PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CONCLUDES SECOND SESSION AT HEADQUARTERS, 26 JULY - 13 AUGUST

Press Release
L/2933

PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CONCLUDES SECOND SESSION AT HEADQUARTERS, 26 JULY - 13 AUGUST

The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court this afternoon concluded its three-week second session with a call by its Chairman for goodwill and more flexibility to meet the 30 June 2000 deadline for completing work on rules of procedure and evidence and on elements of crimes. That deadline was set by a resolution of the Rome United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the establishment of the International Criminal Court and reinforced by the General Assembly.

Philippe Kirsch (Canada), the Chairman, while expressing satisfaction with the positive and constructive atmosphere in which the Commission's work had been conducted, noted that it had exhausted 65 per cent of its allotted time but had completed only 45 per cent of its work.

Concerned at the very slow pace of progress on Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 4 of the Statute, he said that the Commission's work involved reconciliation of diverse national interests and preferences, in addition to being technically complicated.

Also this afternoon, Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi (Argentina), Coordinator of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and Herman van Hebel (Netherlands), Coordinator of the Working Group on the Elements of Crimes, reported further progress on their work. Medard Rwelamira (South Africa), Coordinator on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence related to Part 4 of the Rome Statute (composition and administration of the Court), also gave a report.

The Preparatory Commission took note of a draft report on the work of its second session, which was introduced by Salah Suheimat (Jordan), the Rapporteur.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the United Kingdom and Oman.

ICC Preparatory Commission - 1a - Press Release L/2933 8th Meeting (PM) 13 August 1999

The Commission also heard a statement by the Attorney-General of Kenya, in which he announced that his country had become the eighty-fourth signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Under-Secretary- General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell, also spoke.

Outlining the provisional work plan for the Commission's next session, the Chairman said it would be formally approved at the commencement of the next session in November and adjusted as required throughout that session.

The Preparatory Commission is laying the groundwork for the efficient functioning of the Court, which will begin work with the ratification of its Statute by 60 countries. So far only 4 States have done so -- Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy.

The Preparatory Commission is scheduled to hold its third and last session for 1999, also at Headquarters, from 29 November to 17 December.

ICC Preparatory Commission - 2 - Press Release L/2933 8th Meeting (PM) 13 August 1999

Statement by Attorney-General of Kenya

S. AMOS WAKO, Attorney-General of Kenya, said his country had participated actively in the negotiations leading up to the adoption of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, a truly historic milestone in the progressive development of international law. It had signalled the establishment of a legal basis for individual criminal responsibility for crimes which the international community recognized as being both serious and of grave concern. Impunity for perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression could no longer go unpunished or be justified. A permanent International Criminal Court, applying penal laws and establishing sanctions fashioned by all Member States was a remarkable achievement in which all must take pride, particularly in view of the divergent political, philosophical and legal systems.

He said that as a result of the existence of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, based in the neighbouring United Republic of Tanzania, Kenya had observed from very close quarters the absolute utility and necessity of establishing forums where perpetrators of crimes, which not only affected combatants and civilians in conflicts of international and non-international nature but spilled over to neighbouring countries, could be brought to justice. To that end, Kenya would continue to give the Tribunal its full support and cooperation.

Kenya recognized that the existence of peace, security and stability would render an International Criminal Court superfluous, he said. However, that was not the objective reality. Kenya noted with interest that the ad hoc tribunals had already had a positive impact on the work relating to the elaboration of elements of sexual crimes in the Statute, including a clear definition of rape as a war crime.

He said that on 11 August Kenya had become the eighty-fourth State to sign the Rome Statute, testimony that it supported in principle the establishment of the International Criminal Court as soon as possible. The general acceptance of international human rights standards reflected the fact that humanity as a whole had shared values and norms to which the Court would give effect. The Rome Statute would ensure that the new world moral order, reflecting the reality that the world was truly a global village, prevailed.

Other Statements

PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada), the Commission Chairman, noted that the Commission had exhausted the three weeks allotted for its second session. It was now time to take stock of what it had accomplished. He invited the various Coordinators to brief the plenary on the work of their respective Working Groups. SILVIA FERNANDEZ DE GURMENDI (Argentina), Coordinator for the Working Group on Rules of Procedure and Evidence, said that it discussed in depth rules relating to Part 6 (The Trial), which includes the rights of the accused and protection, and Part 8 (Appeal and Revision). She said the Working Group could not complete its objective of drafting rules regarding Parts 5, 6 and 8. However, it made substantive and satisfactory progress as a result of the work done both informally and in exchange of views among delegations. It was able to draft many rules related to Parts 5 and 6 of the Statute and some others relating to Part 8. She said that the results appear in the discussion papers and a revised text proposed by the Coordinator.

New documents to be submitted for discussion at the next session were:

-- PCNICC/1999/WGRPE/RT.6; -- PCNICC/1999/WGRPE/RT.5/Rev.1 Add.1 & Corr.1 adds.2 & 3; -- PCNICC/1999/WGRPE/RT.7.

She said the wording of a section of document RT.5/Rev.1 needed further consideration.

MEDARD RWELAMIRA (South Africa), Coordinator on Rules of Procedure and Evidence related to Part 4 of the Statute, said the Group had held a comprehensive discussion of the four main categories, namely: situations that may affect the functioning of the Court; organization of the Court; defence, counsel and witnesses; and texts and languages, amendments and solemn undertakings. The discussion had revolved around relevant provisions contained in proposals by delegations. At the end of the general discussions, the Working Group had turned to informal consultations, divided into three clusters.

He said that consultations on the first cluster -- situations that may affect the functioning of the Court -- had materialized into a paper that would be a basis for discussion and which had been circulated under the symbol PCNICC/1999/WGRPE(4)/RT.1. That document constituted a measure of progress in carrying out the Working Group's mandate and would facilitate the resumption of its work at the Preparatory Commission's next session. It was hoped that delegations would show more flexibility in their positions during the next session so as to facilitate more tangible progress than had been achieved during the present one. Consultations on the other areas indicated -- aspects on the organization of the Court -- would continue into the next session.

HERMAN VAN HEBEL (Netherlands), Coordinator of the Working Group on the Elements of Crimes, in his oral report, said that it held 10 meetings, from 26 July to 12 August. It had before it several proposals in addition to those introduced at the Commission's first session last February. The latest

proposals were contained in documents PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.8 to DP.27; and PCNICC/1999/WGEC/INF.2 and Adds.1-2.

He said the Working Group resumed consideration of the elements of War Crimes, article 8 of the Statute, that began at the first session, but was not completed. To facilitate the discussion, the remaining provisions of the article were divided into nine clusters because of the possible commonality of their elements.

Taking into account the views expressed in the Working Group and in informal consultations, as well as proposals by governments, he had proposed the following discussion papers for consideration at the next session of the Preparatory Commission.

The documents are:

-- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4 on elements of article 8(2)(a); -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.5/Rev.1 on elements of article 8(2)(c); -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.6 on elements of article 8(2)(b)(xxii); -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.7 on elements of article 8(2)(b)(xiii-(xvi) and (xxvi); -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.8 on elements of article 8(2)(b)(x) and (xxi); -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.9 on elements of article 8(2)(b)(i)-(iii); and -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.10 on elements of article 8(2)(b)(vi), (vii), (xi) and (xii); -- PCNICC/1999/WGEC/INF.3 containing a compilation of proposals by governments on elements of article 8(2)(b)(viii).

Mr. VAN HEBEL said that while the Working Group had a general discussion on the elements of all the crimes contained in article 8, there was not sufficient time for the Coordinator to prepare discussion papers on the elements of all the provisions of War Crimes.

He said that substantial progress was made on article 8 (War Crimes). Further consideration of the article was required at the Working Group's next session to ensure the formulation of generally acceptable elements of crimes contained in article 8, as part of a complete set of elements of crimes for all crimes laid down in the Court's Statute.

Mr. KIRSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, said that he was encouraged by the reports of the Coordinators. He expressed satisfaction with the positive and the constructive atmosphere in which delegations conducted the Commission's work. However, he was rather concerned with the very slow pace of progress on Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 4 of the Statute. He encouraged delegations to be more flexible in their views and to take account of the fact that concerns of others should also be addressed. No one doubted the complexities of the task before the Preparatory Commission. The work was not only technically complicated, but also involved reconciliation of diverse national interests and preferences.

Reaching agreement on a common text therefore rested not only on technical expertise but also depended, to a large extent, on the goodwill and affirmative predisposition of the negotiators, he said. The positive environment of the work made his task as the Chairman, and Commission's bureau easier and more pleasant. He trusted that work would be continued in the same manner.

He noted that the Preparatory Commission was behind in its work plan. It had exhausted 65 per cent of time allotted to it but had completed only 45 per cent of its work. He emphasized that meeting the deadline of 30 June 2000 set by the Rome Conference and by the General Assembly was a shared obligation. He urged delegations to continue to consult on the remaining issues and to find ways of making progress.

He drew attention to document PCNICC/1999/L.4 on proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its second session, which was a record, he said, of their "collective memories of important issues addressed at the session".

SALAH SUHEIMAT (Jordan), Rapporteur of the Preparatory Commission, then introduced document PCNICC/1999/L.4 on proceedings of the Preparatory Commission's second session.

The Preparatory Commission then took note of the draft summary by the Rapporteur.

Statement by Legal Counsel

HANS CORELL, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, said that a certified true copy of the Statute had been issued by the Depository in October 1998. It had soon emerged that corrections had to be made. Proposals for corrections had been accepted without objection. The question now arose whether a consolidated version of the certified true copy should be issued incorporating the corrections.

He said that as he had offered during the Preparatory Commission's last session, a version of the Statute had been posted on the Internet reflecting all the corrections contained in the note circulated by the Depositary, first in September 1998, and again in May 1999. There were further proposals for corrections in two languages, which would have to be circulated. Delegations were asked to make a final check to ensure the language texts were free of errors so that there would be no further need to circulate corrections. A consolidated version in all six languages would be circulated once the present set of proposals for correction had been circulated and the time for objections had expired.

ELIZABETH WILMSHURT (United Kingdom) said that while her delegation appreciated the availability of the Internet version, national parliaments would appreciate a text that looked more official. She asked for a clearer idea of when the consolidated version would be available.

Mr. CORELL said that an information document would be issued in a few days. As soon as the time limit had expired for objections to the third round of corrections, a new consolidated version of the true and certified document would be made available.

Work Plan for Next Session

Mr. KIRSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, outlined the provisional work plan of the Commission which would be formally approved at the commencement of the Commission's next session in November. The work plan would be adjusted as required throughout that session. It addressed only formal meetings, he said, adding that there would be plenary meetings on Mondays followed by the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. The work plan had been prepared with the hope of having a complete first reading of the two priority instruments: the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes by the end of the next session.

He paid tribute to his colleagues on the Commission's bureau and the Coordinators for their cooperation, support and advice. He also thanked delegations for the "really positive and constructive manner" by which they conducted the work of the session. He expressed gratitude for their support and trust.

HILAL AL-BUSAIDI (Oman), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said its members had approached the work of the Commission with an open mind and a constructive spirit to ensure its success. The Group was alarmed at the delays in the discussion of some topics resulting in their being referred to the next session, and thus imposing new burdens on its work. Those topics should be discussed at the beginning of the next session, he said.

He also said that preparation of the Arabic versions of documents should be placed on the same footing as the other official languages.

He paid tribute to the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for his diplomatic skills which had contributed to the progress of the Commission's work to date.

Future Sessions

Issues the Commission will consider at future sessions include a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations; and the basic principles governing a headquarters agreement to be negotiated between the Court and the Government of the Netherlands, which will host the Court. Other questions are financial regulations and rules; the rules of procedure of the Assembly of States Parties; and an agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court.

Highlights of Session

During the just concluded session, the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, told the Preparatory Commission that the rules of the future Court must address the actual circumstances and cases that it confronted on a daily basis for it to have credibility. She said that one of the most important lessons the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had learned was on the role judges played in the rule-making process. To avoid repetition, and in a spirit of cooperation, the judges of the Tribunal were recommending that the Assembly of States Parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court elect judges before considering and adopting rules of procedure and evidence.

The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, Remesh Lawrena Maharaj, also addressed the Preparatory Commission, stating that it was the international community's collective responsibility to ensure the reality and success of the future International Criminal Court.

Participation in the Preparatory Commission is open to all States that were invited to the Rome Conference, including those that have not yet signed the Statute. Representatives of relevant regional intergovernmental organizations and international bodies, including the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, may participate as observers. Representatives of non-governmental organizations may also participate in the plenary and other open meetings of the Commission.

The 13-part Rome Statute contains some key provisions covering jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over internal armed conflicts; a well-defined and limited role for the Security Council in certain circumstances; and issues concerning gender and children. The Court will be a permanent international tribunal that would investigate and bring to justice individuals, not States, who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including widespread murder of civilians, torture and mass rape. It will have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once an agreement is reached over its definition. The Court will be complementary to national judicial systems, assuming jurisdiction only after it determines that they are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

The Court will be presided over by 18 judges from 18 different countries. It will have an Independent Prosecutor elected through secret ballot by States that have ratified the Statute. Cases will be brought before the Court via several routes; countries that have ratified the Statute can trigger action, as can the United Nations Security Council and the Independent Prosecutor.

Officers

Officers of the Preparatory Commission are Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman; Muhamed Sacirbey (Bosnia and Herzegovina), George Winston McKenzie (Trinidad and Tobago) and Medard Rwellamira (South Africa), Vice-Chairmen; and Salah Suheimat (Jordan), Rapporteur.

* *** *