SPEAKERS IN LEGAL COMMITTEE URGE EARLY RATIFICATION OF ROME STATUTE SO THAT INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CAN BEGIN WORK

Press Release
GA/L/3115

SPEAKERS IN LEGAL COMMITTEE URGE EARLY RATIFICATION OF ROME STATUTE SO THAT INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CAN BEGIN WORK

Southern African States Offer to Share Expertise With Respect to Implementing Legislation

As Sixth Commitee (Legal) members urged States to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as possible, to enable the Court to begin functioning, southern African speakers drew attention to a “ratification kit” developed by legal experts from their region.

Describing the Court as clearly one of the most important items on the agenda of the international community, the representative of Lesotho said the challenge for signatories of the Statute was to transform the Court from promise to reality by ratifying it. Sixty ratifications are required for the Statute to enter into force. So far, only four of the 88 States that signed the Statute in Rome, at last year’s Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, have gone on to complete the ratification process.

The representative of Lesotho also drew attention to the fact that the trust fund set up to enable the representatives of least developed countries to participate in the work of the Court’s Preparatory Commission was sufficiently depleted that their costs were no longer being fully covered. He warned that this would stand in the way of the universality the Commission’s work demanded, and urged States to make voluntary contributions to replenish the fund.

The representative of Mozambique, speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), said that an SADC conference held in Pretoria three months ago had prepared a kit that was designed to assist the countries of the region in bringing their domestic legislation into line with the Rome Statute. The South African representative offered to share information on the kit with committee members.

The representatives of Pakistan and Hungary both stressed that the work of the Court must complement rather than supplant domestic legal mechanisms. The representative of South Africa recalled that experts at the Pretoria conference had felt that extraterritorial jurisdiction should be given to national courts in respect of the crimes referred to in the Statute.

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3115 12th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1999

As the Committee continued discussion of the reports of the Preparatory Commission, speakers welcomed that body’s plans to establish a working group to define the crime of aggression. Representatives of Ghana and Venezuela reaffirmed the validity of the definition adopted by the General Assembly in 1974, in resolution 3314 (XXIX), and urged that the Commission be guided by its terms.

The representatives of Egypt and Saudi Arabia expressed concern that, in its definition of crimes, the Commission not depart from previous texts with regard to the movement of populations in occupied territories. The Egyptian speaker said that it was a serious violation, as provided for in the Rome Statute, for an occupying Power to relocate populations to allow for settlements. Neither the Statute nor international law in general required that any additional conditions, other than the transfers of population, be demonstrated. She drew attention to proposals submitted by the Arab States on this subject, and urged that its further consideration in the Preparatory Commission not be politicized. Statements were also made by the representatives of San Marino, Ecuador, Canada, Croatia, Brazil, Czech Republic and Ghana.

The Committee will meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its discussion of the International Criminal Court.

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to continue its discussion of progress made by the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, which was established by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Rome, 1998) to prepare for the establishment and coming into operation of the Court.

The Committee has before it reports of the proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its first and second sessions in 1999 (documents PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1 and L.4/Rev.1). At its first two session, the Preparatory Commission focused on drafting two instruments necessary for the functioning of the Court -- the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes. With regard to the latter, the Preparatory Commission concentrated on the elements of war crimes. It also held informal consultations on the crime of aggression, and agreed that at its next session (29 November to 17 December), it would set up a working group to work out a definition of that crime.

(For further details, see Press Release GA/L/3114 of 20 October.)

Statements

CRISTIANO DOS SANTOS (Mozambique), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), recalled a SADC Conference on the Statute of the International Criminal Court held in Pretoria in July, at which issues relating to the ratification of the Court’s Statute had been discussed. Participants had adopted a “ratification kit” meant to assist them in promulgating legislation to give effect to the Rome Statute. The SADC countries recognized the important role non-governmental organizations (NGOs) played in the adoption of the Statute and believed their advisory role would be critical to the ratification process.

He said that SADC member States attached great importance to safeguarding the integrity of the Rome Statute, and had pledged to work with others to ensure the timely completion of the mandate of the Preparatory Commission. They were grateful to the countries that had contributed to the trust fund established by the General Assembly to facilitate the participation of least developed and developing countries, including some of their members, in the work of the Commission. They urged all countries to contribute generously to the trust fund to ensure universal participation in the Commission’s work.

Concluding, he said that the SADC countries believed that a fully operational International Criminal Court would contribute greatly to bringing an end to the systematic violations of international humanitarian law and human rights that characterized the world today.

ENRICA TADDEI (San Marino), noting that her country had been one of the first to ratify the Rome Statute, called on other States to do so as soon as possible, so that the Statute could achieve the 60 ratifications necessary to allow the Court to begin its work, which was needed today more than ever.

She thanked Trinidad and Tobago for hosting a regional conference in the Caribbean for the signature and ratification of the Statute. She also thanked France for having organized an international seminar on victims’ access to the Court, and Italy for hosting an informal intersessional meeting. She expressed appreciation to the United Nations for its briefing sessions on ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute. She welcomed the establishment of the trust fund for the participation of least developed countries in the work of the Commission.

She said the definition of the crime of aggression required careful consideration. Nevertheless, the difficulty of that task should not be an obstacle to the completion of work by June 2000. The international community must be prepared to expect initially a certain degree of uncertainty in the functioning of the Court, as was the case with any new initiative. If there were global agreement on the goal, which was to create an international court that would pursue the perpetrators of the worst crimes, the ways to make that goal a reality must be found.

LAMIA MEKHEMA (Egypt) expressed concern over the form and substance of the comments included with the Elements of Crimes text. Egypt would like those comments deleted, as well as proposals defining the mental elements of crimes. She said the Statute's provisions in that regard were sufficient.

She said it was a grave breach of international humanitarian law and a serious violation, as provided for in the Statute, for an occupying Power to relocate populations to allow for settlements. Neither the Statute nor international law in general required that any additional conditions, other than the transfers of populations, be demonstrated. Proposals adding conditions contravened the terms of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and of the Statute. The proposals submitted by Arab States on the question represented the letter and spirit of the Statute. Egypt hoped the next session of the Preparatory Commission would deal with that issue objectively; she regretted attempts to politicize it.

Egypt welcomed plans to establish a working group on the crime of aggression. It was concerned that the Preparatory Commission should meet the deadline set for completion of its work on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Elements of Crimes. Priority should be given to the crime of aggression once the Commission had completed work on those instruments. A step-by-step approach should be taken to defining that crime. She also said that the working groups on the composition and administration of the Court and on rules of procedure should take account of existing legal systems. The integrity of the Statute must be maintained.

MARCELO VAZQUEZ (Ecuador) said that as the world struggled to deal with increasing conflicts, in which the most basic of human rights were trampled and the most dreadful crimes were perpetrated, the United Nations had proved, through the establishment of the Court, that it could act effectively in response to those threats. Much progress had been achieved by the Commission, yet much also remained to be done. He supported the proposal for two additional meetings to be held in the first half of 2000 to complete work by June. Another meeting in the latter half of 2000 might also be necessary to deal with such other issues, such as defining the crime of aggression. In defining elements of crime, the Commission should be guided by the provisions of the Rome Statute as adopted.

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence, should be drafted with the aim of facilitating the administration of justice and ensuring principles of due process, he said. At the same time, the Commission should avoid including unwieldy provisions that would unnecessarily slow the work of the Court. An important step had been taken with the establishment of the working group on a definition of the crime of aggression. It was a difficult undertaking, but not beyond reach.

Ecuador had signed the Rome Statute and was in the process of carrying out domestic consultations for its ratification, he noted. Once those consultations had run their course, which could be in a few more days, the Statute would be referred to the Congress for ratification.

JOHN HOLMES (Canada) said that in recent years, the international community had witnessed some dramatic developments, demonstrating an extraordinary awakening to the persistent problem of impunity. That awakening had been accompanied by a reinvigorated willingness to bring transgressors to justice, embrace new ways of thinking about accountability and accord issues of justice a higher priority in policies. The International Criminal Court was a prime example of the newfound commitment and a compelling illustration of the willingness of States to work collectively to put the security of individuals at the centre of world affairs.

The adoption of the Rome Statute illustrated that human security and

national security were not contradictory but mutually supportive, he

continued. Improving the human security of individuals helped to strengthen

the legitimacy, stability and long-term security of a State. Canada had

worked hard to ensure that the momentum on establishing the Court was

maintained, he said. Recognizing that the ratification process was not

simple, Canada was actively sharing with other countries its expertise on

difficult technical issues.

Once the work on the Rules and Elements was completed, efforts would have to be redoubled on other priorities, such as defining the crime of aggression, he said. He expressed the hope that the General Assembly would provide the Commission with the necessary mandate, time and resources to ensure completion of its work.

IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) underlined the importance of the principles of universal jurisdiction in the protection of international humanitarian law. There was a long path towards achievement of the universal application of that body of law. The establishment of tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda had been important steps. He noted that their creation had raised the question of selective justice, and welcomed efforts to ensure that identical standards for respect of international humanitarian law were observed all over the world. The universality of the International Criminal Court was one of its strongest characteristics, and it would enable it to operate in a more consistent way towards all members of the international community.

Croatia had demonstrated its commitment to a universal criminal court by signing the Court’s Statute on 12 October 1998, he said. The ratification process would begin in the near future.

He stressed the need for rules that were clear and unequivocal, and would prevent the need for amendments. Legal standards of due process – consistent with the world’s existing legal systems -- should be built into the rules.

JAMSHED HAMID (Pakistan) said the Court would have a deterrent effect, forcing at least some of those tempted to commit atrocities to think twice. People planning truly heinous crimes would know that the international community would eventually hold them accountable. Victims and their families would also be able to come to terms with their painful past and embark upon a process of mental reconciliation, knowing that those who committed the atrocities had been brought to justice. A sovereign State would be failing in its duty if it permitted crimes covered by the Statute to go unpunished. For that reason, the principle of complementarity was the cornerstone of the Court’s jurisdiction.

Reiterating his support for a strong and effective Court, he said his country’s main concerns related to provisions that had the potential of impinging on State sovereignty. The Court should complement and not supplant national legal systems. In Rome, Pakistan had sought to make the Court effective and independent within the spheres of its jurisdiction. However, there were still a number of provisions that tended to undermine the basic principle of complementarity. As examples, he cited the prosecutor’s role in initiating investigations, the Security Council’s ability to initiate proceedings through referral, and the possibility for challenging a trial conducted by a State.

He welcomed the establishment of a working group on definition of the

crime of aggression. Although it was a complex task, with understanding and

goodwill, the difficulties could be overcome.

PAULO DA FONTOURA (Brazil) said the fact that almost 90 countries had already signed the Rome Statute was an eloquent indication of the firm determination of the international community to see the Court in action as soon as possible. Brazil had hosted a seminar for jurists and legal experts at the beginning of October, to speed up and enrich discussions on the Rome Statute. The valuable lessons and conclusions of that meeting in which a United Nations representative had participated, would help his Government to sign the Statute and present it for ratification.

The barbaric acts that had taken place in Kosovo and East Timor served as an admonition and a challenge, he said. The international community must strengthen its resolve not to allow a recurrence of such events.

During the next session of the Commission, it was important to develop a consensus formula that struck a balance between the legitimate aim of discouraging flagrant and massive violations, and the prudence and caution that were indispensable to the rule of law. He welcomed the establishment of a working group on the crime of aggression, saying that the international community was better off dealing with that complex and controversial issue sooner rather than later.

JIRI MALENOVSKY (Czech Republic) underlined the importance of having a universal international criminal court. States that did not support the Court's Statute should not be excluded from work on its establishment. He noted the significant progress made in the elaboration of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. His Government appreciated the constructive atmosphere that prevailed in the search for consensus on the texts of individual rules. The procedural part of the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence did not focus only on the traditional principles of fair trial, but also tried to afford justice to victims of crimes. That was what distinguish the Court from its predecessors.

Although the Preparatory Commission still had difficult tasks before it, he hoped outstanding issues could be completed before 30 June 2000. The remaining time allotted should suffice if the Commission continued its work with the same commitment and discipline shown thus far.

The Czech Republic was currently evaluating the implications of the Rome Statute for its domestic law, and the legislative measures required for the Statute's implementation. The relevant Government organs would do their best to ensure that the State became a party.

ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) said that ratification of the Rome Statute would not require radical changes in his country’s legal system. More flexibility in the work of the Preparatory Commission could facilitate the timely accomplishment of its tasks. He was concerned that the Commission had focused mostly on technical distinctions in its discussions relating to war crimes of rape, sexual slavery and enforced prostitution. Commission members should keep in mind that that the Court, by definition, was a complementary tool to national judicial bodies in the fight against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

While calling for the preservation of the integrity of the Court, he said its effectiveness and credibility would ultimately be attained through its genuine acceptance. The Preparatory Commission seemed the most appropriate forum, in which, to narrow differences on the Statute. Hungary supported the extension of the Commission’s sessions to ensure the completion of its tasks.

Hungary’s preparation for the practical implementation of the Rome Statute included a conference on ratification held in Budapest from 1 to 2 October 1999. The conference, organized by the Constitutional and Legal Policy Institute in cooperation with the Central European University, had been attended by representatives of a number of international NGOs including the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. Participants had shared information on specific issues related to the ratification process in Europe, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The possible frameworks for cooperation in criminal matters, extradition and the issue of immunities had also been discussed.

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDEÑO (Venezuela) emphasized the importance of national dissemination efforts that would underscore the value of the Court’s having come into being. Civil society could play an important role in that regard. Finishing the remaining tasks before the Commission would allow those countries that had been waiting to sign the Statute, to do so in the near future. A functioning Court would end the climate of impunity for the horrendous crimes that regrettably continued to be committed in various parts of the world. The elaboration of the Elements of Crimes was a fundamental step in the functioning of the Court. Significant progress had been made on that subject.

Likewise, a definition of crime of aggression, in which its constituent elements were spelled out, would facilitate the work of the new Court, he said. He expressed satisfaction at the establishment of a working group on the subject. In its deliberations, the working group should take into account General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) [by which the Assembly adopted without a vote a detailed definition of aggression] which, although political in nature, contained important elements that could guide the group’s work on a definition. The working group must also take account of the evolution of international doctrine to arrive at an adequate and widely accepted definition.

Concerning the Rules of Procedure, he urged countries to show the utmost flexibility. The Rome Statute was and must continue to be the fundamental text that served as the underpinning for the Court is operation. Any instruments or decisions adopted subsequently should be compatible and consistent with that text. A flexible attitude was necessary to bring the Court into being. He urged countries to pause and reflect on their positions.

ALBERT HOFFMAN (South Africa) requested that, in the light of the enormous amount of work that remained to be done by the June deadline, there be further meetings of the Commission convened. South Africa and the other members of SADC considered the establishment of the Court a priority. The recent events in East Timor and the civil conflicts in Burundi, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, where civilians were being specifically targetted, underscored the urgency of bringing the Court into operation. “The efforts to establish an International Criminal Court must not be another dormant humanitarian effort.” States must begin to put in motion their national mechanisms for ratification of the Court Statute.

He drew attention to the conference of SADC legal experts which his country had hosted, and to the model ratification kit it had produced. Participants had felt that the Statute would have to be attached as a schedule to the implementing legislation that respective national parliaments were going to approve. The kit provided for the International Criminal Court to sit in the ratifying State’s national territory, and for persons who committed any of the crimes specified in the Statute outside the national territory to be prosecuted and punished for their crime in the national courts, on the same basis as if the crime had been committed within the territory. The SADC experts had felt that extraterritorial jurisdiction should be given to national courts in respect of the crimes referred to in the Statute. Further information on the ratification kit would be available to Sixth Committee members on request.

There had been general consensus at the conference that ratification should take place parallel to the drafting of legislation to incorporate the Statute into domestic law, he continued. South Africa shared the concern of other speakers with respect to outstanding issues relating to the Statute. He hoped that a final corrected draft of the Statute would be issued soon. Although South Africa could not yet state its time-frame for ratification, it was working hard to ensure that it would be among the first 60 States to ratify and bring the Statute into force.

ABDULLAH AL-SULIMAN (Saudi Arabia) said the decision to establish a working group on the crime of aggression was a step in the right direction. He could not overemphasize the importance of the definition of such a crime. The absence of a proper definition could lead to different interpretations, with grave results.

He said that the heinous crime of moving populations was still being committed by occupying Powers. The definition of that should be properly articulated. Saudi Arabia accorded great importance to the establishment of an International Criminal Court, provided it would undertake its tasks properly.

He reiterated the importance of elaborating an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression and of the crime of movement of populations. He hoped the Preparatory Committee would successfully complete its work on those subjects.

PHAKISO MOCHOCHOKO (Lesotho) said the world continued to witness the most horrific crimes. Violence had occasioned death and suffering on a scale unprecedented in human history. Civilian populations had become the main targets and direct victims of fighting between hostile armies, with women, who were subjected to such atrocities as rape and sexual exploitation, suffering in disproportionate numbers. Pre- meditated murders and mutilations had become a common feature of today’s conflicts. Yet the perpetrators of those atrocities still walked free. The adoption of the Rome Statute to end that impunity had been the first giant step; now, it was necessary that further steps be taken to ensure that the Statute came into force as soon as possible.

Between now and June, a lot of hard work remained to be done, he said. The focus of the Commission should continue to be on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crime. It was crucial that adequate resources be allocated to the Commission; he recommended that two sessions of three weeks each be held next year, as well as an intersessional meeting. The establishment of the Court was one of the most important items on the agenda of the international community. The challenge for signatories to the Statute was to transform the Court from a promise to reality by completing the ratification process.

As an advocate of the Court’s early establishment, Lesotho had initiated the groundwork for national legislation to implement the Rome Statute, based on the kit developed by the SADC. It was expected that the necessary ratification papers would be presented to the Cabinet for approval by the end of the year. He urged that the concerns of those who were still skeptical of the International Criminal Court be addressed, in order to bring all States on board. The universality of the Court must not be enhanced at the expense of the integrity of the Statute and the delicate balance agreed to in Rome, however. The trust fund created prior to Rome for least developed countries had covered accommodation and travel expenses for delegates, which had gone a long way towards ensuring maximum participation. It was regrettable that no new contributions had been received since Rome; the fund could no longer afford to pay the costs of accommodation. That would affect the level of participation, he said, calling for States to make voluntary contributions to the fund.

HENRY HANSON-HALL (Ghana) said his country had taken steps to ratify the Statute and incorporate its provisions into domestic law. It encouraged others to sign the Statute and initiate the ratification process to enable the early establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Ghana attached great importance to the crime of aggression and urged the Preparatory Commission to define that crime in clear and unambiguous terms that were acceptable to all States. It was important that agreement be reached quickly so that the Court could exercise jurisdiction in respect of that crime. Welcoming plans to establish a working group on the subject, he said the definition should be based on the provisions of General Assembly resolution 3314 adopted on 14 December 1974. That text offered a solid basis for dialogue in the search for a definition of the crime of aggression.

He also said Ghana supported the extension of the Commission’s session to enable it to conclude the tasks outlined in resolution F of the Rome Conference. Ghana hoped the Preparatory Commission would make further progress at its future sessions, in the same spirit of compromise that had led to the overwhelming adoption of the Rome Statute.

* *** *