LEGAL COMMITTEE HEARS CALLS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Sixth Committee

9^th & 10^th Meetings (AM & PM)

LEGAL COMMITTEE HEARS CALLS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Delegates Urge Mandate for Secretary-General; Debate on

Terrorism Concluded, Implications of Human Cloning Taken Up

The Secretary-General must be given a mandate to conclude a relationship agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, the Netherlands delegate told the Sixth Committee (Legal) today as it met twice to take up the debate on the Court.  The Committee also completed its debate on terrorism, considered the administration of justice at the United Nations and began its debate on cloning.

The Court was here to stay, the Netherlands delegate continued, and it was growing stronger every day.  He said open dialogue would continue with countries which still hesitated to give the Court the power to investigate and bring about justice for the most heinous crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Nigeria’s representative noted that 91 States were now members of the Court, in contrast to the 60 recorded at its inauguration on 1 July of last year.  He said the encouraging growth was indicative of the international community’s increasing confidence in the Court’s usefulness to fight impunity.

China’s representative said the Court needed time to grow.  History and reality would test its ability to observe the principle of complementarity and its ability to prosecute in an objective and fair manner free from political bias and double standards.

With the possibility that the Court would be looking into events that had happened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as one of its first mandates, that country’s representative said those who would cover their actions or rewrite them would no longer be able to do so.

Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan, President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute which established the Court, said the universality of the Statute remained a realizable goal.  Its increasing acceptance was a firm indication of continuing interest in the Court and an affirmation of support for its purposes and objectives.  He urged early conclusion of the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.

Also speaking in the discussion on the Court were the representatives of Norway, Italy (on behalf of the European Union), Liechtenstein, United Republic of Tanzania, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Uganda, Trinidad and Tobago, Peru (speaking on behalf of the Rio Group), Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Gabon, Argentina, Australia, San Marino, Japan, Sierra Leone, New Zealand, Jordan, Ukraine, Senegal and Lesotho.

Also speaking on that issue was the Observer of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

On the debate regarding measures to eliminate international terrorism, statements were made by the representatives of Gabon, Ghana, Thailand, Israel, Nigeria, Mexico, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, Colombia, Cameroon, Azerbaijan (on behalf of the regional GUUAM group of countries), Nepal, Indonesia and Senegal.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply on that matter were the delegations of Israel and Syria.

With regard to the administration of justice at the United Nations, a draft resolution was introduced with action expected tomorrow.  That would amend a provision of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal on qualifications of Tribunal members.

Finally today, the Committee began its debate on the International Convention against the Cloning of Human Beings.  The representatives of Costa Rica and Belgium introduced draft resolutions on that matter.

Speaking on that issue were the representatives of Panama, Kenya and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, 21 October, to complete its consideration of the International Criminal Court.

Background

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to complete its debate on measures to eliminate international terrorism.  [For details, see Press Release GA/L/3233 of 15 October].  It was also to start discussions of two new items concerning the administration of justice at the United Nations and the newly established International Criminal Court based at The Hague, the Netherlands.  This afternoon, the Committee was expected to continue debate on the International Criminal Court and to begin deliberations on the question of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings.

Administration of Justice

The agenda item on the administration of justice at the United Nations was allocated to the Fifth Committee by the General Assembly and also to the Sixth Committee, but for the sole purpose of considering the question of an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal.  At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly, in its resolution 57/307, agreed that the United Nations Administrative Tribunal should be strengthened through an amendment to its Statute.

       The amendment would require that the candidates for the Tribunal possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent within the candidate’s national jurisdiction (Article 3 paragraph 1), as recommended in paragraph 13 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (document A/57/736).  The General Assembly decided to take a decision on the matter at its fifty-eighth session.  (At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly by resolution 55/159 amended a number of articles of the Statute including the original Article 3 paragraph 1.  The amended version of Article 3 paragraph, which took effect from 1 January 2001, read as follows:  “The Tribunal shall be composed of seven members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State.  Members shall possess the requisite qualifications and experience, including, as appropriate, legal qualifications and experience.  Only three members shall sit in any particular case.”)

By a draft resolution on the administration of justice at the United Nations (document A/C.6/58/L.7), the paragraph would be amended to read:  “The Tribunal shall be composed of seven members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State.  Members shall possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent within the member’s national jurisdiction.  Only three members shall sit in any particular case.”

International Criminal Court

A report of the Secretary-General on the International Criminal Court (document A/58/372) provides a brief account of the two sessions of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the Court.  It also focuses on activities relating to the United Nations Secretariat in its capacity as provisional secretariat for the Assembly of States Parties.

According to the report, the 18 judges of the Court and the prosecutor had been elected by the Assembly of States Parties.  The deputy prosecutor and the Court’s Registrar have also been appointed, and the programme budget for the Court for fiscal year 2004 adopted.  Also adopted were resolutions concerning, inter alia, the committee on budget and finance and the recognition of the coordinating and facilitating role of the non-governmental organization, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court.  Staff regulations of the Court had been approved and a decision has been taken to establish a permanent secretariat for the Assembly of States Parties.

The Court’s Registrar had been asked to establish a trust fund under the authority of the Assembly’s secretariat for the participation of the least developed countries in the work of the Assembly and its subsidiary bodies.  Consequently, the Secretary-General was asked by the Assembly of States Parties to close the special fund established by the General Assembly for that purpose and to take steps to transfer any funds remaining in the account to the new trust fund, for which voluntary contributions had been sought.

Another resolution adopted by the Assembly of States Parties acknowledged the important role played by the United Nations in the establishment of the International Criminal Court.  It expressed deep appreciation to the Secretary-General and the United Nations Secretariat for their outstanding support in the Court’s establishment.  It also acknowledged with satisfaction the dedication and professionalism of the staff of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, which served, it said, in an exemplary manner as secretariat, and in particular of the Ad Hoc Committee and Preparatory Committee on the establishment of the Court.

International Convention Against Human Cloning

The Committee had before it a report by the working group on the international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings (document A/C.6/58/L.9).  Also before the Committee are two resolutions offering approaches to the convention -- one submitted by sponsors associated with the delegation of the United Kingdom (document A/C.6/58/L.8), and the other offered by delegations associated with the final sponsor of the United States (document A/C.6/58/L.2).

Statements on International Terrorism

RUSSEL MEZEME-MBA (Gabon) said the 11 September terrorist attack against the United States and the recent bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations were urgent reminders that international action was needed to combat the scourge.  A comprehensive convention was necessary to supersede the 12 sectoral instruments against terrorism.  More extreme measures were required to make the fight against terrorism more effective.

He paid tribute to the tremendous work carried out by the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee and said his Government had submitted two reports on measures it had taken to combat the scourge.  The President of Gabon had recently issued a decree creating a commission to deal with terrorism issues.  The Government was also adopting banking legislation to monitor all financial transactions.

THOMAS KWESI QUARTEY (Ghana) said international terrorism did not begin on 11 September 2001 and did not end on that day.  As globalization increased, so had the mindless violence of international terrorism.  The international community must face up to the task and confront the problem globally.  His Government supported the central role of the United Nations and the Sixth Committee in its work to bring to early fruition an acceptable draft comprehensive convention on terrorism and a treaty on nuclear terrorism.

That endeavour must take into account all legitimate concerns, such as targeting of innocent civilians, women and children; the role of armed forces when they violated international humanitarian law; the nuances involving self-determination; bilateral cooperation and information-sharing; and the definitional problems associated with those concerns.  The hopelessness and injustice that fed that frustration and consequent nihilism must also be addressed.  Difficult as it might seem, the international community must try to understand what animated international terrorism.  Ghana supported a joint international response to the problem.  It had ratified most of the United Nations and regional conventions, and was in the processing of completing that task.

TULL TRAISORAT (Thailand) said his Government had taken measures under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) to put into effect anti-terrorism legislation.  It had become party to a number of anti-terrorism instruments.  Thailand commended the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee and supported its work.  It had consistently submitted reports to the Committee on measures its Government had taken to combat terrorism, as required of Member States.  Thailand associated itself with the statement made by the representative of Viet Nam on behalf of the member States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).  It had effectively participated in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and would contribute towards the completion of work on a draft comprehensive convention against terrorism and an instrument for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.  He called for the strengthening of cooperative efforts to combat terrorism.

TAL BECKER (Israel) said important legal milestones had already been achieved in confronting terrorism, including Security Council resolution

1373 (2001) that was a crucial contribution to the legal counter-terrorist architecture.  There was also clear support for the principle that no remembered wrong or grievance could ever justify the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.  States that abused the language of “resistance” to whitewash the premeditated targeting of innocents were increasingly alone.

Recounting recent terrorist acts in his country, he said the odds were against innocents, since those without moral scruples had a tactical advantage in their moral blindness.  Yet the fight had to be conducted in accordance with international law, which was not a suicide pact.  The scale of the threat must be recognized in order to confront it, which meant it was necessary to assess the threat according to those attacks that had been planned and yet prevented, not just by those that had succeeded.  In his country’s case, as in that of many, that meant not just considering the hundreds of civilians killed in attacks but those who had been saved through prevention.  In looking at the root causes of terrorism, too little attention was paid to the role played by the incitement that fostered the kind of culture that bred terrorism.  Also, the question of State sponsors of terrorism must be addressed.  They sought to conduct “war on the cheap” by facilitating aggression by proxy groups against civilians.

FELIX AWANBOR (Nigeria) recalled terrorism against his country, including the 1998 attack on the Nigerian Embassy in Tanzania.  He strongly condemned the August terrorist attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and expressed strong support for the United Nations actions against terrorism, including the Secretary-General’s report before the Committee.  He reaffirmed his cooperation and commitment to fully implement the relevant international instruments relating to terrorism, and outlined the steps his country had taken to put instruments in place so as to freeze funds and financial assets of terrorism-related parties and to deny safe haven to them.

Declaring the need for a comprehensive convention on combating terrorism and a convention to fight nuclear terrorism, he said that while no cause justified terrorism the root causes must be addressed.  As the Secretary-General had said, while terrorism must never be excused, genuine grievances must not be ignored just because terrorism was committed in their name.

ALEJANDRO RODILES (Mexico) said it was urgent to bring both convention drafts to fruition, since both were indispensable to give the international community a complete framework along which terrorism could be defeated.  They should be aimed toward prevention.  An unnecessary linkage was being created between the two and that was inappropriate.  Both were valuable in and of themselves.  Viewing them separately as stand-alone instruments could help resolve the outstanding issues.

MOHAMMED HAJ IBRAHIM (Syria) called on all States for real cooperation in giving legitimacy to the fight against terrorism through the lead of the Counter-Terrorism Committee.  He said some States acted under the pretext of fighting terrorism while continuing terrorist practices on the ground.  Israel committed actions that constituted a persecution of Palestinians, by carrying on illegal settlements, as an example.  Palestinians had the right to protest illegal occupation of their land by the principles set out in the Charter.  That was not terrorism.  Any people whose land was occupied had the right to fight that injustice through any means, and such action did not warrant isolation or segregation.

Calling for a definition of terrorism in the comprehensive convention that was in line with the right of people to struggle against occupation, he said no actions taken by armed forces should be exempt from the convention unless they were in accordance with the United Nations Charter.  Syria was ready to combat terrorism in all its manifestations and forms.  It was ready to cooperate with the national community in the fight.  His country had called for a high-level conference to clarify the definition.  Holding that conference now was more critical than ever.

GAILE ANN RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago), who is also a Vice-Chair of the Sixth Committee, said the fight against terrorism could not be successfully waged by States acting individually.  It called for collective action.  She said the progress achieved by the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee had contributed to a large extent to highlighting the need for strengthening the international capability to fight terrorism and to encouraging States to take the required action at the domestic level.

Trinidad and Tobago reaffirmed its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and remained committed to working at all levels to ensure that the necessary measures were put in place to eradicate the threat.  It intended to avail itself of the technical assistance offered by the Counter-Terrorism Committee.  She said her country was a party to 11 of the

12 international legal instruments relating to the prevention and suppression of international terrorism and would take steps in accordance with the country's parliamentary processes.  In addition, Trinidad and Tobago had also signed the two Inter-American Conventions as well as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.  It was in the interests of all States to work closely together to deal effectively with terrorist networks on their territories.  As such, she said there was a real need for capacity-building and cooperation in areas such as intelligence, equipment, policing, and compliance with international codes and standards.

MARIA LAVELLE (Canada) said terrorism was a global problem which required a durable and effective global response, and one that respected international law.  The response should be united, resolute and unwavering.  Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act addressed the spreading of hatred as a factor that must be dealt with in the fight against terrorism.  The act reaffirmed Canadian values and ensured that Canada’s respect for justice and diversity was reinforced.  The Act addressed hate through amendments to the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.  She said a sound international legal architecture to combat terrorism had been created.  Canada had signed and ratified all 12 international counter-terrorism conventions and continued to support the Secretary-General’s appeal for States to ratify and implement all existing counter terrorism instruments.  She announced Canada’s readiness to assist States with the national mechanisms needed to implement the required standards.

ANA CARLINA PLAZAS (Colombia) said there was no such thing as just terrorism, because the act was one of destruction.  The only difference between terrorism and other crimes against humanity was the purpose, which was nothing more than to create terror for its own sake.  The subject of terrorism must be freed of any political context, so it could be fought as the scourge it was -- an action intended to terrify, because of its links to transnational crimes.

She said her Government was fighting terrorism by aiming for “democratic security”, by giving special authority legislatively to law enforcement persons.  Criticisms were lodged against the programme.  They were listened to and addressed.  Peace in the region was being brought about on the principle of shared responsibility.  Her country had reported to the Secretary-General on actions taken against terrorism.  The two conventions should be finalized on an urgent basis without delay.

IYA TIDJANI (Cameroon) recalled recent tragedies demonstrating the world’s vulnerability to terrorists.  He said nobody could deny the global nature of terrorism today and its links to transnational crimes.  Collective security must be the approach taken against it, along with the recognition that nothing could justify terrorism.  The best way to show the determination to defeat terrorism was to elaborate the instruments before the Committee.  That would augment the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, which had established a useful dialogue between national, regional and subregional players in fighting terrorism and its root causes such as poverty.

The fight against terrorism required a change in culture, he said.  Today’s culture must be centred on peace, humanity and equality.  Industrialized countries must cooperate in implementing real and specific policies, with the fight seen in view of the magnitude of the threat.  The comprehensive convention must be a value-added document.  Its elaboration should be associated with a high-level conference.

YASHAR T. ALIYEV (Azerbaijan), speaking on behalf of the GUUAM Group of States –- Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan -– said the Group welcomed the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee’s endeavours to facilitate dialogue and information exchange with regional bodies.  Such exchanges would benefit the global anti-terrorist effort.  The setting of international norms through the continuing promotion and adoption of international legal instruments should remain a priority of United Nations efforts in combating international terrorism.

He said one of the main objectives of GUUAM’s charter was combating international terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking.  At the Group’s summit held in Yalta, last July, they had reaffirmed their readiness to cooperate in combating terrorism, separatism, ethnic hatred, extremism and other challenges to international security.  Experts of the Group met on 3 October at Baky, capital of Azerbaijan, on implementation of their project to combat terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking.  He noted the high level of cooperation between their Group and the United States, to coordinate efforts to combat terrorism and transnational crime.

RAM BABU DHAKAL (Nepal) said there was an imperative need for the Ad Hoc Committee to complete its work on drafting a comprehensive convention on international terrorism and an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.  Nepal supported the convening of a high-level conference under United Nations auspices to prepare a joint, organized response to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.  Regional cooperation would complement global efforts, and he referred to work of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.  Nepal was party to several international legal instruments relating to the various aspects of international terrorism.  It had submitted to the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee the periodic reports required of Member States.

He said terrorist activities had posed a serious threat to peace, security and development of Nepal.  The Government was determined to protect its people and defend their freedom.  It hoped the global community would continue to provide Nepal with moral and financial support to overcome the scourge.

ARIF HAVAS OEGROSENO (Indonesia) said the most important task in dealing with terrorism was to lay down a legal foundation to protect both the public interest and human rights, as a basis for enforcing laws to root out terrorism.  The strong legal infrastructure would become the basis for national policy and for actions based on both national and international processes.

He reviewed the national steps his country had taken to fight terrorism, for example, through linkages with money laundering at the domestic, regional and international levels, and he said international cooperation was extremely important in areas such as information exchange and enforcement cooperation, including by extradition provisions.  Finally, he said the adoption of the two conventions before the Committee would send the clear signal that the international community was united and determined in its intention to eliminate the scourge.

Mr. THIAM (Senegal) said his delegation was pleased with the progress made in the Ad Hoc Committee on the framing of a comprehensive international convention on terrorism and an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.  He noted the difficulties encountered in that Committee, including the issue of definition of terrorism.  There was need for an agreed definition of international terrorism which took account of all relevant issues in today’s world.  That approach would achieve the required consensus.  He assured the Committee of the full support of his delegation.  Senegal was fully committed to the fight against terrorism and had adopted appropriate measures to that end.  It had presented its required reports to the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.  A number of legislative actions were being taken, including one on eco-terrorism.  Measures had been introduced to control movement of people across borders and airports.  Senegal had ratified 10 of the 12 United Nations conventions on terrorism.  It supported the call for the convening of an international conference to take up the question of joint international response to terrorism and a search for its definition.

Rights of Reply

The representative of Israel said he had not identified any country as a supporter of terrorism although there were a number of candidates present.  Political sides of issues did not belong in the Committee.  The statement by Syria’s representative, however, compelled him to respond.  How could Syria defend itself against its known behaviour of harbouring terrorists even as it sat on the Security Council?  Syria was the last State to be lecturing anyone on international law or on the Charter.

Syria’s representative said the Zionist entity had just stated that political aspects of issues had no place in the Committee.  In fact, acts perpetrated on the ground in the occupied territories derived from State terrorism and genocide.  Israeli used United States-built aircraft to target civilians in his own country, among many other actions condemned by the international community.  To call Israel the victim was to reverse reality.  Israel claimed democracy but had sown the seeds of terrorism in the region and it continued to pursue that policy.  The Prime Minister boasted of it and pursued the plan to build the wall destroying any chance of the two-State plan for the region.  The Prime Minister was torpedoing any chance for peace in the region.  Those bombarded from aircraft had no choice but to protest and resist in exercise of a right guaranteed by the Charter.

Israel’s representative said he did not blame the Syrian representative for the misrepresentations he had just stated on instructions from Damascus.  Delegations needed only to consult the Internet to see what kind of democracy was practised in Syria.

Syria’s representative said he was used to the kinds of lies being spoken by the other delegate.  The fact was that half a million Palestinians in Syria could not return home because their land had been taken from them.  The representative of the occupying forces was the last to be talking about democracy.  The kind of suffering meted out to Arabs by Israel in history was well known and the corruption occurring in Israel now was indicative of the form of democracy there.  All took pride in carrying out the directives of their countries; it would be more prideful if all countries’ views received equal acceptance.

Administration of Justice at United Nations

LAURO LIBRON BAJA (Philippines), Chairman of the Sixth Committee, said this item had been allocated to the Fifth Committee for its consideration, and to the Sixth Committee for the sole purpose of considering the question of an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal.  He recalled that the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly , in its resolution 57/307, had agreed that the Tribunal should be strengthened through an amendment to its Statute, requiring that the candidates for the Tribunal possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent within the candidate’s national jurisdiction, as recommended in paragraph 13 of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions’ (ACABQ) report, document A/57/736.  It further decided to take a decision on the matter during its fifty-eighth session.

He drew attention to a draft resolution on the item contained in document A/C.6/58/L.7, and said action would be taken on it tomorrow.

The representative of Syria raised a procedural point that the Sixth Committee could not adopt a decision regarding an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and that it could only make a recommendation.  He suggested that the Committee should make its recommendation in a letter to the Chairman of the Fifth Committee.

The Chairman of the Committee said a response would be given by the Secretariat at tomorrow’s meeting of the Committee.

International Criminal Court

The Chairman, introducing the agenda item on the International Criminal Court, said that since the consideration of the item last year by the Committee, several significant developments had occurred.  The first session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute that established the Court was resumed twice in February and in April.  The Assembly had its second session last month.  The report of the Secretary-General reviewing the various activities undertaken in accordance with General Assembly resolution 57/23 was contained in document A/58/372.

PRINCE ZEID RA’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN of Jordan, President of the Assembly of States Parties, said the number of States Parties to the Rome Statute had grown from 81 to 91 in the past year.  On 1 December 2003, the Statute would enter into force for Georgia, bringing the number of States parties to 92.  The universality of the Statute remained a realizable goal that should be striven for.  The increasing acceptance of the Rome Statute was a firm indication of the continuing interest in the Court and an affirmation of support for its purposes and objectives.

He said efforts to ensure that the Court, as a judicial institution, became fully operational had proceeded steadily and resolutely despite many challenges.  Earlier in the year, elections were held for key officials of the Court.  The Judges, the Prosecutor and the Registrar of the Court had all assumed their responsibilities.  The International Criminal Court was an operational criminal justice institution, he asserted.

In other actions, he went on, the Assembly of the States Parties had elected members of the Board of Directors of the Victims’ Trust Fund.  He said the pronounced role accorded to the participation of victims in the criminal justice system created by the Rome Statute constituted one of the important developments in international criminal law.  It was therefore gratifying that the Assembly elected by acclamation eminent personalities of international standing who would play a pioneering advisory function in the critical component of the justice system.

Turning to issues that would require follow-up action in the Sixth Committee, he said it would be necessary for arrangements to be made for a smooth transition from the valuable contribution of the United Nations Secretariat to the secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties.  He spoke of the professionalism and competence with which the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat had discharged its responsibilities as provisional secretariat of the Assembly.  It would also be necessary, he said, that arrangements were made for the conclusion of the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.  The early conclusion of such an agreement would enable the two institutions to enhance their cooperation of mutual interest.

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said a milestone had been reached in the past year with the formal adoption of all the Court’s primary governing instruments and the election of all its senior officials.  States had new motivation in fulfilling the duty of bringing to justice those who had committed atrocities.

He said the Court had recruited excellent human resources and continued to search for highly qualified professionals.  It was regrettable that his country and Trinidad and Tobago were the only two States so far to have ratified the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities.  The Court could not work efficiently until the Agreement entered into force.  All States must sign and ratify the Treaty.  They must also adopt implementing legislation and acquit themselves of their financial commitments.  Priority should be given to dialogue on issues concerning the fight against impunity for the worst international crimes, particularly with those who showed a preference for addressing the issues within their national systems framework.  Time would show that the Court would work in the national interest of States committed to the rule of law.

GIUSEPPE NESI (Italy), speaking for the European Union and associated countries, said he was confident the Court would soon prove to be an independent and effective institution that would verify the Rome Statute as guaranteeing the highest criteria of justice, without lending itself to political manipulation.  The Court’s having come into reality had important consequences for States.  Yet that did not mean States had fulfilled their obligations to the development of the international criminal justice system.  They must promote the widest possible participation, through ratification of, or accession to, the Rome Statute.  They must also preserve the Court’s integrity.

He said the European Union was carrying out initiatives to reflect its Common Position.  It was inviting States to join in ratifying or acceding to the Statute and urging States to enact necessary national legislation.  It was encouraging the Secretary-General to take steps to conclude the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.  It was defending the Court’s integrity, in part by maintaining a broad-based dialogue with States who had concerns about it.

The Court did not aim to replace domestic jurisdiction and it could assume responsibility only as a last resort, he emphasized.  The Court was also not just a judicial institution to put an end to impunity, but was an essential means of promoting respect for international humanitarian law and human rights.  Thus it contributed to freedom, security, justice and the rule of law, as well as to preserving peace and strengthening international security.

YISHAN ZHANG (China) said the Chinese Government had all along given its understanding and support to the establishment of an international criminal court that was independent, just, effective and universal.  China had noted the report submitted by the Court to the second meeting of the Assembly of States Parties on its activities.  It had also noted the Prosecutor’s report submitted to that session, and had gained an overall knowledge about the main activities carried out so far by the Court.  China welcomed the practical and transparent approach adopted by the Prosecutor in formulating the prosecution policy of his Office.  The document was of interest to China, particularly with those areas concerning interpretation and implementation of the principle of complementarity.  However, further clarifications were still needed and China would continue to follow closely the formulation and implementation of the prosecution policy.

The Court needed time to grow, he said.  History and reality would test the Court’s ability to strictly observe the principle of complementarity.  The Court would also be tested in its ability to prosecute within its limited resources the most serious international crimes as set out in the Statute and to carry out its mandate in an objective and fair manner, free from political bias and double standards.

STEFAN BARRIGA (Liechtenstein) said the issue of the relationship between the Court and the United Nations was an important one which should be addressed by the Sixth Committee.  The General Assembly was the place where the idea of an international criminal court was born and where a great deal of the preparations leading to the adoption of the Statute and the subsequent establishment of the Court were undertaken.  On the other hand, he said, the United Nations was also a place where the Court had not yet found its rightful place, most obviously regarding its relationship with the Security Council. 

He said the momentum must be kept to make the Court a natural part of the landscape of international institutions.  He stressed the increasing relevance of the Court for the substantive work of the United Nations, and vice versa; the United Nations could greatly benefit from the work of the Court, and the Court could also greatly benefit from cooperation, in particular with United Nations agencies in the field.  Provisional measures should be taken to ensure a constructive and sustainable relationship between the Court and the United Nations, pending the conclusion of the agreement on their relationship. 

ANDY MWANDEMBWA (United Republic of Tanzania) said the choice of Prosecutor had been a big point of contention by the Court’s detractors, and the election of Louis Moreno Ocampo had allayed apprehension.  It should be remembered that certain crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction affected the entire international community, with national boundaries being no confinement on the punishment of those crimes.  The principle of complementarity should assuage those worried about interference in sovereignty. 

He urged the Prosecutor to look into atrocities that had been committed in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for possible first cases to see indictment by the Court.  Further, he recalled that a definition of the crime of aggression was a major outstanding issue for the Court.  And finally, the impressive speed of ratification should not bring on complacency.  The need to bring more countries on board was urgent, particularly the largest, most populous and most powerful ones.

ORLANDO REQUEIJO GUAL (Cuba) said the Rome statute had brought about real progress in international law.  The organ that had been created was not the one originally envisioned, however.  An international justice system was not viable without a definition of the crime of aggression.  The Court had been short-changed by hegemonistic interests.  His country was not a party to the Treaty but it had participated as an observer.  It also respected the decision of parties who had signed and ratified the Treaty.  It would continue to work for an international organ that would do justice to the need for the international rule of law with all parties equal before it.

When the Committee met again this afternoon, HAHN MYUNG-JAE (Republic of Korea) welcomed the progress that had been made in the establishment of the Court.  He said the manner in which the Court handled its first cases would be an important milestone.  It was imperative that the international community provide the Court with effective cooperation.  The Court must redouble its efforts to carry out its duties of prosecuting crimes under its jurisdiction.  States parties must adopt legislation to complement provisions of the Rome Statute.  The Republic of Korea was ready to provide assistance to needy States to do so.

JULIET SEMAMBO KALEMA (Uganda) hoped that consideration would be given to the election of an African for the position of Second Deputy Prosecutor of the Court, to rectify the regional imbalance that currently existed in the Court without prejudicing the principle of competence.  She hoped the momentum would continue on the work of defining the crime of aggression.

She said that due to lack of financing, the process and efforts of enactment of domestic legislation in conformity with Statute provisions had not been accomplished.  She hoped that with assistance and expertise from other States, that exercise would be completed soon.

GAILE ANN RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago), speaking also for the member countries of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), welcomed the establishment and start of operations of the Court.  With the election of the 18 judges, one of whom was a Trinidad and Tobago national, and the Prosecutor and one Deputy Prosecutor, and also the election of the Registrar, the Court was now in a position to contribute to the goal of bringing to justice individuals accused of the serious crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction.  While such persons might, in the past, have enjoyed impunity for their actions, the Court could now ensure that individuals alleged to have committed such crimes after the entry into force of the Rome Statute were investigated, brought to trial and, if found guilty after due process of law, punished.

The time was ripe, she said, for a permanent court which would have jurisdiction over serious crimes that shock the conscience of mankind.  It would by its very existence serve as a deterrent for the future commission of such crimes, and would at the same time dispense with the need for the proliferation of ad hoc tribunals.

She said the CARICOM heads of government had noted with satisfaction, at a meeting in July, that those CARICOM members which had not yet ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute would do so expeditiously.  The support of all member States was necessary for the Court to function effectively.

She said an international court that functioned effectively with the support of the international community would send a clear message that no individual was above the law and that each person responsible for such atrocities would be brought to justice.  Perhaps the success of the Court would allay fears and misconceptions of some States regarding the scope and true intent of the Rome Statute and the Court’s impact on domestic processes.

ZENON MUKONGO NGAY (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said a new era was beginning but the people of his country would not be able to move forward without bringing to justice those who had committed grave crimes against the people.  An effective international justice system required that there be no impunity.

His country had requested a means for holding people responsible under international law.  Those who would cover their actions or rewrite them would no longer be able to do so.  The possibility of investigating those who were responsible for the crimes in his country was welcome.  Provision would be made for reparations to be made for the ignominious actions that had taken place.  While it was not the best time for ad hoc tribunals, a court in his country could take shape along the lines set up in Sierra Leone or Cambodia.  Regardless of its form, it should be aimed at deterring crimes in the future, while reform of the national justice system aimed at prevention.

MARCO BALAREZO (Peru), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group of countries, welcomed the announcement by the Court prosecutor that he intended to look into events that had occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, possibly leading to a legal process within the Court.  The Court was a guarantee to confront impunity and should act as a “demoralizer” for future perpetration of crimes.  The Court outstandingly enriched the legal structure of the international community.  It complemented national efforts to confront crimes representing the worst crimes.  The working group should continue defining crimes of aggression.  The Court could not only achieve its mission, but also contribute to achieving the international cooperation necessary for development and for international peace and security.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) recalled the progress made by the Court in the past year.  The Court was operational now, he said.  Areas for its attention were coming forward.  To be effective, it must resolve its standing with the United Nations.  The Agreement between the two had been adopted by consensus by the preparatory committee and the first meeting of the States Parties.  The Court and the Organization were separate but united in their aim to promote justice.  States should not coerce States parties to the Rome Statute to choose between obligations.

GILBERT LAURIN (Canada) said the Court would need all of its resources and the commitment of States to carry out its work effectively.  It would be placed in an untenable situation if it were to face budgetary shortfall.  It was also vitally important that all States Parties adopted legislation to implement all of their obligations without delay.  Canada stood ready to provide technical assistance to interested States.  Canada hoped that States committed to justice would set aside their concerns and support the Court’s work, if only for the sake of the victims and to ensure accountability.  It urged the Security Council, faced with such cases, to act unanimously and decisively to help, and not to hinder efforts to restore justice and to uphold the rule of law. United Nations support might make the difference between success and failure, indeed between life and death, he said.

FREDERICO MEYER (Brazil) said the Court’s success would depend on the support it received from its States Parties and from the rest of the international community.  Brazil remained committed to upholding the integrity of the Rome Statute and the consolidation of the rule of law worldwide.  Ultimately, he said, the Court’s efficiency and credibility were directly proportional to its universality.  He said the Court had definitely contributed to the strengthening of international law, to the protection of human rights and to the maintenance of international security.  Initiatives aimed at extending the exemptions of individuals from the Court’s jurisdiction must not be carried out at the expense of the effectiveness of the historical achievement represented by the entry into force of the Rome Statute.

RUSSEL MEZEMBE-MBA (Gabon) said the Court was now operational in a way that indicated it was already gaining ground.  Still, obstacles were left.  The lack of universal participation was one, which meant that the Rome Statute did not yet universally apply.  Also, State legislation still needed to be changed to comply with Court obligations.  Another was the question of equitable geographic distribution in representation.  The coalition of non-governmental organizations for the Court had been helpful in assisting some States to become States parties.

RICARDO LUIS BOCALANDRO (Argentina) said the ready adoption of the Rome Statute had been a surprise.  He described the process of setting up the Court, including the changes States must make legislatively to bring their national laws into compliance with the international.  He noted that the Court had now embarked on its first investigations.  It had become operational in under five years, which showed the astonishing agreement on the need for it among the majority of the international community, which had shown the necessary political will to bring it about.

He said there were two priorities to which attention should be paid.  First, the centre of gravity for the Court would shift to The Hague, as it should.  Yet the Court was intimately linked with the United Nations and it should be kept in mind that the two had a common purpose.  Secondly, it was vital to ensure that the Court remained independent, non-political and impartial.

MICHAEL BLISS (Australia) said his country welcomed the progress made in the Court’s establishment and looked forward to the beginning of its work.  It also welcomed a statement made by the Court’s prosecutor to the Assembly of States Parties that the number of cases which appeared before the Court would not be a measure of its efficiency.  Australia welcomed the practical steps which had already been taken towards the Court’s creation and looked forward to the effective operation of the Court.  It would welcome the early entry into force of the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.

GIAN NICOLA FILLIPI BALESTRA (San Marino) supported whatever action might be taken to strengthen the Court in its work.  The legislative intent behind the creation of the Court must be preserved so that politicization or judicial apathy were not permitted to affect the historic mission of the Court.  The continued commitment of States to the Court was crucial to its development as a fair, effective and independent institution.

TAKAHIRO SATO (Japan) said the Court would garner the widest support if it proved its effectiveness and universality.  Countries must see the Court as belonging to them.  Efforts at transparency were welcome.  The Court had also proven itself accountable for its activities.  The reassuring steps about its transparency would be of importance not only to States parties but to those who were yet to achieve that standing.

Whether or not the Court chose to take up the question of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he said enormous attention would be paid to the very first case selected.  It would indicate the direction in which the Court was heading.

ALLIEU KANU (Sierra Leone) reported his country’s satisfaction in having signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities during last month’s treaty event.  He said the process of ratification had begun and would soon be completed, as would the process of implementing the Rome Statute into domestic jurisdiction.  Also welcome was the establishment of a Trust Fund to facilitate the participation of delegations from developing countries.  Sierra Leone would encourage the Secretary-General to facilitate the Relationship Agreement as a matter of urgency.

ELANA GEDDIS (New Zealand) said her country hoped to ratify the Agreement within the next months as soon as domestic legislation was in place.  While the reluctance of some States with regard to the Court was understandable, the Court must be given time to prove itself.  Also, States parties had a responsibility to support the Court, to protect it and maintain its integrity.  Her country would be ratifying the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities within the next months, as domestic implementation processes were completed.

The Rome Statute contained a comprehensive range of checks and balances to protect against abuse, she continued.  As the Court moved into its operative phase, all States should cooperate and assume their obligations.  The Agreement of a formalized relationship with the United Nations would be welcome.  The Council should take advantage of the Court by referring a situation to it, if circumstance warranted.

MAHMOUD HMOUD (Jordan) recalled all the steps that had gone into making the Court operational.  It could not have happened without the United Nations coordinating activities, he said.  He said he hoped the transfer from the United Nations to the Court would be smooth, that the Agreement would soon be ratified and that the Victims Trust Fund would receive support to compensate those who had been wronged.

Until very recently, he said, the world had no recourse in the face of the worst crimes.  Then the two tribunals had shown the world that justice could be brought about.  Perpetrators must be punished, within the national jurisdiction if possible and within the Court only if that were impossible to achieve.  The Security Council should examine its approach to giving immunity to certain groups.  There was no way to justify not prosecuting some crimes.  Preserving the integrity of the Rome Statute was up to all parties, and dependent on a law that was impartial.

OLEKSIY ILNYTSKI (Ukraine) observed that the elaboration of the definition of the crime of aggression remained one of the core issues being considered by the Assembly of States Parties.  The system of international criminal justice based on the Rome Statute would be incomplete without the definition of the crime of aggression, including the elements of that crime as well as the conditions under which the International Criminal Court would exercise jurisdiction over that crime.  Ukraine hoped the next stage of the negotiation on the question would be fruitful. 

He said Ukraine welcomed the report of the Court to the Assembly of States Parties and was pleased that all three pillars of the Court had begun to work closely to ensure good governance of the Court.  It encouraged all branches of the Court to continue their work on defining their internal organization to be ready to conduct efficient, transparent and fair investigations and prosecutions.  As signatory to the Rome Statute, Ukraine strongly supported the principles and values enshrined in it.

Mr. THIAM (Senegal) said his delegation, like others, welcomed the progress made in the establishment of the Court.  He paid tribute to the Sixth Committee for its important role in that effort.  The Court was relevant and had a role to play.  The effectiveness of the Court also depended largely on the will of the States Parties who should put in place the necessary domestic legislation to meet their obligations under the Court’s Statute.  He recalled that Senegal had been the first country to ratify the Court’s Statute at the Rome Conference of Plenipotentiaries in 1998.  Since 2001, his Government, in cooperation with civil society, both domestic and international, had encouraged a wide range of thinking concerning preparation of legislation in conformity with the Rome Statute.  A draft bill resulting from those deliberations was being promulgated by the National Assembly.

LINEO KHIBA MATEKANE (Lesotho) said the dedication of officers of the Court was crucial.  She was confident that the Court would live up to expectation.  In spite of a few drawbacks, her Government would work towards the achievement of the Court’s goals and objectives.  The United Nations had been in the forefront of the fight against impunity.  She called upon the Security Council and other relevant organs of the United Nations to explore ways of extending cooperation with the Court.  She said cooperation between the Court and the United Nations was extremely important and the question should be given the attention it deserved.  She commended the role of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court in the establishment of the Court, and referred to the help the organization had provided her country in the preparatory process on the Court’s establishment.  She also welcomed the establishment of the trust fund to assist least developed countries participate in the work of the Assembly of States parties and its organs.

FELIX AWANBOR (Nigeria) noted that 91 States were now members of the Court, in contrast to the 60 recorded at its inauguration on 1 July of last year.  He said the encouraging growth was indicative of the international community’s increasing confidence in the Court’s usefulness to fight impunity.  The Secretary-General should continue to ensure a smooth transition of work between the secretariats involved.  The legal Committee should facilitate the process of concluding the relationship agreement.

Despite all that, he said many States had still expressed concerns over the Court’s jurisdiction, despite its non-retroactive nature.  The safeguards that were provided guaranteed and protected genuine national concerns.  All geopolitical and regional groups should be fairly represented with regard to staff placements.  For that reason, the Court’s second Deputy Prosecutor should be given to Africa, particularly since most of the initial cases the Court would handle would emanate from the continent.

CARL PEERSMAN (Netherlands) said the Court was here to stay and it was growing stronger every day.  Open dialogue would continue with countries that still hesitated to embrace it.  The fight against impunity for the most heinous crimes would continue.  Perpetrators of such crimes had to be punished.  That was why a technical draft resolution was circulating and would be made available to the Committee in the morning.  It addressed the three main issues in the debate on the Court.

He said the first was related to the meetings of the special working group on the crime of aggression.  There should be a link between the Assembly of States Parties and the Court itself.  The special working group should meet in New York.  Further, there should be an orderly and smooth transition between the relevant secretariats.  Finally, the Secretary-General must be given a mandate to conclude a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.

GEORGES PACLISANU, observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said his organization had been grateful for the opportunity to provide technical advice and assistance in the negotiation of the Rome Statute, especially in relation to war crimes and judicial guarantees applicable in times of armed conflict.  However, the ICRC’s activities with regard to the Court did not stop there.  Since the Court was designed as a last resort for justice rather than a first, its limited mandate was to complement rather than replace national criminal jurisdictions.  That relationship could be achieved only if States ensured that their domestic legal systems repressed the crimes within the Court’s jurisdictions, and then enforced them.

In addition, he said, States should be aware that adopting legislation to criminalize the offences defined in the Statute may not be sufficient to discharge obligations arising from other treaties.  States parties needed to consider what additional obligations were imposed by treaties by way of preventing and punishing violations.

Introduction of Drafts on convention against cloning

The representative of Costa Rica introduced a draft resolution on human cloning aimed at a total ban (document A/C.6/58/L.2).

Panama’s representative urged all delegations to approve the resolution.

The representative of Belgium introduced a resolution on human cloning aimed at a ban on reproductive cloning (document A/C.6/58/L.8).

Statements on Cloning

MICHAEL KIBOINO (Kenya) said any sound scientific research must be compatible with the integrity and dignity of the human being.  The repugnance of cloning human beings could not be mitigated by the perceived benefits of the process.  Thus, the use of living human embryos for whatever purpose was unacceptable to his delegation.  Scientific development should be guided by ethical standards.  His delegation was convinced that only a complete ban on all forms of human cloning would preserve the inherent dignity of human beings.  It therefore supported the draft resolution L.2.  It welcomed the consensus on the general banning of cloning.

MARGARET HUGHES FERRARI (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said she supported the proposal submitted by the Costa Rica delegation.  She said a comprehensive ban on cloning was essential.  She could not support a convention that would give tacit approval to actions that were an assault on human dignity.

* *** *