PROGRESS, SETBACKS REPORTED BY PRESIDENTS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, RWANDA

Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

36^th Meeting (PM)

PROGRESS, SETBACKS REPORTED BY PRESIDENTS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, RWANDA

Yugoslav Tribunal May Refer Certain Cases to National Courts;

Rwanda Court Cites Need for Additional Judges, Greater Cooperation from Rwanda

The past year had been marked by the implementation of reforms, by progress and by crisis, the Presidents of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda told the General Assembly this afternoon.

Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that in January 2000, the Tribunal began a large-scale reform of its structure and operation, resulting in creation of a pool of ad litem judges and the appointment of two additional judges to the Appeals Chamber.  The reforms aimed to implement practical and flexible solutions, which would allow the judges to deal with a considerable increase in their workload, and thus respond more effectively to the needs of the accused and the expectations of the victims. 

To address the slow rate at which the Tribunal tried its accused, it was considering the possibility of referring a certain number of cases to Bosnian national courts.  Despite the return to peace and the gradual re-establishment of democratic institutions in the country, local courts were faced with substantial structural difficulties.  For the time being, a chamber would be established with special jurisdiction to try serious violations of international humanitarian law within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He stressed that the Tribunal would not be able to accomplish its mandate within the anticipated time-frames unless Member States, and especially those created out of the former Yugoslavia, arrested and brought before the Tribunal the accused in their territory, and handed over all of the evidence in their possession.  The cooperation of States was essential and remained one of his major concerns. 

The representative of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia emphasized the importance of the establishment of a special Chamber to try war crimes within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of a policy to improve the capabilities of national jurisdictions to take over such cases.  However, he felt the concept of referring cases should in the future apply to all States under the

Tribunal’s jurisdiction.  His Government was making efforts to reform its judiciary to strengthen its capabilities to deal with those complex and serious cases. 

He also noted that neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal provided for compensation to persons held in the custody of the Tribunal and subsequently acquitted.  It would be appropriate and fair to offer the remedy provided for in the national legislation of many States, including his own.  If compensation were provided to individuals held but later acquitted, it would greatly contribute to the fairness of the treatment of indictees. 

Compensation was an issue also highlighted by the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Navanethem Pillay, who stated that compensation for victims was essential if Rwanda was to recover from the genocidal experience.  Many Rwandans had questioned the Tribunal’s value and its role in promoting reconciliation when claims for compensation were not addressed.  She strongly urged the United Nations to provide compensation for Rwandan victims. 

The Rwandan Tribunal, like its Yugoslav counterpart, she said, had benefitted from the creation of ad litem judges in facilitating its workload. While her original proposal to the Security Council had been for nine ad litem judges, only four such judges would be taking office, some time in June 2003.  It was of utmost importance, when the matter was again reviewed, that the additional five ad litem judges be authorized if the projected date of 2007/2008 for the completion of the Tribunal’s mandate was to be maintained.

While States had assisted the Tribunal in arranging contact with and facilitating the travel of witnesses, the Tribunal had this year experienced difficulties over the flow of witnesses from Rwanda.  The non-appearance of those witnesses had disrupted the careful planning of the judicial calendar and was a severe setback to the judicial work.  Indeed, the Rwandan Government appeared to have suspended cooperation with the Tribunal.  She had reported that lack of cooperation to the Security Council, and she urged the Council to prevail on Rwanda to restore the cooperation it had accorded to the Tribunal for the past seven-and-a-half years.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Denmark (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Norway, Malaysia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 October, to consider the report of the International Court of Justice.

Background

The General Assembly met this afternoon to consider the annual reports of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The Assembly had before it a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the ninth annual report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (document A/57/379-S/2002/985), which covers the period from 1 August 2001 to 31 July.  The principal activity of the Tribunal during this period consisted of the effective implementation of its structural and operational reforms initiated in 2001, which sought to expedite the resolution of the cases before it to bring its mission to a close around 2010 (including appeals).  The Tribunal is currently operating at full capacity, with six simultaneous trials being held daily, including that of the former head of State of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which commenced on 12 February.

During the period under review, the Tribunal witnessed the implementation and completion not only of the internal reforms started in 2000 but also of unprecedented external reforms.  The “ad litem judges reform” demonstrated its effectiveness and enabled the Tribunal to deal with its cases more rapidly.  In order to cope with the foreseeable rise in the number of cases on appeal, the Appeals Chamber is being reformed, with a view to reinforcing its structure and enhancing its operation.  The reform should also ensure that the case law of the Appeals Chambers of the Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is more consistent and that their working methods are rationalized. 

The setting in place of a cooperation agreement between the two Tribunals will promote an institutional rapprochement of the two Appeals Chambers.  The need to create an organ bringing together defence counsel in an international association was also taken into consideration.  With that in mind, the Judges of the Tribunal examined the Registry’s proposal to establish an international criminal bar for defence counsel, which will ensure respect for their independence and professional ethics and provide them with ongoing training in international humanitarian law. 

In addition, the gradual re-establishment of democratic institutions in the States of the former Yugoslavia and the reforms of the judicial systems undertaken with the international community’s assistance made it possible to contemplate the referral of certain cases to national courts.  The Tribunal intends to concentrate its activity on trying the major political and military leaders and referring cases involving intermediary-level accused to national courts, particularly those of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Thus, the President and Prosecutor of the Tribunal advocated the establishment of a chamber with jurisdiction to try the accused whose cases the Tribunal will refer within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  They also proposed that local court personnel, prosecutors and judges receive training in international humanitarian law since this law is constantly evolving and becoming increasingly complex.  Since they must ensure that the national courts operate in all fairness with respect for the international norms for the protection of human rights and in keeping with the Statute of the Tribunal, the President and the Prosecutor considered the possibility of international observers and judges participating in the work of the national courts.

Also before the Assembly is a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the seventh annual report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for the Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (document A/57/163-S/2002/733).  The report, which covers the period from 1 July 2001 to 30 June, states that the Tribunal has so far indicted 80 persons, of whom 60 are in custody and 20 are still at large.  Arrest warrants have been issued for these 20 persons and the cooperation of States is sought to secure their arrest. 

Of the 60 already arrested, eight have been sentenced, one has been acquitted, 22 are involved in ongoing trials and 29 are in custody awaiting the commencement of their trials.  The Prosecutor has indicated that she is ready for trial in seven cases, involving 13 of the 29 persons in custody.  However, the Trial Chambers are currently fully engaged and will be engaged in the ongoing trials of 22 accused persons until the expiration of the judges’ mandate on 23 May 2003.  Therefore, they cannot undertake any new trials either in the seven cases ready for trial or in the cases of the remaining 16 detainees awaiting trial. 

The proceedings may be perceived to be slow, but the judges have to be thorough and scrupulous in the observance of internationally accepted norms of fair trial, with full respect for the rights of the accused.  The jurisprudence established by the Tribunal has received significant endorsement from academics, representatives of Member States and organs of civil society, and constitutes a reliable body of precedents for the International Criminal Court. 

Among other things, the Language and Conference Services Section introduced Kinyarwanda simultaneous interpretation services in one of the three Trial Chambers.  In light of its positive reception, arrangements have been made to conduct in-house training for Kinyarwanda interpreters to provide the service to the other two Trial Chambers.  Prior to this system, Kinyarwanda could only be interpreted consecutively into English and French, causing significant delays in judicial proceedings.  The President, the judges and the Registrar continue to identify areas for improvement, particularly areas of efficiency and judicial economy, and to adopt necessary measures either to remedy perceived problems or to increase the efficiency of the Tribunal.

Statements

CLAUDE JORDA, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that 2001-2002 would have been marked not only by the effective implementation of the structural changes adopted in 2000 but also, and more particularly, by the setting out of a plan of action identifying the future directions of the Tribunal.  The drafting of a plan of action setting out the future directions of the Tribunal was one outcome of an overall process of reflection, undertaken by the Tribunal in early 2000, on its judicial status and the means by which to accomplish its mission in the shortest possible time. 

In January 2000, the Tribunal began a large-scale reform of its structure and operation, resulting in the creation of a pool of ad litem [or temporary] judges and the appointment of two additional judges to the Appeals Chamber.  The aim of those reforms was to implement practical and flexible solutions which would

allow the judges to deal with a considerable increase in their workload and, thus, respond more effectively to the needs of the accused and the expectations of the victims. 

The Tribunal had succeeded in honouring the commitments it made to the Security Council and had adopted specific measures to improve the overall functioning of the institution.  The Tribunal today was functioning at full capacity.  However, the rate at which the Tribunal tried its accused was still too slow.  As matters stood now, some of the accused would not be tried within the next two years, a period which would only increase if no effective measure was taken to expedite proceedings.  The reforms undertaken would not on their own suffice for the Tribunal to honour its commitments.  For that reason, it was imperative to reflect on a plan for the future activities of the Tribunal --anticipating, in particular, the possibility of referring a certain number of cases to the courts of the States of the former Yugoslavia. 

Setting out the main characteristics of the plan, he said that the proposal for the future directions of the Tribunal involved firstly a series of steps which he, the Prosecutor and the Registrar had initiated jointly.  In January, they created a working group responsible for reflecting on the problems inherent in implementation of a possible referral process of certain cases to the national State Courts of the former Yugoslavia.  In July, having reviewed the ongoing investigations, the Prosecutor considered that a certain number of accused could, in fact, be tried by the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The essential question remained as to how the reform would be effectively implemented. 

That goal, he said, did not depend solely on the work of the Tribunal.  Since the strategy sought to refer a number of cases to the domestic courts, it involved a large number of players on both the international and national scene.  The referral of certain cases would be possible only if the national courts had all of the resources required for trying war criminals.  “We must be sure that the judicial structures are in place and that they are indeed functioning, and this is where all of the actors on the local level must also play their part.” 

The Prosecutor believed that, for the time being, only courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be involved in the referral of cases, he stated.  That said, despite the return to peace and the gradual re-establishment of democratic institutions in the country, the local courts were faced with substantial structural difficulties.  Moreover, it would take several years before the far-reaching efforts undertaken by the Office of the High Representative to reform the State’s judicial system could be completed. 

To enable the Tribunal to implement its programme at the earliest possible opportunity, an interim solution had been identified.  That consisted of establishing a chamber with special jurisdiction to try serious violations of international humanitarian law within a national court already in place -– the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  So as to guarantee its impartiality and independence, the chamber would be provisionally composed of international judges, who would assist the local judges. 

He stressed that the Tribunal would not be able to accomplish its mandate within the anticipated time-frames unless Member States, and especially those created out of the former Yugoslavia, arrested and brought before the Tribunal the accused in their territory, and hand over all of the evidence in their possession.  The cooperation of States was essential and remained one of his major concerns. 

METTE NORGAARD DISSING (Denmark), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated European States, described the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as an important international element for restoring peace, security and the rule of law in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Macedonia.  It was also an eloquent example of the determination of the international community to combat impunity.

She expressed great satisfaction that the Tribunal was working towards completion of cases before it by 2010.  The Appeals Chamber had been reorganized by strengthening its ties with the Rwanda Tribunal.  The introduction of ad litem judges she saw as particularly worthwhile.  Their services had allowed for more trials in parallel.

 “Externally”, she said, “the Tribunal has focused on its completion strategy with the intention of finishing investigations by 2004, completing trial activities at first instance by 2008 and bringing to an end all Appeals cases by 2010, thus fulfilling its mandate”.  The European Union supported the focus of the Tribunal on high-level civilian, military and paramilitary leaders who bore the greatest responsibility, while leaving lower-level accused to national jurisdictions.  However, the Union urged greater financial efficiency.

She called on all States to cooperate with the Tribunal in carrying out its work.  That was a non-negotiable requirement of international law.  Even so, the matter remained problematic.  Many national authorities in the former Yugoslavia continued to provide only minimal cooperation.  The Croatian authorities should, for instance, arrest and transfer Ante Gotovina and Janko Bobetko to the Tribunal. Those countries that failed to comply would hinder their movement towards the European Union, she warned. 

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) said that the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had become widely recognized for its contribution to the search for truth and the fight against impunity for the most serious international crimes.   It was evident, however, that the Tribunal alone could not carry out all the work required to restore and maintain peace in the former Yugoslavia.  That was because it would not be able to try all the perpetrators of serious violations of humanitarian law committed during a conflict that lasted more than five years. 

The success of the Tribunal, therefore, largely lay in the hands of Member States whom he urged to demonstrate in words and also in deeds their full cooperation with the Tribunal.  They should do so by surrendering indictees, providing full and effective assistance with regard to witnesses, giving financial and material support, and providing practical assistance in the enforcement of sentences.  Further, it was critical to the Tribunal's success that the people of the region were informed about its work and understood its significance. 

He therefore called on all Member States to support the Tribunal’s continued efforts to provide insight into the judicial process, which could be an important factor in achieving long-term peace and reconciliation in the region.  He added that it was encouraging that 23 accused, almost three times the number than in the previous reporting period, had either surrendered voluntarily or were arrested during the period under review.  He only regretted that problems in international cooperation remained a main obstacle to the Tribunal in accomplishing the reforms already implemented and those still under consideration, and thus in completing its mandate.

CHEAH SAM KIP (Malaysia) welcomed the Security Council’s endorsement of recommendations to transfer intermediary and lower-level criminal cases from the Tribunal for Yugoslavia to competent national jurisdictions.  He said Malaysia also welcomed the Council’s observation on the need to further study the proposal to establish a special chamber within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Malaysia believed that this “broad strategy” would make easier the Tribunal’s mandate.  However, the Council and the Tribunal should take care not to implement the reform process at the expense of achieving the Tribunal’s objectives of justice and the restoration of peace.

He said that Malaysia was concerned that although 78 cases had appeared before the Tribunal and 30 had been completed, 20 publicly indicted people -- including major indicated war criminals like Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic -- remained at large.  That should be addressed as quickly as possible.  The Tribunal’s mandate would not be considered complete without the apprehension and trial of such major criminals, most of whom were believed to be hiding in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republika.

Malaysia, he said, reiterated the need for support and cooperation from all parties involved in implementation of the Tribunal’s mandate.  Also, the international community, especially the Security Council, must also show seriousness in rendering full assistance to the Tribunal.

IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said that the International Criminal Tribunals for both the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda had played an important precursory role in the evolution of international criminal justice, enhancing its development and enforcement by shaping new legal standards, strengthening the rule of law and bringing justice to the victims.  Moreover, it had established a reliable record of past events.  For the countries in the region, the political and historical account established through the Tribunal's jurisprudence was as important as the punishment of perpetrators.

Thus, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic could provide the opportunity to establish a framework and context for all individual crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, he said.  However, Mr. Milosevic's case had been taken up out of its chronological context, beginning with charges related to Kosovo rather than to Croatia or Bosnia.  That created problems for the reconstruction of the logic of events related to the charges, as well as of a coherent political and historical record.

Detailing Croatia's efforts to support the work of the Yugoslav Tribunal, he added that the Croatian President’s recent testimony would help to create another important precedent in international criminal adjudication.  Also, while Croatia had openly expressed its concerns with regard to the indictment of General Bobetko, the former Chief of Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces, and had submitted two interlocutory legal remedies to the Tribunal, it should also be clear that Croatia would comply with the Appeals Chamber ruling on that issue.

While national and local courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia would take up some cases, he recognized that concentrating on the highest-level perpetrators was an important element of the exit strategy for the Yugoslav Tribunal.  In that context, Croatia welcomed High Representative Jacques Klein's intervention in the Security Council last week, in which he had called for an extended mandate to apprehend Radovan Karadzic.  However, attempts to create an artificial balance between all parties to the conflict should be prevented.  The Tribunal's work should reflect the extent of involvement in war crimes of individuals belonging to different sides of the conflict.

DEJAN SAHOVIC (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) emphasized the importance of the establishment of a special Chamber to try war crimes within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of a policy to improve the capabilities of national jurisdictions to take over such cases.  However, the concept of referring cases should in the future apply to all States under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.  His Government was making efforts to reform its judiciary to strengthen its capabilities to deal with such complex and serious issues. 

He noted that neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal provided for compensation to persons held in the custody of the Tribunal and subsequently acquitted.  It would be appropriate and fair to offer the remedy provided for in the national legislation of many States, including his own.  If compensation were provided to individuals held but later acquitted, it would greatly contribute to the fairness of the treatment of indictees. 

Cooperation between his country and the Tribunal was a complex process, which was constantly improving and intensifying, he said.  One example was the fact that as many as 14 indicted persons were transferred from the territory of his country into the custody of the Tribunal, nine of them within the reporting period.  In April, the Federal Parliament passed the law on cooperation with the Tribunal.  Also, thus far, his Government had responded to 34 requests to provide documents sought by the Tribunal’s Prosecutor.  His Government believed that all individuals responsible for international crimes should be brought to justice, either before international courts, such as the Tribunal, or before national courts.  

MIRZA KUSLJUGIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) commended the Tribunal for its role in the processes of reconciliation and maintenance of stability and peace, both in his country and the South-East European region.  Arguing that war criminals were symbols for the use of political violence, he said they posed a source of continued instability in the region.  Because of that, it was important that 20 publicly indicted war criminals still at large should be apprehended, in particular Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who had advocated ethnic cleansing and could influence events in his country.  Some of those criminals were considered heroes among substantial parts of the population in all countries in the region.

In his view there could be no lasting and stable peace in the Balkans unless the Yugoslav Tribunal brought high-level indictees to justice.  The international community had to assist in that regard.  Its commitment to the Tribunal’s work, both financially and politically, would determine its credibility.

In light of those war crimes, he continued, Bosnia and Herzegovina had supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court.  However, the International Criminal Court would employ the same instruments as the Yugoslav Tribunal in carrying out its work.  But that Tribunal had so far not received the necessary support in apprehension of the high-level leaders and offenders responsible for the most serious crimes.  The ineffectiveness of its methods therefore threatened to diminish the credibility of the International Criminal Court even before it had become operational, he said.  He ended by expressing the hope that the United Nations would remain seized of the matter even after the conclusion of its current United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) mandate.

NAVANETHEM PILLAY, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the past year had been marked by both progress and crisis.  The system of conducting multiple trials was onerous for the judges and entailed elaborate planning and scheduling in consultation with all parties concerned, including some 60 defence counsel from various countries.  Nevertheless, in light of the large number of accused in custody, the lengthy period of their detention and the need to advance the date of completion of the Tribunal’s mandate, the judges had been compelled to undertake many trials.  Despite the best efforts of the judges and all support sections, trials continued to be drawn out and often defied plans to expedite proceedings.

Many States, she noted, had assisted the Tribunal in arranging contact with and facilitating the travel of witnesses, even witnesses who had no travel documents.  However, this year the Tribunal had experienced difficulties over the flow of witnesses from Rwanda.  The non-appearance of witnesses from Rwanda had disrupted the careful planning of the judicial calendar and was a severe setback to the judicial work.  She had reported that lack of cooperation to the Security Council.  The Rwandan Government appeared to have suspended cooperation with the Tribunal, and she urged the Council to prevail on that Government to restore the previous good cooperation that they had accorded to the Tribunal for the past seven-and-a-half years.

The present lengthy period of pre-trial detention was a matter of grave concern and did not bode well for the interests of justice, she said.  To address that concern, the Prosecutor had revised her future investigation programme from the originally estimated number of 136 new suspects to 16 new suspects, together with 10 ongoing investigations.  Secondly, a pool of ad litem judges had been created.

While her original proposal to the Security Council had been for nine ad litem judges, only four such judges would be taking office, some time in June 2003.  It was of utmost importance, when the matter was again reviewed, that the additional five ad litem judges be authorized if the projected date of 2007/2008 for the completion of the Tribunal’s mandate was to be maintained.

She said that compensation for victims was essential if Rwanda was to recover from the genocidal experience.  In November 2000, she had submitted a proposal to the Secretary-General that victims of genocide should be compensated.  Many Rwandans had questioned the Tribunal’s value and its role in promoting reconciliation when claims for compensation were not addressed.  She strongly urged the United Nations to provide compensation for Rwandan victims.

METTE NORGAARD DISSING (Denmark), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated European States, reaffirmed that the Tribunal for Rwanda served as an example of the international community's determination to combat impunity.  The pioneering work of both Tribunals in prosecuting individuals for crimes of genocide, as well as the decision that crimes of sexual violence were war crimes, had paved the way for the International Criminal Court.

The lack of first-instance judgements in the past year showed the need for further improvement in the Tribunal's work, she said.  While the introduction of a multiple trials system and the creation of a pool of 18 ad litem judges were noteworthy, it was worrisome that the Security Council had found it necessary to extend the deadline for nominations of full-time judges by an additional two months.  All Member States were called upon to consider nominating qualified candidates in order to reach the mandated minimum.

Additionally, the revised investigation programme of the Rwanda Tribunal was more realistic, she added, while the Registrar's efforts to reform the legal aid programme and to curb abuses, notably in fee-splitting between defence counsel and accused, were commendable.  However, the continued absence of checks on the size of defence teams and their fees were of concern.  Finally, she urged the Rwandan Government to comply with its international obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal.

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) spoke of the tangible improvements the Rwanda Tribunal had made to its operations, in particular its efforts to enhance efficiency and judicial economy.  Its judgements would contribute significantly to international jurisprudence.  Its success would be determined by the way in which its investigation, prosecution and proceedings were managed.  Trials should be completed without undue delays.

While concerned that some cases were drawn out, he could appreciate the reasons for the slow turnover of cases, including the number of witnesses involved, the frequency of appeals and the need for translation into three languages.  Nevertheless, he was confident that the streamlining of the Tribunal’s activities would not jeopardize the fairness of the trials.

He took note of the addition of two new judges to its Appeals Chamber and saw that as a means of expediting its work.  Not to be ignored in that respect was the Prosecutor’s revision of her future investigation programme.  “The reduction in the estimated number of indictments, combined with the identification of 40 suspects whose prosecution is intended for deferral to national jurisdictions, makes the completion of the Tribunal’s mandate possible by the years 2007-2008”, he said.  The Security Council’s decision to create a pool of 18 ad litemjudges would make that possible, he added.

Issues such as fee-splitting between defense counsel and accused needed to be addressed, he said.  Legal aid also needed to be carefully examined to determine who qualified for such assistance.  On the other hand he was pleased with the Tribunal’s outreach programme.  African journalists in the Great Lakes region were being trained in legal reporting.  But the Tribunal needed the fullest cooperation, as well as political, practical and financial support from all concerned States.

NG LIP YONG (Malaysia) welcomed the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1431 establishing a pool of 18 ad litem judges for the Rwanda Tribunal, saying the move was necessary considering the Tribunal’s workload and the need for the cases to be expeditiously dealt with.  However, Malaysia was concerned that the post of Deputy Prosecutor had remained vacant for over a year.  The absence of

such an important official mandated to assume responsibility for the activities of the Office of the Prosecutor in Kigali, was likely to have an adverse effect on the quality and pace of investigations and the Prosecutor’s preparation of trials.

While Malaysia looked forward to the election of the ad litem judges to enable the Tribunal to conclude its mandate, it also hoped that efforts would be intensified to find a suitable candidate to fill the Deputy Prosecutor’s post as soon as possible.  He concluded by reaffirming his country’s continued support of the Rwanda Tribunal, not only in upholding justice but also as a tool to facilitate national reconciliation in Rwanda.  He hoped that the Tribunal would continue to have the strong and sustained support of the international community until the successful completion of its work.

* *** *