AS CRIMINAL COURT"S PREPARATORY COMMISSION CONTINUES WORK ON KEY TEXTS, AGREEMENTS REACHED ON SOME PROCEDURAL RULES

Press Release
L/2938

AS CRIMINAL COURT’S PREPARATORY COMMISSION CONTINUES WORK ON KEY TEXTS, AGREEMENTS REACHED ON SOME PROCEDURAL RULES

Varying Approaches to Crime of Aggression Gathered into Working Paper

Preliminary work on rules in the Statute of the International Criminal Court related to penalties, and on those governing international cooperation and judicial assistance, has been concluded, the Preparatory Commission for the Court was informed this morning as it heard progress reports by the coordinators of its various working groups.

Agreement had been reached on penalties pertaining to sentencing, fines, order of forfeiture and the trust fund, the coordinator of the working group on rules relating to Part 4 of the Court’s Statute said. Among the issues decided had been the maximum fine that could be levied on a convicted individual, and the terms of imprisonment for default or failure to pay. The same working group, dealing also with international cooperation and judicial assistance, had clarified such issues as time limits for arrests and the basic procedures for how the Court should interact with States. At this session, which concludes on 17 December, the Preparatory Commission’s main task is to continue elaborating key texts necessary for the functioning of the Court –- in particular, Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Elements of Crime –- for which it has a 30 June 2000 deadline. It has also begun work on the elaboration of a legal definition of the crime of aggression.

The coordinator of the commission’s working group on the crime of aggression, which had its second meeting last week, explained this morning that the different positions expressed by delegations on a definition of aggression had been gathered into a document meant to assist in focusing future discussions. [In his report last week, the Coordinator informed the Commission that during the initial discussion, some delegations had sought a definition based primarily on the Charter and on the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. Others had sought to proceed from the definition of State aggression contained in General Assembly resolution 3314 (1974). Still others had favoured inclusion of elements contained in the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind and the Declaration on Friendly Relations (General Assembly resolution 2625).]

The coordinator of the working group on Elements of Crime, said the group was continuing its consideration of crimes against humanity. Work was close to being finalized on the following six crimes: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation/transfer, imprisonment and torture. Discussion was continuing on

- 2 - Press Release L2938 13 December 1999

sexual crimes, persecution, disappearances, apartheid, and other inhumane acts. He said he hoped that the Group could finish a first reading of all elements by Wednesday 15 December. [A completed first reading indicates general agreement on the framework and the provisions of a text; while a second reading is usually devoted to refinement of language of the text, elimination of inconsistencies, and finalization of pending issues.]

The coordinator for the working group on the composition and administration of the Court, said that Group had agreed on a first-reading text covering the functions and operations of the Court’s registry and the keeping of records.

Each of the coordinators credited the progress being made in their respective working groups to the spirit of cooperation and willingness to compromise being exhibited by all delegations.

However, the representative of Turkey expressed disappointment and concern at what she described as insufficient transparency in the work of some of the smaller groups formed within the working groups. She said meetings of these smaller groups should be announced in such a way that other delegations could participate in them, particularly given the importance of the topics being discussed. All delegations, she said, had a legitimate interest, and a duty to participate, in the preparation of documents related to the Court.

The representative of Australia informed the Commission that yesterday, 12 December, his Government had decided to ratify the Court’s Statute and had commenced the formal process of ratification. The establishment of the International Criminal Court was a prime foreign policy goal of Australia, he said.

Canada’s representative announced that legislation on crimes against humanity had been introduced into its Parliament. That legislation was a necessary step before Canada could ratify the Rome Statute.

So far, the treaty establishing the Court -– known as the Rome Statute since its adoption in 1998 in Rome by the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court -- has received five of the 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into force and the Court to become operational. The five countries that have ratified are Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino, Italy, and Fiji. (Ghana has announced its ratification of the Statute but has not yet taken the final step of registering its ratification with the Secretary- General.) According to the Preparatory Commission’s establishing resolution (adopted by the Rome Conference) and General Assembly resolution 53/105, the Commission must finalize the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Elements of Crimes by 30 June 2000.

The Court is to be a permanent judicial body with jurisdiction only over crimes committed by individuals. Crimes within its purview include genocide; war crimes; and crimes against humanity. Once the working group on aggression completes its work, it is envisaged that the Court will also be able to try individuals for that crime. The International Criminal Court will complement national judicial systems, assuming jurisdiction only when it determines that they are unwilling or unable to prosecute. States parties to the Rome Statute, the Security Council and the Court’s own Prosecutor will all be authorized to bring cases before it.

- 3 - Press Release L/2938 13 December 1999

Participation in the work of 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. Non-governmental organizations may participate in the Commission’s open meetings.

The Commission will hold its next plenary meeting at a date to be announced.

Progress Reports by Coordinators of Working Groups

HERMAN VON HEBEL (Netherlands), coordinator of the working group on Elements of Crimes, said the group was continuing its consideration of crimes against humanity. It had concluded an open debate on the set of elements that should be considered for those crimes. Informal consultations now sought to hammer out a text on those elements. There had been a discussion on “chapeau” [preambular] provisions for each of the acts listed in the Statute. Work was close to being finalized on the following six crimes: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation/transfer, imprisonment and torture. Discussion was continuing to on five additional crimes: sexual crimes, persecution, disappearances, apartheid, and other inhumane acts. Substantial progress had come about as a result of a general spirit of compromise. He hoped that the Group could finish a first reading of all elements of crimes by Wednesday, 15 December.

SILVIA FERNANDEZ DE GURMENDI (Argentina), coordinator of the working group on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, said the Group had completed its discussion of proposals submitted by France, Australia, United States and Bosnia and Herzegovenia regarding articles dealing with such issues as jurisdiction, issues of admissibility of cases and challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court. Most of the discussions had centred on the prosecutor’s power to initiate investigations on the basis of information on crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. Also covered had been Statute provisions on admissibility of cases (article 17), in the context of investigations or prosecution by national courts. [The Statute provides for the International Criminal Court to take over the investigation and prosecution if it is determined that a State is unwilling or unable to do so.] Progress had been slow as a result of the number of the proposals submitted, but she was hopeful that the pace would quicken.

MEDARD RWELAMIRA (South Africa), coordinator of the working group on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 4 of the Statute (on the composition and administration of the Court), said the group had made steady and reasonable progress. It had been able to agree on a first-reading text covering the functions and operations of the Court’s registry and the keeping of records. Other topics considered included the rules relating to defence counsel and protection of victims and witness units. Although discussions had proceeded slower than expected, he hoped that reasonable progress would be made this week.

Discussions on rules relating to disqualification of judges had gone extremely well, he stated. Issues still to be dealt with included the Court’s official languages and the defence counsel unit. (The Statute provides that [as in the United Nations] the official languages of the Court shall be Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, but the working languages shall be English

- 4 - Press Release L/2938 13 December 1999

and French.) The Rules of Procedure and Evidence shall determine the situations in which other official languages might be used as working languages.

ROLF FIFE (Norway), coordinator of the working group on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 7 (on penalties), said that Group had concluded its work on the draft rules and had submitted them in document PCNICC/1999/WGRPE (7)/RT.2. The rules pertained to sentencing, fines, order of forfeiture and the trust fund. An outstanding spirit of compromise and a determined effort by delegations had allowed the work to be carried out in a tight time-frame, he said.

PHAKISO MOCHOCHOKO (Lesotho), coordinator of the working group on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Parts 9 and 10 (on respectively international cooperation and judicial assistance and enforcement), said good progress had been made. The Group had been able to conclude all rules related to Part 9 (as contained in document PCNICC/1999/WGRPE(9)/RT.1 and RT.2), which were now ready for adoption. Also ready for adoption were rules under Part 10 relating to Articles 103 and 104 (PCNICC/1999/WGRPE (10)/RT.1) and Articles 107 and 109 (PCNICC/1999/WGRPE(10)/RT.3). Work was continuing on finalizing outstanding issues related to Articles 105, 106, 110, and 111. Discussion in the Group had been marked by a high spirit of cooperation and a willingness to compromise, he said.

TUVAKO MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania), coordinator of the working group on the crime of aggression, said it had held its second meeting to address the definition of that crime and to identify the conditions under which the Court would exercise its jurisdiction with regard to that crime. To provide a focus for the Group, the different positions expressed on aggression had been gathered together in a document (PCNICC/1999/WGCA/RT.1). The options and variations presented in the document were not binding, but he hoped they would assist the Group in its discussion. The new developments in the Group’s work would not have been possible without the cooperation of the sponsors of an earlier proposal, he said, adding that he hoped a similar spirit would prevail throughout the Group.

* *** *