Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Plenary

27^th Meeting (AM)

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS FOR RWANDA AND FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

AIMING TO COMPLETE WORK ON SCHEDULE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY TOLD

In the General Assembly this morning, the Presidents of the two United Nations war crimes tribunals trying cases stemming from the 1994 Rwanda genocide and the Balkan wars of the 1990s reflected the drive to finalize the work of their respective bodies, highlighting successful reforms adopted within the past year and reiterating the need to continue the quest for justice and national reconciliation.

Following the timetable laid out by the Security Council in late August, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and its counterpart for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) should complete their investigations by the end of 2004, their trial activities by the end of 2008 and all their work by 2010.

The Rwanda Tribunal would be in a position to finalize all on-going trials, as well cases involving 22 accused currently in detention, by 2007, due to the Assembly’s election of a pool of 18 ad litem judges in June, Tribunal President Erik Møse stated.  In addition, the establishment of a separate Prosecutor for the Rwanda Tribunal, simultaneous translation from Kinyarwanda to English and French in all Trial Chambers, and the decision to allow a trial to continue under a substitute judge in event of the incapacity of the original judge to continue, had increased the efficiency of the eight-year-old institution.

He called on the Security Council to increase from four to nine the number of ad litem judges allowed to sit at the same time, stressing that such a decision would place the Tribunal in a better position to finalize, by 2008, the trials of those who had been indicted but not yet tried and those who still remained at large.

Reaffirming his Government’s commitment to seek justice for the victims of the 1994 genocide, Rwanda’s Prosecutor-General, Gerald Gahima, said that as the Tribunal began to focus on its completion strategy, it must recognize that the people of Rwanda were stakeholders in its work.  It was regrettable that the Tribunal was remote and had alienated Rwandan society, and failed to create an effective and credible witness protection programme.  Also, the Prosecutor’s Office had failed to indict and apprehend large numbers of known genocide suspects. 

Furthermore, he added, the Tribunal had hired perpetrators of genocide and close relatives and friends of suspects as defence investigators and legal assistants, who in turn threatened genocide survivors and prosecution witnesses.  He called on the Security Council to continue its efforts to make the Tribunal more effective, and recommended that the Tribunal initiate a credible and substantial outreach programme to bridge the gap between it and Rwandan society.

Also addressing the Assembly was Theodor Meron, President of the Yugoslav Tribunal, who noted that the past year had been one of great progress and accomplishment in terms of bringing the Court’s work to a close in a timely and equitable manner.  The Security Council’s decision to mandate ad litem judges to participate in pre-trial matters had helped the Tribunal to improve its efficiency.  Within the region itself, stepped-up efforts to create a special War Crimes Chamber in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s State Court would add momentum for the completion of the Tribunal’s work. 

He added that while the Tribunal was striving in every way to adhere to its completion strategy, with all trials set to end in 2008 and all appeals by 2010, difficulties in ensuring that fugitives were turned over could hamper the prosecution of some cases.

The representative of Serbia and Montenegro stressed that, in cooperating with the Tribunal and trying war crimes cases before its own courts, his country sought to contribute to the attainment of the Tribunal’s Completion Strategy.  In developing the local judiciary’s capacity to deal with such complex proceedings, a special prosecutor’s office for war crimes had been established.  Additionally, the Government had recently provided for the establishment of a special court chamber and unit within the Serbian Ministry of the Interior to handle war crimes cases.

The Tribunal, stated the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, had played an important role in the process of inter-ethnic reconciliation in his country, as well as in South-Eastern Europe.  The establishment of a Special War Crimes Chamber in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina was welcomed as a major element in the external component of the Tribunal’s completion strategy.  His country was ready to work with the international community to bring about an early establishment of that Chamber, thus enabling the Tribunal to begin transferring some cases by the end of next year.

With its budget exceeding $1 billion a year, noted Croatia’s representative, the Tribunal was proving quite expensive.  Also, its trials were dislocated from the countries and communities where the crimes had been perpetrated.  In addition, the Tribunal lacked a procedure for compensating indicted persons who were wrongly accused, detained or convicted.  Furthermore, certain interpretations by the Prosecutor of the genesis and background of the Balkan wars seemed out of step with resolutions of the Assembly and Security Council.  It was crucial not to send the wrong message about the primary causes of the war.

Also this morning, the Assembly concluded its consideration of the reports of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization and the follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit.  In summary, Assembly President Julian R. Hunte said that reform had become a clear priority of the Organization.  Regarding the Security Council, attention had been drawn to the need to ensure equitable geographic representation, while many delegations had also stressed the need to streamline the work of the Assembly. 

With regard to the Millennium Development Goals, delegations had resoundingly stressed that achieving those important targets was a shared responsibility for all States, and expressed support for the holding of an event in 2005 to follow-up on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration.

The representatives of Suriname, Venezuela, Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nepal also addressed the Assembly on that issue, as did the Observer of the Holy See.

Statements on the Tribunals were also made by the representatives of Malaysia, Italy (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Norway and Nigeria.

The Assembly will convene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 13 October, to begin its consideration of the report of the Security Council, as well as the question of equitable representation on, and increase in, the membership of the Council.

Background

The General Assembly met this morning to consider the annual reports of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.  The Assembly is also expected to conclude its consideration of the reports of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization (document A/58/1) and the follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit (document A/58/323).  (For summaries of those two reports, see Press Release GA/10167 issued on 6 October.)

The Assembly had before it a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the eighth 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 Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (document A/58/140-S/2003/707) submitted by its President and covering the court’s work from July 2002 through June 2003.  During that period, the Arusha-based Tribunal, which is responsible for trying cases stemming from the 1994 Rwanda genocide, conducted nine trials.  Judgements have been delivered in three cases, involving four accused.

As a result, by 30 June 2003, 11 judgements, involving 13 accused, have been delivered since the Tribunal started its activities in 1995.  Of those 13 accused, 12 have been convicted and one acquitted.  In four trials involving eight accused, the presentation of evidence has been completed and closing arguments were scheduled to be heard this past July and August.  Judgements in those four trials –- Cyangugu case; Kajelijeli case; Kamuhanda case, and Media case –- are expected by the end of the year, bringing the total number of judgements under the court’s second mandate to nine, involving 14 accused.  According to the report, this was twice the number of accused tried under the first mandate (1995-1999).

At the operational level, Judge Erik Mose of Norway was elected President of the 16-judge panel this past May, and Judge Andresia Vaz of Senegal as Vice-President.  The Tribunal’s judges are split between its three Chambers:  three judges serve in each of its trial Chambers and seven serve in the Appeals Chamber; five of its seven members serve in the Appeals Chamber when it is sitting in review.  As for the Office of the Prosecutor, during the period of review, Carla del Ponte and her staff continued to investigate new cases, prepare cases for trial and conduct appeals proceedings.

According to the report, the Office paid particular attention to refining the Tribunal's completion strategy, chiefly regarding the prosecution of those bearing the highest responsibility for war crimes.  In that context, it has continuously refined the targets of its current and projected investigations with the aim of fulfilling the Tribunal’s mandate.  If the Prosecution receives the proper cooperation, particularly from the States concerned, it expects to finalize the remaining investigations by the end of 2004, and to present all new indictments for confirmation by 2005.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Registrar continued to undertake important missions to help ensure the full cooperation of States whenever required, and to obtain their support and improve the visibility of the Tribunal.  Among the countries visited by the Registrar are the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Ethiopia and the Netherlands.  The official emphasized his support for the United States Government’s Rewards for Justice Program.

Full consideration was also given to enhancing full cooperation between the Rwanda Tribunal and the Yugoslavia Tribunal, and following an exchange of visits, the two registrars identified areas and means of working together.  Finally, the report reiterates the oft-described challenges facing the Tribunals, including the complexity of cases, the need for voluminous disclosure and translation of documents, the transport of witnesses from all parts of the world and the unavailability of witnesses.

Also before the Assembly is a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the tenth 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/58/297-S/2003/829).  The report, which covers the period from 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2003, notes that the pace of the Tribunal’s activities had reached an all-time high.  While holding six trials simultaneously, the Tribunal had examined 29 merits cases, as well as three cases of contempt; rendered four final judgements; continued the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic; and received an increasing number of guilty pleas, including from Biljana Plavsic, former Co-President of the Republika Srpska.  The Appeals Chamber also disposed of a greater number of appeals than in years past.

Carrying out its mission with full vigour, the Tribunal pressed ahead with internal reforms designed to improve the efficiency of its proceedings and bring its efforts to an orderly close, states the report.  Notably, Security Council resolution 1481 (2003) had amended the Tribunal’s Statute to permit ad litem judges to do pre-trial work in addition to participating in the trials to which they were assigned.  Additionally, the Tribunal had reached an agreement with the Office of the United Nations High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, regarding the establishment of a special chamber for war crimes prosecutions in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would constitute a major element in the Tribunal’s completion strategy.  The Tribunal should begin transferring some cases of mid- and lower-level accused by the end of 2004 or 2005.

The Tribunal, which currently comprises a total of 24 judges from 23 nations, including 16 permanent and eight ad litem judges, held two regular and two extraordinary plenary sessions to amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to clarify the standards for referral of cases to competent national courts, permit the replacement of a judge in certain cases of judicial disability even without the consent of the accused when the interests of justice so warranted, and to give the Trial Chambers greater power to limit the quantity of information provided by the Prosecution.  An Association of Defence Counsel, to which all attorneys representing accused persons at the Tribunal must belong, had also been established; they were now subject to a code of professional conduct and a disciplinary system.

However, the report also notes that while the Serbian Government’s law enforcement efforts, invigorated in the wake of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic’s assassination on 11 March 2003, had led to the arrest and transfer to the Tribunal of several important accused, nearly 20 indictees, notably Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, remain at large.

ERIK MØSE, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said that the Tribunal had, in 2003, harvested the fruits of the hard work of previous years.  Three judgments involving four accused had already been handed down, and another four judgments involving eight accused were expected by the end of the year or very early next year.  This reflected a 100 per cent increase in the number of accused tried during the Tribunal’s second mandate (1999-2003) over those tried during the first mandate (1995-1999).  The Tribunal would soon have rendered 15 judgments involving 21 accused since the first trials started in January 1997.  Moreover, two voluminous trials involving ten accused, which had begun under the second mandate, continued.  That brought the total number of those whose trials had been completed or were in progress to 31.

The four new trials involving ten accused, which had begun during the second half of 2003, were the consequence of the Assembly’s election of a pool of 18 ad litem judges in June 2003, he added.  The first ad litem judge had taken up his office on 1 September and the others would arrive in Arusha within the next couple weeks.  However, much work remained to be done; at present, 22 detainees awaited trial and the Tribunal was anxious to begin those trials as soon as possible.  For that reason, the Tribunal had requested the Security Council to increase the number of ad litem judges who could sit at any one time from four to nine.  That would increase the capacity of the Tribunal from four to six permanent Trial Chamber sections and give it the same capacity to conduct trials enjoyed by the Yugoslav Tribunal.  Another significant reform would be to increase the competence of ad litem judges to do pre-trial work.

Those changes, he continued, were instrumental to the timely completion of the Tribunal’s mandate.  The Tribunal had made the elaboration of a Completion Strategy its priority during its third mandate.  In the Completion Strategy, it was estimated that, with the four ad litem judges, the Tribunal would be in a position to finalize all on-going trials, as well the cases involving the 22 detainees, by 2007.  However, only eight accused -- out of a group of 16 indictees and 26 suspects still at large -- could be brought to trial by the 2008 deadline set by the Security Council.  Yet, the increase of ad litem judges proposed by the Tribunal would place it in a better position to finalize most trials by the 2008 deadline.

Noting that, by its resolution 1503 (2003), the Security Council had established a separate Prosecutor for the Rwanda Tribunal, he thanked Carla del Ponte, the previous Prosecutor, for her great contributions and welcomed the new Prosecutor, Hassan Jallow.  Turning to reforms intended to increase the efficiency of the Tribunal, he said that the establishment of the “New Trial Committee”, had facilitated the commencement of four new trials.  Moreover, during the trials, time had been saved by the simultaneous translation from Kinyarwanda into English and French in all Trial Chambers.  Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to allow a trial to continue with a substitute judge when the first judge fell ill, died, resigned or was not re-elected, and to facilitate plea agreements in cases where the accused pled guilty, had also increased the Tribunal’s efficiency.

International criminal justice, he noted, was necessary but costly, with many of the expenses related to the defence teams.  Having requested a report on its legal aid system from a British consultant, the Tribunal had already implemented some of the proposals contained therein and would continue to seek solutions to reduce costs without curtailing the right to an effective defence.  Another challenge that the Tribunal had faced in 2002 -- the slow flow of witnesses from Rwanda –- had been ameliorated in the past months.  That was gratifying, as the Tribunal wished to maintain and develop a harmonious relationship that contributed to reconciliation within Rwanda.  Two groups of 10 Rwandan judicial officers had already visited the Tribunal, and it was hoped that other representatives of Rwandan society would soon visit as well.

Recalling that the events of 1994 had given rise to three sets of judicial proceedings –- at the local, national and international levels –- he reiterated that those three levels were not mutually exclusive, but supplemented each other.  In 2000, the Tribunal had endorsed the principle of compensation for victims, but the responsibility for processing and assessing claims was not a task for it.  The President of the Human Rights Commission, presently in Arusha, had committed herself as an advocate for the creation of a special Trust Fund for victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

Finally, he concluded, the Tribunal’s appreciation for the agreements concluded with Benin, Mali and Swaziland for those countries to enforce the sentences handed down by the Tribunal must be repeated.  Thus far, Mali had received five convicts.  Moreover, a sentence enforcement agreement had been concluded with France in March, and similar agreements were likely to be concluded with other countries.  He thanked all Member States for their cooperation with respect to arrests, transfers of indicted persons and travel of witnesses.

THEODOR MERON, President of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said that the past year had been one of great progress and accomplishment for the court.  “Our Trial and Appeals Chambers have heard more cases than ever before”, he said, adding that an increasing number of defendants had decided to plead guilty, express remorse for their crimes and offer assistance to the Prosecution in their respective cases.  A significant number of important human rights offenders had been brought to justice.

As he and the Tribunal’s other top officials continued their efforts to bring the Tribunal’s work to a close, in a timely and equitable manner, they continued to implement internal reforms designed to improve efficiency, while respecting international norms and judicial due process.  The officials had also pressed ahead with efforts to enable the Tribunal to refer certain mid and lower-level offenders to courts in the States of the former Yugoslavia, especially the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“Still, much work remains to be done”, he said, adding that even more changes were necessary to further improve the Tribunal’s efficiency.  The Security Council’s decision to mandate ad litem judges to participate in pre-trial matters had been helpful.  The Court’s top officials also planned to move full speed ahead with efforts to help establish national courts in the region that would be capable of hearing war crimes and genocide cases without any taint of ethnic, religious or national prejudice.  They would also step up their efforts to ensure that the peoples of the former Yugoslavia were provided with a balanced and honest account of the Tribunal’s work.  The Tribunal would also keep striving for complete cooperation from all Member States, particularly those in the region, to ensure justice for the thousands and thousands of victims of the Yugoslav conflicts.

Turning to the Tribunal’s work for the past year, he reiterated that the pace of activities was at an “all time high” -– with morning and afternoon sessions in its three courtrooms and its trial Chambers conducting between four and six trials simultaneously.  On the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, he stressed that the defendant’s health had caused a great many delays, further complicating an already extraordinarily complex case.  The proceedings had brought together three separate indictments -– for Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia -– with 66 counts, hundreds of witnesses and thousands of documents that had to be translated.  But, the prosecution’s case was coming to a close soon, and the timetable for the defence’s case was currently being set.

He went on to say that, outside the Tribunal, another event had occurred that would add momentum towards completing the court’s work in a timely manner, chiefly, stepped up efforts to create a special War Crimes Chamber in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s State Court.  Establishment of such a chamber in Sarajevo would provide a venue to which the Tribunal could transfer a number of mid and low-level cases.  Transfers should begin by 2005.

Looking ahead, he stressed that while the Tribunal was striving in every way to adhere to its completion strategy, with all trials set to end in 2008 and all appeals by 2010, the completion date of judicial proceedings could not be predicted with “scientific accuracy”.  Some factors were in the Court’s control and others were not, and while, he was happy to report that the Tribunal should be able to complete the trials of all individuals currently in custody by the 2008 deadline, difficulties in ensuring that fugitives were turned over may hamper prosecution of some other cases.

The handing over of fugitives depended above all on the cooperation of the States of the former Yugoslavia, he said, calling on the Assembly to press regional authorities to fully and promptly cooperate with the Tribunal’s work.  While, on a recent trip to Belgrade, he had been encouraged by an emerging spirit of cooperation with the Tribunal and its goals, much remained to be achieved -– on the arrests of fugitives, access to evidence and facilitation of witness testimony, especially by present and former officials.

He added that while current calculations revealed that it would not be possible to accommodate any new indictments within the current timetable, strict adherence to targets would not result in impunity.  Once legal process had been started, they would be followed through.  Still, he stressed that fugitives, particularly Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina, must be arrested and turned over to the Tribunal promptly.  “Only then would the Tribunal be able to complete the important mission assigned by the Security Council a decade ago”.

Statements

ISMAIL MUSTAPHA (Malaysia) pointed out that the importance of the work of the Tribunals in the fight against impunity was not to be underestimated since it demonstrated that genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law would not be tolerated, and that the perpetrators of such crimes would be held accountable.  He noted the continued efficiency of the Rwanda Tribunal and the improvements made to accelerate its work, particularly to the availability of simultaneous translation and the changes to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to facilitate proceedings.  Also timely was the creation of the Coordination Council, the Management Committee and the External Relations and Strategic Planning Section.  He believed the election of the 18 ad litem judges, would allow the Tribunal to increase its productivity and meet the demands of the anticipated rise in the number of cases.

He said the splitting of the prosecutorial duties for the two Tribunals, which had previously been under Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte, was essential at a time when both Tribunals were moving towards their respective completion strategies.  The move would enable the respective prosecutors to focus their attention on the conduct of outstanding investigations and prosecutions.  He noted that the Yugoslav Tribunal was in its eleventh year, and the reform process to speed up the meting out of justice was proceeding smoothly with 35 cases completed, 74 individuals indicted, 56 currently facing the Tribunal and

51 persons in detention.  However, 17 individuals were still at large, and the delayed apprehension of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic should be a matter of serious concern to the international community.  The mandate of the Tribunal would not be complete if they remained at large.  He added that the mandate and objectives of the two Tribunals would only be achieved with the fullest cooperation of the international community, particularly the countries in the regions concerned.

MIRZA KUSLJUGIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said the Tribunal had played an important role in the process of inter-ethnic reconciliation in his country, as well as in South-Eastern Europe.  Each verdict of the Tribunal helped to alleviate some of the pain of those victimized by war crimes.  For many in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Tribunal’s activities were the only hope left that justice would eventually be served.  Also, he believed that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, in particular, would unveil some information regarding the atrocities committed between 1992 and 1995, thus providing new facts about the true nature of the conflict in the region.  

He noted with disappointment that, eight years after the war ended in his country, 17 publicly indicted war criminals still remained at large, including the two most notorious, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.  He welcomed the establishment of a Special War Crimes Chamber in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a major element in the external component of the Tribunal’s completion strategy.  He expressed his country’s readiness to work with the international community to bring about an early establishment of that chamber, which would enable the Tribunal to begin transferring some mid and low-level cases by the end of next year.  Yet, he expected that the apprehension and trial of the most notorious offenders would remain the responsibility of the United Nations and the international community.

He urged Member States to provide all the necessary technical, financial and political support for the forthcoming preparatory activities, and to pledge generously at the donors’ conference to be held on 30 October in The Hague.

ALDO MANTOVANI (Italy), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that the Rwanda Tribunal had made a substantial contribution to replacing a culture of impunity with a culture of accountability, and had played an important role in the national reconciliation of Rwanda and the maintenance of regional peace and security.  Together, with the Yugoslav Tribunal, it had contributed to the development of international criminal law.

The Tribunal had faced a number of practical difficulties, he added, including the complexity of its cases, the need for voluminous disclosure and translation of documents, and the transport and availability of witnesses from all parts of the world.  However, it had put considerable effort into overcoming such obstacles and had adopted a number of measures aimed at expediting pre-trial and trial proceedings.  He welcomed the election in June of a pool of 18 ad litem judges and recommended increasing the number of ad litem judges allowed to sit at once, as recommended in the report of the Tribunal, so as to ensure the meeting of deadlines set under the Tribunal’s Completion Strategy.

All the Tribunal’s branches had shown continued dedication to their work, he concluded, particularly that of the Prosecutor.  Expressing his appreciation for the efficient and knowledgeable work done by Carla del Ponte in her position as Chief Prosecutor for both Tribunals, he welcomed her continued commitment as Prosecutor for the Yugoslav Tribunal.  He welcomed the prompt appointment of Hassan Bubacar Jallow as the new Prosecutor for the Rwanda Tribunal and wished him well in his new position.  The Presidents and Prosecutors of both Tribunals should continue their cooperation to maximize the efficient use of their intellectual and financial resources.

Turning to the Yugoslav Tribunal, he supported efforts to establish a Special Chamber for War Crimes Prosecutors in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina -– the “War Crimes Chamber” –- and welcomed the cooperation between the Tribunal and the Office of the High Representative, in that respect.  Further, he urged the Tribunal to ensure that standards of fair trial, independence and full respect for human rights were also respected within trials in national courts.

While it had been emphasized many times that the success of the Tribunal depended largely on the full cooperation of States and their willingness to implement its decisions and orders, he noted that the Tribunal continued to encounter obstacles and resistance.  In that regard, he called on States to improve their cooperation with respect to the arrest and transfer of indictees still at large, requests for documents, access to archives and ready availability of witnesses.  Additionally, he reiterated the need to intensify efforts to transfer Radovan Karadic, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina to the Tribunal for trial.  He added that full cooperation by the countries of the western Balkans with the Tribunal remained an essential element of the Union’s stabilization and association process, as failure to fully cooperate with the Tribunal would seriously jeopardize their further movement towards the Union.

JOHAN L. LOVALD (Norway) noted the efforts and progress made by both Tribunals to date, saying the measures implemented by them had yielded tangible results.  The Rwanda Tribunal had continued its efforts to avoid needless consumption of time, with the net result being a doubling of the number of accused that had been tried.  He also acknowledged the efforts made by the Yugoslav Tribunal to address concerns previously expressed about financial and management issues, especially those related to defence counsel.  The activities of the Yugoslav Tribunal had also reached an all-time high with both its internal and external reforms having been successfully implemented, a development that had resulted in the increase of its judicial activity.

Pointing out that the success of both Tribunals depended largely on support from Member States, he regretted that problems in international cooperation had continued to be an obstacle to the two Tribunals completing their mandates.  Without bringing the highest-ranking indictees to justice, the essential mission of the Tribunals would remain unfulfilled.  Thus, efforts to bring

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic to the Yugoslav Tribunal needed to be intensified, he said, stressing that all States had now to recognize the non-negotiable duty to cooperate with the Tribunals in keeping with binding Security Council decisions. 

VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia) said that even as the Yugoslav Tribunal continued to carry out its laudable mission of restoring and maintaining order in war-torn areas of the former Yugoslavia by putting an end to grave human rights violations and impunity, the body still had shortcomings.  Acknowledging the Tribunal’s deficiencies was a major step towards enhancing its work.  He said “utmost efficiency” was not a phrase that would describe the court’s operational procedures.  With a growing budget –- exceeding $1 billion a year -– the Tribunal was proving to be quite expensive.  Its trials were dislocated from the countries and communities where the crimes had been perpetrated, thus blunting the impact of its important judgements at local levels.

He also highlighted several procedural flaws, including the Tribunal’s lack of a procedure for compensating indicted persons who were wrongly accused, detained or convicted.  The Tribunal’s jurisdiction should be expanded to include a procedure that would enable it to award such compensation.  As for criminals serving sentences far outside the former Yugoslavia, he wondered if that practice ran counter to international guidelines for other mechanisms which required prisoners to be imprisoned reasonably near to their place of residence.  He called on the Secretary-General to review those arrangements.

He added that certain interpretations by the Prosecutor on the genesis and background of the Balkan wars seemed out of step with Assembly resolutions on the occupied territories of Croatia, as well as several other Security Council resolutions.  It was of the utmost importance, he said, not to send the wrong message about the primary causes of the war and carnage during the 1990s.  Also, while the shift towards “mixed-type” ad hoc tribunals, like those trying war crimes in Sierra Leone and Cambodia, created more grass roots level courts, he hoped that the International Criminal Court, the world’s only permanent war crimes panel, would grow into a powerful guardian of human rights in times of conflict, deterring future crimes and obviating the need for ad hoc jurisdiction.

DEJAN SAHOVIC (Serbia and Montenegro) emphasized his country’s support for the internal reforms undertaken by the Yugoslav Tribunal, designed to improve the efficacy of the Trial Chambers’ proceedings.  Reforms were part of a larger effort to bring the Tribunal’s work to an orderly close, in accordance with the completion strategy approved by the Security Council.  He welcomed the establishment of a Special Chamber for war crimes prosecutions in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a positive step in that direction.

The referral of lower-level cases to competent national courts constituted an important part of the completion strategy, he stated, adding that it was time for the Tribunal to consider referrals of certain cases to other national jurisdictions in the States of the former Yugoslavia.  By cooperating with the Tribunal and trying war crimes cases before its own courts, Serbia and Montenegro was seeking to contribute to the attainment of the completion strategy goals.  His Government was working to develop local judiciary to deal with complex proceedings.  As such, legislation had established a special prosecutor’s office for war crimes, which would function as an independent body subordinate only to the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia.  In addition, a recently adopted law provided for the establishment of a special court chamber and unit within the Serbian Ministry of the Interior to handle war crimes cases.

The Tribunal’s Outreach Programme, designed to present its activities to the public, deserved to be highlighted and continued, he said.  Yet, for the Programme to be effective, it needed be available to the population at large, enabling it to assist authorities in their efforts.  Noting his country’s cooperation with the Tribunal, he said that the law on cooperation with the Tribunal had been amended so that restrictions on the surrender of persons indicted by the Tribunal had been removed.  His country had also submitted volumes of records and classified documents to the Tribunal, and no less than 130 individuals had been released of their obligation not to disclose official secrets.  In addition, he supported the Prosecutor’s commitment to completing investigations and indictments by the end of 2004.

O.O. George (Nigeria) said the Tribunals had helped foster national reconciliation, stability and peace through the administration of justice.  In spite of daunting challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, complex cases, voluminous disclosures and unavailability of witnesses, the Rwanda Tribunal had been able to try nine cases during its second mandate.  However, he noted with concern the relatively slow pace of trials, as compared to trials conducted at the national level.

He asked that the number of ad litem judges for the Rwanda Tribunal be reconsidered, and increased to the same level as that of the Yugoslav Tribunal, which was given the use of nine ad litem judges at one time.  Such reform would expedite trials and render justice.  Also, the Rwanda Tribunal’s witness programme was in need of further strengthening to ensure adequate protective measures, so that witnesses could testify incognito and feel protected from reprisals.

He commended the Yugoslav Tribunal for the external component of its completion strategy, by reaching an agreement with the Office of the United Nations High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish a special chamber for war crimes prosecutions in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Transferring some cases of mid- and lower-level accused to the Special Chamber would be a constructive initiative.

GERALD GAHIMA, Prosecutor-General of Rwanda, said his Government was committed to seeking justice for victims of the 1994 genocide, particularly as far as the senior government, military and civic leaders who planned and oversaw those horrible events were concerned.  To assist the Rwanda Tribunal to achieve its mandate, the Government had established several mechanisms to facilitate the court’s work.  All judicial, law enforcement, central and local government entities had been instructed to assist the Tribunal and its personnel in their work.  Therefore, vital access to witnesses had been granted, all evidence had been turned over to the court, and, among other things, Rwanda continued to cooperate with the Tribunal’s efforts to locate fugitives and genocide suspects.

As the Tribunal began to focus on its completion strategy, it should be recognized that the people of Rwanda were stakeholders in the institution’s work.  In that regard, he regretted that the valuable assistance, which Rwanda’s Government institutions and private citizens had given the Tribunal, often went unrecognized or was under-appreciated.  Turning to some of the Tribunal’s shortcomings, he stressed that the body was remote and had alienated Rwandan society, failing to have any significant impact at the grass-roots level.  Its management organs also appeared to work as unrelated institutions, lacking the necessary cohesion.

He went on to say that, among other things, that over the years, the Prosecutor’s Office had failed to create an effective and credible witness protection programme, and had failed to adequately address other pertinent concerns of victims and witnesses.  The Tribunal had also hired perpetrators of genocide and close relatives and friends of suspects as defence investigators and legal assistants, who in turn threatened genocide survivors and prosecution witnesses.  Also, the Prosecutor’s Office had failed to indict and apprehend large numbers of known genocide suspects, and had failed to come up with a realistic completion strategy.  Overall, the perception in Rwanda had been that, despite the Tribunal’s vast resources, it had thus far been “slow, inefficient and ineffective”.

But there had been some progress, he continued, citing the Security Council’s recent decision to appoint a separate prosecutor for the Rwanda Tribunal, as well as the appointment of ad litem judges and the initiatives by its new President to expedite the pace of trials and promote effective functioning of the Tribunal.  Rwanda, like much of the international community, believed that the Tribunal’s new leadership provided a window of opportunity for addressing the problems that had plagued its past operation, and would set the body on a course towards justice in which the world could be proud for generations to come.

Calling on the Security Council to continue its efforts to make the Tribunal more effective, he recommended that there be greater consultations between all parties concerned.  Among other things, the completion strategy should urgently address the large numbers of genocide suspects not yet indicted and who remained at large outside Rwanda.  Also, the strategy should address financial implications of the transfer of cases to Rwanda and make suggestions as to how financial assistance for Rwanda could be raised.

He recommended that the Tribunal initiate a credible and substantial outreach programme to bridge the gap between it and Rwandan society.  At least some cases should be tried in Rwanda, he added.  On the Court’s hiring of persons suspected of having ties to suspected war criminals, he recommended the appointment of an independent commission to investigate and urgently report on the presence of such persons, to ensure that indicted war criminals and their friends and relatives did not continue to be unjustly enriched.

Statements on Millennium Goals and Work of Organization

EWALD LIMON (Suriname) said that development needed to be human centred and sustainable.  Global poverty was one of the most discouraging challenges that faced the international community today, and it would take greater national and international efforts to attain the Millennium Development Goals.  The implementation of those Goals should be further promoted, and developing and industrialized countries alike had to keep their commitments towards that end.  Additionally, industrialized countries were urged to live up to their official development assistance (ODA) commitments and to work towards a regime of fair trade with developing countries.  In addition, developing countries needed to be better included in the decision-making process of the main international organizations.

He said the follow-up of the outcome of major United Nations conferences, especially on sustainable development and financing for development, was needed.  In efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals, it was necessary to tackle crucial environmental challenges such as biodiversity protection and climate change.  Education for all, gender equality and bridging the digital divide were also issues that required attention if sufficient development was to come to developing countries.  To that end, he called on the international community to make a serious effort to reach the Goals and create better living conditions for the world’s people.

MILOS ALCALAY (Venezuela) said a significant number of Member States had endorsed the proposition to strengthen the United Nations, the only forum the international community could count on to deal with issues affecting global peace and security.  It was vital that the International Community preserve the collective approach by means of multilateralism.  At the same time, it was critical that the Organization adapt to changes and keep in step with current world demands.  He stressed that the United Nations must retain its central role in facing threats, and that a multilateral approach be the foundation for the reform of the Organization.

Conserving a multilateral approach made it possible for every Member State to present a viewpoint and demonstrate its experience in different areas, he said, adding that decisions should be grounded in freedom, justice, democracy and independence.  Despite the difficulties of achieving the Millennium Goals, and the scanty progress reported thus far, the Goals were the agenda of the Organization, and encompassed a broad range of issues affecting peace and security.  Progress in achieving the Millennium Goals would depend on results achieved with regard to poverty reduction, deprivation and the elimination of social exclusion.  He urged the creation of specific methodologies that would allow for follow-up and evaluation of the Millennium Goals.  In closing, he expressed support for the Secretary-General’s proposal to set up a panel of eminent persons to suggest recommendations for restructuring the Organization.

ALPHA IBRAHIMA SOW (Guinea) said that recent events, particularly the 19 August attack on the United Nations compound in Baghdad, had been rightly described as attacks on the entire international community.  It was, therefore, necessary for the Organization to heighten its resolve and continue its fight against international terrorism and find peaceful ways to settle continuing conflicts, particularly in Africa and the Middle East.  Challenges to peace and security were global and required collective and cohesive responses.

It was time to look at the architecture of the United Nations system so that it could be reinvigorated and reinforced during such critical times, he said.  The Organization and its principle agencies should also be made more responsive to the needs of the developing world.  While important initiatives, such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), had begun to yield success, he stressed that, unless the international community mobilized right now, the entire continent was in danger of not achieving the goals set by the Millennium Declaration.  He urged the United Nations to continue enhancing its efforts to ensure that all nations achieved the Goals.

ZULU KILO-ABI (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said recent events had revealed that international relations, particularly efforts to maintain peace and security, ensure sustainable development and promote equitable trade, needed a wake-up call.  Therefore, it was necessary for all States to work together to overcome emerging threats.  As for Africa, cooperation between the international community and the countries of the continent was the only way to address trafficking in small arms, resources depletion and other ills wrought by “war economies”.  He urged the Assembly to continue to press for broad adherence to the Kimberly Process.

He also reiterated President Joseph Kabila’s call for the creation of an international fund to help the long-suffering people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  In addition, he reiterated the call for the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity –- particularly the use of rape as a tool of war -- committed during the country’s many years of war.  Ensuring that the Great Lakes region and all of Africa received the benefits of globalization was also necessary.  On United Nations reform, while he agreed with the necessity of wide-ranging changes to the Organization’s functioning, particularly efforts to make the Security Council and Assembly more representative of modern realities, he stressed that strengthening the rule of law was another important factor in ensuring peace and security and promotion of human rights.

MURARI RAJ SHARMA (Nepal) said the United Nations deserved credit for bringing the world community together to agree on the Millennium Development Goals.  Poverty and hunger had marginally receded in the past few years; the child mortality rate had declined; and school enrolment numbers had improved slightly.  However, implementation of the Millennium Goals had remained slow and progress was inadequate.  While the developing nations would need an additional $50 billion in annual assistance, he expressed dismay that pledges were only one-third that figure.  It was also disappointing that the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks had collapsed in Cancun.

The United Nations had always stressed that the developing countries should receive special attention and adequate resources to mitigate their difficulties, he stated.  Yet, aid to those nations was woefully low.  Without quota-free access to markets to spur investments, least developed countries, including Nepal and many sub-Saharan African States, would fail to achieve the Goals.  In addition, landlocked developing countries suffered from geographical handicaps and lack of access to sea-based resources, as well as high transit transport costs, placing them at a comparative disadvantage in trade.  He hoped the Almaty Programme of Action would receive full support from transit neighbours and development partners.  In conclusion, he welcomed the Secretary-General’s reform proposals as well as his proposal to establish a high-level panel on that issue.

CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Observer of the Holy See, believed in the technical viability of the Millennium Development Goals as effective tools of political mobilization in favour of the marginalized.  The struggle for their attainment remained one of the globalization of ethics, equity, inclusion, human security, sustainability and development.  However, market forces could only deliver such goods if attention was paid to the preservation and enhancement of human, community and environmental resources.  The efficiency of the international trade and financial systems needed to be measured by their effective contribution to the achievement of the Goals.  Thus, the challenge was to find the effective framework of rules and institutions for stronger governance –- local, national, regional and global –- to ensure that that globalization worked for the good of people and not just for profit.

He urged the international community to refashion the established ideas about political equality, social justice and liberty.  Such old ideas should now be re-designed into a coherent political project that was robust enough for a world where power was exercised on a transnational scale and where risks were shared by peoples across the world.  He appreciated that, in “putting flesh” to the Goals, tireless efforts were being exerted by the United Nations system in guiding governments, assisted by civil societies, to set up mechanisms to make ethical standards and human rights binding for nations, corporations and individuals.  Also, he noted that the Goals were technically viable if every human being was put at the centre of economic thinking and of the “architecture” of all international organizations, including those dealing with finances and trade.

Summing up the debate, Assembly President JULIAN HUNTE said the discussions had been both interesting and wide-ranging.  Delegations had carefully reviewed the Secretary-General’s relevant reports, and the statements had been cogent and succinct.  It had become clear that reform of the Organization had become a priority for delegations.  Organizational reform, which made the United Nations better able to cope with modern realities and emerging threats, had been cited as an imperative and had been given widespread support.  Many delegations had cited the war in Iraq as among the major challenges for the international system, particularly the United Nations family.

On Security Council reform, he said that attention had been drawn to the need to ensure equitable geographic representation.  It was also stressed that the Council must act in the service of all Member States, not merely a few major powers.  Many had also stressed the need to streamline the work of the Organization, particularly the Assembly.  Thought-provoking proposals had been put forward pertaining to the traditional way Assembly resolutions were introduced and adopted.  There had been some suggestion that important issues could be better served by either changing the focus of such texts, or by taking up certain issues in two- or three-year review cycles.  He had listened closely to proposals aimed at revitalizing the Assembly, as that was one of his priorities for the session.

On meeting the Millennium Development Goals, he said that delegations had resoundingly stressed that achieving those important targets was a shared responsibility of all States.  Support had been expressed for the holding of a 2005 high-level dialogue on follow-up on the implementation of the Millennium Summit.  Also, Delegations had stressed that developing countries had a definite stake in ensuring a fair and equitable international market place.  Among the proposals to achieve that goal was for developed countries to hold a meeting to come up with a deadline to ensure that an equitable global trading system was established, and that a universal reporting system for donor countries be established, so they could report on efforts to implement the eighth goal.  He urged the Assembly to reflect on the debate and continue to work towards enhancing the Organization.

* *** *