icc monitor, issue 2
TRANSCRIPT
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: [email protected]
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:
[email protected]. 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: [email protected]
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
[email protected]. 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
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
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