PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DECIDES TO ESTABLISH WORKING GROUP ON DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION

Press Release
L/2932

PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DECIDES TO ESTABLISH WORKING GROUP ON DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION

Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago Addresses Preparatory Commission

The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court decided this morning to established a working group on the definition of aggression at the outset of its next session, scheduled for 29 November to 17 December. The Coordinator for that Working Group will remain the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania.

The decision followed a statement by Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, expressing regret that considerable time was being spent on organizational issues relating to the definition of aggression, to the detriment of substantive discussions on that subject. Persistent differences had been noted among delegations, notably on the principle and timing of the establishment of the working group.

He said that the bureau's proposal was on the general understanding that the arrangement would remain unchanged until 30 June 2000, and that no additional requests would be made on that subject before that date.

Also this morning, the Preparatory Commission heard progress reports from Coordinators for the Working Groups on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and on the Elements of Crimes, respectively. The Coordinator for the Rules of Procedure of Part 4 of the Statute, relating to the composition and administration of the Court, also made an oral report.

The Preparatory Commission also heard a statement by the Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, who said it was the international community's collective responsibility to ensure the reality and success of a future International Criminal Court.

The Commission is charged with drafting the Court's rules of procedure and evidence, and elements of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court will be established after 60 States ratify the Statute which created it at the Rome United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries last year. So far, only four States -- Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy -- have ratified it.

The Preparatory Commission's next plenary meeting will be announced in the Journal.

Preparatory Commission Work Programme

The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court met this morning to hear progress reports from the Coordinators for the Working Groups on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and for Elements of Crimes, and the Coordinator for the Rules of Procedure for Part 4 of the Statute (Composition and Administration of the Court).

The Preparatory Commission, which is laying the groundwork for the effective functioning of the future Court, will also hear a progress report from the Coordinator on the Crime of Aggression.

Statements

RAMESH MAHARAJ, Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, said that ratification by four States -- Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy -- in just a year after the historic adoption of the International Criminal Court Statute in Rome was a positive sign for its entry into force. Only when the individuals responsible for the widespread atrocities which had become so common were punished could such violence be ended. It was the international community's collective responsibility to ensure that the International Criminal Court became a reality and there must be cooperation at all levels to ensure its success.

He said that last March, Trinidad and Tobago had co-hosted an intergovernmental conference on the signature and ratification of the Rome Statute. Legal experts of participating Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries had adopted the Port of Spain Declaration on the International Criminal Court, in which they had committed themselves to, among others, give effect to the decision of CARICOM's Legal Affairs Committee to sign the Rome Statute, and to pursue ratification within the shortest time. Also earlier this year, Trinidad and Tobago had hosted the meeting of the Commonwealth Law Ministers, at which the signature and ratification of the Rome Statute had been included as an item on the agenda.

Welcoming the outcome of the recent Southern African Development Community (SADC) conference held in Pretoria, which had prepared model implementing legislation for the International Criminal Court, he said that model legislation would prove useful for other States in their ratification procedures. Cooperative efforts at the regional level could significantly influence the ratification process. Those States that had not yet signed the Statute should give serious consideration to doing so. It was only when the individual perpetrators of the crimes within the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction could be brought to justice that there could be lasting peace in the world.

SILVIA FERNANDEZ DE GURMENDI (Argentina), Coordinator of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure and Evidence, said the Group had made substantial progress since her oral report last Monday. Discussions on Part 5 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence had taken place in informal consultations presided over by Sweden. The Group had completed discussions on Part 6 during informal meetings focusing on controversial points, chaired by the United Kingdom, Canada and Sweden and in which mention had been made of the participation of victims in the Court's deliberations. Rules would be drafted on participation of victims and on possible reparations.

She said the Working Group had begun discussions on Part 8, relating to appeal, on the basis of a joint document submitted by Australia and France. Discussions had begun only last Friday and would not end before the end of the current session. The Group had thus made substantial progress, but would be unable to complete its work, particularly the discussions on Parts 5 and 8.

HERMAN VON HEBEL (Netherlands), Coordinator of the Working Group on the rules of procedure relating to Elements of Crimes, said it had only two or three meetings last week. It had finished its discussions on humanitarian questions and human rights. It hoped to continue discussions on matters relating to collateral damage and the environment after this morning's plenary. He said that the informal talks within the working group had made progress, but it was still considering provisions relating to the nature of crimes. Delegations were working very hard to come up with new text on the basis of discussions, he said, adding that they remained hopeful of achieving the goals set.

MEDARD RWELAMIRA (South Africa), Coordinator for the Working Group on Part 4 of dealing with the Rules on Composition and Administration of the Court, said it had had two meetings last week. Substantial progress had been made, with the group going through all the Rules governing disciplinary measures; excuse and disqualification; organization of the various organs of the Court, including replacements; authentic texts, amendments and languages.

The Working Group, however, had not been able, he said, to finalize its discussions on the Rules governing the Office of Defence Counsels and Alternate Judges. The Group would meet in the afternoon today to take up those outstanding issues. That would be followed, he hoped, by informal consultations which should take place during the rest of the week. Part of the time would be devoted to the formulation of the first rolling text.

PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, emphasized that its work plan had been set with the expectations that the Commission would be able to meet its deadlines. He was rather concerned about the progress of the Working Groups. He understood that the work was complex and required many formal and informal negotiations. He, however, encouraged delegations to do their utmost to expedite the work. He said he was aware and encouraged by the good atmosphere and the cooperation that had inspired their joint efforts. He hoped that spirit would be maintained.

Crime of Aggression

Mr. KIRSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, said the Commission's bureau had noted with some regret that considerable time was currently being spent by delegations on organizational issues relating to the definition of aggression, to the detriment of substantive discussions on that subject.

The bureau had also noted persistent differences among delegations on some of those organizational issues, notably the principle and timing of the establishment of a working group on the definition of aggression, he went on. Essentially, some delegations felt that a working group should be established to reflect the importance of the issue and the need to make progress during the lifetime of the Preparatory Commission.

Others, he said, were not convinced that a working group should be established at this time, and were concerned that such a working group might prejudice the ability of the Preparatory Commission to complete the rules of procedure and evidence and elements of crimes by 30 June 2000, as mandated by Resolution F of the Rome Conference. (The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court was held in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998).

At the same time, Mr. KIRSCH said that delegations favouring the establishment of a working group on aggression consistently maintained that their intention was in no way to delay or hamper work towards meeting the mandatory deadlines imposed by Resolution F.

The bureau felt that those organizational issues should be resolved to facilitate the continuation of the positive atmosphere that had characterized the work of the Preparatory Commission so far, he said. The bureau had therefore attempted to devise an approach that could meet the concerns expressed by those various delegations. It was the Chairman's hope that that approach would be accepted by the Preparatory Commission without unnecessary discussion. It indeed saw that approach as a package which could not be modified without its balance. If it was not accepted, it would be withdrawn and the bureau would leave it to delegations to develop a better solution.

He said the bureau's proposals were as follows:

-- The Coordinator for the definition of aggression would remain Tuvako Manongi of the United Republic of Tanzania.

-- A working group on the definition of aggression would be established at the outset of the next session of the Preparatory Commission.

-- At the next and the following sessions of the Preparatory Commission, the plenary meetings on Mondays would be maintained but would be significantly shorter, essentially limited to brief reports by the Coordinators.

-- Each of the Monday morning plenary meetings would be followed by a meeting of the working group on a definition of aggression, until the end of the morning.

-- Informal consultations would be conducted at other times as possible and appropriate, it being understood that this should be without prejudice to the requirements of the work on subjects which must be completed by 30 June 2000. Within the limits of what was practicable, the Secretariat would endeavour to provide the best possible facilities for informal consultations.

Mr. KIRSCH said the Bureau's proposal must be based on a clear and general understanding that the arrangement would remain unchanged until 30 June 2000, and that no additional requests concerning organization of work with respect to the definition of aggression would be made before that date.

He said that the approach adopted by the bureau had so far been received favourably by delegations and that starting from this morning, further discussions on organization of work on the issue could be avoided.

* *** *