Preparatory Commission for

International Criminal Court

30^th Meeting (AM)

PERU, POLAND, MEXICO, SWITZERLAND ANNOUNCE INTENTIONS TO RATIFY TREATY, AS

PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT BEGINS SESSION

Turkey Calls for Exploring Inclusion of Crime of Terrorism In Statute

The representatives of Peru, Poland, Mexico and Switzerland announced this morning to the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court that their countries were completing the final domestic legislative steps necessary to ratify the Court’s treaty and hoped to deposit their ratifications shortly.

As the Commission began its eighth session, it also heard a call from the representative of Turkey to immediately explore a way to include the crime of terrorism in the Statute without undermining its integrity.  He pointed out that as matters stood, even if the Court came into being in 2002, the earliest possible addition of the crime of terrorism under the Court’s jurisdiction could not occur until 2009 at a review conference expected to be held seven years later.  Such a delay was unacceptable, he said.

Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, noting that the Commission was beginning its session in the shadow of the atrocities of two weeks ago expressed the Commission’s sympathy and condolences to colleagues in the United Nations, to the Host Government and to the Host City and to the thousands of families not only in the United States but all across the world who were grieving for the loss of their loved ones.  The Commission then stood for a minute of silence in memory of all the victims and in sympathy for all in mourning.

So far, the Court, which is to be a permanent judicial body that will investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, has received 38 of the 60 ratifications necessary for the treaty establishing the Court -- referred to as the Rome Statute-- to come into force.  The treaty was signed by 139 countries, including the United States who signed it just hours before the treaty closed for signing on 31 December 2000.

During this morning’s meeting, Mr. Kirsch said several of the Commission’s seven working groups might be able to finish their work this session, in particular, the group on the financial rules and regulations of the Court and the one on privileges and immunities of the Court.  The session will end on 5 October.

He also announced that a new vice-chairman would be appointed to replace Mohammed Sacirbey (Bosnia and Herzegovina) who could no longer serve in that

capacity. 

The other officers of the Preparatory Commission are as follows: Vice-Chairmen, George Winston McKenzie (Trinidad and Tobago)and Medard R. Rwelamira (South Africa).  The Rapporteur is Salah Suheimat (Jordan).

The Coordinators for the various issues are:  Crime of Aggression, Sylvia Fernandez de Gurmendi (Argentina); Relationship Agreement between the Court and the United Nations, Cristian Maquieira (Chile); Financial Regulations and Rules of the Court, Georg Witschel (Germany); Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court, Phakiso Mochochoko (Lesotho); Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties, Saeid Mirzaee-Yengejeh (Iran); Headquarters agreement between the Court and the host country, Zsolt Hetesy (Hungary); and, Budget for the first financial year, Rolf Fife (Norway). 

The Commission will hold its next plenary meeting tomorrow at 10 a.m. to hear an address from the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands concerning steps his country is taking as Host Government for the site of the Court to expedite the Court’s establishment.

Background on Working Group Documents 

A Secretariat paper (PICNICC/2001/WGFYB/L.1) on the draft budget for the first financial year of the Court, estimates the total cost -- based on two scenarios -- at $15,788,000, if no cases are referred to the Court during the first year, or $30,133,400, if, for example, up to six detainees and six trials were referred to it in the first year.   

The estimates include -- in both cases -- the cost of meetings of the Assembly of States Parties and meetings of its bureau as well as the inaugural meeting of the Court (if all meetings are held in The Hague) and the Court's operations.

According to the paper, if the meetings take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York, the total requirements would be reduced by $109,000, under either scenario.  The exact costs will depend on a number of factors "that are not clear at this point", the paper points out.  Provisions regarding the premises of the Court have not been included.

It notes that the estimates are based on cost parameters for the year 2001, and that adjustments might be necessary to reflect changes when the actual date of entry into force of the Statute (establishing the Court) becomes known.

The paper also discloses that the host Government(Netherlands) has informed the Secretariat of its willingness "to contribute financially to the initial meetings of the Assembly of States Parties and its Bureau, as well as to the Inaugural Session of the Court".

The proposed structure of the organs of the Court, together with the corresponding administrative arrangements, is discussed in Part One of the Secretariat paper.  These take into account the composition and experiences of the most relevant existing international judicial institutions, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) , the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

The cost estimates are outlined in Part Two of the paper which points out

that they were calculated on the basis of a number of assumptions, the proposed structure and administrative arrangements for the Court, and experience with similar institutions, such as International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  The present draft budget is set out in United States dollars, pending a decision on the monetary unit to be adopted for the future budget according to the Financial Regulations and Rules of the Court.

A draft of the basic principles governing the headquarters agreement (PCNICC/2001/WGHQA/L.1) is divided into two parts: the first enumerates general principles that should govern the preparation of the agreement, and the second lists specific principles that need to be addressed in it.

Among the  general principles, it is proposed that the headquarters agreement should be based on the relevant provisions of the Court's Statute and should be consistent with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court.  It should also address in detail primarily those issues not covered at all or not sufficiently dealt with in the Court's Statute.

The second part, covering specific principles to be dealt with in the headquarters agreement, contains suggestions concerning the provisions that should be included in preamble and in the article on the use of terms.  Other issues covered relate, among others, to premises of the Court, privileges and immunities of the Court, communication facilities and settlement of disputes.

In the absence of a headquarters agreement -- after the Statute enters into force -- the relationship between the Court and the host country will be governed by a provision in the Statute (article 48 paragraph 1).  It states that the Court shall enjoy, in the territory of each State Party, such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes.

The working group on aggression has several issues to resolve, including the definition of aggression, its elements and the conditions under which the International Criminal Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime.  There is also the issue of whether the Security Council should hold the primary or exclusive power to determine the commission of aggression.

* *** *