LEGAL COMMITTEE REVIEWS PROGRESS MADE IN SETTING UP WORLD CRIMINAL COURT SPEAKERS URGE AGAINST ALTERING ROME STATUTE IN QUEST FOR UNIVERSALITY

Press Release
GA/L/3114

LEGAL COMMITTEE REVIEWS PROGRESS MADE IN SETTING UP WORLD CRIMINAL COURT SPEAKERS URGE AGAINST ALTERING ROME STATUTE IN QUEST FOR UNIVERSALITY

The need for the soon-to-be-established International Criminal Court to find universal acceptance was a constant theme in this morning’s discussions in the Sixth Committee (Legal), qualified by the concern of many speakers that consensus not entail reopening negotiations on the Court’s Statute, adopted in July 1998.

The representative of Japan was one of the speakers who emphasized that the Statute, adopted at the Rome United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries, should not be touched. However, he said, those countries that still had concerns about the Statute should not be considered as “outsiders”. Japan had long stressed that the ICC must win the blessing of the international community as a whole. It was important to work out something that would enable those delegations that could not share in “the excitement of Rome” to be kept involved in the process.

The representative of Iran also urged that care be taken not to depart from the letter and spirit of the delicately crafted Rome Statute. Attempts to reopen discussion on specific subtle issues would prolong the negotiation process and might prevent the Commission from concluding other necessary preparations, he said.

Committee members were commenting on the report of the Court’s Preparatory Commission, which was introduced by its Chairman. He reviewed the progress made in drafting two key documents -– Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Elements of Crimes –- and noted the formation of a working group to consider a definition for the crime of aggression. Most speakers called for additional meetings to enable the Commission to complete its work by the 30 June 2000 deadline approved by the Rome Conference.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, was among those who saluted the Court as a new and a powerful tool to deter and punish the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, helping to bring an end to a culture of impunity and establishing individual accountability for atrocities. She said the provisions of the Rome Statute were clearly relevant to the type of armed conflicts that had become increasingly common today, in which women, children and the elderly were at the greatest risk.

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3114 11th Meeting (AM) 20 October 1999

Noting the complexities of ratification in terms of varying constitutional requirements, the Finnish speaker said that the European Union stood ready to share its ratification-related experience and expertise with interested States.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Mexico (on behalf of the Rio Group), Norway, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Australia, Colombia, Senegal, Cameroon, Russian Federation and Cyprus. The Committee also heard from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel.

The Committee will next meet tomorrow, Thursday, 21 October, at 10:00 a.m. to continue its discussion of the International Criminal Court.

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to consider action undertaken thus far by the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court in laying the groundwork for the effective functioning of the future court.

Before the Committee are two reports (documents PICNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1 and PICNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1) on the work of the Commission’s first and second sessions, which took place from 16 to 26 February 1999, and 26 July to 13 August, respectively.

The Chairman of the Commission, Philippe Kirsch (Canada), in introducing the reports this morning, is expected to review the Commission’s work to date, and to map out its future programme. The Commission is scheduled to hold a third session from 29 November to 17 December this year.

By a text (resolution F) adopted at the Rome United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of the Court (which also created the Commission), and by General Assembly resolution 53/105 of 8 December 1998, the Preparatory Commission is to finalize draft Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and Elements of Crimes, before 30 June 2000. The Conference also adopted the Court’s Statute, which requires 60 ratifications before it enters into force.

Acting on the priorities set out in its mandate, the Preparatory Commission at its two sessions focused on the two sets of rules, which are necessary for the functioning of the Court. It also considered the question of the crime of aggression.

The 13-part Rome Statute contains provisions which will empower the Court to 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.

With respect to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the report on the second session states that the Preparatory Commission concentrated on rules pertaining to the following parts of the Court’s Statute: Part 4 (Composition and Administration of the Court); Part 5 (Investigation and Prosecution); Part 6 (The Trial); and Part 8 (Appeal and Revision). Considerable progress was reportedly made by the working group on all those parts, except that dealing with composition and administration of the Court.

On the Elements of Crimes draft, the Preparatory Commission resumed consideration of the elements of war-crimes started at its first session. Substantial progress was made. Also during the second session, the Commission held informal consultations on the crime of aggression and agreed on modalities for its further discussion, including the establishment of a working group at the outset of the third session.

The Preparatory Commission took note of a number of conferences and seminars held since its first session, including an Intergovernmental Regional Caribbean Conference for the signature and ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (hosted by the Ministry of the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and the No Peace Without Foundation in Port-of-Spain) from 15 to 17 March 1999.

Highlights of the second session included an address by the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald. She said that the Tribunal’s judges recommended that the Assembly of States Parties -- provided for under the Court’s Statute -- should elect judges for the Court before considering and adopting Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

At future sessions, the Commission will also prepare proposals on a range of other measures specified in resolution F of the Final Act of the Rome Conference. Those 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. Other issues are financial regulations and rules; and an agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court.

To facilitate that work, the Preparatory Commission, at its first session, designated the following coordinators: Rolf Fife (Norway) for the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 7 (Penalties) of the Statute; Phakiso Mochochoko (Lesotho) for the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 9 (International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance); and Medard R. Rwelamira (South Africa) for the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 4 (Composition and Administration of the Court) of the Statute.

Other coordinators are: Tuvaku Manongi (United Republic of Tanzania), who is coordinating negotiations on the definition of the crime of aggression; and Hiroshi Kawamura (Japan), who is acting as contact point in respect of draft texts of financial regulations and rules, a budget for the first financial year and the rules of procedure of the Assembly of State Parties. Christian Maquiera (Chile) is the contact point for the draft texts of a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations, basic principles governing the headquarters agreement, country, and the draft on privileges and immunities.

Participation in the Preparatory Commission is open to all States that were invited to the Rome Diplomatic Conference (15 June to 17 July 1998). Representatives of relevant regional intergovernmental organizations and international bodies, including the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, may participate as observers. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also participate in the plenary and other open meetings of the Commission.

Under the Statute, the International Criminal Court will be a permanent tribunal, composed of the Presidency, an Appeals Division, Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the registry. It will have 18 judges elected by the Assembly of States parties. The prosecutor and one or more Deputy Prosecutors will be elected in the same manner.

The Court will have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once an agreement is reached over its definition. It will complement national judicial systems, assuming jurisdiction only after it determines that they are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Cases will be brought before the Court via several routes: countries that have ratified the Statute can trigger action, as can the Security Council and the Independent Prosecutor.

Also before the Sixth Committee is a 17 May 1999 letter (document A/54/98) from Bangladesh to the Secretary-General, transmitting the text of the Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the Twenty-first Century which emerged from the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, held at The Hague from 12 to 15 May 1999.

The letter states that the Conference agenda reflected the four major strands of the Hague Appeal: root causes of war; international humanitarian and human rights law and institutions; prevention, resolution and transformation of violent conflict; and disarmament and human security.

Statements

HANS CORELL, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, briefed the Committee on the Secretariat services that had been made available to the Commission pursuant to the resolutions adopted. The Secretary- General had invited as observers to the work of the Commission, representatives of regional, intergovernmental organizations, and other interested international bodies, including the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Entitled NGOs had also received copies of official documents and circulated their material to delegations. Notwithstanding financial constraints, the Secretariat had been able to provide the required services for the two sessions of the Commission, including assistance to the Commission itself and its Bureau as well as interpretation services, translation and reproduction.

Furthermore, he noted, the Secretary-General had expanded the trust-fund to facilitate the participation of the least developed countries and other developing countries. While no new contributions had been received, the fund for least developed countries continued to provide assistance. The Secretariat was currently processing 21 requests for assistance from least developed countries wishing to participate in the upcoming session.

PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, introducing the Commission’s reports, said that, from his review of its work, there was no doubt that the Commission had worked efficiently and effectively. It had made considerable progress on Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the two instruments for which there was a deadline of 30 June 2000. In addition, at its last session, the Commission had decided to establish a working group on aggression. Delegations had also been conducting consultations on the preparation of other instruments and issues under the Commission’s mandate.

Despite their hard work and tireless efforts, he said a lot of work remained to be done. To complete the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the documentation on Elements of Crime, and to effect a review of those instruments, sufficient time must be available. The Commission’s officers had concluded that in order to for the Commission to complete its work, it would need to have two more sessions in the year 2000 before the deadline of 30 June that year. Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence were complex, documents dealing with many different issues. They should be prepared with great care to ensure high quality and consistency with the Statute.

In addition to the two sessions, more time was also needed at a later stage to draft other instruments listed in resolution F and to attend to other issues on the Commission’s mandate, including that set out in General Assembly resolution 53/105. One additional session should be allotted to the Preparatory Commission before the end of the year 2000 for that purpose. He highlighted the importance the Commission’s officers attached to ensuring that its work continued in a more systematic manner beyond June 2000, to address questions such as the crime of aggression and to otherwise complete the mandate of the Commission.

He said all States had been working in a constructive and cooperative manner, and that had allowed the Commission to make speedier progress than expected on difficult issues. Nonetheless, the Commission should improve its effectiveness. The international criminal court must work fairly and effectively and be seen to act as such, in accordance with its Statute, and be widely accepted.

Mr. Kirsch said that 14 delegates from least developed countries had participated in the first session of the Preparatory Commission and 23 in the second session. That had been made possible by the support of governments that made voluntary contributions to the trust fund, and a contribution by the International Human Rights Institute of DePaul University in the United States.

MARJATTA RASI (Finland), on behalf of the European Union, said there had been forceful calls for the early establishment of the Court in recent weeks in the Security Council debates on the protection of children and civilians in armed conflict and in the general debate of the General Assembly. Recent events had highlighted the urgency of respect for international humanitarian and human rights law. The ICC would create a climate of compliance with the fundamental international rules that protected human life and dignity. Breaking the impunity and establishing individual accountability for atrocities strengthened the rule of law and contributed to making the world a more peaceful place. The provisions of the Rome Statute were clearly relevant to the type of armed conflicts that had become increasingly common today, in which women, children and the elderly were at the greatest risk.

The Rome Statute provided a delicate balance between common law and civil law traditions in criminal proceedings which served the objective of achieving full efficiency in the functioning of the future Court, she said. She underlined the importance the Statute attributed to the rights of the accused. She welcomed the emphasis on the protection and the rights of victims as well as their right to reparation and participation in proceedings.

Fully aware of the complexities of ratification in terms of varying constitutional requirements, the European Union stood ready to share its ratification-related experience and expertise with interested States. The Union had already offered financial and technical assistance to other States in relation to ICC ratification and would continue to do so, she said.

While much had been accomplished at the two sessions, much also remained to be done, she said. Two three-week meetings of the Commission should be scheduled before the target date of 30 June. Inter-sessional work also seemed warranted. A third meeting later in the year 2000 should also be scheduled to allow the Commission to pursue work on such issues as a definition of crimes of aggression.

SOCORRO FLORES LIERA (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said the adoption of the Statute had been an historical milestone in the efforts of international communities to fight impunity and strengthen the rule of justice and law. She reiterated the support of the Rio Group for the Court. The fact that 87 countries had signed the treaty and four had already ratified it was evidence of the international community’s commitment. The integrity of the Statute must be preserved, she stressed. The countries of the Rio Group were pleased at the constructive and tranquil spirit which had prevailed so far in negotiations. However, she stressed the difficulty of the tasks that still lay before the Commission, tasks which were required to be completed by June 2000.

The intersessional meetings had been helpful in facilitating the Commission’s work, she said. Despite their productivity and the major progress made, at least two more meetings would be needed for the Commission to be able to meet the agreed deadline.

ROLF EINAR FIFE (Norway) said that the adoption in Rome last year of the Statute had been a truly historic achievement. The existence of a permanent, global institution of that kind would significantly enhance deterrence of the most heinous international crimes and significantly reduce the reaction time of the international community, as compared to establishing new ad hoc tribunals.

Notwithstanding the euphoria experienced at the end of the Rome Conference, a number of challenges must yet be overcome, he said. The first leg of that race had been successfully accomplished within the framework of the Conference on 17 July last year. The next step -– the adoption of Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Elements of Crime -– must be completed by next June. The Preparatory Commission had made substantial progress. The discussions had contributed to a firmer grasp of a number of principles and rules, and thereby enhanced legal predictability. Nonetheless, a lot of work remained to be done both on the “Rules” and the “Elements”.

He expressed the hope that the positive spirit of the first two sessions of the Preparatory Commission would prevail throughout the remaining sessions and enable the Commission to fulfill its mandate in time. In that connection, it was important to ensure that the necessary focus be given in a sustained way to the issues that needed to be settled before the deadline. The final goal however –- the actual establishment of the Court –- rested entirely on a sufficient number of States ratifying the Statute. All efforts must be directed at activating domestic procedures regarding signature and ratification of the Statute.

SORAYA ALVAREZ-NUÑEZ (Cuba) said the work done at the two sessions of the Commission were of no less importance than the Rome Conference itself. The remaining issues were technical, and directly linked to the impartiality and independence of the Court. Many important subjects remained to be negotiated. The time limit should not give rise to a questioning of the methods of the Commission if the Court were to enjoy the widest possible acceptance.

The definition of crimes of aggression was one of the most immediate and important priorities of the Commission, she said. Cuba was aware that additional efforts would need to be made by all delegations if the working group on the definition were to complete its task within the given time limit. The fact this was a particularly sensitive topic did not negate the responsibility to give it top priority. Negotiations on the subject should be pursued with the same diligence as had been displayed on other difficult topics connected to the Court.

The crime of aggression was not a new crime, she continued. The international community had been struggling for decades to find a judicial definition from the standpoint of individual criminal responsibility. Cuba was willing and ready to make further contributions to the working group on the issue, which she hoped would continue to be addressed with the same constructive spirit that had been displayed at the Rome Conference.

SUH DAE-WON (Republic of Korea) said that the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes should fully respect the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute. Their contents should derive from the relevant provisions of the Statute, without any change. Any question of their interpretation and application should be consistent with the Statute. Work on them should proceed in a manner that enhanced the independent and effective functioning of the Court.

He welcomed the decision of the Preparatory Commission to establish a working group on the crimes of aggression. Aggression was the gravest of all crimes against peace and security. As his country had throughout its history experienced the agony of aggression, it had a legitimate interest in the elaboration of the definition and elements of that crime.

Priority should first be given to the work on drafting the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes as provided for in Resolution F, he said. At the same time, delegations should maintain momentum in preparing proposals for the definition and elements of the crime of aggression. Constructive cooperation and a spirit of compromise should guide deliberations on contentious issues.

HIROSHI KAWAMURA (Japan) recalled the excitement at the moment of adoption of the Rome Statute, saying the establishment of a permanent international criminal court had been an aspiration of the international community since the beginning of the twentieth century. Rome, however, represented only one step towards the goal of an effective, credible and functioning court.

The Elements of Crimes text was vital to the proper functioning of the Court, he said, since it would guide the Court in applying the Statute. There should be as much clarification as possible of crimes not specifically defined in the Statute. Moreover, consistency with existing laws of armed conflict should be maintained in elaborating the elements of crimes. For example, the law of naval warfare tended to be neglected, yet required serious consideration. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence were also of vital importance, since they were used in the day-to-day business of the Court. While the rights of victims were duly stressed, not enough attention was being paid to the rights of suspects or the accused. “My delegation has no intention of trying to weaken the Statute, but we are not allowed to violate human rights in the name of international justice.”

Financial rules and regulations were the cornerstone of the Court since it would not be able to function without the proper financial basis, he went on. Delegations that had concerns about the Statute could not be ignored. “We should not consider them as a kind of outsider.” Japan had long stressed the importance of having the ICC win the blessing of the international community as a whole. Countries that did not support the adoption of the Statute should be kept involved in the discussions. However, Japan had no intention of reopening the debate on the Statute, which must remain untouchable. “What is important is for us to try to work out seriously something that would enable those delegations that could not share the excitement of Rome to join with us within the actual framework of the Rome Statute.”

CATE STEAINS (Australia) said there was every reason to believe that the Court would make a material difference to the conduct of human affairs. It should be an incentive to nations to honour their commitments and obligations under international law to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The adoption of the Statute was not the end of the story. Important details of the Court’s operation remained to be dealt with. Accordingly, the Commission’s work should, therefore, continue to be accorded a high priority on the Sixth Committee’s agenda. Australia envisaged three sessions, each of three weeks’ duration, being required next year in order for the Preparatory Commission to be able to carry out its mandate.

Australia welcomed the fact that 88 States had now signed the International Criminal Court’s Statute, and encouraged others to follow suit. South Pacific Forum countries were committed to the goal of becoming parties to the Statute. Their domestic treaty procedures required them, among other things, to have the implementing legislation in place before they could move to formal ratification. They consequently saw merit in the possibility of developing, on a regional basis, model legislation that could be adapted to the individual needs of countries. Technical assistance would be required to facilitate the necessary legislative processes in many small countries.

She said the adoption of the Rome Statute represented the international community’s recognition of the injustice suffered by the many thousands of victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and of the need to end the culture of impunity. It also represented a firm commitment to strive for justice and respect for human rights in the future. The establishment of the Court was urgently needed as events in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda had reminded States. Expeditious completion of the Preparatory Commission’s mandate, and the Statute’s entry into force, would be the most effective way of reinforcing the message that the international community was committed to deterring potential perpetrators of international crimes.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia) said his country considered the protection of victims and witnesses, and their participation in the Court’s proceedings, as well as payment of reparations to victims, to be of particular importance. The administration of justice did not end at the imposition of punishment.

He stressed that the issue of keeping children away from armed conflict was also very important, because of their particular vulnerability.

Colombia was promoting a number of legislative initiatives in anticipation of creating a domestic legislative framework for implementing the Rome Statute once it was ratified. He welcomed the decision to establish a working group on the definition of the crime of aggression, observing that the process of arriving at a definition was extremely problematic.

SAEID MIRZAEI YENGEJEH (Iran) said the Commission should prepare a long-term programme of work to ensure that it discharged all its assignments within its lifespan. It must take into account the concerns of all delegations in order to facilitate universal adherence to the future Court. However, care should be taken not to depart from the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute, which had been so delicately crafted. Attempts to reopen discussion on specific subtle issues would prolong the negotiation process and might prevent the Commission from finalizing the Draft Rules of Procedure and the Elements of Crimes by the due date.

The Commission had managed to prepare elements for 37 out of 48 war crimes that fell under its jurisdiction, he said. That had been done despite the fact that some elements did not exist in the criminal codes of many countries. That work would greatly assist the judges of the future Court. However, proposals relating to direct or indirect modification of the Statute should be set aside and considered later by a review conference. Concerning the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, he said that if the working group adopted a flexible approach and did not engage in unnecessarily detailed drafting exercises, it would be able to accomplish its task on schedule.

He underscored the importance of a definition of aggression, saying that progress on that topic would undoubtedly encourage ratification of the Statute by many States. He welcomed the decision to establish a working group. The Commission should strike a delicate balance between the responsibilities of the Security Council on the one hand, and the independence of the ICC on the other. There should be a clear provision empowering the Court to render judgement if the Security Council failed to fulfill its mandate.

IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said his country had welcomed the adoption of the Rome Statute, which represented the rejection of impunity. It was in that spirit that Senegal had participated, at the highest level, in the campaign of “No Peace Without Justice”, and had also been the first country to ratify the Statute.

Much remained to be done before the Court’s establishment could be completed, he noted. The difficulty of the negotiations reflected the efforts that still had to be mobilized. A dynamic compromise between different legal systems was required for the Court’s structure and mechanism to take shape. The rights of victims must be recognized and guaranteed. The judges should be given room to manoeuvre.

He hoped it would be possible for work to begin soon on the difficult question of the crime of aggression. Delegations had no choice but to move ahead on the road to the establishment of the Court, and to correct the mistakes of the past, he said.

MARTIN BELINGA EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said the signing of the Final Act of the Rome Conference had given immense hope to Member States. Its realization meant adherence to the Statute. That was all the more necessary as thousands of innocent women and children were becoming victims of conflicts and other forms of violence.

On the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Cameroon appreciated the high quality of work done by the coordinators. It was important that the requirements of a fair trial were observed, as well as respect for the rights of the accused. He hoped that with the necessary political will, a consensus could be achieved. The Preparatory Commission must operate within the mandate laid out in the Statute. Cameroon supported its methodology. In defining crimes, account should be taken of international humanitarian law.

With regard to the crime of aggression, he drew attention to a proposal his country had introduced. Ways of strengthening cooperation between the Court and the Security Council should be found, as the two bodies would need each other. He welcomed plans to establish a working group on the crime of aggression. Cameroon was ready to work towards the achievement of a consensus. Finally, he urged the Legal Counsel to continue his efforts to complete work on the publication of the final version of the Statute, incorporating the changes proposed by delegations.

VLADIMIR TARABRIN (Russian Federation) said the process of establishing the ICC was gaining momentum. He reiterated his country’s support for the Statute; although it was not a perfect document, it contained the essentials needed for the intended purpose of helping to maintain international peace and security. The approach taken in the current work of the Commission, which would determine the future of the Court and its acceptance by the international community, struck the same balance that had been apparent at Rome.

The ICC could only function effectively if it could count on support from the entire international community, he said. He took note of the efforts being undertaken by countries to pave the way for their participation in the Rome Statute. Turning to the specific topic of a definition of crimes of aggression, he noted that there would soon be a working group to begin work on a draft definition. His country intended to be guided by the norms of current international law in its approach to that task. Acts of aggression constituted a violation of peace and security. As Member States, through the Charter, had placed the major responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security with the Security Council, the Court would be entitled to act only after the Council had decided that aggression had occurred.

Based on the constructive spirit prevailing on the part of participants, he anticipated that a draft would be agreed upon and prepared by the deadline of June 2000. He expressed satisfaction with the progress achieved so far on the Elements of Crimes. He attached great importance to the condition that the Elements be in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. The draft Elements so far met that requirement. However, several outstanding issues remained; continued discussions were needed.

ANDREAS JACOVIDES (Cyprus) said his country had been an early and eager advocate of the ICC as an instrument of deterrence and punishment. Cyprus intended to ratify the Rome Statute as soon as possible. It was committed to the realization of an effective and functioning Court, working in close connection with the United Nations.

The Commission faced considerable challenges and needed two three- week meetings to complete its task, he said. While Cyprus was prepared to cooperate in reaching a common position on the Elements of Crime, elements relating to the Statute’s article on populations in occupied territories should be elaborated in a manner that fully respected the letter and spirit of the well-balanced provisions of the Statute.

He urged that the Court be established and fully functional at the earliest date and appealed for the widest possible participation of States.

* *** *