The International Criminal Court

MONITORThe Newsletter of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court

Issue 2 • October 1996

August PreparatoryCommittee TentativelyCalls for a DiplomaticConference in 1998

GOLDSTONE ONTHE TRIBUNALS & THE ICCThe Former Prosecutor on thePrecedent of the ad hocTribunals Page 11

ONE STEPFURTHERLawyer’s Committee forHuman Rights’ Analysis of thePrepCom and Beyond Page 3

WORLDWIDEOCTOBER ICCCAMPAIGNAmnesty InternationalOrganizes Global Activist Blitzon the ICC Page 5

QU’EST-CE QUE L’ICC? Page 6

¿QUE ES EL ICC?Page 7

Delegations from approxim ately 1 00 countries

convened in New York from August 12-30 for thesecond meeting of the Preparatory Committee on

the Establishment of an International CriminalCourt (PrepCom). The three-week session saw

im portant progres s made towards the goal ofcreating a single widely-ac ceptable text of a

c onvention for an I CC, but the uncertaintys urrounding the date for a full diplom atic

conference persisted.I n c ontras t to the firs t meeting of the

PrepCom, held in March and April of this year,the August session was m arked by a flurry of

written and oral proposals for amendments to theInternational Law Commission’s (ILC) 1994 Draft

Statute. Over 5 0 form al proposals werepres ented, and delegations from A rgentina,

A us tralia, Canada, France, Germ any, Japan,M alaysia, the Netherlands, Singapore, South

Africa, Switzerland and the United States wereparticularly active in this regard. Foremost in

scope among the proposals was a complete re-write of the International Law Commission’s draft

statute that the French delegation pres ented onthe first day of the m eeting. T his voluminous

proposal was seen by many ICC advocates as an

The ICC MONITORis a publication of the

NGO Coalition for anICC

Setting a Date forthe ICC Conference

What is at Stake intheSixthCommitteeand the General

As the Monitor went to press, there was a greatdeal of uncertainty about what will be the

General As sem bly (GA) decision on the nexts teps for the I nternational Crim inal Court

negotiations. The key issues are whether therecom mendation of the Preparatory Committee

will be accepted, strengthened or weakened. The Preparatory Comm ittee recom mended

(1) that their mandate be reaffirmed, (2) thatthere should be three to four additional meetings

up to a total of 9 week s before a diplom aticconference, (3) that the “drafting” mandate

should be stronger and more specific , and (4)that “it is realis tic to regard the holding of a

diplom atic conference of plenipotentiaries in1998 as feasible.”

Som e c ountries and NGOs thought thePrepCom rec omm endation s hould have been

stronger, es pec ially conc erning the decis ionabout the date for the diplomatic conferenc e.

Other countries, in particular China, believedmuch more time for preparatory meetings was

needed and that there should be no decision abouta date for the diplomatic conference. China’s

insistence that there will need to be at least 12more weeks of PrepComs was to be footnoted to

Continued on pg.2 Continued on pg. 3

2025?2004 ?19991998?

The International Criminal Court MONITOR

a project of the NGO Coalition for anInternational Criminal Court(CICC)

CICC Address:c/o WFM 777 UN Plaza 12th Floor New York, New York 10017USA

Tel: 1-212-599-1320 Fax: 1-212-599-1332email: wfm@igc.apc.org

Web Address:http://www.igc.apc.org/icc

William Pace Convenor

Rik Panganiban Editor

Donna Axel Consultant

Mark Thieroff Consultant

Maria Verheij European Coordinator

Jay Wegman Designer

Daniel Mac Sweeney Dana Scholar

Laura Jisun Lee Intern

Tina Margellis Intern

CICC Steering Committee:Amnesty InternationalEuropean Law Students AssociationFédération Internationale des Ligues des

Droits de l’HommeHuman Rights WatchInternational Commission of JuristsLawyers Committee for Human RightsNo Peace Without Justice (TRP)Parliamentarians for Global ActionWorld Federalist Movement

Substantial funding for the work of theCoalition has been received from theEuropean Communities, the FordFoundation, the Lannung Foundation, thegovernments of Denmark, theNetherlands, and Sweden, individualdonors and participating Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

Page 2 The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996

Members of Coalition at the August 1996 reception for Preparatory Committee

attempt to replace the ILC draft statute with onefounded on the tenets of civil law as practiced in

France, and was particularly surprising given thePrepCom’s mandate of using the ILC draft statute

as the bas is of its work . The Frenc h statutedominated discussion throughout the opening days

of the meeting, but by the end of the first week

governments had c learly signaled that furtherpropos als woul d have to be made wi thi n the

framework of the ILC document.

In term s of longer-range i m pact on the

establ i s hm ent proc ess , the s econd s es sion

included two particularly posi tive developm ents.The first of these was the emergence of a group

of governments whic h began coordinating their

efforts on behalf of the early establ ishment of an

effective I CC. Wi th delegat ions from several

European countries and A rgent ina, Austral i a,Canada, New Zeal and and South Afri ca at i ts

c ore, the s o-c al l ed “l ik e-m i nded” group

cooperated closely in drafting proposals and in

coordinating strategy for debate in the plenary.

The size of the group grew steadi ly throughoutthe three week sess ion and ultimately included

delegations from A fri ca, the Cari bbean, Lat in

Americ a, Eastern Europe and the Pacific Island

states.

The s ec ond pos iti ve development was thecomplet ion of a fi ve-part c om pi l ation of the

various proposals . Due to the large number of

proposed amendments to the draft statute and

the short period of time the delegati ons had to

consi der the propos al s , four new i nform alworking groups were formed during the second

half of the session and were given the task of

creat i ng c omprehensive c om pilati ons of the

competing propos al s. (T he i nformal working

group on general princ iples of criminal law thatwas c reated at the first meeting of the PrepCom

al s o parti c i pated in thi s proc es s . ) T he

c om pi l ati on doc uments , whi c h appear as

appendic es to the Report of the Preparatory

Comm ittee, focus on proposals in five areas of

the draft statute — general principles of criminal

l aw, proc edura l ques t i ons , i nternat i onal

c ooperati on an d judi c i al as s i s tanc e,organi zational m atters, and penalties.

Whi le the August meeting unfortunately saw

l i ttl e in terms of c onsol idat ion of com peti ng

proposal s , by reduc i ng s i zabl e am ounts of

overlap i n the propos ed am endments , and byprovidi ng a c oncis e overview of the areas in

need of further debate, the com pi l at i on

docum ents wi l l faci l i tate the process of thinning

the number of proposal s at future meetings of

the PrepCom.Twenty part icipat ing organizations of the

NGO Coal iti on were abl e to attend the s ec ond

s es s ion of th e PrepCom , i nc l udi ng

representat ives of NGOs in Afric a, Asia and

Eastern Europe, thanks to the generous supportof funders includi ng the European Communities,

the Ford Foundat ion and the governm ents of

Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. T he

si zable NGO presence al lowed the Coal ition to

conduc t numerous meetings and disc ussions withdelegat ions and PrepCom offi cers . Lunc heon

meetings between the Coal ition and members of

the l ike-minded group were hosted by Germany,

Finland and Denmark, and the Coal it ion held

addi t i onal meeti ngs wi th m embers of thedel egat i ons from France, Chi na, the Uni ted

States, Russ ia, I ndi a, the Nordi c s tates and

countries in Latin America, Africa and Southeast

Asia. Useful meetings were also conducted with

m em bers of the Bureau of the PreparatoryCommi ttee, including the Chairman, A driaan Bos

of th e Netherl ands, and wi th two

repres entatives of the Office of the Prosecutor

of the I nternati onal Criminal Tribunal for the

Form er Yugoslavia, who were present in orderto brief the PrepCom on their experiences with

i nternational c r i mi nal pros ec ut i ons . The

Coal ition onc e agai n hos ted a wel l -attended

recept ion in honor of Chairman Bos.

“August PrepCom,” continued from pg.1

NEXT ISSUE: ICC Monitor Issue No. 3,December 1996

v Outcomes of Sixth Committee and GeneralAssembly deliberations on the ICC

v Developing World Perspective on the ICC

the final Report of the Preparatory

Committee.A Sixth Comm ittee repres entative for

Ireland, the current President of the EuropeanUnion, indic ated that on the bas is of

prelim inary inform al cons ultations , hebelieved there would not be a c ons ens us

European Union position because of differencesin the positions of member countries. China is

reported to regard the ICC as one of its two

most important pri oriti es i n the GA Si xth

(Legal) Committee. A leader of the United

States delegation, however, has publ ic ly

confirmed that the Americans support the

recommendation of the PrepCom and will

agree to hol ding the di plomatic conference in

19 98.

The Sixth Commi ttee wil l meet on the

topi c of the Internati onal Cri minal Court

fro m October 2 8 to 31 , 1 99 6 , and a

resolution on the next steps will be agreed

to in late November.

The deci sion is further complicated by

the UN f i nanc i a l cri s i s and compet i ng

proposals. The Uni ted States and the United

Kingdom are proposing the formati on of an

ad hoc Committee to draft a new conventi on

on international terrorism. And it is l ikely

the Si xth Commi ttee w i ll not compl ete

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996 Page 3

One Step FurtherTowards an ICC

by Mireille Hector

Whi le a more concerted approach is st i l l

req ui red to set up a p erma nent

International Cri minal Court, an important

step has recently been taken towards its

establi shment.

The second session of the Preparatory

Commi ttee on the Establ i shment of an

International Crimi nal Court met i n New

Yo rk from A ug ust 1 2 th-3 0th, 1 9 96 .

Though fall ing short of i ts mandate to

cre ate a con sol i d ated text, the

Preparatory Commi ttee neverthel ess

made a number of noteworthy advances on

the rights of defendants, the organi zati onal

structure of the future court, rules of

evi dence a nd proc edur e, and gen eral

pri nc i pl e s of crim i nal l aw. Sev eral

i nformal worki ng groups fac i li tated the

di scussi on by pr epari ng a num ber of

compi l ed texts, which together form a

sol id basis for future discussions.

While a growing number of states are

now wil l i ng to e ngag e themsel ves i n

detai l ed discussions and negoti ati ons, a

signifi cant obstacle in the current phase is

the absence of a l arge number of states

from t he debate s o f the Prepar atory

Commi ttee. Though reasons for absence

mi ght differ from state to state, it i s c lear

that a number of government del egates

lack the i nstructi ons from their capitals to

engage in negotiations of even thei r own

pro posa l s . The conc l usi on s of the

Preparatory Committee, whi ch serve as a

recommendation to the General Assembly,

refl ect the need for a more universal

part icipation in its debates, as well as a

broadened mandate to incl ude powers to

negotiate on draft texts. This, combined

wi th a detail ed work schedule fo r i ts

preparatory debate, shoul d encourage

states to act i vel y parti c ipate in future

debate s, w i th the assi s tance of l egal

experts.

The Sixth Committee is now uni quely

positi oned to act upon the conc lusi ons of

the Prepa rato ry Commi t tee, w hi ch

recommended a renewal of its mandate and

vi e wed the “ho ldi ng of a d i plom ati c

conference of plenipotentiari es i n 1 998 as

feasibl e.” Thus, the General Assembly is

c learly guided to set a f irm date and to

ensure that the momentum conti nues.

While renewi ng and broadening the mandate

of the Preparatory Committee, the Sixth

Commi ttee wil l also have to set dates for

its preparatory work, in such a way that

thi s process wi ll be f i nal i zed i n April

19 98.

“What’s at Stake,” continued from pg.1

The A ugust sess ion of the United Nations

Prepa rato ry Co mmi ttee o n the

Establ i shment of an Internati onal Criminal

Court (PrepCom) was different in two ways

from the earl i er session i n March/Apri l,

1 9 96 . Unl i ke the f i rst s ess i on of the

Preparatory Commi ttee i n March/A pri l

which dealt wi th many pol i ti cal concerns,

such as wha t crimes to in c l ude i n the

court’s jurisdict ion and the role of the of

the Security Council, the August session of

the PrepCom dealt with more techni cal

issues. The issues included procedural

questions, general princ iples of cri minal

law , the establ i shment of the I CC, the

relat ionship between the ICC and the UN, and

basic organi zat ional questions . Also, the

August session had many more i nformal

working groups on di fferent i ssues whi ch

met in additi on to the plenary sessions.

The di scuss i on of procedural i ssues

began in plenary session with A rtic le 2 5 of

the Internati onal Law Commi ss ion’s ( ILC)

draft s tatute coveri ng the procedure by

which a State would l odge a complai nt with

the Court. The discussion focused mainly on

what i nformati on the state woul d have to

i nclude i n t he comp lai nt, i . e . basi s of

jurisd i ct i o n, c i rcums tance of cri me,

locati on of evi dence or identi fi cati on of

suspects and witnesses.

The di s cussions con ti nue d with

i nves ti gati on of al lege d crim es,

commencement of prosecution, arrest, pre-

tri al detention, not ificati on of indictment,

chal l e nges to juri s di c tion, i ssue s of

admi ssibi l i ty and tri al s i n absentia. The

fol l owing week, the PrepCom took up the

topi cs of evi d ence; pro tect i o n of the

accused, vi ctims and witnesses; quorum and

judgment; and appeal and review.

The working group on General Princi ples

of Criminal Law continued the work done by

the del egati on of Sweden in the earl i er

session of the PrepCom. The I LC draft

statute is si lent on thi s topic. Many states

stated i t would be i nappropriate to l eave

these principl es unaddressed in the statute.

The working group covered the following

pri ncipl es: l egal ity, non-retroactivi ty,

i ndiv i dual re spons i bi l i ty, e lemen ts of

crimi nal re spons i bil i t y, a ge of

responsibi l ity, statute of l imitations, actus

reu s, me ns rea , causa ti on an d

accountabi l ity, mi stake of fact or l aw,

incomplete crimes/attempt, conspiracy and

command responsi bil ity.

I n the s econ d week , the Pr epCo m

del egate s too k up i ssue s i nvol vin g

organization of the Court. What should be

the qual ifi cation of judges and how shoul d

they be elected? How l ong should thei r

term last and can they be re-elected? What

ki nd and how many chambers should there

be? Th e Fren ch prop osal fo r a n

I nvesti gat i ve Chamber in addi ti on to the

Trial and A ppel late Chambers cal led for in

the ILC draft is an example of the many

differences in civi l law and common l aw

systems.

One question of major interest was the

rel ationship of the I nternational Criminal

Cou rt to the Un i ted Nati on s . Th i s

encompasses issues such as how the court

will be establ ished, admi ni stration of the

court, who shal l el ect the judges, and how

the court wi ll be fi nanced. Several states

preferred amending the UN Charter to make

the ICC a pri nci ple organ of the UN on par

wi t h th e S ecuri ty Counc i l, G ener al

A ssembly and the International Court of

Justi ce. However, the majority of states

agree d th at the most l ikel y met hod of

establ i shment is through a mul t i l ateral

treaty.

As sumi n g the c ourt is esta bl ishe d

Issues Discussed at the August PrepCom

by Steven J. Gerber

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996

[Excerpted from Uni ted Nations Department of

Publ ic Information Press Rel ease (L/2 81 3) ,

30 August 199 6]

Co nc l ud i ng i ts secon d se ss i on , th e

Preparatory Committee on the Establ ishment

of an I nterna ti onal Crimi na l Cou rt t hi s

afternoon dec ided to continue its discussions

on the draft statute of the proposed court

wi th a view to finalizi ng the text by the end of

April 19 98, to be followed later that year by

a di pl omatic pleni potent i ary conference to

adopt a convention on the establishment of the

first international criminal court.

The Commi ttee agreed, i n conc lusi ons

reached thi s afternoon, to meet three or four

times for a total of nine more weeks in order

to prepare the draft treaty for adoption i n

19 98. Before the adoption of the conclus ions,

the rep rese ntat i ve o f China exp resse d

“serious reservations” about them, stating

that the setti ng of a date for the diplomati c

con ference of pl eni po tentia ri es was “a

political i ssue” and thus shoul d be dealt with

in the pol itical organs of the United Nations,

such as the Sixth Committee (Legal). She said

that sett ing a specifi c date for the conference

would also hi nder the pace and the progress of

the work still to be done on the draft statute,

but added that Chi na would not block the

adoption of the Committee’s conclusions.

The Chairman, in his c losi ng statement,

sai d that it was virtual l y impo ss i bl e to

summari ze the hard work done in the past

three weeks. He thanked the regional groups

for their concepts and expressed the hope that

their fruitful discussions would continue i n the

mo nths to com e. Fi nal l y , he remi nde d

del egati ons that the resul ts of the final

sessions “must be shaped in a manner that the

diplomatic conference can take the necessary

political dec isions” needed for the adoption of

the statute and rel ated instruments.

The Commi ttee, he recal led, had before it

nine weeks to achi eve that aim.

Representing their respective regi onal

groups, the representatives of Franc e,

Hungary, Cameroon, Jordan and Uruguay

made closing remarks . . .

Overview of Second Session

Over the course of the second sess i on,

which began on 12 August, the

Preparatory Commi ttee di scussed major

substantive and admini strative issuesa ri si n g

out of the draft statute, wi th a vi ew to

preparing a widely acceptabl e consol idated

text of a convention for the proposed court.

The issues addressed i ncluded the concept of

fai r trial and ri ghts of the accused; the

establishment, composit ion and administration

of the court; and its rel ati onshi p wi th the

United Nations.

I n the di scussion on fai r tri al and the

rights of the accused, several delegations said

that onl y States parties to the court should be

a l l owed to l odge a comp l ai nt before the

proposed court. “Trigger mechani sms” by

ei ther the prosecutor of the court or the

United Nations Securi ty Counc il were also

debated, as wel l as the discret ionary powers

of the prosecutor.

O n the rel ati o nshi p be twee n S tate

sovereignty and the i nvestigative authority of

the court, some representati ves sai d that

enquiries should be undertaken only with the

permission of the States in which the al leged

crimes took place, though others argued that

the court’s investigations did not necessari ly

c omp romi s e the co ncep t of nat i onal

sovereignty.

The creation of a pre-trial chamber, also

cal led the indi ctment or instruction chamber,

was proposed by various delegati ons. The

powers of the prosecutor, as wel l as his

necessari ly impartial role, were examined.

Issues regarding the commencement of the

prosecution were then discussed, including the

powers of the presi dency, which were judged

excessi ve by some del egati ons. Alternati ve

proposals included the use of a court offi cer

who woul d undertake pre-trial conf irmations

o f pro pose d i nd i ctm ents i nste ad of the

president. The draft provisions regardi ng the

notif ication of the indi ctment, arrest, pre-

trial detenti on or release were also discussed.

I n that connect ion, vari ous suggestions were

made concerni ng the cooperation of nat ional

judicial systems with the court.

Clarifications were sought concerning the

provi s i ons whi ch w oul d al l ow interested

States to chal lenge the court’s jurisdic tion;

some delegations indicated that a time-frame

for such challenges at the commencement of a

trial woul d be useful . Delegati ons also made

proposal s regardi ng the grounds for trials in

absenti a; many representat i ves proposed

l imiting such a possibi l ity. A mong the grounds

that would justify the init iation of a tri al in

t he ab senc e of th e accused , sev eral

del egati ons menti oned the del i berate refusal

of the accused person to appear before the

court.

A number of partic ipants cited the need to

balance the i nternati onal ly recognized right of

the a ccuse d to sel f -defe nce wi th the

excepti onal ly seri ous nature of the cri mes

w i thi n the court’ s juri sdi c t ion. So me

d elega ti ons sa i d th at d ef i ni ti ve

pronouncements of gui lt or innocence should

only be made upon the apprehensi on of the

accused. The Committee also discussed the

functions and powers of the trial chamber and

the advisabi l ity of the provision allowing the

accused to enter a plea of gui lty or not guilty

at the commencement of the tri al and the

consequences of the entering of a guilty plea.

The di scussi on on provi sions al lowi ng the

accused to enter a plea at the commencement

of a tri al i ncl uded proposal s in favour of

accep ti ng such a provi s i on, as i t wou l d

abbreviate court proceedings, and suggestions

concerning the need to ensure that such pleas

were not entered under duress or with a view

to conceal i ng other facts under considerati on.

Rep rese ntat i v es a lso di s cuss ed th e

possibi lity of closed sess ions of the court, for

the purpose of protecting confidenti al or

sensitive i nformation.

The creati on of a special unit concerned

with the protecti on of victims and witnesses,

si m i l ar t o the uni t e stabl i shed by th e

International Criminal Tribunal for the former

Yug os l avi a, was al so propo sed. Th e

Commi ttee discussed the i ssue of perjury, and

whe ther the co urt should b e al l owe d t o

san cti on it o r l eave i t to the na t i ona l

juri s di c t i on con cerned ac cording to th e

princi ple of complementari ty, as wel l as the

provis ions for the excl usion of evi dence.

Regarding the structure of the court and

the conduct of trials, representat ives were

divided as to whether court judgements shoul d

be rendered by unanimous verdict, or by a

majori ty of judges. Several speakers sai d

that if judges in the trial chamber could not

rea ch a ver di ct, the acc used sh ould b e

acqu i tted. Som e del ega tions sai d th at a

minimum of four judges could constitute a

quorum if they attended every stage of the

trial; others said that al l judges should attend

every sess ion.

The court’s composition should refl ect the

pri n cipl e s of e qui ta bl e g eogra phi ca l

representati on, several representat i ves

stated. Judges should also be drawn from

different legal systems and should inc lude

both genders.

It w as ge neral l y a greed that judg es

should have substantial experience in cri minal

l aw , wi th e xper ti se i n i n terna ti ona l

humanitari an l aw an added benefi t. Som e

stated that judges shoul d be elected from

among States parties, whi le others said that,

consi s tent wi th its universal mandate, the

court could include judges from other States.

Regardi ng court administrat ion, i t was

general l y agreed that the regis try of court,

wi t h res pons ibi l i ty for i ts o vera l l

management, shoul d be subject to careful

overs i ght mechani sm s, parti cularl y over

matters such as salaries and expenditures. I t

was stated that judges mi ght be di squali fied

Preparatory Committee for International Criminal Court Concludes Second Session

Page 4

Thank You!The Coali t i on wo uld li ke to t h an kMagdalena García-Sot o and StephanieLePoutre for translating page 6 and 7f or us, A gatha Haun of the PeaceTran sl atio n Pr oj e ct and Flo ren ceMartin of A mnesty International foradditional translation assist ance. Wear e g ra tefu l f o r the fin an c ialass is tan ce o f the Eu ro p eanCommunities, the Ford Foundat io n,and the governments of Denmark, theNetherlands, and Sweden. And, asalways, our deep appreciation to ouri nte rns fo r th ei r har d wo rk anddedication.

The effects of al l owi ng gross

human ri gh ts abus es to go

unpunished are evident in every

region of the world. For half a

century s ince the end of the

Nuremberg and Tokyo trial s,

states have fai led in their duty

to bri ng those responsibl e for

genoci de, other crimes against

humanity and war cri mes to

justice. I n the past 5 0 years,

mi l l i ons of peopl e have been

detained in concentration camps,

tortured, raped, bombarded in

undefended vi l lages, towns and

citi es, deported, “di sappeared”

and be en vi c t ims of

ext rajud i ci al exec uti on s or

mass exterminations.

The l i nk be twee n th ese

grave cri mes and impunity i s

obvi ous; a s l ong a s the

perpetrators remai n exempt

from punishment, the cri mes

wi l l conti nue. Impunity permits

sporadi c vi olati ons of human

ri ghts to develop into patterns

of abuse. I t creates a s ituati on

in which perpetrators consider

themselves to be above the law

and vi cti ms feel themsel ves to

be fair game.

Amnesty International has a

long hi s tory of ca mpai g ning

aga i nst i mp unity ; a recent

chapter has been our support for

the setting up and the fair and

effective operation of the ad hoc

trib unal s for the form er

Yugos l avi a and Rwa nda. The

tri bunals are a si gnif icant first

step. However, they are only a

stop-gap measure and do not

offer a soluti on to the long-term

global probl em of the need to

bri ng indivi dual perpetrators to

just i ce reg ardl ess of t hei r

nat ional ity or l ocation.

When states are unabl e or

unwil l i ng to prosecute those

responsi ble for massive abuses

of human rights in their own

courts, then an international

criminal court must be avai lable

to act on b ehal f of the

international community to bring

those responsi bl e for cri mes

unde r i n terna ti ona l l aw to

justice and to be a model for

national jurisdictions to fol low.

Amnesty I nternational has been

acti vel y l obb yi ng for the

establi shment of a permanent

interna ti onal cri mi nal court

since 1 994 .

A mnesty Inte rnational

bel ieves that the current draft

stat ute pre pare d b y the

Internati onal Law Commission

goes a l ong w ay towards

creating a court which wil l meet

the highest standards of just ice

and fairness . In some aspects,

however, we cons ider that the

statute should be strengthened.

I n part i cul ar, A mne sty

International urges that (1) the

cour t sho ul d h ave inherent

(automati c ) jurisdi cti on over

genoci de, other crimes against

humani ty and serious viol ations

of humani tari an law covered by

its statute; ( 2) the Prosecutor

should be i ndependent and not

subj ect to S ecurity Cou nci l

veto; ( 3) the guarantees for fair

trial should be strengthened; (4)

the num ber o f s i gnatu res

requ i red fo r rat i fi cation of

treaty contai ning the statute

should not be so high as to delay

the establ ishment of the court;

and (5 ) the sta tute sho ul d

provi de for long-term, secure

financing by the Uni ted Nati ons.

A s A mnesty I nternational

has mor e th an a mi l l i on

members and more than 4 ,354

local groups in 92 countries, it

has an exceptionally broad base

from whi ch to a ppro ach

gov ernment i ns titutio ns.

A mn esty’s tradit i on of

i ndi vidual letter-wri ting and

appe al s t o government

authori ti es i s currentl y being

put to use to bring the case for

the ICC to the attention of heads

of government and ministers for

foreign affairs.

I n addi t i on to thi s l arge-

scale action by members of the

gene ral p ubl i c, members of

professional groups, such as

lawyers groups, are also adding

their voices to the discuss ion by

us i n g thei r expe rti se and

contacts to ensure that Amnesty

International’s views on the I CC

are publ ished in legal ci rcl es,

trade papers and newspaper

artic les. Moreover, A mnesty

International is work ing in close

cooperation with other members

of th e NG O Co ali t i o n for an

I nternati onal Cri mi nal Court

(CICC).

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996 Page 5

Amnesty International Organizes October Campaign for an ICC

by Val Wolf

Booklet cover for AI Week 1996campaign on the InternationalCriminal Court

Members of the NGO Coalition meet with Deputy Prime Minister A.N.R. Robinson ofTrinidad and Tobago at the August ICC Preparatory Committee meeting in New York.Pictured: Pius Kisarika, Claudia Maarschalkerweerd, Mr. Robinson, MP James Orengo(Kenya), Tanya Karanasios, Milos Naumovic, Maja Juric, William Pace.

Page 6 The International Criminal Court MONITOR •October 1996

L’ABC de l’ICC

Qu’est-ce que la Cour CriminelleInternationale?La Cour Criminelle Internationale proposéeest un tribunal permanent avec unecompétence globale pour juger les individusinculpés de violations massives du DroitInternational Humanitaire. A la differencede la Cour Internationale de Justice, dont lacompétence litigieuse est réservée auxEtats, elle aura la capacité d’inculper lesindividus. Et, à la difference des tribunauxde guerres du Rwanda et de l’ex-Yougoslavie, sa compétence ne sera limitéeni temporellement, ni géographiquement.Ainsi, pour la première fois on peutpercevoir la création d’un devoir positifglobal pesant sur l’individu de respecter larègle de droit.

Les Sujets Débatabledevant l’ ICC

Le sujet principal des débats est l’étendue de

l a compétence de la Cour. Un autre sujet des

débats est sur la déf initi on des crimes.

A lors qu’i l y a eu un sout ien général durant

l a réunion du comité ad hoc de 19 95 sur le

point de la défini tion de l a genoci de, des

crimes contre l’humanité, et des violations

graves des lois et coûtumes appl icables en

temps de confl its armés, d’autres

definitions tel les que l’agression et d’autre

crimes commes aparthei d, trafic i l l icite de

drogues, attaques dir igées contre le

personnel des Nations Unies et le personnel

A Propos de laCoalitionLe but principal de l’associati on des ONGs (la

Coal i tion) pour une Cour Criminel le

Internationale est de défendre la création

d’une Cour Criminelle Internationale efficace

et juste. La Coalition réunie un nombre

d’ONGs et d’experts en droit international

pour développer des stratégies sur les

importants problèmes légaux et politi ques

contenus dans le statut proposé.

Le but clé est d’encourager la pri se de

consc ience et le souti ent d’un large évantai l

d’organisations c ivi ls dans des domai nes les

plus divers : droi ts humans, droi t

international, juridique, humanitaire,

rel igi eux, pai x, femmes, parlementai res et

autres.

Pour atteindre ces buts, nous nous sommes

engagés dans les acti vités suivantes :

♦ Convoquer la Coalit ion et ses groupes de

travail , tel que le Tribunal ad hoc/I CC

groupe de travail sur le financement,

groupe de travail informati on/médi a, et

le groupe de travai l sur la s tratégie

américaine.

♦ Maintenir une page sur le World Wide

Web, des conférences i nternati onal es par

ordinateur et des l i stes sur listserv

email, pour fac i liter les échanges de

documentations et d’informations d’ONGs

et d’experts concernant les Tri bunaux ad

hoc et l es négociati ons pour la I CC et

fac iliter les discussions et débats sur l es

problèmes concrets rencontrés durant les

négociations pour l’établ issement de

La Coalition d’ONGs a établie une page sur l e World

Wide Web concernant la Cour Crimi nelle

Internationale qui permet a tous d’accéder par

Internet a des documents pertinants et met en

l iai son avec d’autres si tes et banques de données

pertinantes. Cette page est disponible à l’adresse:

URL:http://www.igc.apc.org/icc

Nous avons de même assisté à l ’établ issement

d’une page WWW sur les Tribunaux ad hoc de l’ex-

Yougoslavie et du Rwanda ( en cooperati on avec le

bureau de La Haye du Tribunal Criminel

Internati onal et l a Coal iti on Pour une Justice

I nternati onal e). Pour accéder a cette page orientez

votre fenêtre WWW sur:

URL:http://www.igc .apc .org/tri bunal.

Quiconque possédant une adresse email peut

souscrire à notre liste d’adresse-contacts email .

Envoyez un message email à:

majordomo@igc.apc.org. Ensuite, dans la zone

message, tapez “souscri ption icc-info”, et

envoyez. Vous devriez recevoir un message

confi rmant votre inscription sur la l i ste “icc-

i nfo” de contact et une série d’instruction sur son

NGO Coalition for an International Criminal c/o WFM, 777 UN Plaza, 12t

New York, NY 10017 USTelephone: 1-212-599-13

fax: 1-212-599-1332e-mail: wfm@igc.apc.or

Pourquoi Avons NousBesoin d’une ICC?

A l’heure actuel le, i l n’y a pas de mécanisme

permanent par lequel l ’individu peut être

rendu responsable pour les violations du

droit i nternati onal . Dans de tel les s ituations,

le seul recours possibl e est d’i mposer des

sanctions, un embargo ou d’uti l iser la force

mil itai re. Cependant, ce sont des méthodes

brutales qui peuvent toucher des c ivils

innocents plus que les individus incriminés .

En precisant pl us l a règle de droit,

concernant les individus, l e droit

international deviendrait plus juste et

eff icace.

Une ICC pourrait dissuader des

futurs dictateurs aux idées de viol ations

massives des droits de l’homme-tels que Pol

Pot ou Idi Amin-de massacrer leurs propre

citoyens. Le maint ient de la paix

internationale pourrait bénéfic ier

grandement de la création d’une cour

internationale. Les forces de la pai x des

Pour plusd’information

Information En-lígne

La CICC voudrait remercier à Magdalena García-Soto et à Stephani e LePoutre pour la traducti on

de L’ABC de l’ICC et à A gatha Haun de la Peace Trans lati on Project et à Fl orence Marti n

d’A mnesty International pour leur ass i stance de traducti on. L’A BC de l ’I CC est pour l e

Statut Actuel de l’ICC

En décembre 199 5, l ’Assemblée générale a

crée un Comité préparatoire sur

l ’établ issement d’une Cour Crimi nel l e

I nternationale (PrepCom), qui s’est réuni

l ors de deux sess ions de travai l de trois

semaines en mars-avri l et août 1996. Bien

que l a majorité des nations qui composent le

Sixième Comit, de l’Assembl ée générale (la

comi té légal) , avaient été en faveur d’une

conférence de plenipotentiaires, certains

Etats y compris les Etats Uni s, le Royaume-

Uni, la Chine et l ’Inde ont ins isté sur la

nécessité de plus amples discussions avant

de décider d’une date pour la conférence

diplomatique. Ai nsi, la Resol ution adoptée

par l ’Assemblée générale en 199 5 est une

décision de compromis qui établ it un Comité

Preparatoire “.. .en vue de la préparation

d’un texte consolidé d’une convention... en

tant que prochaine étape en vue d’un examen

par une conférence de plénipotentiaires.” La

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996 Page 7

¿Qué es el ICC?El llamado Tribunal Penal Internacional esun tribunal judicial permanente conjurisdicción mundial para procesarindividuos por violación grave de las leyeshumanitarias internacionales. A diferenciadel Tribunal de Justicia Internacional, cuyajurisdicción contenciosa está limitada a losdiferentes Estados, el ICC tendrá capacidadjurídica para procesar individuos y, adiferencia de los tribunales para crímenesde guerra establecidos para Ruanda y laantigua Yugoslavia, su jurisdicción noestará limitada ni temporal nigeográficamente. De aquí que exista porprimera vez la perspectiva internacional deimponer en los individuos la obligacióndirecta de respetar los preceptos legales.

Sobre la CoaliciónEl objetivo pri ncipal de la Coal ición de NGOs

(Organizac iones no Gubernamentales) para

un Tribunal Penal Internacional es

recomendar la creación de un Tribunal Penal

Internacional eficaz y justo. La Coal ición

reune una amplia red de NGOs y expertos en

derecho internacional para elaborar

estrategias sobre asuntos específi cos

legales y políti cos relacionados con la

propuesta de ley. Un objeti vo importante es

promover la comprensión y el respaldo de un

amplio sector de organizaciones ci vi les tal es

como organizaciones para la defensa de los

derechos humanos, el derecho internac ional,

el derecho procesal, organizaciones

humanitarias, rel igiosas, para la paz, de

mujeres, parlamentari as y otras. Con este

propós ito se l l evan a cabo las s igui entes

actividades:

♦ Convocar la Coalición y sus grupos de

trabajo, tales como el Tribunal ad hoc, el

grupo de trabajo para la consolidación del

ICC, el grupo para informaci ón/difus ión y

un grupo de trabajo para estudiar las

estrategias de la ONU.

♦ Mantener una página electrónica en l a red

internac ional, mantener una lista de

conferencias internacionales en el

ordenador y una lista l istserv de e-mail

para fac i litar el intercambio entre los

NGOs de documentación especial i zada e

informac ión relativa a los Tribunales ad

hoc y a las negociaciones del ICC, así

como promover discusiones y debates

sobre asuntos especí ficos derivados de

las negociaciones para el establecimiento

de un Tribunal Penal Internacional

permanente.

♦ Faci l itar reuniones entre la Coal i ción y

Le ABC del ICC

Delitos que Cubre elICCUno de l os princ ipales tópicos de debate es l a

juri sdicción del Tribunal. A continuación se

dan los del itos i ncluidos en el anteproyecto de

ley para el I CC del I LC de 1994. Aunque el

apoyo a los apartados 1 , 2 y 3 es general,

durante las reuniones del Comité ad hoc en

199 5 numerosos países se reservaron el

derecho de apoyo a los apartados 4 y 5.

1. Genoc idio.

2. Los Crímenes de Lesa Humani dad.

3.Vi olac ión graves de las leyes y usosapl i cabl es en confl ic tos armados (crímenesde guerra).

4. Agresión.

La Coal ición de NGOs ha creado una página

electrónica en la red internacional sobre el Tribunal

Penal Internacional que hará posibl e el acceso en

Internet a la documentación pertinente al ICC y la

conexi ón a otros lugares y bases de datos

apropiados. Se puede acceder a esta página en:

URL:http://www.igc.apc .org/icc

También se ayudó, en colaboaración con las ofi cinas

del ICT en La Haya y con la Coal ición para Justicia

Internacional, a la creación de una pági na electróni ca

sobre los Tribunales A d Hoc para crímenes de

guerra para la anti gua Yugoslavia y Ruanda. Para

acceder a esta página sitúese en

URL:http://www.i gc.apc.org/tribunal.

Todo usuario que tenga una dirección e-mai l se puede

suscribir a nuestra l ista e-mai l de distribución. Los

mensajes en e-mai l se deberán diri gir a

majordomo@igc.apc.org. En la zona para mensajes

se deberá primero escribir “subscribe icc-info,” y

entonces enviar el mensaje. Se rec ibirá un mensaje

confirmando la subscri pción a l a lis ta de di stribución

“icc-info” y también l as instrucciones de uso.

¿Por qué se Necesitaun ICC?

En la actual idad no existe ninguna

organi zaci ón permanente por la que se pueda

hacer responsable al individuo de violaciones

del derecho internacional. En tales

situac iones el único recurso internacional es

imponer sanciones, embargos o uti l izar la

fuerza armada. Estas son acciones

contundentes que pueden dañar más a l os

inocentes civiles que a los disgresores de la

ley. Mediante el enfoque de los preceptos

legales con mayor énfasis en l os

transgresores indi viduales, el derecho

internacional será más justo y eficaz.

Un ICC podría disuadir a di ctadores

genocidas tales como Pol Pot o Idi Amí n de la

matanza de sus ciudadanos. El manteni miento

de la paz internacional se beneficiará

también en gran medida de la existencia de

un ICC. Los pac ificadores de Las Naciones

Unidas podrían detener la matanza a gran

escala situándose entre las partes

Información en Línea

La CICC quiere agradecer a Magdalena García-Soto y a Stephani e LePoutre para la

traducci ón de Le ABC del ICC y a A gatha Haun de la Peace Translation Project y a Florence

Martin de Amnistía Internacional para sus as istencia de traduccíon. Le ABC del ICC es para

oalition for al Criminal Court

UN Plaza, 12th FloorNY 10017 USA-212-599-13202-599-1332

m@igc.apc.org

Para MasInformacion

Estado Actual del ICCEn diciembre de 199 5 la Asambl ea General

creó un Comité Preparatorio para el

establecimiento de un Tribunal Penal

Internac ional (PrepCom) , que se reunió en

sesiones de trabajo de dos-tres semanas de

duración en marzo, abri l y agosto de 19 96.

Aunque la mayoría de las naciones en el

Sexto Comité estuvieron a favor de convocar

una conferencia de plenipontenciarios,

algunos países, incluyendo l os Estados

Unidos, el Reino Uni do, China e I ndia, pidieron

que se l levaran a cabo más discusiones antes

de acordar una fecha para la cel ebración de

una conferencia de diplomáticos . De aquí que

el acuerdo de la GA de 1 995 sea un

compromiso que establece un Comité

Preparatori o “. .. con miras a preparar, como

próxima medida, un texto consol idado de una

convención...para su examen por una

conferencia de plenipotenciarios.” La

conc lusi ón del PrepCom de agosto muestra

Page 8 The International Criminal Court MONITOR •October 1996

What is the ICC?

The proposed I nternati onal Cri minal Court

is a permanent judicial tribunal wi th a

global juri sdiction to try individuals for

gross breaches of international

humanitari an l aw. Unl i ke the International

Court of Justice, whose contentious

jurisdiction is restricted to States, it wil l

have the capac ity to indict indi viduals; and

unlike the Rwandan and Yugoslavian War

Crimes Tribunals, its jurisdict ion wil l not

be chronol ogical ly or geographical l y

Why an ICC isNeeded

At present there is no permanent

mechanism by whi ch individuals can be

held accountable for vi olat ions of

international law. In such s ituations, the

world’s only recourse is to impose

sanctions, embargoes or use mil itary

force. These are blunt instruments that

may hurt i nnocent civi l ians much more

than the offending individuals. By focusing

the rul e of law more precisely on

individual lawbreakers, international l aw

would become more just and more

effective.

An ICC could deter future genocidal

dictators l ike Adol f Hitler from

slaughtering their own citi zens . The

maintenance of international peace would

also greatl y benefi t from the existence of

an ICC. United Nations peacekeepers can

Crimes Covered bythe ICC

One of the main topics of debate is the

jurisdicti on that the court wi l l have. Below

are the crimes included in the 1994 ILC

Draft Statute for the ICC fol l owed by brief

descripti ons. Whi le there is general

support for 1, 2 and 3 below, during the

1995 ad hoc Committee meetings, many

countries reserved their support for 4 and

5 .

1) Genocide : certain acts (ki l l ing;

causi ng serious bodi ly or mental harm;

destructi on of means of survival;

preventing bi rths; transfer of chi ldren)

committed with i ntent to destroy, in whole

or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or

rel igi ous group.

2) Crim es aga inst humanity: certai n

acts (incl uding extermination, murder,

torture, rape) when committed

systematical ly against a segment of the

civi l i an popul ation.

3) Serious violations of the lawsand customs a pplicable in armedc onflict (war crim es ): certain acts or

omiss ions which constitute grave breaches

of the Geneva Conventions and customary

international law (includi ng torture of

prisoners of war, tak ing civil ian hostages,

subjecting detainees to medical and

scientific experiments)

Chronology of theICC

1 9 4 8United Nations adopts the Genocide

Convention which makes it an i nternati onal

crime to commit acts with intent to destroy

a national, ethnic, rel i gious, or racial

group.

1 9 5 0’sThe International Law Commiss ion (ILC), a

UN body, i s mandated to codify the

Nuremberg pri nciples and to prepare a draft

statute to create an international criminal

court. However, progress is s tymied by

the onset of the Cold War.

1 9 8 9Trinidad and Tobago reintroduces the i dea of

a permanent court to the General Assembly

(GA). This time, the idea receives more

attenti on with the end of the Cold War and

the outbreak of violence in the Former

Yugosl avia. The GA requests that the ILC

prepare a draft statute for a permanent

ICC.

1 9 9 3UN Security Council establishes the ad hoc

War Crimes Tribunal for the Former

Yugosl avia.

1 9 9 4November: The ILC presents the f inal ver-

sion of the draft statute to the Sixth

Commi ttee of the 49th session of the GA

and recommends that a conference of

plenipotent iari es be cal led to draw up a

treaty to enact the statute. The GA estab-

lishes an ad hoc commi ttee to revi ew the

draft s tatute. UN Security Council creates

a second ad hoc tri bunal for Rwanda.

1 9 9 5The Ad Hoc Committee meets for two two-

week sess ions . Most countries favor the

establ i shment of a permanent i nternati onal

criminal court whi le several major nat ions

remain opposed or undecided. In December,

the GA dec ides to create a Preparatory

Commi ttee (PrepCom) to meet twice in

19 96 to fi nal ize a text to be presented at a

convention of pleni potentiaries .

1 9 9 6March 25-Apri l 12 : The f irst PrepCom is

held in New York. Issues such as

jurisdiction, defini tions of crimes, trigger

mechanisms, and general princ iples of

Current Status ofthe ICC

In December 1 995 , the General Assembly

created a Preparatory Committee on the

Establishment of an International Criminal

Court, whi ch held its f irst meeting in

March and Apri l of 199 6 and its second

session August 12-30, 19 96. Though a

majori ty of the nations in the Sixth

Commi ttee favor calling for a conference

of plenipotenti aries, some states have

insisted upon further discussions before

agreei ng to a date for a diplomatic

conference. A1995 GA resolution

establ i shed the “Preparatory Committee.. .

wi th a view to prepari ng a consolidated

text of a convention..as a next step

towards consideration by a conference...”

The August Preparatory Committee

recommended that there should be three to

ABC’s of the ICC“The States parties to this Statute, Desir ing to furtherinternationalcooperation to enhancethe effectiveprosecution andsuppression of crimes ininternational concern,and for that purpose toestablish aninternational cr iminalcourt....”

-- Opening words of the

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996

World Needs aCourt for WarCrimes

by Ved Nanda

[Ex cerp ted from the De nver

Post, A ugust 18, 199 6 issue by

permission of author]

What do Pol Pot, Idi A mi n and

Saddam Hussein have in common?

All all egedl y committed cri mes

agai nst humanity. Each mocked

the goal of “n ever agai n” -

stated so categoricall y after the

atrocit ies of World War II. None

ever was brought to justice.

Ethnic c leansing in Bosnia and

genoci de in Rwanda spurred the

U.N. Security Counci l to establ ish

ad hoc war tribunal s to prosecute

and punish perpetrators of such

inhumane acts. The tribunals, the

f irst si nce the Nuremberg and

Tokyo trials after World War II,

have i ssued i nd i c tme nts and

i nternational arrest warrants.

The ad hoc tribunal s stand as

pow erful sy mbol s th at those

suspected of ethnic c leansi ng,

mass murders, torture, rapes

and genocide must be brought to

justice. But ad hoc tribunals are

not a satisfactory solution. Their

ver y ad h oc nat ure ra i ses

suspic ions about politi cal bi as,

sel ectivi ty and lack of judic i al

independence.

The w orl d thu s n eeds a

permanent i nternati onal criminal

court ( ICC) w ith appropriate

juri sdi ct i on, pow er and

i nd epend ence t o ensur e that

al l eged offenders such as Pol Pot

do not escape justi ce.

The i d ea of crea ti ng an

i nterna ti onal penal court has

exi sted for almost 1 00 years,

but only recently have seri ous,

concrete efforts been undertaken

towards its realization . . .

. . . Unresolved issues incl ude

wh ether t he pros ecuto r al so

sho ul d be abl e to f i l e ca ses .

Ideally, prosecutors shoul d be

al l o wed to d o so - as sh oul d

individuals and non-governmental

organi zations.

Al so unresol ved i s the UN

Securi ty Counc i l’s rol e. The

current draft says the Security

Cou nci l - i n per form i ng i ts

primary d uty un der th e U. N.

Charter, that i s, mai ntai ni ng

international peace and security -

may preclude proceedings before

the co urt. A l l t he Secu ri ty

Counc i l would have to do is put

the matte r o n i ts age nda,

cl a i mi ng that i t pe rtai n s to

international peace and security

What do Pol Pot,Idi Amin andSaddam Husseinhave incommon? ...Each mocked thegoal of “neveragain” - statedso categoricallyafter theatrocities ofWorld War II.

Page 9

European Parliament Supports anICC Conference by 1998

by Marino Busdachin

The European Parliament,

A. havi ng regard to th e

growing number of war crimes

and cri mes against humani ty

bei ng co mm i tted in a larg e

number of countri es and going

unpunished,

B. wh erea s i t is urg entl y

necessary to create the basi c

cor e of an i mp arti a l

i nternati onal justice system,

ma i nly i n orde r to try wa r

crimes a nd cri mes a gains t

humani ty wherever they may

be committed,

C. wh erea s s i gni fican t

progress has been made in thi s

directi on thanks to the creation

and the first concrete actions

of the ad h oc in terna tiona l

tribunals on former Yugosl avi a

and Rwanda,

D. we l comi ng the f act tha t

there i s no provi si on for the

dea th pe nal ty ei the r i n th e

statutes of the ad hoc tribunal s

or in the draft statutes of the

permanent court,

E. whereas the 50th session of

the UN Gen eral A ss embly

formall y d ec i ded i n a utum n

19 95 to instruct a preparatory

com mi t tee to compl ete th e

work on putt ing the statutes of

the internati onal court i nt o

thei r def i ni t i ve form wi th a

vi e w to ena bl i ng the UN t o

co nven e the cons ti tue nt

conference of the Permanent

International Criminal Court,

F. whereas the prepara tory

co mmittee c l o sed its l a st

sess i on on 3 0 A ugust 19 9 6,

ca l l i ng on the UN General

A ssembl y to con vene th e

pleni po tent i a ry dipl omat i c

conference before the end of

1 998 ,

G. w hereas i n spi te o f t hi s

po sit i v e ou tcom e, o btai ne d

ch i efly as a resu l t o f th e

determination of a large number

of Me mber Sta tes of th e

European Uni on, there is sti l l

strong oppos i tion from some

non-member countries as wel l

as rese rvati ons fr om two

Member States of the EU,

H. w here as the I tal i a n

Government has already stated

i ts w il l i ng ness to hos t th e

pl enipo tent i a ry di pl omat ic

co nfer ence for th e

establ ishment of the Court,

1 . Calls on the Council and the

Membe r St ates to r each a

common posi t i on as soon as

possible on the need to establ ish

the Permanent I nternati onal

Criminal Court, and to act i n

concert at the 5 1 st General

A ssembl y of the UN to ensure

that it renews the mandate of

the Preparatory Committee and

On September 1 9th the European

Parl iament passed a resolut ion i n

suppo rt of the I n terna ti ona l

Criminal Court. The resolut ion

calls on the Member States of the

Europ ean Uni on to re ach a

common pos i ti on o n th e

I ntern ati on al Cri mina l Court

issue to ensure that the General

Assembl y “takes the deci sion to

co nven e a p l eni p otent i ary

di pl omati c confe renc e to

establ ish a P erma nent

In terna tiona l Cri mi nal Court

before the end of 1998.”

Th i s re sol uti on wa s an

ini t i at i ve by t he Ital y- based

Transnational Radi cal Party, a

partici pating organization of the

NGO Coali tion for an I nternational

CICC press briefing during August ICC Prepcom at the UN CorrespondentsAssociation Club. Pictured left-to-right: Richard Dicker of Human RightsWatch, Ian Williams of the UN Correspondents Association, and JelenaPejic of the Lawyer’s Committee for Human Rights. (Photo by Elsa Ruiz.)

Reso lution on the Estab lishment of thePermanent International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996Page 10

Redress i s a London-based non-

g over nmen tal o rgan i zati o n

working to prom ote e ffecti ve

mechani sms for reparation for

torture and to assist survivors of

to rtur e to o btai n re dres s.

S eek i n g re parati ons has a n

i mportan t r ole i n heali ng a nd

empowering survivors of human

r ights vi ol a t i ons . A n d

reparati ons help to oppose the

p ractice of to rtur e and th e

impunity that sustains it.

E xperi ence has s how n,

h owev er, t hat e xi sti n g

mechanisms intended to ensure

reparati on tend to be inadequate

or ineffective. Where states fai l

to respe ct the ir obli g ati on s

towards survivors of torture and

other human r i ghts violat ions,

th ere i s rel ati vel y l i tt l e

international accountabi l i ty.

T he right of survi vo rs of

h uman r i gh ts v i olat i ons to

r epara tion, w hi ch i n c l ude s

co mpensati on, rehabi li tatio n,

restitut ion, acknowledgment of

wrongdoing and guarantees of

no n-repeti t i on , i s i nte gral to

respect for human rights law.

I n 19 97, the UN Commission

o n Hum an Ri ghts i s due to

consi der principles and guidel ines

o n this sub ject draf ted b y

Professor Theo Van Boven of the

Netherlands. These have evolved

fr om th e gene ral pri ncip l e

enunci ated in A rti c l e 8 of the

Universal Dec larati on of Human

Ri ghts tha t everyo ne whose

fun damental rights have be en

violated shal l have an effect ive

remedy at national level.

In respect of the Covenant on

Ci vil and Poli t i cal Ri ghts, the

Human Ri gh ts Com mi t tee ha s

of ten rei terated the ne ed for

States to compensate those whose

fundamental human ri ghts have

been abused. In the specific case

of torture, A rticl e 1 4(1) of the

United Nations Convention against

Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrad i ng Tre atme nt o r

Puni shment requi res that State

P artie s ensu re i n th eir l eg al

systems that the victim of an act

of torture obtains redress and has

an enforceable ri ght to fair and

adequate compensation, including

t he m ean s fo r a s fu ll

rehabi litation as poss ible.

A t the regional level, the two

existing human rights courts have

also reaffi rmed the importance of

mak ing just and fair reparation.

A nd a limited number of decisions

i n natio nal co urts h ave al s o

r esul t ed i n damages bei n g

awarded to survi vors of torture.

I n the vast majority of cases,

however, egregious human rights

v iol ati ons go unpu ni she d an d

uncompensated, even where the

responsibi lity of the State can be

engaged under international l aw.

I n l i g ht of t he above an d

taking into account the fai lure to

i ncl ude provi si on for just and

a dequa te r epar ation i n th e

S tatut es of the i ntern ation al

tribunals for Rwanda and former

Yugoslavia, Redress believes that

effective mechani sms need to be

established at the international

l evel to ensure that survivors of

t ortur e d o obta i n just an d

adequate reparation. The Statute

for the proposed I nternati onal

Crimi n al Co urt a s cur rent l y

d rafte d fai l s to adeq uate l y

address the i ssue. Indeed, despi te

e xpre ssi on s of suppor t fro m

several States in the Preparatory

Comm ittees , a t l east for t he

p rinc i pl e of repa rati o n,

restorati ve justice has so far had

t o pl ay s econd f i ddl e to

re tri buti ve jus ti ce. For thi s

rea son, Redress has r ecently

i niti ated a research project to

develop a workabl e model that

coul d function within the context

of the ICC.

The chal leng e i s to f i nd a

mechani sm fl exi b l e en ough to

al l ow nat ional courts to ful fil l

the ir dut i e s, ye t wi th en ough

muscle at the international l evel

to wave sticks and carrots at any

recalc itrant State. At the same

tim e, the mechanism must be

cheap and relat ivel y unintrusive,

for excessive cost or the need for

n ati onal l egi s l at i on are c l e ar

deterrents to State acceptance

a nd im plem entat ion. Th e

mechanism must, however, ful l y

s ustai n the p ri nci pl e th at

Reparations for Survivors ofTorture and the ICC

by Fiona McKay and Stuart Maslen

David Sheffer on thePermanent Court and the U.S.

Da vi d Sh effer , a sen i or

advi ser and counsel to the

Un i ted Sta tes pe rman ent

representati ve to the Uni ted

Nations, spoke on the topic of

the i nte rnati onal cri mi nal

court and the US government

at a panel organized by the

Law yer s Co mmi ttee for

Human Ri ghts on October 1,

1996 i n New York City.

Mr . She ffer b egan hi s

rem ark s ref erri n g to the

cha nge in th e US posi t i on

ann ounced at the

commemora ti on of 50 th

anniversary of the Nuremberg

trial s l ast year. “A year

ago,” h e sai d, “Pre si dent

Cl i nton stated the US

government’s support for the

cre ation of a pe rman ent

international court duri ng an

address in Connecticut. That

sta teme nt represen ted a

bui ldup of about two years of

the Cl i nton administrati on’s

work on thi s project.” He

continued, “We have a firm

com mi t ment to the

establishment of this court.”

Mr. Sheffer indicated that the

Uni ted States has provi ded

detai led comments and draft

texts duri n g th e l a st t wo

years of negotiations.

A hi gh l i ght of Mr.

Sheffer’s comments was a

consise summary of his , and

pre sum abl y the Un i ted

States’, assessment of the

status of the negotiations. He

stated, “I would concl ude that

there i s general agreement

on the fol lowing points:

1. The Court will be created

by trea ty, no t by UN

resolution;

2. Genoci de, war cri mes, and

cri mes agai nst humanity

wil l form the jurisdicti on

of the court;

3. The Security Counci l can

ref er s i tu ation s t o the

Court for adju di cat i on,

thus avoi di ng the need to

cre ate fu ture ad hoc

tri bunals;

4. The Cour t wi l l have a

strong compl i mentari ty

regi me, i n o ther w ords

defe rral t o com pete nt

nati o nal cour ts ( whe n

possi ble) to actuall y try

cases;

5. Due process rights wil l be

comprehensi ve and well-

protected;

6. The Court wil l meet when

needed wi th a small corps

of permanen t, seni o r

offi cials .”

Regarding the next steps

on t he i ss ue, Mr. S heffe r

comment ed,“We st rong l y

supported in the c los ing days

of th e Pre pCom a

reco mme ndati on by th e

Prep Com to th e Si xth

Commi ttee of the fol l owi ng

nature: we thi nk that up to

nine more weeks of PrepCom

work is requi red before we

can go to di pl omati c

conference. If we can get it

done in less than nine weeks,

great, l et’s do i t.”

He con ti nue d, “We ’l l

probably spend a week at the

next UNG A [G ener al

A sse mbl y ] di s cuss ing th e

procedures for a di pl omatic

conf erenc e. The n, if

nece ssar y, w e may me et

again in early 19 98 to wrap-

up more substantive work on

the text, wi th the target of

goi ng to a di pl omati c

conference later in 1 998 wi th

a consol idated text wi th as

few brackets as possibl e.“

“One thing that we want

to av oi d,” Mr. S heffe r

cautioned, “is an endl e ss,

draw n-ou t di pl omati c

conference.”

Mr. Sheffer spoke on one

of the most im portan t a nd

cont enti o us i ssues , th e

“tri gger mech ani s m” b y

whi ch i nvesti gati ons by the

ICC prosecutor are i ni ti ated.

Mr. Sheffer remarked, “the

tri gg er mecha ni sm i s

obviousl y going to be at the

heart of a political resol ution

Judge Richard Goldstone, on the first morning

after his tenure as chief prosecutor of the the

I nternati onal Cri minal Tribunal s for the

Former Yugos lavia and Rwanda, spoke on a

panel organized by the Lawyer’s Committee

for Human Rights on October 1, 1 996 in New

York City. He began hi s comments on a

his torical note, saying, “The establ i shment

of the crimi nal tribunals have undoubtedl y

given a huge boost to the whol e question of

t he i mpl ementat i on of intern ation al

humanitari an law. As Chief Judge Newsman

said, the whole issue languished, not onl y

because of the Cold War, but because of the

knee-jerk reaction of major governments, no

l ess that of the United States, against the

creation of an international court. It is real ly

a part of the approach of al l governments,

without exception, to any suggestion of any

i nvasion of sovereignty.”

Reflecting on the impact of his offi ce, he

commented, “This i s the fi rst international

prosecutor’s off ice, and it has been a very

posit ive experi ence because there real ly has

been a coming together of legal cultures and

general cultures from some forty nations in

the offi ce in the Hague. It’s been an exc iting,

p os i ti ve e xperi en ce where peopl e ha ve

l earned that their system isn’t the only one,

and on many points not the best. There’s been

the beginning, but a very important beginning,

of the establishment of a new international

juri sprudence on al l i ssues—procedures,

evi dence, burdens of proof, you name i t.

There are many more that my successor

Justi ce A rbour i s goi ng to have to deal

with.”

Judge Goldstone made the point that one

o f hi s mai n chal l e nges was “to g et

governments to learn for the f irst time ever

in history to dea l wi th an i ntern ati onal

prosecutor’s off ice. That’s never happened.

One had to bui l d confidence in governments,

e stab l i sh some sor t of cred i bi l i t y.

Governments had to understand that they

weren’t deal ing with some lunati cs brought

by the Uni ted Nations to the Hague, that they

could rely on our discretion, that they could

work with us without any embarrassment to

them.”

Focusi ng on the obstacl es in the way of

the establ i shment a permanent i nternati onal

criminal court, Goldstone said, “I t seems to

me that one should move fairly slowly in two

d i rect i ons . On e i s wi th reg ard to th e

jurisdict ion of the permanent court. I have no

doubt that the narrower the jurisdi ction, the

more the prospects are, not onl y of i ts

establ ishment, but of governments joining in

the c lub.”

He cont inued, “I have no doubt that i t

w oul d be a gri evous err or to i n clud e,

certainly for the next decade, anything more

t han the mos t se ri ous vi ol ati o ns of

i nternational humanitari an law, the sorts of

cri mes that no decent government and no

decent person could object to giving up their

c itizens for. I f one starts getting involved in

money laundering and drugs, it seems to me

that the beginning of the criminal court could

b e seriou sly jeo pardi zed and ce rtai n l y

del ayed for another few decades into the

future.”

The judge appeared torn between hi s

sense of real pol i t ik and a commitment to

p ri nc i pl es . Rega rdi ng the I CC t rigge r

mechanism, he said, “I have no doubt that the

only way that such a court shoul d end up is by

havi ng a wholl y independent prosecutor who

would have an absolutely free di scretion to

i nvest igate al l cri mes, wherever they’re

c omm itted , and by wh ome ver they’r e

committed.” But, he conti nued, “I don’t

bel ieve the i nternati onal community is ready

for that. I don’t bel i eve that the permanent

m embe rs —any o f t hem—o f the Securi ty

Counci l are going to lose control and give up

control. This is an international problem, and

not only a national problem.”

G ol dst one expr esse d co ncern th at

The International Criminal Court MONITOR • October 1996 Page 11

Former Tribunal Prosecutor Goldstone on the adhoc Tribunals and the ICC

Amnesty Internati onal (A I) campai gned for

the esta bl i sh ment of th e I ntern ati on al

Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia

and Rwanda. In addi tion, AI supports the ad

hoc Tribunals by l obbyi ng governments to

enact the necessary legis lation to cooperate

wi th these i nst i tut i on s, ca l l i ng on

governments to hand over suspects and

accused and urging them to pledge financial

and other resources to both insti tuti ons.

A mnes ty I ntern ati ona l h as recen tl y

publ ished I nternati onal Criminal Tribunals:

Handbook for government cooperation ( AI

Index: IOR 40/07/96), an external document

intended to assis t governments i n fulfil l ing

their obligations under i nternati onal law to

cooperate with the Internati onal Cri minal

Tribunals for the former Yugosl avia and for

Rwanda.

The handb ook has been des igned as a

reference document with a fai rly l ong shelf

life. It is intended to provide guidance and

practi cal i llustrati ons of ways to overcome

l egal and o ther type s of hurdl es th at

government offi cials, i ncl uding ministers of

foreign affairs, just ice, interi or, defence,

judg es, l egal advi sers, and members of

p arl ia ment , par ticul arl y members of

p arl iamen tary commi ttees deal i n g w ith

i nternational affai rs and crimi nal justice,

may enc ounter i n c ompl y ing wi th th ei r

o bl iga tion und er i ntern ati on al l aw to

undertake all the necessary steps to ensure

ful l cooperation with the two International

Cri mi nal Tri buna l s . Th e han dbook i s

a ccom pani ed by thre e supp l eme nts ( AI

I ndexes: IOR 40/08/96; IOR 40/09/96; IOR

4 0/1 0/9 6) containi ng the Uni ted Nati ons

Security Counci l resoluti ons establ ishing the

two tri bunals, as well as their respective

sta tutes and the gui del i nes for draft i ng

l egi s l ati on i ssu ed by t he I ntern ati on al

Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

T he su ppl em ents al so featur e al l t he

l egis lation that is known to have been enacted

by member states of the UN as of 1 A ugust

1 9 96 and the hea dquarter s a greeme nts

between the UN and the Netherlands and the

Republic of Tanzania, the two host countries

for the Yugos l avi a and Rwanda Tri bunal

respectively.

The Ne ed for the Handbook

As of 15 August 1996, only 20 states

w ere known to have enacted l egi s l ati on

requir ing or authorizing thei r authorit ies to

cooperate with the Yugos lavi a Tribunal; only

1 1 had done so with regard to the Rwanda

Tri bunal and four others reportedl y have

stated that no l egi s l at i on is required to

ensure full cooperation by their authori ties.

The handbook includes maps showi ng which

states have enacted legisl ation on cooperation

with the tribunal s.

Governments have repeatedly told Amnesty

I nternational that enacti ng such l egisl ation

was to o di ff i cul t. T he ha ndbo ok

demonstrates that i t is not. Governments

have treated cooperation with the Tribunals

as a low priority, often claiming there were

no witnesses, suspects or accused i n thei r

countries as a justification for not enacting

the necessary l egis lation. A s events have

demonstrated, however, witnesses, suspects

and accused can appear in any jurisdi ction

Amnesty International Issues Handbook on Tribunal Cooperation

by Christopher Hall, Lars van Troost and Livio Zilli

@The NGO Coal ition has established a

Worl d Wide Web Page on the

Internati onal Cri minal Court that wil l

enable anyone on the Internet to access

relevant ICC documents and l ink to other

relevant sites and databases . This page

can be found at:

URL:http://www.igc.apc.org/icc

Anyone with an e-mail address can

subscribe to our e-mail distribut ion l ist.

Send an e-mail message to

majordomo@igc. apc. org. Then, i n the

message area, type “subscribe i cc-

i nfo,” and send it. You should be sent

back a message confi rmi ng your addi tion

to the “i cc-i nfo” distribution l ist and a

set of instructions on its use.

Users of an APC-affi l iated network

( IGC, GreenNet, Web) can access our

“un. icc” computer conference. From

within an APC network, go to your

computer conferenci ng area. On IGC this

i s done by typing “c” from the main

menu. Then type “un.icc”.

We also assis ted with the establi shment

NGO Coalition for an InternationalCriminal Courtc/o WFM, 777 UN Plaza, 12th FloorNew York, NY 10017 USAPhone: 212-599-1320 Fax: 212-599-1332

About the NGOCoalition for an ICC

The main purpose of the NGO Coal it ion for an

International Criminal Court i s to advocate the

creati on of an effecti ve and just I nternational

Criminal Court. The Coal ition brings together a

broad-based network of NGOs and international

law exp erts to dev el op s trate gi es o n

substantive legal and political issues relati ng to

the proposed statute. A key goal is to foster

awareness and support among a wide range of

ci vil society organi zati ons: human r ights,

i nternati onal l aw, judi c ial , humani tari an,

religious, peace, women’s, parliamentarian and

others . To these ends, we engage i n the

fol lowing activities:

• Co nvene the Coal i t i on an d i ts w ork i n g

groups, such as the ad hoc Tribunal/ICC funding

work ing group, i nformati on/media working

group, and a worki ng group on US strategies.

• Ma i ntai n a Worl d Wi d e Web pag e,

i nternat i onal c ompu ter con fere nces an d

l is tserv email lists to faci l itate the exchange of

NGO and expert documentation and information

concerni ng the ad hoc Tribunals and the ICC

negotiations and to foster discussion and debate

about substantive i ssues ari s i ng from the

negoti at i ons for establ ishing a permanent

International Criminal Court.

• Facil itate meetings between the Coal it ion and

representati ves of governments, UN offic ial s

For More Information

Name & Title

Organization

Address

Phone / Fax

Email

o Please keep me / my organization informed about the work of theCoalition

o My organization endorses, in principle, the establishment of apermanent International Criminal Court

o My organization would like to be a participating organization of theNGO Coalition for an ICC

Please return this form to:

NGO Coalition for an ICCc/o WFM777 UN Plaza, 12th FloorNew York, NY 10017USA

African Law Students-Young Lawyers Association

All Saints Newman CenterALTERLAW

American Civil Liberties Union

of North CarolinaAmerican Bar Association

Amnesty InternationalAvocats sans Frontières

B’nai B’rith International Baha’i International

CommunityCampaign for Tibet

Canadian Network for an International Criminal Court

Carter CenterCenter for Civil Human Rights

Center for Development of International Law

Center for Reproductive Law and Policy

Center for UN Reform Education

Center for Women’s Global Leadership

Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations

Counseling and Meditation Center

Crusade Against ViolenceDePaul Institute for Human

RightsDrug Free Society

Egyptian Organization for Human Rights

Equality NowEuropean Law Students

AssociationEuropean Peace Movement

Evangelical Lutheran Church in

AmericaFédération Internationale des

Ligues des Droits del’Homme

FN-Forbundet / Danish UNAGlobal Policy Forum

Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA

Helsinki Citizens AssemblyHuman Rights Internet

Human Rights WatchHumanitarian Law Center

ILA Committee on a Permanent ICC

Institute for the Study of Genocide

Instituto Superiore di Scienze Criminali

Interkerkelijk VredesberaadInternational Bar Association

International Commission of Jurists

International Human Rights Law Group

International Indian Treaty Council

International League forHuman

RightsInternational Service for

Human Rights

International Society forHuman

RightsInternational Society for

Traumatic Stress StudiesLawyers Committee for

Human Rights

Lawyers Committee onNuclear

PolicyLegal Aid for Women &

Environmental DevelopmentLeo Kuper Foundation

Manobik Unnayan ParishadMaryknoll Society Justice and

Peace OfficeNo Peace Without Justice

(TRP)Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Ordre des Avocats a la Cour de Paris

Information Online

Participating Organizations