Sixty-second session Item 72 of the provisional agenda* Report of the International Criminal Court Report of the International Criminal Court Note by the Secretary-General The annual report of the International Criminal Court is submitted herewith to the General Assembly in accordance with article 6 of the Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (see A/58/874, annex) and paragraph 12 of Assembly resolution 60/29. Report of the International Criminal Court for 2006/07 Summary The present report, covering the period from 1 August 2006 to 1 August 2007, is the third annual report of the International Criminal Court (“the Court”) submitted to the United Nations. It covers the main developments in the Court’s activities and other developments of relevance to the relationship between the Court and the United Nations. Four situations were before the Court during the reporting period. The Prosecutor continued to investigate the situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Darfur, the Sudan, and judicial proceedings took place in each of these situations. On 22 May 2007, the Prosecutor announced his decision to open an investigation into the situation in the Central African Republic. In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Court confirmed charges of war crimes against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and his case was referred to trial. In the situation in Darfur, the Sudan, the Court issued warrants of arrest for two individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. At the conclusion of the reporting period, six warrants of arrest were outstanding — two in the situation in Darfur, the Sudan and four in the situation in Uganda. The warrants in the situation in Uganda have been outstanding since July 2005. The Court does not have the power to arrest persons. This responsibility belongs to States. During the reporting period, the Court continued to strengthen its cooperation with States, the United Nations and other actors with a view to ensuring the necessary support for the Court to enable it to fulfil the aims of the Rome Statute. Contents Paragraphs Page Summary 2 Introduction 1–9 4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 10–20 5 The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo 11–16 5 Investigation 17 6 Outreach 18–20 6 Situation in Uganda 21–27 7 The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Raska Lukwiya and Dominic Ongwen 22–23 7 Investigation 24–25 7 Outreach 26–27 7 Situation in Darfur, the Sudan 28–35 8 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”) 29–31 8 Investigation 32–34 8 Outreach 35 9 Situation in the Central African Republic 36–38 9 Analysis of other potential situations 39 9 The Court within a broader system of international criminal justice 40–59 10 Ratification of the Rome Statute 40–42 10 Cooperation with the United Nations 43–48 10 Cooperation with States, international organizations and civil society 49–55 11 Cooperation among international courts and tribunals 56–59 13 Conclusion 60 13 I. Introduction 1. The present report, covering the period from 1 August 2006 to 1 August 2007, is the third annual report of the International Criminal Court (“the Court”) submitted to the United Nations. It covers the main developments in the Court’s activities and other developments of relevance to the relationship between the Court and the United Nations since the submission of the second report of the Court to the United Nations (A/61/217). 2. The Court is an independent, treaty-based, permanent judicial institution with jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is complementary to national jurisdictions and its Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence guarantee fair and expeditious public trials consistent with internationally recognized human rights. 3. The Court is independent from but has close historical, legal and operational ties with the United Nations. The relationship between the Court and the United Nations is governed by the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute and by the Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations (A/58/874, annex). Since the conclusion of the Relationship Agreement on 4 October 2004, the Court and the United Nations have steadily developed their mutual cooperation while respecting the independence and judicial nature of the Court. 4. The aims of the States Parties to the Rome Statute in establishing the Court overlap with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. By helping to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, the Court is intended to contribute to the prevention of such crimes and to the maintenance of peace and security. The Court contributes to furthering the aims of the United Nations by acting as a judicial, apolitical institution. The Court is bound at all times by its mandate, as set out in the Rome Statute, and its credibility and effectiveness depend on its strict adherence to this mandate. 5. The Court operates in circumstances unlike those of any previous international criminal tribunal. Its investigations cover situations in four countries. Investigating these situations has involved activities on the territory of these countries and in over 25 additional countries during the reporting period. Each situation has specific and often far-reaching requirements in terms of languages, logistics, transportation and communications. Furthermore, the Court is active in situations where conflict is ongoing and crimes are being committed. This presents added operational, security and logistical challenges for the Court in all of its activities, including judicial proceedings. To protect the security of victims or witnesses, the Court has in the past issued warrants of arrest under seal and delayed public judicial proceedings until protective measures could be implemented. 6. In all situations, the Court relies critically on international cooperation. The Rome Statute established a system of international criminal justice comprising two pillars. The Court is the judicial pillar responsible for carrying out investigations and trials of crimes within its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so. The enforcement pillar, including in particular the power to arrest persons, has been allocated to States. Sustained cooperation and support are therefore essential for the Court to achieve the aims of the States Parties embodied in the Rome Statute. 7. On 1 July 2007, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute, the Secretary-General of the United Nations stated that “during the relatively short time of its existence, the Court has already established itself as the centrepiece of a system of international criminal justice”. As the Court’s investigations and judicial proceedings have progressed, the Court has been credited with having an impact in specific situations as a result of its presenting a credible possibility of international prosecution where national courts are unwilling or unable to act. Ensuring the arrest of persons is critical to maintaining the realistic possibility of prosecution and thereby maximizing the impact of the Court. 8. Four situations were before the Court during the reporting period. The Prosecutor continued to investigate the situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Darfur, the Sudan, and judicial proceedings were held in each situation. On 22 May 2007, the Prosecutor announced his decision to open an investigation into the situation in the Central African Republic. 9. During the reporting period, three judges resigned from the Court. The Deputy Prosecutor (Investigations) resigned to continue his role as Commissioner of the International Independent Investigation Commission established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1595 (2005). An election to replace the three judges will take place during the sixth session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute, to be held at United Nations Headquarters from 30 November to 14 December 2007. II. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 10. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was referred to the Court by that State Party to the Rome Statute on 19 April 2004. The Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation on 23 June 2004. A warrant of arrest for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was issued, unsealed and executed early in 2006. A. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo 11. On 29 January 2007, Pre-Trial Chamber I confirmed charges of war crimes against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, alleged leader of the Union des Patriotes Congolais pour la Reconciliation et la Paix (UPC) and Commander-in-Chief of its military wing, the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC). Mr. Lubanga Dyilo is accused of the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities. 12. The hearing to confirm the charges had been held from 9 to 28 November 2006. During the hearing the prosecution called one witness, a United Nations official. In accordance with article 16 of the Relationship Agreement, the Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed a representative to assist the witness. 13. In addition to the prosecution and the defence, four victims participated in the hearing through their legal representatives. This was the first time in the history of an international criminal court or tribunal that victims participated in proceedings in their own right, without being called as witnesses. The legal representatives presented their observations at the opening and closing sessions and attended the court sessions throughout the hearing. 14. Both the prosecution and the defence sought leave of the Pre-Trial Chamber to appeal aspects of the confirmation of charges decision. These requests were dismissed simultaneously by the Pre-Trial Chamber on 24 May 2007. The defence additionally filed an appeal directly to the Appeals Chamber on the basis of article 82.1 (b) of the Rome Statute, which provides for appeal of a “decision granting or denying release of the person being investigated or prosecuted”. This appeal was dismissed by the Appeals Chamber on 13 June 2007. 15. Following the decision on the confirmation of charges, the presidency constituted Trial Chamber I on 3 March 2007 and referred the case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo to it for trial. The Trial Chamber subsequently began preparations for the opening of the trial. 16. Throughout the confirmation hearing and subsequent proceedings, the Court provided assistance to Mr. Lubanga Dyilo, his counsel and the duty counsel appointed following the resignation of Mr. Lubanga Dyilo’s original counsel. The Court also provided assistance to the legal representatives of victims, in conformity with the Statute. B. Investigation 17. The Office of the Prosecutor continued its investigation into a second case, concerning crimes allegedly committed in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by an armed group other than the UPC/FPLC. The Office is also in the process of selecting a third case. The Office continued to monitor the overall situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and collected information on the movement and activities of armed groups on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. C. Outreach 18. The Court undertook both general efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the Court in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and specific efforts to make the proceedings in the case of Mr. Lubanga Dyilo accessible to persons within the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The primary focus of outreach activities was the area around Bunia in Ituri, the region in which the crimes with which Mr. Lubanga Dyilo is charged are alleged to have taken place. 19. The decision on the confirmation of charges was broadcast in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and throughout Africa and Europe. The Court’s outreach team based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo organized a retransmission of the hearing for journalists and non-governmental organizations in Bunia. The Court also arranged for four journalists from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to come to The Hague to cover the judicial proceedings. 20. To facilitate understanding of the proceedings, Court officials and staff provided interviews to the print and electronic media throughout the confirmation process. The Court focused its interviews around key points in the judicial process, such as the opening of the hearing and the issuing of the decision. The Court’s outreach team briefed journalists in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the procedural aspects of the proceedings in advance of the hearing. III. Situation in Uganda 21. The situation in Uganda was referred to the Court by that State Party to the Rome Statute on 29 January 2004. The Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation on 29 July 2004. In 2005, warrants of arrest were issued and later unsealed for five alleged members of the Lord’s Resistance Army for crimes against humanity and war crimes. A. The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Raska Lukwiya and Dominic Ongwen 22. The Government of Uganda, with the assistance of the Office of the Prosecutor, certified that one of the persons who was the subject of an arrest warrant, Mr. Raska Lukwiya, had been killed, and provided a death certificate to the Court. On 11 July 2007, Pre-Trial Chamber II terminated the proceedings against Mr. Lukwiya, thereby rendering the warrant of arrest without effect. As of the date of submission of the present report, the remaining warrants had not been executed. Court representatives, in their contacts with relevant interlocutors, stressed the importance of cooperation. The Prosecutor met to this effect with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Lord’s Resistance Army-affected Areas in Northern Uganda, Joaquim Chissano. 23. Throughout the reporting period, Pre-Trial Chamber II continued to monitor the status of execution of the arrest warrants. The Chamber also addressed issues relating to the participation of victims and to the lifting of redactions of information from documents, such redactions having been imposed to protect the safety of victims or witnesses. B. Investigation 24. The Office of the Prosecutor continued to analyse allegations of crimes committed by other persons. 25. During the reporting period, Pre-Trial Chamber II continued to deal with issues arising in the situation generally, as well in the case, including issues relating to the participation of victims and the unsealing of documents. C. Outreach 26. During the reporting period, the Court shifted the primary focus of its outreach activities from civil society networks, local authorities and traditional leaders towards mass outreach activities targeting at a grass-roots level the populations of northern Uganda most directly affected by the conflict. Court staff and officials participated in activities involving thousands of participants in camps for internally displaced persons. Local drama groups facilitated interaction between the Court and the audiences in these events. By utilizing the support of trained local leaders, the Court was able to multiply the impact of these mass outreach events. 27. The Court established collaborative arrangements and information-sharing mechanisms with representatives of the legal community, victims, the judiciary and security institutions for the purpose of promoting understanding of the Court within their respective organizations. IV. Situation in Darfur, the Sudan 28. The situation in Darfur, the Sudan was referred to the Court by the Security Council by resolution 1593 (2005) of 31 March 2005. The Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation on 6 June 2005. A. The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”) 29. On 25 April 2007, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued warrants of arrest against Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”). The Chamber determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Harun was responsible for 20 counts of crimes against humanity and 22 counts of war crimes and that Mr. Kushayb was responsible for 22 counts of crimes against humanity and 28 counts of war crimes. 30. The Prosecutor had applied for a summons for each person to appear. In his application for summonses, the Prosecutor noted that Pre-Trial Chamber I would weigh the record independently and decide whether a summons to appear or a warrant of arrest was the appropriate alternative if the Chamber decided there were reasonable grounds to believe the persons had committed the alleged crimes. In its decision of 25 April 2007, the Chamber determined that a summons would not be sufficient and that the arrest of the two suspects would be necessary to ensure their appearance at trial. 31. On 4 June 2007, the Court issued requests for the arrest and surrender of Mr. Harun and Mr. Kushayb to the Sudan, all States Parties to the Rome Statute, all the Security Council members that are not party to the Rome Statute, and Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. At the conclusion of the reporting period, the warrants had not been executed. B. Investigation 32. The Office of the Prosecutor conducted missions in 17 countries, including the Sudan and neighbouring Chad. Following the issuance of the warrants of arrest, the Office continued the investigation to prepare for proceedings upon the execution of the warrants. The Office also continued to monitor ongoing crimes. 33. In accordance with Security Council resolution 1593 (2005), the Prosecutor reported to the Security Council on the status of the investigation into the situation in Darfur on 14 December 2006 and 7 June 2007. The Prosecutor separately briefed countries of the region, the African Union and its Presidency and the Arab League and its Secretary-General on the situation in Darfur. 34. Pre-Trial Chamber I, with the assistance of the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry, issued decisions relating to the participation and security of victims during the investigation phase. The Chamber invited and received observations from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the former Chairman of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur on the protection of victims and preservation of evidence in Darfur. C. Outreach 35. The Court’s ability to reach affected populations was complicated considerably throughout the reporting period because the Court was unable to operate in the Darfur region owing to security concerns. The Court conducted outreach activities relating to the situation in Darfur on two levels. First, the Court conducted outreach targeting key representatives of the legal community, civil society and journalists from the Sudan. Second, the Court conducted informative workshops for persons most affected by the conflict, in particular refugees in refugee camps in Chad. The Registrar visited refugee camps to conduct outreach in Chad in May 2007. Special efforts were made to publicize judicial proceedings and provide background information to promote a better understanding of the Court’s activities. V. Situation in the Central African Republic 36. The situation in the Central African Republic was referred to the Court by that State Party to the Rome Statute on 22 December 2004. 37. On 22 May 2007, the Prosecutor announced that he had decided to open an investigation into the situation in the Central African Republic. The decision by the Prosecutor followed a thorough analysis of available information which led to the determination that the jurisdiction, admissibility and interests of justice requirements of the Rome Statute were satisfied. 38. Following the opening of the investigation, the Court began the processes of identifying appropriate field premises in the Central African Republic and developing its outreach capabilities and strategy for the situation. VI. Analysis of other potential situations 39. The Office of the Prosecutor received and analysed 718 communications relating to purported crimes during the reporting period. The vast majority of these were dismissed as manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Five situations were subjected to intensive analysis, including situations in Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. Analysis of the situation in the Central African Republic led to the opening of an investigation, as described above (paras. 36-38). In the remaining situations, the Office continued to assess whether crimes had been committed, to analyse the jurisdiction and admissibility of possible cases, and to assess whether the opening of an investigation would be in the interests of justice. VII. The Court within a broader system of international criminal justice A. Ratification of the Rome Statute 40. During the reporting period, the Comoros and Chad both deposited their instruments of ratification of the Rome Statute with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, while Saint Kitts and Nevis and Japan deposited their instruments of accession. In addition, Montenegro informed the Secretary-General that it had succeeded to the Rome Statute as of 3 June 2006. With the entry into force of the Rome Statute for Japan on 1 October 2007, the number of States Parties will increase to 105. 41. At its fifth session, in 2006, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (“the Assembly”) adopted a plan of action for achieving universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute. In this plan, the Assembly declared “Universality of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is imperative if we are to end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern, contribute to the prevention of such crimes, and guarantee lasting respect for and enforcement of international justice”. The plan of action sets out how the Assembly and its States Parties will each continue to contribute to achieving universality in the coming years. 42. The primary responsibility for promoting ratification of the Rome Statute belongs to the States Parties and other supporters of the Court and not to the Court itself. Nevertheless, the Court contributes to others’ efforts to achieve universality by providing information about its functions and role to interested audiences. On the invitation of government officials or parliamentarians, the President of the Court, Judge Philippe Kirsch, travelled during the reporting period to Japan, Turkey, Guatemala, Ukraine and Chile to provide information about the Court and its role to interested officials and parliamentarians. The Court also received many visiting delegations from States not party to the Rome Statute. B. Cooperation with the United Nations 43. Cooperation with the United Nations continued to be essential to the Court institutionally and in the various situations and cases. As indicated above (para. 12), a United Nations staff member testified in the first confirmation of charges hearing, in accordance with the Relationship Agreement. 44. The support of the United Nations was particularly beneficial in facilitating the Court’s operations in the field. Positive cooperation continued between the Court and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. During the reporting period, the Court established strong relationships with and received support in the field from several United Nations funds, programmes or other bodies, including the United Nations Development Programme, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Children’s Fund. 45. The Court and the United Nations maintained high-level dialogue and regular contacts at all levels throughout the reporting period. On 9 October 2006, President Kirsch presented the second annual report of the Court to the United Nations General Assembly (see A/61/PV.26). On 1 February 2007, the Court received an official visit from the newly appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. The Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, met with the Secretary-General in New York on 2 April 2007. The Registrar, Bruno Cathala, and the Deputy Prosecutor (Prosecutions), Fatou Bensouda, met with the Deputy Secretary-General on 12 June and 17 August 2007 respectively. 46. The Court took steps to facilitate further information sharing and cooperation with the United Nations by establishing its liaison office in New York. The office secured premises and was fully operational by the end of January 2007. It has enhanced contacts with and promoted a better understanding of the Court in the United Nations and among its Member States. This improved understanding has facilitated the exchange of information necessary for successful cooperation between the Court and the United Nations. 47. Pursuant to article 10 of the Relationship Agreement, the United Nations provided facilities and services for the resumed fifth session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute, which was held at United Nations Headquarters from 29 January to 1 February 2007. The sixth session of the Assembly will be held at United Nations Headquarters from 30 November to 14 December 2007. 48. The Prosecutor approved a further extension of the leave of absence of the Deputy Prosecutor (Investigations), Serge Brammertz, to serve as Commissioner of the International Independent Investigative Commission until 15 June 2007. On 14 June 2007, Mr. Brammertz resigned from the Court in order to continue to serve as Commissioner following the expiration of this second extension of his leave from the Court. C. Cooperation with States, international organizations and civil society 49. Part 9 of the Rome Statute provides the legal framework for the rendering of various types of international cooperation and judicial assistance. In the reporting period, the Court made a number of specific requests for cooperation to States Parties, other States and international organizations, including requests for the arrest and surrender of the two persons who were the subject of arrest warrants in the situation in Darfur, the Sudan. Pursuant to article 87 of the Statute, requests were often made on a confidential basis in order, for example, to protect the safety and security of victims, potential witnesses and their families, as well as Court staff; to maintain the integrity of investigations; to ensure the protection of information or to ensure the proper conduct and successful execution of operations. 50. The Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force on 22 July 2004, enables the Court to carry out its functions unimpeded on the territory of States and allows the travel of victims and witnesses through their territories to the Court. During the reporting period, 10 States Parties to the Rome Statute (Albania, Argentina, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Republic of Korea and Uruguay) became parties to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities. Ratification of or accession to this agreement is not limited to States Parties to the Rome Statute. On 29 January 2007, Ukraine became the first State not party to the Rome Statute to accede to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities. 51. On 7 June 2007, the Court signed the Headquarters Agreement with the host State, the Netherlands. The agreement will enter into force upon its adoption by the Parliament of the Netherlands. The Headquarters Agreement regulates the relationship between the Court and the host State, including: cooperation between the Court and the host State; the transfer of information, potential evidence and evidence into and out of the host State; and the privileges, immunities and facilities of the Court, its staff, its elected officials, victims, witnesses and other persons required to be present at the seat of the Court. 52. The Court concludes supplementary arrangements with States on specific issues of cooperation, primarily the protection and relocation of witnesses and the enforcement of sentences. As of the date of submission of the present report, the Court had concluded seven agreements with States on the protection and relocation of witnesses, the details of which are kept confidential for security reasons. More agreements are necessary as the number of protected persons continues to increase without a commensurate increase in the number of States concluding such agreements. No agreements on the enforcement of sentences were concluded during the reporting period, although negotiations continued with several States. As of the date of submission of the present report, only one agreement had been concluded between the Court and a State on the enforcement of sentences. 53. The Court met regularly with representatives of States, international organizations and civil society to update them on the work of the Court and to discuss items of mutual interest. The Court held two diplomatic briefings in The Hague and one briefing in Brussels. Officials and staff of the Court also met often with representatives of States in New York and provided them with updates on the work of the Court. 54. Cooperation with the African Union and African States is particularly important to the Court as all situations referred to the Court relate to African States. The President, First Vice-President, Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor (Prosecutions) and Registrar briefed the Permanent Representatives Committee of the African Union on 1 March 2007. In June 2007, they visited Ghana, where they met with the President of Ghana and Chair of the African Union, John Kufuor. 55. In 2007, the Court enhanced its dialogue with the States Parties to the Rome Statute on the subject of cooperation that States or international organizations can provide to the Court. The Court submitted a report to the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute which provides indications of the types of cooperation needed by the Court. Areas of cooperation identified in the report include: the adoption of legislation implementing the Rome Statute in domestic law; the conclusion of supplementary agreements; support for the enforcement of the Court’s decisions, including on arrest and surrender; the building of support for the Court both within and among States; and diverse forms of practical cooperation, such as witness protection and support, logistics and security. The report is serving as the basis for discussion by working groups of the Bureau in The Hague and in New York. D. Cooperation among international courts and tribunals 56. The emerging system of international criminal justice comprises a number of criminal courts and tribunals, both domestic and international. During the reporting period, the Court’s interaction with these other parts of the system continued to develop. 57. Officials and staff of the Court met often with their counterparts at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, as well as other institutions, to share information and lessons learned from their experiences. 58. On 5 June 2007, the Court hosted a meeting of the Judicial Club of The Hague, comprised of the judges of the International Court of Justice, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of the Netherlands, the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague also participated. The annual colloquium of the prosecutors of international courts and tribunals was hosted jointly by the Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on 6 and 7 October 2006 in The Hague. The registrars of the international courts and tribunals held their annual meeting from 14 to 18 May 2007 within the framework of the Turin Conference on International Criminal Justice. 59. A unique and unprecedented level of cooperation exists between the Court and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. In accordance with a memorandum of understanding concluded on 13 April 2006, the Court is providing courtroom services and facilities, detention services and facilities and other related assistance to the Special Court to enable the latter to conduct the trial of Charles Taylor in The Hague. During the reporting period, the Court and the Special Court cooperated on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding. The trial of Mr. Taylor began in The Hague on 4 June 2007. VIII. Conclusion 60. The Court achieved substantial progress in its investigations and judicial proceedings throughout the reporting period. However, six public warrants of arrest remain outstanding. Cooperation and assistance provided by States, the United Nations and others were essential to the Court’s accomplishments. At the same time, the Court’s experience during the reporting period reaffirmed that the cooperation of States and other actors will be essential to achieving the aims expressed by the States Parties in the preamble to the Rome Statute. * A/62/150. Document ICC-ASP/5/32, part three, resolution ICC-ASP/5/Res.3, annex I. __________________ __________________  sss1 \* MERGEFORMAT A/62/314 sss1 \* MERGEFORMAT A/62/314 FooterJN \* MERGEFORMAT 07-49454 \* MERGEFORMAT 12 \* MERGEFORMAT 13 FooterJN \* MERGEFORMAT 07-49454 United Nations A/62/314 General Assembly Distr.: General 31 August 2007 Original: English jobn \* MERGEFORMAT 07-49454 (E) 210907 Barcode \* MERGEFORMAT *0749454*