PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT HEARS PROGRESS REPORTS FROM WORKING GROUP COORDINATORS

Press Release
L/2960

PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT HEARS PROGRESS REPORTS FROM WORKING GROUP COORDINATORS

As the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court entered the final stages of its work on two key texts necessary to the Court's functioning, its Chairman this morning urged delegates to not lose their perspective on what the international community was trying to do by establishing the Court.

"What will count is not any particular phrasing in the rules but rather the overall results and the conditions under which our work will conclude", he said. By doing our best, by reaching agreement amongst ourselves, we can best show the strength of what we have done in the past year and a half." He was convinced that it was possible to achieve agreement on the outstanding issues.

The Commission met this morning to hear progress reports from the coordinators of its working groups on various aspects of the Court's Statute. Of the five coordinators on the different parts of the Statute, one reported that his group had completed its work, and the other four reported that they expected to be in a position to present their reports next week.

The Commission has a mandated deadline of 30 June to complete work on two aspects of the Court's Statute that are essential to its eventual functioning: the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and Elements of Crimes.

The Chairman also addressed this morning some of the other tasks assigned to the Commission, which will remain in existence until the conclusion of the first meeting of the Assembly of State Parties. Among those tasks are finalization of financial rules and regulations for the Court; a first-year budget for the Court, a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations; and a headquarters agreement with the host country (the Netherlands). He recommended that since the next session was only for two weeks (27 November to 8 December), the Commission should limit its initial focus. He also pointed out that the Commission would not have enough time to complete its mandate by the end of next session. More time would be needed in 2001, he said, adding that delegations should begin to consult with one another on the matter.

The Court, which is to be a permanent judicial body with jurisdiction over crimes committed by individuals, has received 13 of the 60 ratifications necessary to bring it into being (Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino, Italy, Fiji, Ghana, Norway, Belize, Iceland, Tajikistan, Venezuela, France and Sierra Leone). So far, 97 countries have signed the treaty establishing the Court. The treaty remains open for signature until 31 December.

ICC Preparatory Commission - 2 - Press Release L/2960 20th Meeting (AM) 23 June 2000

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence cover such issues as composition and administration of the Court, penalties for crimes, obligations of international cooperation and assistance, as well as enforcement of sentences. On the matter of crimes initially within the Court’s jurisdiction -- genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity -- the Commission is working to identify what elements would constitute those crimes and would need to be proven in order to obtain convictions. In the category of crimes against humanity, it is discussing such crimes as murder, enslavement, extermination, persecution, disappearance and sexual crimes.

At its last session in March, the Commission conducted a “second reading” of those two key texts, based on a consolidation of the results of the Commission’s three previous sessions. The Commission is flushing out the legal details of the general principles enunciated in the Statute.

At the Rome Conference, where the Court’s treaty was adopted on 17 July 1998, the Commission was also requested to prepare proposals on the elements and conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Once agreement is reached on a legal definition of that crime, the draft text will be presented to an International Criminal Court amendment conference, which is expected to take place seven years after the Court becomes operational. In the meantime, the Commission has established a working group that has begun discussions on the subject and will continue until agreement is reached on a definition.

The Coordinator for the working group on that crime told the Commission this morning that discussion had continued on the various proposals and views on the definitional aspects of the crime, as well as the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. However, it was the view of some that the working group had been slow in its progress and that it was time to move beyond discussions to negotiations based on the proposals before the Group. But, he felt that while that was a legitimate concern, in the end the work of the working group would only find broader support, as it must, if that, together with other concerns, became shared concerns.

The Commission’s officers are: Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman; George Winston (Trinidad and Tobago), Medard R. Rwelamira (South Africa) and Muhamed Sacirbey (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Vice-Chairpersons. Salah Suheimat (Jordan) is the Rapporteur.

The Coordinators of the Commission’s working groups are: Herman Von Hebel (Netherlands), Elements of Crimes; Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi (Argentina), Rules of Evidence and Procedure; Medard Rwelamira (South Africa), Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 4 -- Composition and Administration of the Court; Rolf Fife (Norway), Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 7 -- Penalties; Phakiso Mochochoko (Lesotho), Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 9 -- International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance, and to Part 10 -- Enforcement; and, Tuvako Manongi (United Republic of Tanzania), the Crime of Aggression.

The two contact points appointed for the other tasks are: Hiroshi Kawamura (Japan) for financial regulations and rules, a budget for the first financial year, and the rules of procedure for the Assembly of State Parties; and Cristián Maquieira (Chile) for a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations, a headquarters agreement between the Court and the host country, an agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court, and the request contained in paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 53/105 and reiterated in paragraph 3 of resolution 54/105, which, among other things, requests the Commission “to discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court”.

The Commission will meet again in plenary at 10 a.m. Monday, 26 June.

Reports from Working Group Coordinators

HERMAN VON HEBEL (Netherlands), Coordinator for the Elements of Crimes, said the working group had met informally and had managed to make an enormous amount of substantive progress. The three sub-coordinators had conducted consultations on their respective issues: Per Saland (Sweden) on the chapeau for the crimes against humanity and for the crimes of murder and extermination; Makoto Matsuda (Japan) on the crimes of enslavement, deportation and forcible transfer, imprisonment, torture and the set of sex crimes; and Georg Witschel (Germany) on the crimes of persecution, forced disappearance, apartheid and other inhumane acts.

Furthermore, under the guidance of Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan), compromise agreements had been reached on the crimes of extermination and deportation and the working group had started further work on other crimes. The Group had now finalized most of the elements on the crimes against humanity. Some of the outstanding issues included a few remaining footnotes, consistency, the exact formulation of the chapeau and the wording for "accused" or "perpetrator". The Group would be meeting this afternoon. If it could continue the same pace and cooperation as was seen in the last few days, he hoped it would be in a position to present its report on Tuesday.

The representative of Egypt expressed some concern about the lack of transparency in certain negotiations on the chapeau. He said the Commission had always been characterized by the spirit of transparency that had guided its negotiations and discussions. He reminded delegations that a decision had been taken to leave the chapeau as it was, unless there was consensus on opening up the chapeau again. If there should be consensus on an alternative chapeau, then that alternative should be adopted.

Mr. VON HEBEL responded that the working group had always worked in a process of maximum transparency. While the chapeau was being discussed among a number of delegations, those negotiations had not risen to the level of the working group. As was common at the United Nations, the subject was still only being discussed in a group similar to the "like-minded group", the Arab group or the non-aligned group. If and when the discussion rose to the formal level of the working group, the negotiations would be subjected to transparency and would be announced in advance.

SILVIA FERNANDEZ DE GURMENDI (Argentina), Coordinator for the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, said the working group had made important progress during many formal and informal meetings. It had completed discussion on rules in Part 5 relating to investigation and evidence. Work had also been completed on articles 70 and 71 concerning the administration of justice and misconduct in the Court. There was also new compromise language on compensation for victims. The new formulation would allow for the deletion of many footnotes.

Important progress had also been made in a formal meeting on chapters 8 and 6 regarding the detainee. An acceptable definition of "victims" had been found. On chapter 6, the Group had found compromise solutions on such particularly sensitive matters as sexual violence crimes. The subject of incrimination of family members would be discussed today. Yesterday, the Group had examined article 121 and would hold an informal next week to continue making progress on the issue. The Group was entering the final week with great optimism, she said.

MEDARD RWELAMIRA (South Africa), Coordinator for the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 4 (Composition and Administration of the Court), said the working group had discussed issues relating to the functions of the Registrar of the Court and the proposed Victims and Witnesses Unit. The Group had decided that all the functions of a legal nature be vested in the Registrar, while all others of a technical nature should be vested with the Victims Unit. The Group had also considered proposals relating to the official and working languages of the Court. That issue was the only outstanding aspect of Part 4. The Group had been able to iron out the issues related to regulations concerning the judges. He hoped the Group would be able to approve its report on Part 4 early next week.

ROLF FIFE (Norway), Coordinator for the consultations on Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 7 (Penalties), said he was pleased to report that the working group had completed its work. The only outstanding matter was the technical one of a final numbering of the chapter, as well as the references to rules in other chapters. Certain seemingly intractable issues in Rome had been resolved, he said, pointing to the agreement reached on the imposition of fines in the context of international justice. He thanked all the delegations for an exemplary effort.

PHAKISO MOCHOCHOKO (Lesotho), Coordinator for the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relating to Part 9 (International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance) and to Part 10 (Enforcement), said the group met to continue its consideration of substantive issues related to those parts. While many of the issues had been resolved, others had been referred to informals for further consideration. The working group was scheduled to meet this afternoon, with the expectation of being able to finalize and approve Part 10. Similar progress was being made on Part 9. Rule 9.19 would be the subject of discussion this afternoon in the working group meeting.

TUVAKO MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania), Coordinator for the Crime of Aggression, said the working group had held its second meeting to continue its discussion of the various proposals and views on the definitional aspects of the crime, as well as the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction over that crime.

While the discussion had been useful and allowed for a broader and in-depth examination of specific issues, he said it was the view of some that the working group had been slow in its progress and that it was time to move beyond discussions to negotiations based on the proposals before the group. "It is my view that while the pace with which the working group is advancing is a matter of legitimate concern, in the end the work of the working group would only find broader support, as it must, if this together with other concerns, becomes shared concerns." He added that he was encouraged to note there was an increasing realization of the importance of the matter.

Statement by Commission Chairman

PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada) said the proceedings of the session would comprise a report on the finalized draft texts of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes, as well as a summary with respect to the remaining items of the Commission's mandate.

Concerning the remaining items, he said the exchanges between delegations and the two Contact Points had been useful in designing a work plan for the November/December session. Noting that the next session was only scheduled for two weeks, he proposed, in addition to the continued discussion of the crime of aggression, limiting the focus to three items: financial regulations and rules of the Court; an agreement on privileges and immunities of the Court; and the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.

He said that as the privileges and immunities of the Court would have a bearing on the headquarters agreement between The Hague and the Court, it would be better to work out the text of the privileges agreement first. Also, since the financial regulations would have a bearing on the first year budget of the Court, it should be addressed at an earlier stage. The Secretariat would be requested to prepare drafts on those three instruments. The drafts should be purely technical including only standard provisions.

He would announce the coordinators and contact points for those three issues in due time. The Commission would not have enough time to complete its mandate by the end of the next session. More time would be needed in 2001, he said, adding that delegations should consult with each other on that matter.

All delegates were trying to achieve the most positive results possible after coming close to a completing a year-and-a-half of very good work. He was convinced that it was possible to achieve agreement on the outstanding issues. He appealed for delegates not to lose their perspective on what they were trying to do. "What will count is not any particular phrasing in the rules, but rather the overall results and the conditions under which our work will conclude. By doing our best, by reaching agreement amongst ourselves, we can best show the strength of what we have done in the past year and a half."

* *** *