of terrorism and territorial occupation in the ugliest form seen since the end of the Second World War. While those countries enjoyed impunity, the Security Council brought some countries to task on mere suspicion and political prejudices by overwhelming them with sanctions and embargoes. Only one month after the Rome Conference, the biggest and strongest military Power in the world had attacked the Sudan, a country among the least developed in the world. The aggressor had justified its repugnant act by invoking the right of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter. The Sudan said the same Article obligated peaceful settlement of disputes and demanded the United Nations to dispatch a fact-finding mission; but the Secretary-General had refused. Would it be possible for the International Criminal Court to indict aggressors and try them, or would the principle of "no impunity" be selectively applied to try the weak and absolve the strong? he asked.

BADRI ALI BOGOREH (Djibouti) said that during the Rome Conference, problems had remained up until the last minute. Despite that, the Conference had culminated in a historic act being accomplished in a historic environment.

Sixth Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

The Criminal Court would not replace national jurisdictions, but rather supplement them. The Prosecutor had been given powers to prosecute and investigate on his or her own initiative.

In adopting the Statute, the international community had sent a strong signal that the era of impunity had passed, he said. Yet this was not enough. Criminal acts were continuing, in Kosovo for example. The preparatory commission would have to address a number of important points and there was a need to address imperfections in the Statute. For example, nuclear weapons were not on the list of weapons with respect to war crimes. The Court should be a credible and effective instrument of international jurisdiction. It should guarantee for future generations that they would be spared the crimes that had been committed against their ancestors.

ARIZAL EFFENDI (Indonesia) said in the past 53 years the world had witnessed a remarkable transformation of the international scene. However, the international scene was far from a stable and secure place. The international community continued to grapple with the horrors of heinous crimes emanating from ethnic cleansing, tribal warfare, narrowly conceived nationalism, regional conflicts and new forms of racism.

He said Indonesia held that the Statute of the International Criminal Court should be a product of mutual cooperation among all nations in the world, irrespective of differences in political, legal or social systems. Also, the fundamental principles of State sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference must be scrupulously observed. In that regard, Indonesia had consistently maintained that the Court should be complementary to national jurisdictions and based upon the consent of the States concerned. Indonesia had also emphasized the importance of the impartiality of the Court, devoid of political influence of any kind, including that of the Security Council.

Indonesia had attached great importance to achieving consensus in order to garner the widest possible international support for the Statute, which was essential in enhancing its universal character, he said. Notwithstanding the historic nature of the Rome Conference, it was therefore regrettable that consensus had proven elusive. Indonesia fervently hoped that a spirit of inclusion rather than exclusion, cooperation rather than confrontation, and transparency rather than exclusivity would prevail in the important deliberations ahead within the preparatory committee concerning the practical arrangements for the establishment and the coming into operation of the Court.

YESIM BAYKAL (Turkey) said in Rome, her country, along with some others who faced the scourge of terrorism, had proposed the inclusion of terrorist crimes as crimes against humanity, within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Turkey regretted that those crimes had not been included. On the other hand, the recommendation in the Final Act of the Rome Conference, which states that crimes of terrorism and illicit trafficking in

Sixth Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

drugs should be included, gave some hope for the future. Turkey welcomed the Conference's recognition that terrorist acts were serious crimes of concern to the international community. Turkey hoped that a general agreement could be reached on the inclusion of those crimes within the Court's jurisdiction. The crimes of illicit drug trafficking and terrorism often had strong linkages, and they represented a grave threat to the international community.

She said it had been brought to the attention of the Sixth Committee yesterday that one deficiency of the Statute was that, a non-State party was not able to invoke the same grounds for the refusal of the Court's jurisdiction as a State party. For the Court to be strong and efficient, Turkey believed that States should strive to resolve those kinds of questions within the mandates and limits of the procedural rules provided for by the preparatory commission and the review conference.

Regarding the situation in Cyprus, she said the delegate from there was not entitled to speak on the situation. A proper understanding of the situation could only be possible by hearing the view of the Turkish Cypriots, who were the real victims of aggression and ethnic cleansing.

ESTHER CHIBANDA-MUNYATI (Zimbabwe) said he supported the statement made by South Africa on behalf of the 12 members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Zimbabwe, which had been one of the first to sign the Statute for the International Criminal Court, had not been entirely satisfied with the Statute, but had been swayed more by the need to adopt a framework that everyone could work around. It would have preferred to adopt an independent and impartial court that would have had automatic jurisdiction over all the "core crimes", including the crime of aggression, still to be defined by the preparatory commission. The inclusion of the "opt-in, opt-out" clause and how it was to be effected was still a mystery. His Government still needed convincing that such a clause would not affect the smooth functioning of the Court.

He said the preparatory commission should be established as soon as possible to ensure that practical measures, including the Rules of Procedure which should finalized by 30 June 2000, were in place for the Court to begin functioning. The momentum should not be lost. Zimbabwe supported the idea of convening a review conference, which would gives States parties an opportunity to reflect on the Court's performance. Another important task was to muster the political will to achieve universal acceptance of the Court. A contribution by the Netherlands had made it possible for 19 developing countries to attend the Rome Conference. He appealed to other States to emulate that gesture by enabling the participation of developing countries and least developed countries to attend future meetings of the preparatory commission.

Sixth Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

LAMIA MEKHEMAR (Egypt) said that in the twentieth century, the world had gone through two World Wars and many other wars. Prior to the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the international community's attempt to cope with violations of basic human rights had been limited to regions. The tragedies of war continued to be a nightmare to the human conscience. The Statute marked a change in those grim realities. Egypt attached great importance to the establishment of the Court. It was trying to establish a national committee to study the adherence of Egypt to the Statute.

The Statute did not represent the maximum or the minimum of what each State had hoped for, she said. It was a synthesis of sometimes contradictory views. She would have wanted to see a Court removed from political vicissitudes. The Statute virtually gave the Council veto rights. It stipulated the principle of complementarity, which should be based on objective criteria. However, the Statute had established a number of elements and criteria which were subjective. Egypt regretted that the use of nuclear weapons and the threat of that use had not been included as a war crime in the Court's jurisdiction. It seemed that the Statute used paradoxical logic in incriminating the use of some indiscriminate weapons without incriminating the most arbitrary weapon of all: nuclear weapons.

Despite the drawbacks, there were many positive aspects to the Statute, she continued. For example, along with jurisdiction of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Statute included protection of children in situations of armed conflict. The inclusion of the establishment of settlements in the Court's jurisdiction was an important aspect of international law which his Government endorsed. Egypt hoped that an acceptable definition would be found for crimes of aggression. That was not impossible, given the political will. The preparatory commission would have much work to do, and it should be given the necessary resources to carry out its work by the deadline.

GERHARD WESTDICKENBERG (Germany) said that the fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide could be commemorated with the satisfaction that this year's events constituted a milestone in the development of international justice. Germany was pleased with the results of the Rome Conference. After the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, perpetrators and masterminds of atrocities had gone unpunished, due to national courts' inability or unwillingness to act. The International Criminal Court, which would make international criminal law enforceable, would open a new chapter in international public law and redress a serious shortcoming. Germany intended to sign the Statute by the end of this year.

A large number of tasks still lay ahead before the Court could start its work, he said. The General Assembly resolution must convene the preparatory commission as soon as possible and ensure its financing. The commission should be convened for three sessions in the forthcoming year, and should have sufficient time to conclude its work in 1999. If necessary, it could be

Sixth Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

reconvened in 2000. It was essential that the preparatory commission concentrate on topics covered in resolution F -- rules of procedure and evidence, elements of crime and so on -- not change the Statute itself, which would be the task of the Review Conference. In elaborating the additional instruments, it should avoid getting entangled in too much detail and should try for compromises. Not too much time should be spent on the "elements of crimes" as the Statute already contained necessary definitions and the "elements" were only to "assist the Court" in interpretation. The other instruments, on matters like financing, should be built on precedents, and therefore dealt with quickly.

The results obtained in Rome held the promise to strengthen peace through justice, he said. Germany would spare no efforts to enable the Court to start its work as soon as possible.

ANTON TABONE (Malta) said his country was proud to be one of the 58 States that had already signed the Statute for the International Criminal Court. He encouraged those States that had not yet done so, to demonstrate their commitment by signing the Statute and expedite their ratification process. The international community could not pretend to hope that ad hoc tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, could always be set up when needed. Nor could it pretend or hope that such a possibility would be a sufficient deterrent. History provided the opportunity to evaluate the limits and defects of provisional solutions such as the Nuremberg, Tokyo and ad hoc Tribunals.

Malta had done its best to support the creation of an effective and long-lasting Court, he said. The final Statute adopted in Rome was not ideal. Unfortunately, although a compromise text, it was not a consensus text. However, the foundations for a strong Court had been laid. Malta supported the prompt convening of the preparatory commission to elaborate the rule of procedure and the elements of crime. The preparatory commission should be allocated as many sessions as needed, prior to the target date of 30 June 2000.

YAMIRA CUETO MILIAN (Cuba) said her delegation had voted for the draft Statute elaborated in Rome. In the current debate, diverse positions had been aired. Many of those "siren songs" had nothing in common with the realities of the so-called "ordinary people". However, there was still hope that the Court could address the atrocities to which people were being submitted. It was clear that some viewed themselves as the centres of the universe, and believed that without them all structures collapsed. The fallacy of their arguments was clear. Other States, however, had the courage to call things by their right names. Cuba called aggressors "aggressors", and called mercenaries "mercenaries".

Sixth Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

Unfortunately, nothing in the current debate moved the Cuban delegation to amend its position which, with great political realism and a constructive, flexible spirit, it had defended and endorsed in Rome, she said. The Statute did not respond to the expectations of most of mankind, even less so to those from the South. Aggression, terrorism and drug trafficking apparently still did not have the status of horrendous crimes, at least as far as the selective list concerning the future of the Court. Elements were not lacking to define those crimes. Rather, what had been lacking in Rome was the political will to agree to a definition of those crimes.

Some delegations suggested that those matters could be viewed in the future, so the Court could begin to operate, she said. However, it was important to recall what had been said and done at the Rome Conference regarding the elementary norms of humanitarian law and interpretations of war criminals. An artificial distinction had been drawn between customary and treaty law. Of course, Cuba was ready and willing to move forward and do what needed to be done to make the Court a genuine body. But, many delegations urging the Committee today to think of the future had not hesitated in Rome to subordinate the Court and its future to the will of the Security Council. Perhaps that subordination had been done to try to safeguard against ghosts.

In the face of justice, supposedly all were equal; but, evidently some remained more equal than others, she continued. Some were now trying to sell the establishment of ad hoc tribunals as a gesture of political and financial altruism. However, at the same time, everyone knew that the main creator of the Tribunals defined them as "subsidiary bodies of the Security Council". It seemed that some forgot that Member States were punctually paying their contributions to the Organization's regular budget and the budgets of the two Tribunals. Those budgets exceeded by more than five times the budget of the International Court of Justice, the main juridical body of the United Nations.

She thanked those who before and during the Rome Conference had supported Cuba's request that the blockade in place against her country for more than 40 years be judged as a crime against humanity and a crime of aggression. Her country would continue to support the international community's efforts to establish an impartial and independent Court. Cuba was seriously studying the Statute.

MAECELO VASQUE (Ecuador) said his country, as a firm defender of human rights and peace had, from the beginning, supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court. With the adoption of the Rome Statute, Member States had assumed the responsibility ensuring that the rule of law prevailed. Organized groups of civil society had played an important role and had made valuable contributions during the negotiations.

Sixth Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

Ecuador had signed the Statute on 7 October, he said. He hoped the preparatory commission for the Court would begin its work, as soon as possible, to ensure that the Court's operation become a reality.

FODE M. DABOR (Sierra Leone) said that for more than seven years, his country had been suffering from a gruelling rebel war. On a daily basis, innocent civilians were brutally maimed and killed. The early establishment of the International Criminal Court was, therefore, of great importance to Sierra Leone. The Statute might not satisfy all delegations in all respects, but it was nonetheless a great achievement. It signalled to criminals that they would not be allowed impunity. Sierra Leone had signed the Final Act in Rome and would do the same with the Statute in New York.

Much remained to be done, and the momentum of Rome should not be allowed to subside, he continued. To date, 58 States had signed the Statute, which was a good beginning. So that those efforts were not taken in vain, Sierra Leone called on all States who had not done so to sign the Statute. In particular, it appealed to States who had expressed unwillingness to sign the Statute to reconsider their position. For the Court to be truly universal in character and effective, it must have the support of all nations, especially the most powerful. At this juncture, the door must not be closed to negotiations. The process for establishing the Court should be accelerated, he urged.

BEATRICE EUGENE (Haiti) said her delegation endorsed the statement made by the representative of Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of her country. The concept of the International Criminal Court was becoming a reality. Haiti endorsed the Secretary-General's statement that the establishment of the Court would provide hope to future generations that respect for human rights might be ensured. The Statute had some loopholes, but those could be addressed. The review conference should get down to work. She shared the view on the importance of determining a definition of crimes of aggression. Haiti did not support inclusion of the death penalty. She thanked those who had made the Rome Conference a success, in particular the Government and people of Italy.

Statements in Right of Reply

ZENON MUKONGO NGAY (Democratic Republic of the Congo), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said his country had no agreement with Uganda allowing that country's army to invade the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had, last July, ordered all foreign forces to leave the country. However, on 2 August, elements of the armed forces of Rwanda had invaded the eastern and south-western regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, capturing the generating plants which supplied electric power to Kinshasa. They had been depriving the people of the city of electricity for weeks. Children were dying. Also, the country's riches, flora and fauna were being exploited and destroyed. The invaders had

Sixth Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/L/3080 12th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1998

killed the entire elephant population to bring ivory to Uganda. Those arrested spoke English -- which was not spoken in his country -- and other languages spoken in Uganda.

YANNIS MICHAELIDES (Cyprus) said his delegation had taken the floor in exercise of the right of reply to respond to a comment by the representative of Turkey. He reminded that delegation that the Government of Cyprus was the only Government recognized by the international community as the legitimate Government of Cyprus. It was thus the Government of all the citizens of its territory. The Turkish Cypriot regime and the presence of some 35,000 Turkish soldiers had been declared illegal by United Nations Security Council resolutions.

M. KALEMA (Uganda) said her delegation would not prolong discussion of an issue that was full of misinformation and distortion, and being addressed by other forums. She would therefore not comment further.

Ms. BAYKAL (Turkey) said the earlier speaker had reiterated unfounded allegations on the Cyprus issue, which had been made over and over again, and repeatedly exposed as hypocritical. The representatives of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would give the necessary reply.

Mr. MICHAELIDES (Cyprus) cited the Council's resolutions which said that the purported State of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was not valid, and had been set up by secessionist acts. Those resolutions called on all Member States to not assist the secessionist entity.

Closing Remarks on the International Criminal Court

JARGALSAIKHANY ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia), Sixth Committee Chairman, said the debate on the International Criminal Court had been fruitful and productive. More than 80 delegations had spoken, some on behalf of regional or subregional groups. There had been overwhelming support for the Statute, which was largely seen as filling a gap in the international order. While the Statute might not be perfect, it was the result of compromise and was viewed by many as the most effective means to put an end to impunity for committing atrocities.

There had been unanimous support for the convening of the preparatory commission, and Member States had stressed that it should convene, as early as possible, and with the necessary time and resources to accomplish its work expeditiously, he said. The establishment of a trust fund would greatly facilitate the participation of developing and least developed countries. Several States had indicated serious reservations on some aspects of the Statute, but it was generally recognized that the effectiveness of the Court required the support of all States.

* *** *