International Criminal Court

Assembly of States Parties

Sixth Session

3^rd & 4^th Meetings (AM & PM)

UN STRUGGLE FOR PEACE CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT’S

EFFORTS FOR JUSTICE, SAYS SECRETARY-GENERAL TO STATES PARTIES ASSEMBLY

Meeting Also Fills Third Judicial Vacancy,

Electing Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko of Uganda to Four-Year Term as Judge

Stressing that there could be no peace without justice, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the 105 signatory countries to the Rome Statute -- the instrument which formed the basis for the International Criminal Court -- that the work of the Court went hand in hand with that of the United Nations, since the struggle for peace could not succeed without the Court’s efforts for justice.

In his address to the Assembly of States Parties, which today held a general debate as part of its sixth annual session, the Secretary-General said the Court had established itself as the centrepiece of the international criminal justice system in its short period of existence, embodying and driving a “profound evolution” in international culture and law.

“It serves notice to any would-be Milosevic or Charles Taylor that their actions today may lead to international prosecution tomorrow”, Mr. Ban said, referring to former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, indicted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and to Charles Taylor, who will stand trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone next year.

He recalled that the fully-operational International Criminal Court was currently investigating cases pertaining to four situations:  in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where thousands of civilians became victims of mass atrocities; in Darfur, where crimes on a massive scale were still being committed; in northern Uganda, where the Lord’s Resistance Army had abducted thousands of children and used them as child soldiers, servants and sex slaves; and in the Central African Republic, where egregious allegations of rape and other acts of sexual violence against women had surfaced.

Questions about the relationship between peace and justice were unavoidable in each of those situations, Mr. Ban said, adding that the simultaneous quest for peace and justice was a“morally and legally charged balancing act” with no easy answers.

“However, the overarching principle was clear:  that there could be no sustainable peace without justice,” he stressed.

He noted that there were still a number of outstanding arrest warrants to be executed, and reminded the Assembly that the most important determinant of success for any international tribunal was cooperation from States, the United Nations and other international organizations, civil society and the non-governmental community, of the kind that would result in financial support and political backing, whether announced in public or behind closed doors.  Cooperation was also needed from victims, witnesses and other individuals.

In the debate that followed, the Secretary-General’s call for more cooperation was echoed by many delegations, particularly with respect to outstanding warrants of arrest for Sudanese citizens implicated in crimes against humanity in Darfur.  Expressing deep concern that one of those at large was still a minister in the Government of Sudan, the representative of the United Kingdom remarked that justice was an essential part of delivering a sustainable peace, be it in Darfur, northern Uganda or elsewhere. 

He joined others in asking the Security Council to send a clear message to the Sudanese Government, in which it should insist on the implementation of the arrest warrants.  Meanwhile, States parties should consider providing assistance in witness protection, information sharing and sentence enforcement.

Another issue raised frequently at today’s debate was the possible inclusion into the Rome Statute of a definition of the crime of aggression, which refers to any act of aggression or war not out of self-defence.

Crimes of aggression fell under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, according to the Rome Statute.  However, the Statute stipulates that the Court may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until States parties agreed on a definition of the crime and had set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.  That subject was expected to figure prominently at the upcoming Review Conference of the Rome Statute, scheduled to take place some time after 2009.

Addressing that topic, France’s representative cautioned against a too-hasty approach, saying the situation was complex and touched on crimes that were more political than those already referred to in the Statute.  Since crimes of aggression related to the maintenance of peace, which normally fell under the domain of the Security Council, its inclusion in the Statute might cause those States not yet party to hesitate to accede to that document.

Germany’s delegate expressed an opposing view, supported by some others, saying the Rome Statute already contained provisions outlining a careful balance between the Court and the Security Council with respect to the Court’s jurisdiction on crimes of aggression.  He also noted that a Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression had prepared a basis for proposals to the Review Conference, which he said was on “the right track”.  Alongside a few others, he announced his Government’s readiness to elaborate a definition of aggression based on the 1974 General Assembly resolution on the matter.

In other business, the Assembly elected Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko ( Uganda) to fill one of three judicial vacancies alongside Mr. Cotte ( France) and Ms. Saiga ( Japan), who were elected on Friday.  Also today, Ms. Saiga was selected, by lot, to fill the post vacated by Claude Jorda ( France) on 12 August 2007, for a term lasting through 10 March 2009.  The terms for Mr. Cotte and Mr. Nsereko will expire on 10 March 2012.

The representatives of Portugal (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Denmark, Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, Austria, Brazil, Jordan, Mexico, Venezuela, Lesotho, Uganda, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Nigeria, Ecuador, Senegal and Peru also delivered statements.

Also speaking were the First Vice-President of the Government of Spain; Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan; Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development of South Africa; Minister for Human Rights of Chad; Assistant Minister of Justice of Croatia; Deputy Director of the Legal Advisory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina; Deputy Legal Adviser, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland; and Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway.

Background

The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court met today to begin the general debate segment of its sixth session, and to elect a candidate to fill a third vacancy and complete elections begun last Friday for filling the 16 total judiciary seats.

Chairman Opening Remarks

Chairman of the Assembly of States Parties, BRUNO STAGNO UGARTE, opened the Assembly’s general debate by noting that, with a trial commencing soon and the arrest of a second accused person, the Court faced a multifaceted set of challenges.  Today’s general debate was a unique opportunity for States to express their views on the International Criminal Court.  He then welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General to the podium, expressing the Assembly’s gratitude to him for the Organization’s support to the Court so far.

Statement by the Secretary-General

Welcoming the representatives of States parties to United Nations Headquarters, Secretary-General BAN KI-MOON said that with today’s Assembly falling midway between the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute -- celebrated last July -- and the tenth anniversary of its adoption, which would take place next July, it was a welcome opportunity to reflect on some of the main challenges ahead.

He said the Court’s origins had lain with the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.  Those courts had been established by the Security Council, and had pioneered the enforcement of international humanitarian law and the development of international criminal justice.  It had opened the door to other forums to fight impunity under international law -- the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia had followed the lead of the original tribunals, bringing with them a measure of justice and closure to victims of unspeakable crimes.  Indeed, a few years after the Dayton peace talks in 1995, Slobodan Milosevic would be held accountable before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  More recently, Khmer Rough leaders such as Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, Ieng Sary, former Foreign Minister, and Khieu Samphan, former head of state of the Democratic Kampuchea regime, were taken into the custody of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.  Charles Taylor was getting ready to stand trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone early next year.

He said the success of those courts had fed a growing sense among the international community that a more permanent forum to address the most egregious atrocities was needed.  The International Criminal Court had emerged as the answer, and, unlike ad hoc tribunals of all kinds, the Court was a permanent institution.  In the short period of its existence, it had already established itself as the centrepiece of the international criminal justice system, embodying and driving a “profound evolution” in international culture and law.

“It serves notice to any would-be Milosevic or Charles Taylor that their actions today may lead to international prosecution tomorrow,” he said.

He noted that two of the individuals indicted by the Court had already been arrested and transferred into its custody, but there were still a number of outstanding arrest warrants to be executed.  All Member States were urged to do everything within their powers to assist in enforcing those warrants.  The most important determinant of success for any international tribunal was cooperation from States, the United Nations and other international organizations, civil society and the non-governmental community.  Cooperation was also needed from victims, witnesses and other individuals -- cooperation resulting in financial support and political backing, whether announced in public or behind closed doors.

He said that, for its part, the United Nations could assist the Court by providing documents and information, as well as logistical and other technical support to Court field operations.  It could even accommodate the Court in its security arrangements.  The arrest and surrender of indicted individuals could only be undertaken by States, however, even where peacekeeping operations had been mandated to assist with the task.  For that reason, the Court needed the assistance of all States parties for work that was underway.

He noted that the Court’s Prosecutor was currently investigating four situations:  in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where thousands of civilians became victims of mass atrocities; in Darfur, where crimes on a massive scale were still being committed; in northern Uganda, where the Lord’s Resistance Army had abducted thousands of children and used them as child soldiers, servants and sex slaves; and in the Central African Republic, where egregious allegations of rape and other acts of sexual violence against women had surfaced.  Under such circumstances, questions about the relationship between peace and justice were unavoidable.

“There were no easy answers to this morally and legally charged balancing act,” he said.  “However, the overarching principle is clear:  there can be no sustainable peace without justice.”

He added that the work of the International Criminal Court went hand in hand with that of the United Nations, since the struggle for peace could not succeed without the Court’s efforts for justice.

Statements

MARIA TERESA FERNANDEZ DE LA VEGA, First Vice President of Spain, said the adoption of the Rome Statute by more than 100 States and the establishment of the Court thereupon had represented a historic step towards worldwide justice.  An unprecedented instrument of international law had been created.  By now, with 105 States parties after Japan’s entry in October, the Court was a centrepiece of guarantees and norms for protecting the human rights inherently belonging to all persons.  The Court and its work were fully supported by thousands of organizations all over the world that had the aim of ensuring the irreducible core of humanity.

She said the Court was amalgamating its effectiveness by its involvement in Darfur, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Also important were measures the Court was taking to establish field offices, such as in Uganda.  Now the Court needed to build universality and to establish more intensive cooperation with States.  While the Court was not a panacea and would not stop wars, it would ensure that the worst crimes were not met with impunity.  It was a cooperative undertaking to which all should be committed.  All should also support it against obstructive measures, and States should urge Sudan to cooperate with the Court.

Spain contributed to the Court and would continue to do so, she concluded.  Spain had also begun the ratification process on the agreement of privileges and immunities.  Among all the important issues being addressed at the current session of the meeting of States parties was a definition of the crime of aggression.  On behalf of victims, the Court had a moral obligation to complete that work.

YASUHIDE NAKAYAMA, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said his country had become a State party to the Court on 1 October.  Japan had experienced the international tribunal after World War II, and had followed the path to being a peace-loving nation for over 60 years since then.  That history made it particularly important for Japan that the Court be supported, and his country provided 22 per cent of the Court’s operating budget.  The election last Friday of Fumiko Saiga as a judge had been an important achievement.

Continuing, he noted the agenda item on a definition of the crime of aggression as a particularly important one and said it was unfortunate that the Court was making little headway in Darfur, a groundbreaking situation in that a non-party State had been referred to the Court by the Security Council.  Darfur, therefore, was a touchstone of how effectively the Court could perform under difficult circumstances.  All States should urge Sudan to extend its understanding and cooperation to the Court.

Furthermore, he said that the promotion of the rule of law was a basic pillar of international diplomacy and was a universal value that was indispensable for maintaining peace and security, protecting basic human rights, and enjoying economic prosperity.  Impunity must not be allowed for those who violated the law.  Rather, those persons must be prosecuted by the Court or one of the existing tribunals.  As the first and sole permanent international criminal tribunal at present, the Court must coordinate the other tribunals and further the development of the international criminal justice system.

ANTÓNIO CASCAIS ( Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the Court was a living institution that had achieved substantial progress in its investigations and judicial proceedings in a very short time.  Reiterating the Union’s strong support for the Court’s work, he said the importance of the Court was seen in a wider context of the international legal order, and it was critically placed to contribute to a more peaceful and just world.  As a deterrent for potential perpetrators, it had become an essential instrument for the prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  The Court was a fundamental tool, not only to combat impunity when atrocities were committed, but to play a positive role in preventing and deterring recourse to violence and promoting negotiation and conflict resolution.

He expressed agreement with the Court that cooperation was essential to reinforce its credibility, so it could pursue its judicial functions.  Because it did not have enforcement capacity, assistance was particularly needed for the arrest and surrender of suspects, the provision of evidence, the protection and relocation of witnesses and victims, and the enforcement of sentences.  He stressed that States parties should cooperate with the Court, in general, and specifically in the execution of arrest warrants.  He also strongly encouraged non-States parties, the United Nations and other organizations to assist the Court.  He emphasized Sudan’s obligation to cooperate with the Court, under Security Council resolution 1593.  The appointment of Ahmed Harun, one of the indicted individuals, as co-chair of a national committee investigating human rights abuses in Darfur was an example of Sudan’s unwillingness to cooperate.

He noted the Intersessional Meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, which had proved conducive for preparing provisions relating to the crime.  It was now time to focus on the proposals with a view to adopting the necessary amendments, he said.  He encouraged all States to consider active participation in this Special Working Group and said the Review Conference should also take stock of international criminal justice.  The European Union was committed to supporting the Rome Statute’s universality and integrity and encouraged States parties to intensify their efforts to that end.  He drew attention to the issue of timely payment of contributions.  While the European Union supported the final agreement on outreach, it would carefully monitor the results of the outreach activities.  He also noted that the Statute had recognized the central role of victims in the Court’s proceedings and had provided specific reparations.  Highlighting the Lubanga Trial, where for the first time victims had participated in proceeding in their own right without being called as witnesses, he called on States parties to contribute to the Trust Fund for Victims.

B.S. MABANDLA, Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, South Africa, said her Government was committed to assisting the Court, so that it could function efficiently and effectively.  That commitment was demonstrated during South Africa’s negotiations on the Rome Statute, leading to the establishment of the Court.  As the international community marked its five years of entry into force, it had two individuals in custody and had issued six arrest warrants.  She called on States to cooperate with the Court in facilitating its work, and called on States that had not yet done so to ratify the Rome Statute.

She said South Africa, like other States, was grappling with the issue of obtaining evidence and providing witness protection, which had huge financial and human resource implications.  It was her country’s hope that all States that had the capacity to assist the Court in those operational matters would do so.  It was also to be hoped that the capacity would be extended to those States that had demonstrated a willingness to receive prisoners from the Court and who needed to improve their detention facilities to meet international standards.

She said the most sustainable form of redress for victims was to afford them with conditions under which they could live free from poverty and with resources to prosper.  For that reason, South Africa supported the work of the Victims Trust Fund and the wish of its Board of Directors for more flexibility to enable them to raise more funding for the benefit of victims.  Her Government intended to contribute to that Fund.  She called on States to exert all efforts in achieving an agreement on the definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the Court should exercise jurisdiction in respect to that crime.

John Sawers (United Kingdom), subscribing fully to the statement made by Portugal on behalf of the European Union, said his country was fully committed to supporting the International Criminal Court through practical action and vocal support.  Japan’s accession to the Rome Statute was a major step in enhancing Asian representation in the Court, and the arrest of Germain Katanga was a milestone in the fight against impunity.  Despite the progress that had been made, a number of difficult challenges still faced the Court, which could not operate without the support, in practice, of the States that had brought it into being.  Providing assistance in witness protection, information sharing and sentence enforcement were among the steps that States parties should consider.  In the case of the United Kingdom, it had become the first State to enter into agreements with the Court on both the enforcement of sentences and the relocation of witnesses.

Referring to the situation in Darfur, he said that the United Kingdom was deeply concerned that two individuals for whom the Court had issued arrest warrants remained at large, and that one of them was still a Minister in the Government of Sudan.  The Government had to comply with its obligations under Security Council resolution 1593 (2005) and cooperate with the Court.  There could be no impunity for the terrible crimes committed in Darfur.  Justice was an essential part of delivering a sustainable peace, be it in Darfur, northern Uganda or elsewhere.  The United Kingdom remained committed to a solution to the conflict in northern Uganda that was compatible with the Rome Statute, national laws and the wishes of those affected by the conflict.  Regarding a permanent premises for the Court, the United Kingdom hoped that the General Assembly could agree to proceed to the next stage of that important process; on the crime of aggression, it looked forward to ongoing efforts to find a widely acceptable outcome.  The United Kingdom had been pleased to contribute £20,000 to the Trust Fund established to facilitate the participation of least developed countries, and it would be contributing to the Trust Fund set up for victims.

CARSTEN STAUR, Denmark, said the Court had come into operation remarkably quickly and was steadily gaining universal recognition and legitimacy.  At the same time, the situations on the Court’s case list brought with them substantial challenges:  perceived or real tensions between peace and justice; difficulties in enforcing arrest warrants and securing protection of witnesses; and obstacles to collecting evidence.  It was crucial that States parties provided the necessary cooperation.

He noted that the European Union, to whose statement Denmark was aligned, was already engaged in a host of activities aimed at promoting the universality of the Court, by assisting ratification and giving technical assistance to drafting and enacting implementing legislation.  But, more must be done.  In 2007, important work had been carried out by The Hague Working Group of the Bureau, chaired by Denmark, and the New York working groups, chaired by the Netherlands.  Their report on cooperation provided a comprehensive list of the issues requiring attention and pointed the way forward in resolving those issues.  Denmark stood ready to work with all partners to promote an enabling environment for the Court.

He recalled President Kirsch’s comment made on Friday that without arrests, there could be no trials, and that without trials, victims would be denied justice.  Indeed, on 27 April, an arrest warrant had been issued against Ahmed Haroun, but he remained free, as was Ali Kushayb.  That situation was not acceptable, and the international community must pull its weight to ensure that those responsible for the crimes committed in Darfur were brought to justice.  He noted that the Prosecutor would brief the Security Council on 5 December on investigations relating to Darfur, and he called on the Council to send a very clear message to the Sudanese Government insisting on the implementation of the arrest warrants.  It was also important for States parties to reach agreement on a definition of the crime of aggression, and the upcoming Review Conference should be a time for uniting and consolidating opinions on that subject.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER ( Liechtenstein) expressed satisfaction with the way the Court had developed and welcomed the issuance of additional arrest warrants, the opening of an investigation in the Central African Republic, and recent surrender of a second indicted person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo situation.  Inherently, the Court must rely on States and international organizations with respect to the operational aspects of its work, especially arrest and surrender.  Noting with concern that six arrest warrants were still awaiting execution, some of them for more than two years, he said that such a state of affairs was wholly unacceptable.  All States, parties and non-parties to the Statute, as well as other actors, such as the Security Council, must contemplate the consequences of such inaction.

The Rome Conference had taken a historic decision to end impunity, and making that commitment a promise or mere lip-service would depend largely on how the international community dealt with the first situations taken up by the Court, he continued.  During its formative years, the world was closely watching to ascertain the Court’s ability to respond to situations where States were unable or unwilling to try individuals for the worst crimes.  States parties had a special obligation to do all they could to help the Court get on with its wok and ensure that outstanding arrest warrants were executed.  The Security Council had an important role to play in helping the Court promote and deliver justice.  Any Council referral to the Court must remain a high priority for the Council, in particular where the country concerned did not live up to its obligation to cooperate with the Court.

Regarding the Court’s recent jurisprudence that had affirmed the role of victims in proceedings, he said that its impact was already being felt.  He also commended the Court for increasing its outreach to victims by opening new field offices in situation countries.  Those offices deserved the continued support of States.  He also supported the activities of the Trust Fund for the benefit of victims and their families.  In the coming days, Liechtenstein would make a voluntary contribution of 27,000 Swiss Francs to the Fund.

He expected that the Assembly of States Parties would be able to agree on a calendar of its meetings and the tentative dates of the Review Conference, he added.  It was also necessary to make progress on the question of venue.  A clear road map towards the Review Conference was of crucial importance for the work on the crime of aggression.  The Special Working Group on that matter had significantly advanced the debate on defining the crime of aggression.  The fourth Intersessional Meeting of the Group in June 2007 in Liechtenstein had highlighted the commitment of all participants to find a solution for that issue.

JORGE URBINA ( Costa Rica) noted that three new judges would be elected by the sixth Assembly of States Parties, and he expressed confidence that the Court’s work would be enriched by their presence.  The entry into force of the Rome Statute had been an important milestone in the international community’s efforts to create a permanent court to end impunity in the area of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, while also preparing the way for action in tackling crimes of aggression.  To be sure, the last ten years had not been without argument, and the future was also sure to be filled with “dichotomies”, particularly in the portrayal of peace and justice as antagonistic goals.

He said activities undertaken to end conflict and build peace should not run counter to respect for justice, law and accountability.  Also, the Court’s success should be the shared responsibility of States parties, the United Nations and other international organizations and civil society.  Relations between the Court and States parties should not be purely administrative; working through multilateral forums such as the United Nations, States should cooperate in terms of the Court’s operations, while also lending international support to the concept of international justice.  In that connection, he said relations between the United Nations and the Court were supposed to have been cemented by a cooperation agreement in 2004, but their relationship was “intermittent”.  Particularly worrying was President Kirsch’s comment that the Court had been met with “silence” during times when it needed public support.

He said the work of the international conference on “Building a Future on Peace and Justice”, which took place in Nuremberg in June, had highlighted the importance of a comprehensive peace intertwined with respect for the concept of justice.  Respect for justice must be shared by all and be based on internationally recognized principles.  Furthermore, the international community must work together to provide the judicial mechanisms to guaranteed the rights of people to peace and prosperity.  Taken in that sense, the concepts of peace and justice -– which incorporated the concept of full accountability for one’s actions -- were not conflicting goals, but mutually sustaining processes.  With Costa Rica on the brink of becoming a member of the Security Council, he reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to the concept of justice and said it would do its utmost to ensure that the relationship between the United Nations and the Court became constant and “unambiguous”.

FRANK MAJOOR ( Netherlands), fully aligning himself with Portugal’s statement on behalf of the European Union, said the Court needed cooperation from States parties and non-States parties, notably in the execution of arrest warrants.  Justice could not be served without such cooperation, as the situation in Darfur illustrated.  The Sudanese Government had not executed arrest warrants against Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kushayb, as required by resolution 1593 (2005), which was a “slap in the face” to the Court and an insult to the Security Council.  He called on States parties that were also Council members to keep the issue high on the agenda.  States should also raise the issue bilaterally with the Government.

On the crime of aggression, he said the Netherlands had contributed financially to the informal meetings in Princeton, which had helped the Special Working Group move forward.  His Government would contribute actively to the Group’s negotiations this week, as required by States parties.  Indeed, the Rome Statute remained incomplete as long as a definition for the crime was not agreed, and he called for agreement on the issue and the conditions for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over it.

As the host nation to the Court, his Government was “painfully aware” of the Court’s need for extra workspace, he said, adding that space which fulfilled its security and other requirements had not yet been found.  His Government would continue to search for an interim solution, until construction of the Haagse Veste was complete next October, and was fully prepared to pay for the security and protection hardware for the building, as it did for the Arc Building.  He hoped construction could start without delay.  To that end, the Assembly of States Parties must agree on The Hague Working Group’s proposals.  That Group’s draft resolution was balanced -- it gave the Court its due role as end user, the host State an advisory role, and the Assembly of States Parties final authority over the project.

CLAUDIA BLUM, Colombia, said her country had ratified the Rome Statute a few months after its entry into force, and had participated actively in the sessions of the Preparatory Committee.  After the Court was installed, her Government had participated in the working groups established to develop or implement the Statute’s provisions.  Colombia’s justice and peace law had allowed for the demobilization and prosecution of members of “self-defence” and guerrilla groups, and efforts had been made to strengthen the General Prosecutor and the judicial apparatus.  In addition, the presence of Court Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, at the First Inter-American Human Rights Congress in October had provided the opportunity to promote the universality of the Rome Statute.

She said that, as stated on other occasions, Colombia attached special importance to promoting reciprocal cooperation between the Court and States parties.  For instance, the Court could help facilitate the strengthening of national judiciaries, although it should bear in mind that States parties had the primary right and duty to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.  It should be noted, however, that the absence of a coercive mechanism to “allow the Court to materialize warrants of arrest and delivery” made it crucial for States parties to extend their cooperation to the Court. 

Meanwhile, she commended the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression for its efforts to bring about substantive developments in deliberations aimed at developing a definition of the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute, and to determine the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction in that regard.  For its part, Colombia had advocated for a differentiated approach in identifying the “criminal type” of the crime of aggression, making it possible to apply the procedures stipulated in the Rome Statute touching on criminal types already included in that instrument. 

She added that, while it was necessary to safeguard the system of checks and balances in the international system, the Court should not be prevented from exercising its competence, even when there was no definition given by the Security Council on what constituted an act of aggression.  Colombia would soon propose that the Court be allowed to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice where applicable -- a judicial mechanism that had proven to be useful to organizations and international institutions in the fulfilment of their mandates.  Such a proposal would require an amendment to the relationship agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations.

YVES HAESENDONCK ( Belgium) said progress had been made on garnering universality of support for the Court, which now had 105 member States.  There was no doubt others would see Japan’s membership as a sign of encouragement, particularly in Asia.  It was regrettable that the Court’s work was slowed by lack of cooperation, particularly in relation to the execution of arrest warrants.  With regard to both the bilateral and multilateral aspects of agreements with the Court, State authorities must meet their obligations to cooperate with the Court.  His country had just signed the third bilateral agreement with the Court on execution of search warrants, and was about to sign a fourth on execution of sentences.  All States should also implement the recommendations the Assembly would make at the end of its session.

ERWIN KUBESCH ( Austria) said the Court’s success should not be measured by the number of cases it heard, but by its overall impact on the fight against impunity.  Its mere existence induced States to strengthen efforts to prevent and prosecute criminal acts.  Thus, the Court served as an effective deterrent for potential perpetrators.

Commending the Court’s accomplishments during the past year, he said his country was among the Court’s strongest supporters.  Austria had been among the first to sign and ratify the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities.  It had been the first to enter into an agreement on enforcement of sentences.  And now, after nearly two years of negotiation, the European Union had entered into the first regional cooperation and assistance agreement with the Court.

Further, he said he supported the recommendation in the report of the bureau on cooperation that States parties consider willingness to cooperate with the Court when considering candidacies for membership in United Nations organs.  Also welcome were activities in the plan of action, particularly those related to the Court’s legal tools programme, which aimed to equip users with the legal information, commentaries and software for working effectively with international criminal law.  The Court should work closely with existing tribunals.  Finally, the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression had prepared a solid basis for proposals to the Review Conference.  The crime of aggression should now be incorporated into the Rome Statute, so as to send a strong signal to strengthen the Court and contribute to the universality of justice.

GEORG WITSCHEL ( Germany) underscored the conclusion of the June 2007 conference “Building a Future on Peace and Justice” that peace and justice were not contradictory goals, but promoted and sustained each other.  He said the conference discussions reflected the fact that the International Criminal Court had proven to be highly relevant and had had a positive impact on conflict resolution.  The worldwide fight against impunity had already changed the parameters for the pursuit of peace. 

Associating his country with Portugal’s statement on behalf of the European Union, he said the dialogue between the Court and the European Union should continue and intensify.  He noted that the German European Union Presidency had put the issue of cooperation on the agenda of the Union’s International Criminal Court working group, and he said that issue was becoming the predominant theme of the Court and the Assembly of States Parties.  To that end, the Court’s report on cooperation was a useful reference document.  States parties had a legal obligation to cooperate with the Court.  Non-implementation of the Court’s decisions posed a serious threat to the Court’s credibility.  He called on all parties concerned to ensure that warrants were executed, and he urged Sudan to comply with its obligations under Security Council resolution 1593.  He also condemned Ahmed Harun’s appointment as co-chair of a committee investigating human rights violations in Sudan.

The Working Group on the Crime of Aggression was on the right track, he continued.   Germany was now ready to elaborate the definition of aggression, based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314, although it doubted the resolution could be retained in its entirety, since it was a political text that had not been drafted to define a crime under international law.  Further, Germany continued to believe that article 16 of the Rome Statute contained a careful balance between the Court and the Security Council with respect to he Court’s jurisdiction on crimes of aggression.  He said the upcoming Review Conference should concentrate on a limited number of items, with an emphasis on the crime of aggression.  On important decisions before the Assembly, he said his delegation saw considerable merit in the Committee on Budget and Finance’s findings and recommendations.  He encouraged the Court to expedite its staff recruitment procedures.  Also, he noted that the Assembly was taking a decision on a new building and said Germany was ready to assume further responsibility in the building oversight committee.  He further noted that the Victims Trust Fund was becoming operational and said the issue of victims was closely linked to how successful the Court would be in conveying its message of peace and justice to the affected communities.  He invited the Court to constantly evaluate, review and adjust its outreach policy.

MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI (Brazil), noting that the Court had just constituted Trial Chamber I, said this was a reason for celebration and a powerful encouragement for continuing the good work the Court had so far carried out.  Over the last five years, the International Criminal Court had steadily consolidated itself in The Hague, started investigations in several countries, issued arrest warrants and constituted its first Trial Chamber.  That was a major step in its institutional development and a milestone in the history of international relations.  The International Criminal Court system was based on mutually-reinforcing pillars -– the primary responsibility of the States and the judicial activity of the Court.  While the recent achievements had been possible due to the support extended by States parties, much work remained to be done.  To that end, Brazil reaffirmed its commitment to the Court and would continue to advocate for it in all forums.

The principle of complementarity made independence between the Court and States a requirement and made cooperation a vital necessity, she said.  All States -- parties and non-parties to the Rome Statute -- should cooperate fully with the Court.  The execution of pending arrest warrants was of the utmost importance.  She stressed that the Court’s ability to fulfil its high functions depended on the support and cooperation of the international community as a whole, particularly the grassroots work of non-governmental organizations, and of international and regional organizations.  The common international endeavour to uphold human rights, promote international justice and the rule of law worldwide could only be strengthened through the expansion of the Statute and the Court.

She said that, for most men and women on the planet, war was essentially a moral subject.  Thus, the main duty regarding the crime of aggression was to set the appropriate framework within which an act of the State could be effectively connected to the individual conduct of men and women who were in a position to lead people into war.  Her delegation believed that sovereignty and international justice were complementary, rather than mutually excluding, concepts and war resulted from human choices, rather than human needs.  Thus, Brazil considered the criminal individual responsibility of political and military leaders to be a legal construction.  It was in favour of the timely adoption of a definition for the crime of aggression, and was ready to support a definition that adequately preserved the independence of the Court as a judicial organ and conveyed the elements set forth in General Assembly resolution 3314.  That definition should be at the top of the Review Conference’s agenda.  Also, the Statute and Court’s work required improvement, which should be attained according to due process of law.  Brazil further welcomed efforts to ensure equitable geographical representation and gender balance in the recruitment of the Court’s staff members.

ZEID RA’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN (Jordan) said the Rome Statute and the Court represented the lynchpin in the field of international law and justice.  The achievements of the past year guaranteed the Court would succeed, not just in the investigations under way, but also in other activities such as its educational efforts about international criminal law.  Aims were high for the Court and the plan of action to achieve universality, and full implementation was promised to secure sustainable international justice and to end impunity.  It would also strengthen respect for the law and for international institutions.  All States must cooperate with the Court and assist in all its activities, including in the gathering of evidence, transfer of witnesses and enforcement of its judgements.  All must also take part in securing universal accession to the Rome Statute and in making sure the Court functioned fully, because every State had an interest in ensuring the Court succeeded.  The amendment to the Rome Statute should include a definition of the crime of aggression.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT ( France) said France had been among the originators of the tribunals created by the Security Council relating to the situation in Sierra Leone, the Khmer Rouge and Lebanon.  In a demonstration of its support for the international criminal justice system, France had defended the International Criminal Court when its usefulness was still under dispute.  It had also worked constantly, at both the political and operational levels, to cooperate with the Court, including to ensure the surrender of wanted individuals.  He welcomed the fact that the Court was now acting on the cases of Lubanga Dyilo and Germain Katanga, and said the conclusion of an agreement between the Court and the Government of the Central African Republic was “excellent news”.  Also, France had drafted the Security Council resolution referring Darfur to the Court, and he called on all related arrest warrants to be executed.

He said that victims of crimes against humanity, who had been overlooked by earlier tribunals, needed to be recognized.  The international community must contribute to the restoration of their dignity and, for that reason, France contributed regularly to the Trust Fund for Victims.  In terms of the upcoming discussion on the crime of aggression at the Review Conference, he said a hasty response could be a cause for subsequent difficulties.  Indeed, the situation was complex, and touched on crimes that were more political than those already referred to in the Statute.  Under proposed terms, crimes of aggression would touch on the maintenance of peace, which normally fell under the domain of the Security Council.  Its inclusion in the Statute would cause those States not yet party -- who were not unimportant -- to hesitate to accede to that document.

He noted that the international criminal justice system was not inexpensive, given that it carried out its work without the help of a police force or any form of State machinery.  For that reason, France intended to be actively involved in the area of finance, believing that reasonable solutions must prevail at a time when the Court was preparing to embark on a “property programme”.  As regards aid for judicial assistance and legal defence, he voiced hope that steps taken would mesh with common sense.  Finally, since the first situations before the Court dealt with citizens from francophone Africa, he stressed the importance of observing strict linguistic balance.

CLAUDE HELLER ( Mexico) said the Court’s work was of the greatest value.  Important gains had been made in achieving universality and in making the Court fully operational, but the success of its activities relied on full cooperation and the greatest efficiency.  Mexico had taken domestic actions to implement obligations stemming from its accession to the Rome Statute, and had recently signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities.  It had also been promoting the Court in the Organization of American States.  Model legislation for cooperation between States and the Court should be drawn up, and the Court’s tools should be used to help States carry out their responsibilities.  The Court had proved itself in the four cases before it, but non-compliance by Uganda and Sudan were regrettable.  States and organizations must quickly adopt the legislation enabling them to cooperate with the Court, since without justice there was no peace.  They should exert every effort to apprehend criminals and execute arrest warrants in both States of harbour and neighbouring States, so that, by virtue of the Rome Statute, impunity would no longer have a place in the world.

He said he fully appreciated everything the Assembly of States Parties had accomplished, but much remained to be done to make the Office in The Hague efficient and truly representative of its mandate.  Gender equality, for example, was far from being achieved, and the two offices must be managed as one.  The Court must be the role model of international organizations, and it should look at other international organizations to find its direction.  Mexico would be actively involved in the budget negotiations.  With regard to the agenda of the Review Conference, to be held in early 2010, the definition of the crime of aggression by the Special Working Group must be consensus-based.  The venue should enable members and non-members to participate, and it should take place over 10 days.  Preparations had begun at the regional level, including a seminar that had dealt with the definition of the crime of aggression and other matters.

Assuring the Court’s future was a challenge the international community must address seriously, he concluded.  The role of civil organizations in the Court’s work was critical.  Mexico was committed to providing support for the Court’s important mission in the delivery of justice.

FATIME ISSA RAMADANE, Minister of Human Rights, Chad, recalled that her country had signed the Rome Statute on 20 October 1999 and ratified it on 2 October 2006.  Following the establishment of Security Council resolution 1593 (2005), Chad had been authorized to create a liaison office of the International Criminal Court in the country, which proceeded to hear cases involving Sudanese refugees emerging from the Darfur conflict.  That office had worked satisfactorily in Chad, and the Government welcomed the excellent cooperation between them. 

She also recalled that eastern Chad had been greatly destabilized by the Darfur crisis, and welcomed the tireless efforts of members of the Court who had overcome several obstacles to reach Darfuri victims.  It was to be hoped that reparations would be made for the crimes committed against them.  For its part, her Government would cooperate with the Court as it held its trials.  The Ministry of Human Rights had been created to signal its commitment to combat impunity, and she stressed her country’s determination to work for the full development of the International Criminal Court.  She wished the Assembly every success in their endeavours.

GORDAN MARKOTIC ( Croatia) said his country was the first to ratify the Rome Statute in South-East Europe, and the past year had seen important achievements.  Those included the first referral of a case to the trial stage, the start of the pretrial proceedings and the opening of new investigations.  The six arrest warrants awaiting execution were troubling.  Nothing served the interests of justice better than a functioning and credible Court, but experience with tribunals made it all too clear how dependent justice was on the good will of States and other international actors.  All States and non-State actors should cooperate with the Court.  They should also keep the Court in mind when dealing with issues of peace and security, when related to the Court’s mandate.

The Court did not operate in a textbook reality, he concluded, and it would be wrong to view the Court’s mandate without attention to the ways its existence and actions included decision makers on the ground.  However, the Court was not a political tool.  It was the expression of collective will embodied in a treaty.  It was, first and foremost, a judicial body that dealt with individual criminal accountability.

JORGE ARGUELLO ( Argentina) said it was important to achieve universality for the Court and to make it be fully operational and functional, since it represented the common conscience of humanity.  It was the juridical body established to insure that the gravest crimes did not go unpunished and would, thereby, also serve as a deterrent.  The starting of the trials proved to be a milestone in international law, holding individuals accountable, rather than the collapse some had predicted.  Another tribunal should not be created for the atrocities committed in Darfur; instead the case should be brought before the permanent body created for justice.  Cooperation between the Court and States must include the adoption of national legislation to enable States to assume their international obligations.  Technical assistance must be extended.  His country intended to ratify the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities.

With regard to the definition of the crime of aggression, he said now was not the time to attempt a progressive development process of the international law on aggression.  Rather, individual acts should be sanctioned.  Also, in order to achieve the necessary universality in the definition, the concept should be seen as one encompassing all objective and subjective elements of an illicit act, with no open criminal types allowed.  A search of constitutional systems should be conducted for that purpose.  In addition, the Review Conference should focus on the typification of the crime of aggression, rather than try and amend the Rome Statute and, thereby, open up issues that had already been closed in Rome.  Achieving consensus was important.

Election

The Assembly paused in its general debate to proceed with the election of one judge of the International Criminal Court to fill the judicial vacancy that remained unfilled after the second round of voting on Friday.

Voting Results for Round 3

Number of ballots:	102
Number of invalid ballots:	0
Number of abstentions:	0
Number of valid ballots:	102
Number of Members voting:	102
Required two-thirds majority:	68

Number of Votes Obtained

Graciela Dixon ( Panama):	21
Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko ( Uganda):	60
Jean Angela Permanand ( Trinidad and Tobago):	21

Following the vote, the representative of Trinidad and Tobago withdrew the candidature of Ms. Permanand.

Voting Results for Round 4

Number of ballots:	103
Number of invalid ballots:	1
Number of abstentions:	0
Number of valid ballots:	102
Number of Members voting:	102
Required two-thirds majority:	68

Number of Votes Obtained

Graciela Dixon ( Panama):	28
Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko ( Uganda):	74

Following the fourth round of voting, Mr. Nsereko was elected to fill the third judicial vacancy, alongside Mr. Cotte ( France) and Ms. Saiga ( Japan), who were elected on Friday.  Also today, Ms. Saiga was selected, by lot, to fill the post vacated by Claude Jorda ( France) on 12 August 2007, for a term lasting through 10 March 2009.  The terms for Mr. Cotte and Mr. Nsereko will expire on 10 March 2012.

The representative of Panama conveyed his congratulations to the three new judges.

Statements Continued

AURA MAHUAMPI DE ORTIZ ( Venezuela) affirmed that the Court was not only impartial and independent, but a tool for providing reparations to victims.  Elements to focus on, as the Court became fully operational, were those that would strengthen the Court and deter both the commitment of crimes and those who opposed the Court’s operation.  The Court’s new membership of 105 indicated that it was indeed on its way to universality, and ratification should be a priority for anyone pursuing justice.  Further, the Court was not only functional, but States were ready to offer genuine cooperation to the Court, as in the transfer of Germain Katanga to The Hague by officials of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  However, neither States parties, nor those who were not parties, should fall into complacency.  The enemies of the Court were none other than those who opposed justice, and neither bilateral nor multilateral treaties should limit the Court’s ability to carry out its mandate.

The subject of the definition of the crime of aggression should not be politicized, she warned.  Work on the matter should be conducted with a view towards the future.  A formula should be devised to act as a standard for determining when a crime of aggression had been committed.

LEBOHANG FINE MAEMA ( Lesotho) said the Court had already demonstrated a positive impact in determining the perpetration of systematic atrocities, and he noted that it had done so despite having limited powers in some instances.  To him, that only reiterated the importance of cooperation from the United Nations and States for the future effectiveness of the Court.  It was indeed gratifying to see more and more States becoming parties to the Rome Statute.

To ensure the best possible performance by the Court, States should provide it with the financial, logistical and political support it needed to perform its work, thus enabling the Court to realize the rule of law and punish crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.  States parties must also ensure that assessed contributions were paid in full and on time.  Voluntary contributions were encouraged as an important source of revenue.

He commended the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for its surrender of Mr. Katanga, and reiterated the importance of full cooperation from States in matters relating to the Court.  The relationship agreement between the United Nations and the Court provided many avenues for cooperative efforts.  In addition, the interplay between the different courts and tribunals in the international criminal justice system was important for the development of sustainable criminal justice jurisprudence.  The transfer of Charles Taylor from detention in Sierra Leone to the Court’s detention facilities in The Hague was a welcome development in the furtherance of international criminal justice.

JURG LINDENMANN, Deputy Legal Adviser, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland, noted the progress made by the Court in 2007, including issuing arrest warrants on the situation in Darfur, and the opening of a fourth investigation on the situation in the Central African Republic.  He noted that, with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Court was currently preparing a trial against one individual and was undertaking the confirmation of charges against another.  Meanwhile, the issuance of arrest warrants in Uganda was helping to improve the humanitarian situation there and making peace negotiations possible.  The Court had also strengthened its external network, with the inauguration of a fifth field office last October, and was continuing to cooperate with the Special Court for Sierra Leone with respect to the proceedings in the case against Charles Taylor.

He stressed the role that States must play in cooperating with the Court and said that full cooperation with the Court must exist at all stages, whether during the investigation period or when enforcing decisions of the Court.  In that connection, the execution of arrest warrants was not an option that States could accept or reject, but was a legal obligation under the Rome Statute and, where applicable, Security Council resolutions.

He noted that activities of the Court on ongoing conflicts had been the object of some debate, with certain parties qualifying them as involving a “dilemma” over peace and justice.  Within the context of transitional justice and in the fight against impunity, the right to justice was one element in a much larger conceptual framework that also included the right to know, the right to reparation and the guarantee of non-recurrence.  In the perception of those affected by conflict, justice was “indivisible” and could not be disassociated from the larger process of dealing with the past.  In that context, criminal justice was only one element of justice and, depending on the circumstances, may be more or less relevant.  But, when dealing with the worst crimes, the perpetrators must answer for their deeds in a judicial process.  The Rome Statute created an institutional framework ensuring that that obligation could be given effect more forcefully and efficiently than before.

States must pursue efforts in the fight against impunity at all levels, he added, whether in ensuring the proper functioning of the judiciary system in their own jurisdiction, or in strengthening the system of international cooperation and assistance in criminal matters.  In supporting the Court, States and international organizations would provide invaluable assistance to the international criminal law system as a whole.

FRANCIS K. BUTAGIRA ( Uganda) said his country had full confidence in the International Criminal Court.  Without that confidence, it could not have made referrals to the Prosecutor to commence investigating the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in December 2003.  Indeed, Uganda had cooperated at all times with the Court’s investigations of crimes against humanity in northern Uganda and did not condone impunity.  He stressed that, if any member of Uganda’s armed forces was found to have committed offences, he or she would be dealt with according to law.  Uganda intended to assist the Office the Prosecutor and Registry and would keep the Court updated on any developments.  It was fully committed to its obligations as a State party to the Rome Statute.  As a result, it had vigorously sought to secure the arrest of the top five LRA commanders, after receiving their arrest warrants in September 2005, by engaging the Governments of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, as well as the United Nations Security Council and the Organization’s peacekeeping forces.  These efforts had debilitated the LRA and pressured them so that they could no longer remain in northern Uganda.

He reiterated that Uganda had agreed to the peace negotiations with the LRA last year not by choice, but due to the inability of States parties and the rest of the international community to secure the arrest and surrender of the four remaining indictees to the International Criminal Court.  International cooperation, which was crucial in making arrests, had not been as forthcoming as it should have been in this case.  Indeed, the remaining indictees were operating in at least three countries that had agreed to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.  The Court warrants against the LRA commanders had exerted significant pressure on the LRA and their supporters, all of which had contributed to bringing about the peace talks taking place in Juba, Sudan.  Those talks had resulted in greater peace and stability in northern Uganda.  Most people in the internally displaced persons camps were returning to their homes, and LRA attacks against civilians had decreased.  He emphasized that those talks were taking place outside Uganda, where his Government did not have control over the indictees and, hence, was not in a position to turn them over to the Court.

Uganda fully supported the Security Council’s call for anyone responsible for serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law to be brought to justice, he said.  It would ensure that any negotiated settlement would take into account the Rome Statute’s principles.  Noting the Prosecutor’s concerns, including a request that Uganda provide details on crimes allegedly committed by its forces, he said that investigations had revealed that errant soldiers acting outside their mandate had committed crimes and had been subjected to Uganda’s domestic judicial system.  Uganda’s military did not tolerate impunity.

Turning to matters of the Court’s structure, he said his delegation wanted to ensure that nationals of all States parties were given equal opportunity to staff the Court.  Recruitment should not be based on contributions.  He also called upon the Court to increase the recruitment of female professional staff, especially in the higher positions.  He reiterated Uganda’s readiness to host the Review Conference.  He expressed gratitude for the assistance given to victims who had been brutally mutilated by the LRA and gave full support to the objectives of the Victims Trust Fund.  He encouraged States, individuals and organizations to make further donations, so the Trust Fund could increase the number of victims it assisted in many countries.

PHILIP SEALY ( Trinidad and Tobago), noting his country’s role in having the International Criminal Court placed on the General Assembly’s agenda in 1989, said Trinidad and Tobago remained steadfast in its support and commitment to the Court.  He called on other States in a position to do so to contribute to the Trust Fund for Victims.  He welcomed the issuance of arrest warrants for accused persons in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Sudan’s Darfur region and in northern Uganda, as well as the opening by the Prosecutor of investigations in other regions.  His delegation also applauded the preparations being made for the Lubanga trial and the recent Katanga arrest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Yet, he lamented the lack of progress made in opening the trials of other accused persons, and reiterated his delegation’s position that meaningful progress in the fight against impunity would be made only if all States cooperated in the execution of outstanding arrest warrants.  Without that cooperation, the Court’s efforts would be severely impaired and its efforts to end impunity compromised.

Highlighting the progress made towards creating permanent premises for the Court, he expressed appreciation for the Court’s strategic plan.  His delegation did not see any contradiction between the Court’s prosecution of accused persons for crimes that had affected the international community and the promotion of peace.  Thus, he urged all States parties to work with the court to ensure that both objectives were achieved.

His delegation expected that the Assembly of States Parties would provide the Court with sufficient funds to ensure that outreach activities were carried out, he said.  Saying the upcoming Review Conference should not be confined solely to an exercise in taking stock of the Court, he emphasized that the Conference’s main agenda item should be the consideration of amendments to the Rome Statute.  He further expressed hope that the Assembly would adopt a definition of the crime of aggression for consideration during the Review Conference.  His delegation would also welcome discussion of future amendments to the Statute that would include other crimes, such as drug trafficking and terrorism.

ELBIO ROSSELLI ( Uruguay) said the 2010 Review Conference should look at procedural aspects of the Court’s operation, in addition to substantive matters.  The Rome Statute contained language to the effect that States were responsible for initiating legislation enabling them to cooperate with the Court.  In December of last year, Law 18026 had gone into effect in his country, on cooperation with the Court.  Other legislation had also been elaborated and adopted, in line with obligations to the Court, making his country’s contribution to the international community in countering barbarity and the trampling of human rights.

ROLF EINAR FIFE, Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway, said, in becoming parties to the Rome Statute, 105 States had fully committed themselves to the protection of human dignity by removing a climate of impunity for the worst international crimes.  Japan’s accession to the Statute, which signified even broader Asian participation, was warmly welcomed as an important step towards universality.

He voiced unreserved supported for the Secretary-General’s reminder that long-term peace and justice were closely related objectives.  It was incumbent on Member States of the United Nations and States parties to the Rome Statute to strive for the achievement of both; true peacebuilding could not rest on foundations of fear and silence in the face of mass atrocities. 

It was for that reason that Norway joined all those who shared the Court’s concern regarding outstanding arrest warrants pertaining to the situations in Darfur and in Uganda.  With regard to the crimes committed in Darfur, he urged Sudan to fully cooperate with the Court, in accordance with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.  Compliance was a key catchword.  For its part, Norway would commit itself to promoting the Court’s further consolidation.

FELIX A. ANIOKOYE ( Nigeria) said his delegation was convinced of the International Criminal Court’s great importance in the fight against impunity and believed that the Court should be adequately equipped to effectively discharge this crucial function.  Thus, it supported the construction of permanent premises for the Court and urged other Member States to give their support, as well.  Noting that the Court was established to try persons accused of the most serious crimes, he stressed it should function independently to effectively discharge its judicial functions without fear.  Without independence, justice would become a sham exercise and a caricature of what it should be. 

He expressed hope that current deliberations on the crime of aggression would be concluded without further delay, so that acts of aggression would not continue unaddressed.  He further noted that the International Criminal Court was an independent judicial body, not a political institution.  As a criminal court, it operated under the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and did not depend on the pronouncement of any other judicial organ in trying offences under its jurisdiction.  It was not, therefore, expected to be subordinate to any other body in dealing with the crime of aggression.

He called on all parties to fully cooperate with the Court towards an early attainment of the goal of universality.  He welcomed the new States parties and encouraged all other countries to become States parties.  Further, he said that the Trust Fund for Victims, which had been created at the same time as the Court, should be applied to assuage the plight of the victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.  For that to happen, however, the situation in which the crimes occurred had to be brought to the Prosecutor’s attention through referrals, and he urged all States parties in a position to do so to act quickly, in that regard.  Finally, he noted that most of the situations being handled by the Court were in Africa, although this fact was not reflected in the distribution of Court positions, and he called for equitable geographical representation at all levels of the Court.

RODRIGO RIOFRIO ( Ecuador) said the existence of the Court ensured that crimes against humanity would never again occur and go unpunished.  The Court’s work was becoming known.  Individuals were protected –- both witnesses and victims -- in carrying out justice.  In other words, the individual was at the heart of international law.  The execution of arrest warrants was the only way to ensure that suspected criminals were brought to justice.  The Statute should be examined for any provisions on how the Court should proceed, in the face of a lack of will.  The individual was placed at the heart of the law under the Statute, and the cooperation of States and the participation of civil society groups in the work of the Court were of utmost importance.

PAUL BADJI ( Senegal) said the sixth session of the Assembly of States Parties offered an opportunity to reaffirm a deep attachment to the ideals of peace and justice, and the values that underlay the struggle against war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.  By including war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts in the Rome Statute, the Assembly had helped enrich international humanitarian law.  He was pleased to see five new signatory parties, whom he welcomed and whose contributions would enrich the Court and its proceedings.

He noted the Court had become operational, despite several obstacles, and had made notable progress in the discharge of its mission in some places.  That progress was important in upholding the body’s credibility.  He warmly welcomed the collaborative spirit shown by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and called on others to take all necessary measures to ensure the Court’s smooth functioning.  Indeed, in offering the assurance that perpetrators of international crimes would be brought to justice, the Court offered a deterrent effect, and could even prevent future conflicts.

He welcomed the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, especially in light of the upcoming Review Conference.  The Trust Fund for Victims, which had became operational recently, should be strengthened.  He also expressed concern about the high vacancy rates of the Budget and Finance Committee, and endorsed the recommendations of that report regarding the need for an attractive recruitment policy.  He assured the Assembly that Senegal remained committed to the ideals behind the Court.  Indeed, Senegal had been the first country to ratify the Rome Statute, and shortly thereafter had hosted an African conference to promote the establishment of the International Criminal Court.  It was at that conference that the Dakar Declaration was inaugurated, whose recommendations were used in the Rome Statute text.  Also, Senegal had pushed for the involvement of the Organization for African Unity in the Rome Conference of 1998, where the Rome Statute was created.  Senegal had also taken steps to modify its criminal code, in line with the Rome Statute.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES ( Peru) said the Court that had once been a faraway wish was now a significant development for international law.  The start of trials and the opening of investigations demonstrated the Court’s effectiveness.  But, it had not been established to only punish perpetrators of serious crimes, but to also act as a deterrent.  Justice could not be achieved if arrest warrants were not executed, as they had not been in the case of the Lord’s Resistance Movement in Uganda and the two indictees in Sudan.  On the subject of the Review Conference, enough time should be allotted for all work to be accomplished, so that the Court could continue developing its capacity to carry out the important work of preventing impunity.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record