PRESS CONFERENCE BY International Criminal Court registrar

 

The Registrar of the International Criminal Court, Bruno Cathala, updated correspondents on the Court’s activities at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.

Adopted on 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002 once 60 States had become Parties.  The Court is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

“In 2002, I was just sitting on boxes, with one laptop and one telephone, trying to put it together,” Mr. Cathala said, emphasizing the young age of the Court, which had commenced its operation with the swearing in of the Prosecutor in June 2003.  Now, the Court was an organization with 750 people, working in various parts of the world.

Despite its young age, the Court was already fully engaged in judicial activities, he continued.  It was actively investigating four different situations in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan/Darfur and Central African Republic.  The Court had one detainee in its custody, and seven arrest warrants had been issued.  The trials were expected to start in September.

Mr. Cathala also explained to the press that the Registry was one of the four organs of the Court, which was responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court, as well as its outreach and public information programmes.

Building the support, credibility and legitimacy of the Court required effective engagement with the population affected by the crimes, he said.  To that end, he had personally travelled to three refugee camps in Chad last month and participated in meetings in the province of Bunia in eastern Congo.  In addressing affected communities, the Court was trying to respond effectively to their concerns and clarify any existing misconceptions.  Arrest and surrender was a major concern for those communities.

He added that other major concerns for the Registry included witness protection; security of staff; cooperation with State parties, the United Nations and other international organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil society; and effective participation of victims.  In fact, the Court was the first international criminal court that allowed the victims to participate in its proceedings.

A correspondent commented that the local population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was very upset with the Court, because only one person had been arrested.  She wondered why there were no other indictments and asked if the Court was able to attract staff, with only seven indictments in four years.

Mr. Cathala replied that the Prosecutor had expressed his intention to continue investigations and announced that some new arrest warrants could be expected in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the coming weeks.  During his meetings with the population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he had explained the difficulties the Court was facing in conducting its investigations.  As for the other question, he said that the Court had not had difficulty in recruiting staff for different positions.

Asked to compare the International Criminal Court to the Rwanda and former Yugoslavia Tribunals, he said that he did not think the Tribunals were more active than the Court, which had achieved a lot during its five years of existence.  It now had four field offices in different countries and was conducting active investigations.

To several questions about witness protection, he emphasized the need to be discreet and said that it was an important challenge for the Court, which needed to protect witnesses in different countries.  Since day one, the Registry had been working in that area, being responsible for the protection of witnesses before, during and after the trial.  For example, a major witness protection operation had been initiated in Chad.  The Court had also learned from the experience of the International Tribunals, as well as the operations of the Sierra Leone court.

Witness protection involved a wide range of measures, including relocation, but in many cases it took more basic steps.  The Court preferred to reduce relocation as much as possible.  For example, a Congolese family, if relocated to a different country, felt lost.  “What we want to do is not to disturb the population and the way the society is working,” he said.  It was necessary to be careful and respect cultural sensitivities.

Responding to concerns that some of the militia leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been put in the Congolese Army and not prosecuted, some of them continuing to recruit child soldiers, he said that, according to the Prosecutor, the Court sought to prosecute the most important perpetrators.  “We would not be able to prosecute everyone, so we only prosecute the most important crimes,” he said.  There was also a desire to reduce the duration of trials, as well as a need to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Prosecutor continued to monitor the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

To questions about the leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, who had not been picked up, although arrest warrants had been issued, he replied that he wanted those people in the courtroom.  “And we will get them, and that is for sure,” he said.

Asked to respond to fears “at the highest levels of the United States Government” that the Court could become a vehicle for purely political or anti-American prosecutions, he said that the International Criminal Court was not political at all.  To operate, it could only be seized by a State party, or the Security Council.  The Prosecutor could also initiate investigations, but, to do that, he needed to pass authorization by three independent judges of the Court.  Even if asked to act by a State party or the Council, the Prosecutor had the freedom to investigate or not to investigate.

With rape still being used as a tool of war in the Central African Republic, was the court considering not limiting its proceedings to “old events”, but focusing on the current events? a correspondent asked.  Mr. Cathala replied that, once a case had been referred to the Court, it had the discretion of doing what it wanted.  It was up to the Prosecutor to decide on the course of action.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record