PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

"A missing link in the international justice system is now in place," United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today via a satellite press conference from Rome, marking the sixtieth ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The 1998 International Criminal Court Treaty, known as the Rome Statute, requires ratification by 60 countries to become operational.  Today, 10 more nations presented their ratifications, bringing to 66 the number of ratifiers:  Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Cambodia; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Ireland; Jordan; Mongolia; Niger; Romania; and Slovakia.

In Rome, the Secretary-General was accompanied by the President of Italy, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi.  (For a verbatim transcript of their remarks to correspondents, see Press Release SG/SM/8194 issued today.)

Joining them in New York were:  Arthur Robinson, President of Trinidad and Tobago; Hans Corell, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs; Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman, Preparatory Commission for the ICC; Pier Benedetto Francese, Italy’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Bill Pace, Convener, Coalition for an International Court; and Vahida Nainer, Women's Caucus on Gender Justice, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. 

Mr. Kirsch said today was truly historic.  The entry into force of the Statute would occur a lot earlier than anyone had expected.  That was due to the real determination of the international community and civil society to finally put an end to that prevalent culture of impunity and replace it with a culture of accountability for those crimes described in the Statute -– genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and eventually, also, aggression.

Also worth mentioning, he said, was that the Rome Statute was better understood now as a legal instrument, and not a political one.  It was full of legal safeguards, which ensured due process, including the principle of complementarity.  The Court would only step in if a national system was unable or unwilling to do so.  The primary responsibility for the punishment of crimes was with States, not with the international community.  The Preparatory Commission would continue to work to ensure that the Court, which would probably be operational early next year, would operate under the best conditions.

Sixty-six ratifications had come fast, but that was only the beginning, he continued.  It was the collective conviction that for the Court to be fully effective, it had to be as widely accepted as possible.  Once the Court began to operate as a legal institution, universal adherence would eventually follow.

President Robinson of Trinidad and Tobago was introduced by Under-Secretary-General Corell, who described the President as a leading proponent of the Court.  It was his country's interest in establishing an international court, with drug trafficking in its jurisdiction, that had set in motion the events of today.  In 1989, in response to a request by Trinidad and Tobago, the General Assembly had asked the International Law Commission to resume its work on drafting a statute to establish an international criminal court.

"This is a great day for all of us," President Robinson said.  The ICC would be a "momentous development in the history of mankind", as the first institution of its kind in support of the rule of law, focusing on the most serious crimes against humanity, such as genocide, war crimes and others.  The most likely victims of such crimes could now know that they had an institution to which they could look for justice.  He was pleased to have begun the process in 1989, on his country's behalf.

Mr. Francese paid homage to the important role played by President Robinson.  Some had called the events of the day the single most important moment in the history of the United Nations and the recent history of the international community, since the adoption of the United Nations Charter.  The process had been particularly difficult and complex.  Among others, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also had very important roles.

Today's celebrations by no means concluded the task, he went on.  The first task was increasing the number of ratifications, in order to make the Court a truly universal instrument of international justice.  The second was to guarantee its efficient start-up.  Another task, and perhaps the most important, was enhancing public awareness of the principle that had inspired the Rome Statute, in order to make that a common heritage among the largest possible number of individuals. 

Mr. Pace said he was speaking on behalf of the more than 1,000 NGOs worldwide that had been working under the umbrella of the NGO Coalition for the ICC since 1995 for the establishment of a fair, effective, permanent and independent international criminal court.  The establishment of the ICC would be the most significant achievement of international law since the founding of the United Nations itself.

He recalled predictions that attaining the required ratifications would take decades, yet less than four years later, "here we are".  That momentous achievement was a victory of the new diplomacy model of developing international law, and one of the best examples of what could be achieved through the cooperation between governments, international organizations and NGOs working together.

There were countries that continued to have concerns about the Court, he said.  His experience around the world had been that, as government officials and parliamentarians learned more about the Statute and how the Court would work, their opposition softened and disappeared, and turned into support.  The ICC included strong due process guarantees and very high standards of justice, reflecting inputs from the major legal systems of the world. 

He added that the Court would not replace the primacy of national legal systems or be a panacea, but its establishment would contribute importantly to the search for peace, and the development of the rule of law and democracy.  Too much of history was the story of wars won and peace lost.  "Today, peace has won and war has lost," he said. 

Ms. Nainer said that today would go down in history as a momentous one.  The rush to end impunity and usher in a culture of justice and accountability was extraordinary and commendable, and an indication that the world's endurance of war and crimes and violence had ended.  There was hope that the Court would step in and hold those responsible for heinous crimes accountable for their deeds.  Not only would the Court be a mechanism for justice, but also for deterrence and reconciliation. 

The Court criminalized acts that were already crimes in international law, yet it had several distinctions, she said.  Among them were its emphasis on individual criminal responsibility, a provision for an independent prosecutor, victims' participation, and the unprecedented level of gender integration throughout the Statute.  Indeed, the Statute set new standards with respect to gender justice, from which the national legal systems would benefit.

Indeed, the Court had support among diverse constituencies of civil societies in all corners of the globe, she said.  Even in those countries that had not signed or ratified the Statute, the journey and partnership of the "travelers" had been unique.  The Court had adequate "teeth" to do justice, but not enough to infringe upon the sovereignty of States.  That complementarity was key to the Court's success.

She read out one response to the day's news from the International Solidarity Network of Women Living Under Muslim Laws:  "For all the women of the world, especially those who have struggled so long and hard to ensure an end to impunity for all forms of gender violence, this is the beginning of being able to live our dream".  Expectations were high and the ICC would have to meet the challenge.

During the question-and-answer-session that followed, a correspondent asked if continuing United States opposition would become less important.  Mr. Kirsch said everyone wished the United States would support the Court, and there were many ways in which a non-State party could cooperate usefully.  But, the better the Court functioned, the more support it would attract.  Concern about it being an unguided political body would disappear once it had become quite clear that the Court was what the international community had expected.

Noting that today's ceremony was open to all delegations, another correspondent asked for a "gut reaction" to the vacant seat of the United States.  Mr. Kirsch said it was no secret that the United States did not support the Court.  It continued to participate in some activities, but was not an active member in the Preparatory Commission.  Over time, those reservations would be overcome, owing to the Court's functioning.

Mr. Corell said that the Secretariat was very careful when pronouncing itself on hypothetical questions, such as the one posed by another correspondent on the Court's jurisdiction over present events in the Middle East.  It was important to review today in a very long-term perspective, despite the tendency to look only at the next few months.  "We are at a turning point,” he said.  A new page is being turned in the history of mankind".  The Court would demonstrate how it would work.  In 30 to 40 years, people would look back on these years and wonder why there was such discussion about the need for the Court.

Mr. Pace added that the Court would have its primary application in the nations that had ratified the Treaty.  Jordan (which ratified the Treaty today) had ceded territories to the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Authority was not a State.  Israel had not ratified, and, therefore, that would not be a particular example of where the Court would immediately be able to have a jurisdictional impact.  But, there would be many other examples of jurisdiction.

For his organization, "this is the never again Court", he added.  He knew there were Israelis and peoples from other countries, for example, who had made terrible sacrifices at the end of the Second World War.  They were celebrating the establishment of the ICC and looked forward to the day that that was truly universal.

Replying to questions about the timetable and the extent to which opposition by the United States, China and others would "hobble" the Court, Mr. Kirsch said the Statute would enter into force on 1 July.  As of that date, crimes that were committed would fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.  Once the Preparatory Commission session was concluded in July, there would be a first meeting of the States parties in September. 

That meeting would hopefully adopt the work of the Commission and proceed to rules of the nominations and elections of judges, prosecutor, and so forth, which would likely take place early in 2003, he said.  Meanwhile, work would be under way to ensure that all systems of the Court would be in place by then.  Thus, his assessment was that the Court would be operational in early 2003.  To the other part of that question, he hoped that nobody would try to "hobble" the Court. 

Mr. Corell added that that was not a closed chapter.  The Secretary-General was the custodian of more than 500 multilateral treaties, and every day somebody came to sign or ratify them.  The speed of ratification of the Rome Statute had been extraordinary.  He foresaw that, day-by-day, there would be more ratifications.

Asked if any countries had been pressured by the United States not to ratify the treaty, Mr. Pace said that, despite rumours, he was not aware of countries that had received direct pressure.  Mr. Kirsch agreed.

What could be done to prevent crimes rather than punish them? another correspondent asked.

Mr. Corell said that question focused on the role of the United Nations.  The drafters of the Charter, themselves, had experienced one of the most terrible events of the twentieth century.  Thus, the Charter advocated State sovereignty, in the name of a government's duty to protect its residents, but also human rights, and rule of law and democracy.  The Court was in place mainly to prevent crimes, but also to punish those human beings that fell outside the national framework.  

Ms. Nainer noted that there had been widespread education on the Statute among various constituencies and among state enforcement machineries, such as the police and armies.  That would lead to an awareness of the kinds of acts deemed criminal by the Court, and, hopefully, change the way war was waged.  

Mr. Kirsch reiterated that the ICC was not a panacea.  The most important effect of the Rome Statute, so far, had been to invite States to look at the strength of their own legislation.  States had not wanted to be seen as being unwilling or unable to punish crimes.  The Court needed to work in cooperation with all other related ones.

Mr. Pace agreed that the Court would be "a very bright star in the constellation" of processes for peace that had made extraordinary steps forward since the end of the cold war.  An amazing number of achievements had already been made by the United Nations in shepherding that process, leading to the hope that the present century would not need to repeat the disasters of the past one.

Asked about cooperation between the Security Council and the ICC, especially with respect to the crime of aggression, Mr. Kirsch said that nearly all States in Rome had felt that it was impossible not to include aggression in the Statute.  Some had even said that aggression was the core crime of all core crimes and that, without it, many other crimes would not be committed.  At the same time, there had

been difficulties in resolving the definition of aggression, and the role of the Council in that regard. 

A working group of the Preparatory Commission had been working on that issue for the past three or four years, and the work was not yet complete, he added.  The issue would be looked at again at the first review conference of the Statute, which was seven years after its entry into force.  He wanted to ensure that that issue did not die.

Replying to a question about the selection of the prosecutor, Mr. Corell said that that process was very important.  The prosecutor was a very lonely person, as he or her must determine the strategy and withstand the inevitable pressure.  Undoubtedly, the many States parties would be able to identify the person who best filled the criteria set out in the Rome Statute.  There would be difficult decisions for the prosecutor, but, as was the case with all new institutions, it had to develop its methods, strategies and procedures.

Mr. Kirsch, responding to another question, said it was technically possible for the Security Council to establish new tribunals in the face of new situations comparable to Rwanda or Yugoslavia.  That would not make much sense when there was an international criminal court already in place to deal with those kinds of crimes.  The Court also had an infrastructure, thereby saving time and costs with respect to using it, rather than establishing new ones. 

Mr. Pace added that the Rome Statute and the ICC had contemplated a very important and constructive role for the Security Council, with respect to referring matters to the Court.  Many believed that that was the way the United States would overcome many of its concerns and develop a constructive relationship over time with the Court.

If the United States prevented the Council from having a positive and constructive relationship with the Court, it would significantly undermine its leadership role in the Council, and the Council, itself, he said.  Further, it was unlikely that the other major powers and allies of the United States would be willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to set up new ad hoc tribunals when they had an existing one -- which they were already paying for and which would be able to respond faster, fairer and more effectively than an ad hoc court that would take years to create. 

* *** *