NGO PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Tomorrow's ceremony at Headquarters where nine or more nations will formally present their ratifications of the 1998 treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC), and thereby triggering its entry into force, should be seen as a tribute to the millions of victims of recent atrocities, correspondents were told this morning at a Headquarters press conference, given by a coalition of non-governmental organizations advocating the speedy establishment of the Court.

"It is entirely appropriate that we are here today on the cusp of the sixty-fifth ratification of the ICC treaty because it is nearly 10 years to the day that Serbian forces attacked Bosnia and unleashed the first genocide in European history in 50 years.  It is also nearly to the day, 6 April 1994, that Hutu extremists in Rwanda unleashed the ferocious genocide in Rwanda,” Richard Dicker, a representative of one of the non-governmental organizations giving the briefing on developments in the ICC, said.  (The treaty has been ratified by 56 countries, and 60 are needed for its entry into force.)

The connection between those two horrific events and the event tomorrow was more than symbolic, he said.  Those genocides were the engine that had driven the ICC process at a pace far quicker than the Court's greatest adherents would have dared to hope.  The date is also the seven-month anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and in Washington last September.

Attending the press conference were:  William Pace, Convenor of the NGO Coalition for the ICC; Sidiki Kaba, President, Federation Internacionale des Ligues Droits de l'Homme; Richard Dicker, Director of the International Justice Program, Human Rights Watch; Maria Eugenia Solis, Women's Caucus for Gender Justice; Jonathan O'Donohue, Legal Advisor to the International Justice Program, Amnesty International; and, Bruce Broomhall, Director of the International Justice Program, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.  Mr. Pace explained that the Coalition is a global network of over 1,000 civil society organizations that has been working to create a permanent, fair and independent ICC.

Speakers said the establishment of the Court ended impunity for some of the most serious crimes against humanity and through its Statute set legal precedents in terms of criminalizing specific forms of violence against women and expanding the rights of victims to not only reparation but also their right to appear before the Court.

Mr. Pace added that the Court's contribution extended even further.  A new kind of diplomacy had emerged in forming international law.  During the negotiations on the Court, partnerships of like-minded countries, international organizations and civil society had been formed.  Also, through the integration of the ICC's Statute into domestic legislation, national legal systems had been broadened and strengthened.  According to the complementary principle, countries would take greater responsibility through their own legal systems for the violations of international law covered by the Court. 

Addressing the issue of United States opposition to the Court, 

Mr. Broomhall said that in contrast to the position of the United States

administration, a new poll indicated that a majority of Americans –- 54  per cent

-- thought the Government should instead support the Court.  Moreover, he said, the more people knew about the Court, the more likely they were to support it.  The poll which was conducted by Roper ASW and commissioned by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, found that most Americans (61 per cent) had a limited knowledge about the ICC but when given more information about the Court's procedures, a considerable number changed their opinions to say the United States should support the Court.  The poll also found that because of the events of

11 September, 71 per cent believed it was more important for the United States to work with other nations in creating the Court.

After noting that the American people would be hearing a lot more about the Court in the coming days and months, Mr. Broomhall drew a contrast between the poll's implications and current actions under way in the United States Government concerning the Court.  A joint House-Senate Committee of Congress was looking at "the most virulent form" of the American Servicemen's Protection Act, a bill, he said, that would prevent the United States from participating in peacekeeping operations without an exemption from the Court and punish countries that ratified the ICC treaty.  The United States was even considering "unsigning" the ICC treaty.  "Given what we can anticipate about growing knowledge and [thereby] growing support for the Court among the people of the United States, we think for the Administration to close itself off from the ICC process is going to put it in an increasingly uncomfortable 'squeeze-play' between its domestic public opinion and between the international developments among its allies", he said.

Mr. O'Donohue, who briefed on developments in the Preparatory Commission for the ICC, said that a revised draft of a first year budget for the Court estimated that 39 million euros would be needed for the first six months.  As there was such uncertainty as to what might be the level of the Court's activities or the number of cases, it was determined to be impossible to project an accurate yearly budget at this time.

The impact of the United States opposition to the ICC dominated questions from correspondents.

One correspondent who noted that terrorism was not within the Court's jurisdiction asked what effect the United States position on the Court might have in its efforts against international terrorism.  Mr. Dicker said an analysis of the 11 September attack indicated that it could conceivably have been prosecuted as a "crime against humanity".  For the United States to attempt to bring together a broad array of countries into a coalition to fight terrorism and at the same time denounce an institution like the ICC was inconsistent and counterproductive he said.

Another correspondent, who pointed to the strong and organized international support from human rights groups in other countries, questioned why the ICC Coalition had not been able to similarly mobilize United States human rights organizations.  Mr. Broomhall said that a nationwide coalition did exist, and there was an effective caucus in Washington, for example, that was busy lobbying against the Servicemen's Act.  Mr. Dicker added that the Court's opponents were currently in their "heyday".  It was a lot easier to conduct a campaign of misinformation against an institution that doesn't exist, he said, adding that he expected the situation to change once the Court was established.

Asked about the United States insistence that no money for the Court be assessed from the United Nations budget, Mr. Pace said no United Nations-assessed money was being used.  Instead a trust fund had been set up that allowed States Parties to pay estimated assessments in advance to cover initial costs. 

Noting that 139 countries had signed the ICC treaty, Mr. Dicker said the signs were good that perhaps upwards of 90 to 100 countries might have ratified by either the first meeting of the Assembly of State parties, in September 2002, or by the second in January 2003 which would then allow them to vote in the election of the Court's 18 judges and its Prosecutor.  The more States that belonged to the treaty, the greater its scope, the greater the jurisdiction and the greater the universality, he said.

Ms. Solis said the Coalition would be carefully monitoring the appointment of judges to ensure that the parity for women and the balanced geographic representation called for in the Statute were honored. 

The following countries are expected to simultaneously deposit their ratifications in the ceremony tomorrow morning at 9:30 in Conference Room 3: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Romania and Slovakia.

* *** *