Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10652.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10652.doc.htm
Date: November 1, 2007

1 November 2007

General Assembly
GA/10652 





Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Sixty-second General Assembly 
Plenary 
42nd & 43rd Meetings (AM & PM)

PRESIDENTS OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

PRESENT REPORTS TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
 

Head of ICJ Says Interest of States in Court “Continued to Flourish”;
Criminal Court Chief Stresses Need for Cooperation in Suspect Arrest, Surrender

Highlighting the need to provide international courts with the resources necessary to maintain high legal and operational standards, the President of the United Nations’ highest judicial organ today called on the General Assembly to reconsider a decision it took in April that would, for the first time, create disparities in the salaries of judges sitting on the same bench.

As she briefed the Assembly on the work of the International Court of Justice, Rosalyn Higgins also spotlighted several landmark decisions, including a binding ruling three weeks ago demarcating a new maritime boundary midway between Honduras and Nicaragua.  Further, last February, the Court found that, while the 1995 massacre of some 7,000 Serbian Muslims at Srebrenica was an act of genocide, there had been no evidence to link that violence to specific instruction from, or effective control by, Belgrade.

She said that the interest of States in the Court “has continued to flourish”.  Sixty years on, the Court had handed down 94 judgements.  Of those, one third had been delivered in the last decade.  “I assure you that the Court will continue to work with dedication and its customary impartiality,” she said, stressing that the aim was to meet the expectations of those States who entrusted the Court to find a solution in a timely fashion, while always maintaining the high standards of its decisions.  “We have made great progress in that regard and will continue our efforts in the year to come,” she added.

Ms. Higgins noted that the ICJ had made significant headway during the year to clear its backlog of cases, and added that while the “push for efficiency” would continue, unfortunately, the Court’s officials had spent more time than they would have wished dealing with a matter that was not of their choosing:  fallout from the Assembly’s adoption of a resolution -- 61/262 -- that would create a “substantial” gap in pay between those judges in office as of 1 January 2007, and those who would assume office after that date.

“It would be the first time in the history of the United Nations that judicial salary levels are reduced.  And it would be without precedent -– and this is the key point -– that judges on the same bench would receive different salaries,” she said.  Equality among the judges was a fundamental principle of the Court’s Statute.  “No discrepancy in treatment can be allowed to exist […] among permanent judges and ad hoc judges chosen by States parties to litigation not having a national on the bench [or] between two ad hoc judges.”  The Court’s Statute could not just be ignored or brushed aside, she asserted.

At the same time, she said that the Court appreciated the understandable objectives of the resolution, regarding transparency and putting the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda back into a “position of real equality” with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice.  But the “deep irony” was that thus far, the measure had only negatively impacted the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ stood alone bearing the brunt of the resolution’s fallout.  “I do not believe that the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) and the Assembly ever meant that the Court alone should be put in a disadvantageous situation and I do not think that the Fifth Committee and the Assembly ever meant to put the Court in conflict with its Statute,” she said.  She hoped that the Secretary-General’s upcoming report to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on the matter would provide some solutions that would address everyone’s legitimate needs and concerns.

Her presentation was followed in the afternoon by a briefing from Judge Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court (ICC), who told delegations that the ICC -– the world’s only permanent court trying individuals for war crimes, genocide and other breaches of international law -- was about to open its first trial.  Earlier this year, ICC judges had confirmed war crimes charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, an alleged Congolese warlord accused of enlisting, conscripting and using children under the age of 15 to participate in hostilities.  A Trial Chamber was currently dealing with preliminary procedures before the trial to begin early next year.

In a related case, another alleged militia leader, Germain Katanga, was surrendered last week to the Court by the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The charges in Mr. Katanga’s arrest warrant had included three counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes, namely murder, sexual slavery, attacking civilians, inhumane treatment and recruitment of child soldiers.  The initial hearing had been held last week, following his surrender, and pre-trial proceedings would take place in the coming months.

On the situation in the Sudan’s war-torn Western Darfur region, which had been referred to the Court by the Security Council in May, Chamber judges had issued warrants for the arrest of two individuals -- Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb -- each wanted for over 40 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, forcible transfers of populations, pillaging and destruction or seizure of enemy property.  The Court had issued requests for arrest and surrender of those two suspects, but neither warrant had been executed.

Turning to the situation in Uganda, he said that five arrest warrants had been issued for members of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in 2005, including for the arrest of its leader, Joseph Kony.  Two of those suspects were wanted on over 30 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Two others were wanted on 10 and 7 counts, respectively, of crimes against humanity.  One of the suspects had been killed.  None of the warrants had been executed.

The unfulfilled warrants spotlighted a key challenge for the ICC, namely that broader support and cooperation was crucial in the arrest and surrender of suspects, as well as in protecting victims and witnesses.  While the primary responsibility for providing such cooperation rested with State parties to the Rome Statute, he said that non-State parties and international organizations, especially the United Nations, were in positions to provide valuable assistance.

Highlighting cooperation by States, he noted that some countries had responded to requests for assistance in the area of logistics or field support, while others had entered into agreements with respect to the enforcement of sentences or the protection of victims and witnesses.  At the same time, a number of direct requests for assistance had not yet been fulfilled, the outstanding arrest warrants being the most significant among them.

“Without arrests, there can be no trials [and] without trials victims will again be denied justice and potential perpetrators will be encouraged to commit new crimes with impunity,” he said.  Further, the implementation of the Court’s judicial decisions had been “uneven”.  While clearly the situations and cases before the Court were linked to broader complex political issues and developments, “compliance with the decisions of the Court is not just another issue on the negotiating table,” he asserted.  Compliance was a legal obligation under the Rome Statute, as well as relevant Security Council resolutions.

Another important concern was the relative silence that had been observed in situations where public support for the Court and the need for justice more broadly would be expected.  “Silence in these situations may send the wrong message to perpetrators and potential perpetrators of serious international crimes if the purposes for which the Court was created are to be preserved,” he said, calling on the international community to reaffirm its fundamental commitment to the principles of justice and international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Rome Statute.

He also said that “the public and diplomatic support of the United Nations for the Court and for international justice more broadly” was vital to ensuring that the Court was strong and effective.  “The Court did not create itself,” he said, stressing that the body had been set up by States to put an end to impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  “It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the momentum created [when the Rome Statute was adopted] continues, and that international justice prevails,” he said.

Speaking on the report of the International Court of Justice were the representatives of New Zealand (also on behalf of Australia and Canada), Egypt, Peru, Pakistan, Algeria, Mexico, Malaysia, India, Philippines, Nicaragua, Portugal, South Africa, Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, Honduras, Republic of Korea, and Japan.

On the report of the International Criminal Court, the representatives of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), New Zealand (also on behalf of Australia and Canada), Liechtenstein, Viet Nam, Switzerland, Cuba, Norway, Peru, Sierra Leone, Argentina, Croatia, Serbia, Republic of Korea, Jordan South Africa, Mexico, Kenya, Ecuador, Japan and Uganda.

The representative of Sudan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 5 November.

Background

Before the General Assembly is the report of the International Court of Justice [A/62/4] which contains a summary of the body’s work from August 2006 to July 2007, as well as background information on the Court’s role in settling, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States.

The report details the status of cases before the Court, as well as the budget of the Court for the biennium 2006-2007.  The subject matter of cases being heard is extremely varied, and now includes “classic” territorial and maritime disputes, as well as cases concerning more “cutting-edge” issues such as allegations of massive human rights violations, including genocide, and the management of shared natural resources.  

The judicial year 2006-2007 was a busy one, and the upcoming judicial year will also be very full, the report states.  This sustained level of activity on the part of the Court was possible thanks to its willingness to increase efficiency and thereby cope with the steady increase in workload.  With an annual budget equalling less than 1 per cent of the total United Nations budget, and given its pre-eminent role and ever greater activity, the Court is indisputably an exceptionally cost-effective means for peacefully resolving disputes.

Also before the Assembly is the third annual report of the International Criminal Court [A/62/314] which covers the main developments in the Court’s activities and other developments of relevance to the relationship between the Court and the United Nations. 

During the reporting period, the Prosecutor continued to investigate the situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and Darfur, 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 as well.

In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Court confirmed charges of war crimes against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and his case was referred to trial.  In the situation in Darfur, Sudan the Court issued warrants of arrest for two individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Those arrest warrants remained outstanding.

In Uganda, four arrest warrants were still outstanding.  The Court does not have the authority to arrest persons and must rely on States to take on that responsibility.  Cooperation and assistance provided by States, the United Nations and others were essential to the Court’s accomplishments.  To that end, the Court continued to strengthen its cooperation with those parties with a view to ensuring the necessary support for the Court to enable it to fulfil the aims of the Rome Statute.

The Assembly also has the Secretary-General’s Report on the Trust Fund to assist states in the settlement of disputes through the International Court of Justice [A/62/171] before it.  The Fund was established to encourage parties to a dispute to seek judicial settlement through the Court.  As of 30 June 2007, the Fund had a total balance of $2.4 million.  Though the Secretary-General is grateful for contributions made to the Fund during the period under review, he notes that the overall amount contributed has decreased by almost 34 per cent compared to the previous period.  He urges all States and other relevant entities to give serious consideration to making contributions to the Fund, not only in a substantial manner but on a regular basis.

Introduction of the Report of the International Court of Justice

Judge ROSALYN HIGGINS, President of the International Court of Justice, said that the Court was moving forward with the implementation of the work plan it had put in place last year, “dealing with more than once case at a time, producing judgements in a timely fashion, taking short vacations and working intensely”.  The Court had just wrapped up a very productive year, and this year it had already delivered three substantive judgements, one of them just three weeks ago and falling outside the period covered in the report.  It had also delivered one order on a request for the indication of provisional measures.

In addition, the Court had completed hearings in three cases:  it had heard oral arguments in the case of Amadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) and delivered a judgement in April; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and delivered its judgement three weeks ago; and had heard oral arguments on the preliminary objections in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) in June, the judgement of which was under preparation.  She said that the members of the Court had been fully engaged in the work surrounding those cases throughout the year.  Indeed, cases that came before the International Court of Justice “were never trivial matters” and the concerned countries were entitled to expect that the Court would examine in detail, “every single thing they put before us, and we do,” she said.

She went on to say that during the reporting period, one new case had been added to the General List:  Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters ( Djibouti v. France).  All the cases that had been decided during the period had involved States from Latin America, Africa and Europe.  The subject matter that interested the States of those regions ranged from environmental matters to genocide to diplomatic protection of shareholders and maritime delimitation.  There were currently 11 cases on the docket:  three between European States, three between Latin American States; one between Asian States; and two cases of international character. 

Next, according to the Assembly’s tradition, she gave detailed reports on the judgments rendered by the International Court of Justice during the past year, starting with Argentina v. Uruguay, in which Argentina had initiated proceedings against Uruguay in May 2006 concerning the construction of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay, which constituted the border between the two States.  In February 2007, the Court had rendered its judgement in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).  That was the first case before any court in which allegations of genocide had been made by one State against another.  Among other things, the Court in that case found that the killing of more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb forces “had been accompanied by the intent to destroy in part the group of the Bosnian Muslims”.  Accordingly, the International Court of Justice found that the events in Srebrenica constituted genocide.

After highlighting the other adjudications, she turned to the Court’s working methods, saying that while it had always delivered its decisions within a reasonable time after the conclusion of hearings in a case, there had been problems in the past with the scheduling of oral hearings and a backlog had built up, and some States had to wait an unreasonably long time after the deposit of written pleading for oral hearings to be scheduled.  She was pleased to report that the Court had made a push to clear the cases by 2008, but that its prodigious efforts had paid off and it was instead in a position to clear the backlog this year.  While there might still by slight delays in cases of multiple pleadings, the important thing was that States thinking of coming to the International Court of Justice could today be confident that as soon as they had finished their written exchanges, the judges would be able to move on to the oral stage in a timely manner. 

While the push for efficiency would continue, she said that the International Court of Justice had unfortunately had to spend more time than it would have wished dealing with a matter that was not of its choosing:  the fallout from the Assembly’s adoption of resolution 61/262 on “Conditions for service and compensation for officials other than Secretariat officials; Members of the ICJ, and judges and ad litem judges of the ICTR and ICTY”.  Informed at the last minute about the Assembly’s imminent adoption of the text –- on which the Court had not been consulted –- she had sent a letter to the Assembly President expressing deep concern that the proposed action regarding emoluments under the resolution would create inequality among judges, which was prohibited under the International Court of Justice Statute. 

She said that the issue would be addressed in the Secretary-General’s upcoming relevant report, but, in the meantime, a memorandum that the Court had prepared to assist the Secretary-General in preparing the document laid out the serious legal consequences arising from the resolution, including that it established a transitional measure that drew a distinction between current judges of the Court and those elected after 1 January 2007 having an income substantially below the current remuneration.  “It would be the first time in the history of the United Nations that judicial salary levels are reduced.  And it would be without precedent -– and this is the key point -– that judges on the same bench would receive different salaries,” she said.  Equality among the judges of the International Court of Justice was one of the fundamental principles of the Court’s Statute.

She said that parties appearing before the Court were States, not individuals.  Although judges served as independent members of the judiciary, States were entitled to assume that a judge of their nationality, whose election they had worked hard for, was in a position of full equality with all the other judges on the bench.  “No discrepancy in treatment can be allowed to exist, not only among permanent judges and ad hoc judges chosen by States parties to litigation not having a national on the Bench, or between two ad hoc judges.”  The Court’s Statute could not just be ignored or brushed aside, she asserted. 

Speaking directly to delegations gathered in the Hall, she asked that if they came before the Court and did not have a judge of their nationality on the Bench, would they be pleased that the ad hoc judge to which they would be entitled would be paid less than the rest of the judges, and perhaps less than the ad hoc judge appointed by another party before January 2007?  “Was this really what you thought you were achieving when you passed resolution 61/262 in April?” she asked, adding that she could not believe that any representative in the Hall wished to put judges of their own nationality –- or indeed any judges -– in a position of inferiority to others.  “Nor do Member States of the United Nations wish to see the Statute of the Court violated,” she added.

She went on to say that the deep irony of the measure, which had been officially aimed at addressing certain budgetary matters relating to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, thus far, had negatively impacted only the International Court of Justice.  No further elections were envisaged for the former Yugoslavia tribunal until 2009, and that Tribunal had sufficient ad hoc judges to carry its work through until then.  Moreover, there might be no new elections for the Rwanda tribunal before that body wrapped up its work.  So, the International Court of Justice alone stood alone bearing the brunt of the resolution’s fallout.  It now had cases that would require bringing new ad hoc judges on board, and elections for new judges were already set for 2008. 

“I do not believe that the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) and the Assembly ever meant that the Court alone should be put in a disadvantageous situation and I do not think that the Fifth Committee and the Assembly ever meant to put the Court in conflict with its Statute,” she declared.  At the same time, the Court did appreciate the understandable objectives of the resolution, both regarding transparency and putting the Rwanda Tribunal back into a “position of real equality” with the former Yugoslavia tribunal and the International Court of Justice.  Still, she hoped that the Secretary-General’s upcoming report would provide some solutions that would address everyone’s legitimate needs and concerns.

Finally, she recalled that last year she had highlighted one matter in the Court’s 2008-2009 budget requirements; a request for nine P-2 law clerks, which would enable it to achieve a full complement of one clerk for each member of the Court.  That request had been raised nine years ago by International Court of Justice President Schwebel.  She noted that the judges of the two tribunals and the International Criminal Court -- which was just beginning its work -- each had a law clerk.  The International Court of Justice would appreciate a decision by the United Nations to grant a limited number of clerks.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN ( New Zealand), speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, said the International Court of Justice had a full caseload marked not only by the regional diversity of the parties, but also by the increasing diversity of the subject matter.  It was encouraging that there was a growing interest of States in using the Court to resolve issues that went beyond “classic” disputes, such as maritime delimitation, to matters such as environmental law issues and human rights violations.  For example, the Court considered and passed judgement on a case involving allegations of genocide by one State against another.  Such a case illustrated the value of the Court’s contribution to international peace and security and the development of important issues of international law.

The Court would have a similarly full caseload next year, he said.  It had effectively cleared its backlog of work and should be commended for that achievement and for other positive steps it had made to increase its efficiency.  It was necessary to ensure that adequate resources were available for the Court to handle cases in a timely fashion, such as resolving the salary concerns of judges.  The improved International Court of Justice website was a welcome development and an excellent resource that would benefit judges, media, scholars and the general public worldwide.  The Court played a vital role in the peaceful settlement of international disputes and in strengthening the international legal order, as mandated by the United Nations Charter.  Wider acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction enabled the Court to fulfil its role more effectively and, as such, he urged Member States to deposit a declaration of acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.

MOHAMED KAMAL ( Egypt) emphasized his belief in the Court’s major role in the provision of international law and adjudication among States.  Since its inception, the Court had reinforced international legal norms and principles, particularly in the area of nuclear weapons.  He highlighted the Court’s last decision on the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) regarding the Srebrenica massacre.  That decision had underscored the concept of State responsibility to adopt all necessary measures to prevent genocide on its territory on the basis of ethnicity, religion or language.  The Court’s experience had shown the need to reinforce the capacity of States and the United Nations to request an advisory opinion from the Court.  For the United Nations reform process to be integrated, it must include the Court, as the body was pivotal for guaranteeing the Organization’s effectiveness. 

Decisions taken at the 2005 Summit Conference had mandated States to study means for strengthening the Court, he said.  However, he had not seen initiatives in that regard.  He urged States to take serious measures to harness the Court’s legal potential.  Perhaps, also, the Court could project its own vision in the international order and extend itself to include more controversial matters.  He hoped it would establish clear legal norms for dealing with aggression and war crimes.  Also, there was a contradiction within human rights, as some States had suggested that their national standards were more worthy of application on an international level.  On the management of natural resources, the Court could enable developing countries to achieve their ambitions through affirming sovereignty over their natural resources. 

Regarding diplomatic protection, he was happy that the Court was dealing with those questions, especially those of States wanting to shed their obligations in name of the war on terrorism.  He highlighted the Vienna Convention and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, mainstays of international relations that were violated daily.  His delegation supported the Court’s request to establish nine clerk posts, and one for a high-level official, in the 2008-2009 budget.  At same time, he affirmed that that the judgement must be the responsibility of the judges, as they were the “living conscience of the international system”.  In closing, he thanked all judges, the Registrar and all staff for their efforts.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES ( Peru) said the Court’s increased workload reflected the growing will of States to resolve their disputes through peaceful means and the confidence they had in the Court’s impartiality and independence.  The judgments the Court had passed in the previous year had not just resolved those specific disputes, but had broadened relationships and friendships between countries.  The jurisdiction of the Court should be universally respected, and Member States who had not yet accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court should do so immediately.  The Court’s contribution in its advisory capacity was also of great importance, and the relevant international organizations and bodies should look to the Court to resolve their disputes.

Given the high cost involved in resolving major international disputes through legal means, some countries, especially developing ones, could be deterred from turning to the Court.  The Court’s Trust Fund, created in 1989, was a useful tool for those countries and should be given the necessary financial resources to effectively assist parties in need.  For its part, the Court had recognized the need for efficiency and had already made improvements towards that end.  Improvements in the website and its audio-visual resources reinforced the universal importance of the Court’s work.  The Court’s contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security, the peaceful resolution of disputes and the development of rule of law should be preserved and strengthened through the allocation of the appropriate resources.  In conclusion, he reaffirmed his delegation’s commitment and support for the Court in all its work.

SAHIBZADA AHMAD RAZA KHAN QASURI ( Pakistan) noted that the need for international legal order and justice was never as acutely felt as it was today.  He reminded the Assembly that Pakistan was not only a signatory to the Statute of the Court, but also one of the 65 countries that had deposited a declaration to the Secretary-General to accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 36 of its Statute.  Further, he supported the views expressed in the report recommending that the Court might be consulted on legal questions by the General Assembly, Security Council, and other United Nations organs and specialized agencies authorized by the General Assembly, “arising in the scope of their activities”.  That could facilitate peaceful settlement of disputes, as enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations.

The Charter, under Chapter VI, offered vast possibilities for the United Nations and its organs to play an important role in the pacific settlement of disputes and conflict prevention.  He recommended that the Security Council make maximum possible use of its powers under Article 36 and 37 of the Charter to recommend legal disputes of the Court as a general rule.  Additionally, it was up to Member States and the Organization to make the best possible use of the wide range of provisions available for the settlement of disputes.

He said the Court had uniquely contributed to the interpretation and development of customary international law, and its work and decisions were closely monitored by Member States, the international legal fraternity and others.  The recent decisions delivered during the period under consideration showed that the Court had adopted a cautious approach.  In the genocide case ( Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), the decision rejected the challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction and found that what had happened at Srebrenica was indeed genocide and that Serbia had violated its obligations under article 1 of the Genocide Convention.  It, however, “remained shy” of accepting another question of state responsibility.  On the Ahmadou Sadio Diallo judgement, on the point of diplomatic protection “by substitution”, the Court upheld Admadou’s rights as an individual and direct shareholder, but due to the lack of exceptions in customary international law, did not allow protection by substitution.  

He noted the expansion of the Court’s work over time, and concluded by supporting the request for additional staff to the Court and the Department of Legal Matters.

EL HADJ ALI ( Algeria) said that, for more than 60 years, the International Court of Justice had spared no effort in promoting peaceful resolutions to international conflicts, the non-use of force, and the development of the rule of law in international relations.  In the 2005 World Summit, world leaders reaffirmed their commitment to peacefully resolving international disputes through the Court.  The judgements that the Court had passed over the years covered a wide spectrum of subjects and had considerably contributed to the codification of international laws.  In the previous year, the Court had considered a growing number of cases that were increasingly complex in nature.  That was indicative of the trust the international community, and developing countries in particular, had in the Court’s ability to resolve international disputes.  

He commended the work of the Court over the previous year, specifically its judgments in regards to Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Guinea, and Nicaragua and Honduras.  Despite that good work, the Court did not have the necessary funding to properly do its work, and Member States should make an effort to contribute more financial and human resources.  At the same time, he applauded the Court for its efforts to increase its efficiency and cost-effectiveness.  Arrest warrants issued by the Court must be respected, as well as the advisory judgements handed down by the Court, as both reaffirmed the principles of international law and helped them evolve.  Turning to the possibility of a separation wall being built around Palestine, he said that question must be taken into account by the principle organ of the United Nations responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.  Indeed, no matter what the issue at hand, Member States should look to the United Nations and the Court to see how those institutions could contribute to the best possible resolution of the matter.

JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ-ROBLEDO ( Mexico) said Mexico recognized the great importance and legal value of the judgements of the International Court of Justice not just for state parties, but also the international community.  Those judgements helped international law evolve, and assisted with the Court’s pre-emptive task of avoiding breaches of international peace and security.  The case Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, in which the Court applied the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, constituted an important step in the repression of the international crime of genocide and demonstrated the importance of international cooperation between two international tribunals:  the International Court of Justice and the former Yugoslavia tribunal. 

Mexico, he said, attached special importance to the request made by the Court for the creation of nine law clerk posts and one additional post for a senior official in the Office of Legal Affairs.  If the number of cases pending judgement and future disputes were considered –- as well as the studies and research work for the judges –- five assistants for all the judges seemed insufficient.  Unless granted greater support, the Members of the Court could not keep up this pace and States would not receive justice without unacceptable delay.

LOGA CHITRA GOVINDASAMY ( Malaysia) said if the international community wished to resolve and prevent conflicts in a peaceful manner, it needed an impartial and competent third party to deal with the relevant legal questions it faced.  The International Court of Justice had undoubtedly played an important and influential role in the promotion of peace and harmony between nations and peoples of the world through observance of the rule of law, in addition to its assistance in resolving disputes between States through advisory opinions on legal questions based on international law.  The increased usage of the Court constituted strong evidence that nations could trust the Court for its impartiality and effectiveness. 

He said his Government had submitted cases concerning territorial disputes for adjudication by the Court, and could fully respect the Courts’ decision, consistent with his country’s abiding respect for international law.  He added that some 300 bilateral or multilateral treaties contained provisions for the Court’s jurisdiction in dispute resolution.  Those welcome developments also demonstrated the growing confidence in the decisions of the Court and the reliance on conflict settlement through adjudication rather than the use of force.  Malaysia noted the Secretary-General’s appeal for all Member States to contribute to the Secretary-General’s Trust Fund, which has had a decreasing level of resources since its inception.  The Court required adequate resources to allow it to fulfil its mandate and meet the demands of an ever-increasing workload, especially in its efforts to increase public awareness in the judicial settlement of international disputes, advisory functions, case law and working methods, as well as its role within the United Nations. 

A. KRISHNASWAMY ( India) said no other judicial organ in the world could have the same capacity for dealing with international legal problems as the International Court of Justice, and emphasized a noticeable increase in the number of cases being referred to the Court.  Unlike in the past, when the cases’ jurisdiction phase occupied most of the Court’s time, the Court was now being frequently called upon to deal directly with a diversity of complex, substantive issues of international law from all regions of the world.  Noting the three important decisions that took place during the period of review, he said that the subject matter of these cases ranged from diplomatic protection of shareholders to environmental protection to genocide.  This affirmed the important role that the Court and international law played in the search for solutions to the problems of an interdependent world, in which economic, social and humanitarian issues had assumed paramount importance.  

Regarding the creation of specialized regional and international courts and, consequently, the possible fragmentation and incoherence of international law, he said the challenge was to find a balance between the need for diversity and specialized regimes and solutions, and the importance of maintaining a coherent, secure framework of international law.  He reiterated that the tool-box of international law -– especially general international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties -– was not perfect, but flexible enough to assist negotiators, lawyers and judges in finding the balance.  Thus, he welcomed the initiative taken by the President of the Court for a regular dialogue between the international courts and Tribunals and exchanges of information on striking that balance.

In order for the Court to respond and carry out its mandate effectively, he stressed the need for the allocation of adequate resources.  It was a matter of concern that 15 judges had to share and rely on five legal professionals to carry out research on complicated questions of international law, and to prepare studies and notes for the judges and the Registrar.  He called the Court’s request for individualized legal assistance for all its members reasonable, and said the request should be implemented to enable the Court to efficiently carry out its designated functions as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.  He also urged re-examination of resolution 61/262 and hoped the unintended anomaly could be removed.

Ms. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO ( Philippines) said the growing number of treaties between and among States underlined the need to navigate an increasingly complex web of issues in an integrated world.  She recalled that the 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration had decided to strengthen respect for the rule of law and ensure compliance with the Court’s decisions. 

She noted with appreciation Court’s efforts to make its decisions widely accessible to the public, as she could not overemphasize the value of its decisions in the implementation of the rule of law.  New issues demanded consideration, and the report highlighted the diversity of issues brought before it.  Her Government had noted the Court’s structural flexibility in considering specialized cases and supported the mechanism of specialized chambers.  She particularly highlighted the Chamber for Environmental Matters.

She reaffirmed the Philippines’ support for the Court and its invaluable role in promoting an international legal order premised on peaceful dispute settlement.  She also called on States to assume the obligations of treaties, particularly in the application of doctrines of sovereign equality in their relations with one another.  The Court’s role in guaranteeing peaceful dispute resolutions could not be made more obvious.  Indeed, the issues before the Court should be seen as a positive expression of the global community’s increasing trust and confidence in it to ensure the rule of law.

MARIO H. CASSELLON DUARTE ( Nicaragua) said the report of the Court’s work had been comprehensive and extremely informative, and its consideration “had been brought to life” by the presence of Judge Higgins.  He said that it would come as no surprise that Nicaragua was pleased with the Court’s recent decision in Nicaragua v. Honduras, which had divided the countries, even though relations during adjudication had remained –- and were, still -- cordial.  Fortunately, the judgement had been received equitably by both States. 

Nicaragua understood that the judgement had two facets, territorial and maritime, and that the Court had delivered a split decision.  Nicaragua also understood that the Court had considered the case with the utmost professionalism.  He said that the Court had made an important contribution to international maritime law, particularly in the area of delimitation.  He drew attention to the Declaration of Managua and Gulf of Fonseca, signed by the Presidents of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, which was an important step in the consolidation of international peace and security.  Finally, on the impact of resolution 61/262, he said that his country supported without reservation the position of the Group of 77 and China, and would stress that elements of the text ran counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which called for equal remuneration for equal work.

LUIS SERRADAS TAVARES, Director of the Department of Legal affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, said the Court, as the principal judicial body of the United Nations, carried out one of the most important tasks in the international community:  peaceful dispute settlement and strengthening of the international rule of law.  Its workload was steadily increasing.  It was essential to note that cases before the Court had come from all over the world and related to diverse areas of international law, demonstrating the Court’s universality and expansion of its scope of work.  In that context, he said the Court should count on full support from all members of the global community.

He said although the Court was a leading player in the international judicial arena, there were other international courts and tribunals whose importance should be underscored.   Portugal viewed increased contacts between those courts and tribunals as very positive, and strongly believed they should work together to enhance the international legal order.

It was important for States to recognize the Court’s need for adequate resources, he said.  Indeed, that was the case in the Court’s request for law clerk posts to assist judges in the increasing number of cases.  As of 31 July, some 192 States had been parties to the Statute of the Court; 65 of them had deposited with the Secretary-General a declaration of acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.  He recalled the recommendation of the 2005 World Summit that States consider accepting the Court’s jurisdiction.  In closing, he said while recognizing that there was an intrinsic paradox between States’ obligation to settle disputes peacefully and the need for sovereign consent to put such settlement mechanisms into practice, he firmly believed the global community was increasingly accepting the Court’s crucial role in the international legal order.

ANDRE STEMMET, State Law Adviser to the Government of South Africa, said it was clear from the Court’s report that its caseload had increased considerably in recent years, while the subject matter of the cases before it had become more diverse, and issues more complex.  Such developments illustrated the global community’s continued confidence in the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

He noted with satisfaction the report’s references to increased efficiency in management and operation, which enabled the Court to cope with an increased caseload.  He commended the Court in that regard.  He further pointed out that the Court’s finding in the Ahmadou Sadio Diallo case had resonated before the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa, becoming the source of reference in a recent case on diplomatic protection.  Such an example highlighted the Court’s strong persuasive power upon national justice systems.  Also, South Africa had noted with great interest its decision in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, and believed that decision would become the seminal case on the issue of State responsibility in the commission of international crimes.  The growing trend of countries resolving their disputes through the Court must be encouraged.  Hence, the Trust Fund must be maintained and given wider publicity.  He hoped to see an increase in the level of its resources, and that it would contribute to more States using the Court to resolve disputes.

Z.D. MUBURI-MUITA ( Kenya) said that, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the adjudication of disputes by the International Court of Justice played a pivotal role in the maintenance of international peace, order and stability.  Over the past year, the Court took on a number of contentious cases, out of which it handed down two statements and one order.  Kenya urged States to freely submit disputes to the Court.  However, it noted that out of 192 State parties to the International Court of Justice Statute, only 65 had declared their acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.  He encouraged States that had not done so to accept that jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute.

He continued, saying the official visits to the Court by the Heads of States and other high-ranking officials reflected the recognition conferred on the Court, and played an important role in enhancing the image of the Court as a central organ for dispute resolution.  Kenya encouraged those visits as part of the Court’s awareness programme and called upon the Court to put in place measures to further educate Member State officials during those visits.  Finally, he urged States to make greater use of the Court’s advisory powers and, most importantly, increase compliance with its decisions.

DENG KUEK WAI NYOK ( Sudan) said the International Court of Justice had met the expectations of Member States in establishing the rule of law in international relations.  The Court was the major guarantor for the respect of international law, the non-use of force, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the equal sovereignty of States.  It was the only tribunal with an international jurisdiction and, as the major judiciary body of the United Nations, was the most appropriate mechanism to implement the principles of the United Nations Charter and to resolve disputes among States in a peaceful manner.  The role the Court played in the maintenance of international peace and security was crucial, and the number of States who had agreed to the binding jurisdiction of the Court was representative of the faith the international community had in the independence of the Court to resolve those matters.

The Court had proven its ability to effectively and efficiently handle an increased caseload, he said.  Its work reinforced the principles of international law and cooperation among States pursuant to United Nations Charter.  As such, it was necessary to strengthen the role of States in the Court’s work, specifically in regards to the adherence to judgements and opinions rendered by the Court.  The budget of the Court should also be strengthened and, in the future, the Court should continue to make recommendations to the international community on how it could support the Court in improving its effectiveness.  The Trust Fund for the Court allowed poor States to make effective use of the Court and the Fund should continue to receive the support of Member States.  Finally, he reiterated his country’s confidence in the role of the Court as the major judiciary body of the United Nations and promised to strengthen support for the Court in all its work.

FELIX A. ANIOKOYE ( Nigeria) said he was pleased that the Court had worked tirelessly in the discharge of its two-fold mandate:  adjudicating legal disputes among States; and giving advisory opinions on questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies.  It was further heartening that the Court had registered a productive year, with three judgements already rendered.  Indeed, a total of 136 cases had been entered on the General List of the Court since 1947.

As the Court’s value was to be judged both by the number of cases before it and contributions to the progressive development of international law, he said the President’s discussion of certain cases during the legal advisers’ meeting on 29 October had shed light on issues, including questions of diplomatic protection and overlapping jurisdictions between international courts and tribunals.  He noted with satisfaction the refreshing interchange between the Court and the former Yugoslavia Tribunal and commended the Court for putting in place a programme of cooperation between itself and other judicial bodies.  Recognizing the indispensable nature of the Court, Nigeria had submitted to its jurisdiction in its dispute with a neighbouring country and had worked painstakingly to implement the 2002 judgement.  He urged Member States to take disputes before the Court, as that would both assure peaceful resolution and enlarge the scope of the Court’s contribution to the development of international law.

IVAN ROMERO-MARTINEZ ( Honduras) welcomed the report of the Court and thanked the members of that body for their positive contributions towards strengthening international peace and security.  A few weeks ago, the International Court of Justice had handed down its decision in Nicaragua v. Honduras, and Honduras would abide by that decision.  It believed in the peaceful settlement of disputes and the effective application of international law. 

The Presidents of the two countries met the same day the judgement had been handed down, and “had embraced in the spirit of peace, legal order and international justice”.  Indeed, the two countries were committed to creating a space of global peace and wanted to show that there was no dispute to which an equitable solution could not be found under international law.  The International Court of Justice decision contributed to a world of peace and order, and Honduras would support the Court and its aims in all its work during this session of the Assembly and beyond.  He added that Honduras especially supported the concerns expressed regarding the impact of the Assembly’s adoption of resolution 61/262.

PARK HEE-KWON ( Republic of Korea) said the increasing number of cases brought before the Court was indicative of the level of trust given to the Court by States.  In rendering two final judgments in the previous year, the Court had met the high expectations for authoritative language on matters of international law.  Speaking specifically about the judgement regarding the allegations of genocide brought by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro, he expressed support for the Court’s position on the application of an “effective control” test for determining responsibility for acts committed by paramilitary units, as opposed to “overall control”.  He believed the effective control test could reasonably set the scope of State responsibility which was not necessarily determined under the same legal standard as individual criminal responsibility.

The Court had not always enjoyed its current level of trust from the international community, and the changing perceptions of the Court’s work could be attributed, in part, to the successful responses it had offered to the challenges of the world, he continued.  However, the more successful the Court was in fulfilling its responsibilities, the more cases would be brought to it.  

The increase in the number of parties accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, and the high expectations for the Court to play a more active role in general, were also bound to increase its workload, he said.  The international community should recognize the challenge before the Court, and should support its initiatives to improve efficiency and its requests for more resources.  The challenge of an increased workload also demanded cooperation among Member States to ensure that the Court was not overburdened with unnecessary requests for provisional measures, preliminary objections or applications in the cases as a pure litigation strategy.  In an era of proliferating international courts and tribunals, the Court’s leadership role could not be overstated.  He reaffirmed the Republic of Korea’s steadfast support for the Court’s efforts to achieve the ideal of peace under the rule of law.

TAKAHIRO SHINYO ( Japan) said the International Court of Justice had been gaining the respect and support of the international community, and more countries from all over the world were now turning to the Court for the peaceful settlement of their disputes.  Such actions demonstrated that the Court now enjoyed the universal commitment to the principal judicial organ of the United Nations should have, and he was confident the role of the Court would continue to grow in importance.  On a national level, his Government had designated “rule of law” as one of the major pillars of Japanese diplomacy and, as such, had taken the initiative to promote the universal values of democracy, human rights, the market economy and rule of law in the international community.  It had also further developed cooperative relations with international judicial organs. 

In July, Japan had referred two cases to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, he said.  In doing so, his country had contributed to the development of judicial precedents in the area of the Law of the Sea.  Further, the President of the International Court of Justice had been invited to Japan to speak about the work of the Court, and that visit had contributed significantly to promoting the advocacy of the international judicial systems in the country.  It was imminently necessary to strengthen the institutional capacity of the International Court of Justice and the issue should be favourably discussed in the appropriate bodies, while giving due consideration to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.  He added that, at the same time, the Court should continue its efforts to increase the efficiency of its work.

Introduction of the Report of the International Criminal Court

Judge PHILLEPE KIRSCH, President of the International Criminal Court, said that since its establishment, the Court had substantially developed its activities and had bolstered its relationship with the United Nations.  Nevertheless, the International Criminal Court was still in the “early stages of life”, and much remained to be done to guarantee its success.  In his brief overview of the Court’s work, he said that the Court was about to open its first trial. 

At the beginning of the year, the judges had confirmed war crimes charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, an alleged militia leader in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, accused of enlisting, conscripting and using children under the age of 15 to participate in hostilities.  A Trial Chamber was currently dealing with preliminary procedures before the trial began early next year. 

In another case from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Germain Katanga was surrendered to the Court last week.  The charges alleged in Mr. Katanga’s arrest warrant had included three counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes, namely; murder, sexual slavery, attacking civilians, inhumane treatment and recruitment of child soldiers.  The initial hearing had been held last week, following Mr. Katanga’s surrender, and pre-trial proceedings would take place in the coming months. 

On the situation in Darfur, which had been referred to the Court by the Security Council in May, a Chamber of three judges had issued warrants for the arrest of two individuals, Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb, each wanted for over 40 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, forcible transfers of populations, pillaging and the destruction or seizure of enemy property.  He said that the Court had issued requests for arrest and surrender of those two suspects.  Neither warrant had been executed. 

Turning to the situation in Uganda, he said that five arrest warrants had been issued for members of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in 2005, including for the arrest of its leader, Joseph Kony.  Two of those suspects were wanted on over 30 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Two others were wanted on ten and seven counts, respectively, of crimes against humanity.  One of the suspects had been killed.  None of the warrants had been executed.

He went on to say that, this past May, the Court’s Chief Prosecutor had opened an investigation into the situation in the Central African Republic and that, two weeks ago, the Court had opened a field office in that country’s capital of Bangui.  That was the fifth such office to be opened by the Court.  He said that the Court had been created to break the vicious cycle of crimes, impunity and conflict.  It had also been set up to contribute to justice and the prevention of crimes and, thereby, to peace and security.  The Court’s impact had resulted from its credibility as an independent and impartial institution whose decisions would be enforced.  Sustaining that credibility depended on the two pillars of the Rome Statute; the judicial pillar, or the Court itself, and the enforcement pillar, which had been reserved to States and, by extension, international organizations. 

The Court required support and cooperation in many areas, in particular the arrest and surrender of suspects and the protection of victims and witnesses.  The primary responsibility for providing such cooperation rested with State parties to the Rome Statute.  At the same time, non-State parties and international organizations, particularly the United Nations, were in positions to provide the Court with valuable assistance.  Highlighting cooperation by States, he noted that some countries had responded to requests for assistance in the area of logistics or field support, while others had entered into agreements with respect to the enforcement of sentences or the protection of victims and witnesses.  He also noted that the United Nations had provided “critical cooperation and support,” in New York and in the field.

At the same time, a number of direct requests for assistance had not yet been fulfilled, the outstanding arrest warrants being the most significant among them.  “Without arrests, there can be no trails [and] without trials victims will again be denied justice and potential perpetrators will be encouraged to commit new crimes with impunity,” he said.  Further, the implementation of the Court’s judicial decisions had been “uneven”.  While clearly the situations and cases before the Court were linked to broader complex political issues and developments, “compliance with the decisions of the Court is not just another issue on the negotiating table,” he asserted.  Compliance was a legal obligation under the Rome Statute, as well as relevant Security Council resolutions.

Another important concern was the relative silence that had been observed in situations where public support for the Court and the need for justice more broadly would be expected.  “Silence in these situations may send the wrong message to perpetrators and potential perpetrators of serious international crimes and if the purposes for which the Court was created are to be preserved,” he said, calling on the international community to reaffirm its fundamental commitment to the principles of justice and international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Rome Statute. 

Looking ahead, he said that operational cooperation from the United Nations and its Member States would continue to be critical, especially in the field.  In addition to arrests, another area of pressing importance was assistance in relocating victims and witnesses.  The number of persons seeking protection or being accepted into the Court’s protection programmes had increased dramatically, he said, calling on States that had not yet done so to conclude agreements on the relocation or protection of victims and witnesses.

He also said that “the public and diplomatic support of the United Nations for the Court and for international justice more broadly” was vital to ensuring that the Court was strong and effective.  Public and diplomatic support could also contribute directly to the prevention of crimes by reinforcing expectations, including among potential perpetrators, that the Court’s decisions would be carried out and the international community’s commitment to justice would be upheld.  “The Court did not create itself,” he said, stressing that the body had been set up by States to put an end to impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  “It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the momentum created [when the Rome Statute was adopted] continues, and that international justice prevails,” he said.

LUIS SERRADAS TAVARES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and affiliated countries, said the International Criminal Court was one of the greatest achievements in the fight against impunity.  In the wider context of international order, the Court was critically placed to contribute to a more peaceful and just world, promoting respect for international humanitarian law, human rights and the rule of law.  States had the primary responsibility for bringing offenders to justice, and the Court would only step in if States failed to fulfil their duty.  Where national judicial systems had failed or were not willing or able to function, the Court could play a significant role and was thus an essential instrument to preventing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Court was a living institution that had achieved substantial progress in its investigations and judicial proceedings, he continued.  The European Union shared the Court’s concerns in regards to the outstanding warrants of arrest arising from investigations in Darfur and Uganda, and urged the Government of the Sudan, in particular, to cooperate with the Court.  In regards to the trial of Lubango Dyilo, he applauded the participation of four victims in the trial, which was the first time in the history of an international criminal court that victims participated in proceedings in their own right, without being called as witnesses.  The increased cooperation of the Court with other international and hybrid tribunals, such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone, was also welcome.

Since the International Criminal Court did not have enforcement capacity, he said States parties and non-States parties should cooperate in matters regarding the arrest of suspects, the provision of evidence, the relocation of witnesses, the protection of victims, and the enforcement of sentences.  Deepened cooperation with international organizations was also critical, particularly with the United Nations, as it could be in a position to provide the Court with evidence or logistical support.  The European Union had concluded an agreement on cooperation and assistance in April 2006 and encouraged other relevant organizations to do the same.  The Union was an active advocate for the universality of the Court and a dedicated defender of the Rome Statute and, as such, called for its universal ratification.  Reaching out to societies and people affected by crime was necessary for the successful discharge of the wider mandate of the Court.  In closing, he thanked Liechtenstein for its work in the preparation of provisions relating to the crime of aggression and underlined the need for international cooperation and assistance for the Court to successfully carry out its activities.

PHILIP SEALY (Trinidad and Tobago) on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), acknowledged the role of the International Criminal Court as the only permanent international tribunal charged with prosecuting those accused of the most serious crimes:  genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and, once a definition was adopted, the crime of aggression.  Noting that 1 July marked the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute, he said the Court had made progress in putting necessary systems in place to prosecute crimes.  In that regard, his delegation noted with satisfaction progress in confirming charges in the Thomas Lubanga Dyilo case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He was further pleased at the arrest and surrender of Germain Katanga earlier this month.  However, he was concerned that those accused of crimes in Darfur and in northern Uganda had not been apprehended to date, despite the issuance of arrest warrants.

His delegation affirmed the importance of cooperation between national and international justice.  The Court’s jurisdiction was complementary to that of national courts, he said.  As such, his delegation recognized States’ legal obligation to cooperate with the Court in areas such as the execution of arrest warrants; surrender of accused persons; transfer of prisoners; enforcement of sentences; and protection of witnesses.  He called on States to enact comprehensive legislation giving domestic legal effect to their binding legal obligations under the Statute.  He also urged ratifying, as soon as possible, the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court, so the Court could work in an unencumbered manner.  He was encouraged by steps to meet with several individuals, organizations and groups.  Further, the Court had shown great resolve in becoming a truly global judicial body, he said, noting that it had welcomed five new States parties, including Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Satisfied with the contacts made between the Court and the United Nations in the past year, he said confidence in the Court’s work had been further strengthened with the conclusion of the memorandum of understanding with the Special Court for Sierra Leone.  The Court’s assistance for the conduct of the Charles Taylor trial had demonstrated its pledge to fight impunity.  He said the sixth session of the Assembly of States Parties, to be held from 30 November to 16 December 2007, would be an opportune moment for continuing efforts to universalize the Rome Statute.  Finally, CARICOM had endorsed the candidature of Madam Justice of Appeal Jean Permanand to fill a judicial vacancy in the Court.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand), speaking also on behalf of Canada and Australia, said, since its creation just five years ago, the International Criminal Court had made important progress.  It had launched crime investigations in four current situations, issued arrest warrants in three incidents and brought war crime charges on Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a former Congolese militia leader.  Further, he welcomed and commended the surrender of Germain Katanga by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which provided a timely example of the results achieved when countries cooperated.

However, the Court continued to face major challenges, possibly due to its heavy reliance on support and assistance from States in order to fulfil its mandate under the Rome Statute.  The six outstanding arrest warrants for the Darfur and Uganda investigations well illustrated those challenges; the Court could only succeed if all States gave effect to arrest warrants and assist with investigations.  He called on the Governments of the Sudan and Uganda to bring an end to that impunity and for the Sudan to “take all steps” to arrest Ahmad Harun, the Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs, and militia leader Ali Kushayb and transfer them to the Court for trial.

Finally, he said, universal ratification of the Rome Statute was crucial to the Court’s success, if the international community was to ensure that countries would deny perpetrators of the world’s most egregious crimes a safe haven.  Towards that end, the countries he represented would continue efforts to encourage further ratification at the regional level, through funding and other activities, and he called on all Member States to do the same.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER ( Liechtenstein) said the Court had made important progress in its operations and its judicial work, in particular in regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The recent surrender of the second indicted person in that situation would give the Court another opportunity to prove its excellence.  The Court was working in the manner envisioned by the drafters of the Rome Statute, and its activities in The Hague and in the field clearly had an impact on the situations under consideration.  With respect to the operational aspect of its work, the Court continued to depend on the cooperation of States and international organizations.  The fact that six arrest warrants were still awaiting execution, some of them for more than two years, was unacceptable.  States parties and non-parties, as well as other relevant actors, such as the Security Council, should consider the consequences of such inaction.

The Rome Statute called for an end to impunity for the worst crimes against humanity, and was a clear signal to past and potential future perpetrators of such crimes that they would not get away with such actions, he said.  It had also given a firm legal answer to the so-called peace versus justice dilemma, in the form of the legal obligation to cooperate with the Court, in particular regarding arrest and surrender.  At the United Nations level, technical and political cooperation was required.  The Security Council had a particularly important role to play in that respect.

His Government had always strongly supported the Court, and he called upon States that had not yet ratified the Statute to consider doing so.  He expressed support for States that continued to evaluate the merits of ratification and encouraged them to enter into dialogue with the Court to address any concerns.  The entry into force of the Statute had brought about a paradigm shift towards the rule of law that could not be reversed.  He welcomed the upcoming sixth Assembly of States Parties and said he looked forward to a continuation of dialogue on the definition of the crime of aggression.

NGUYEN THI THANH HA ( Viet Nam) said the activities of the International Criminal Court, as shown in the Secretary-General’s report, once again reaffirmed the Court as the “centrepiece of a system of international criminal justice”.  So far, four situations had been referred to the Court, and the vast amount of communications related to purported crimes also testified to its increasing prestige.

While taking note of the Court’s substantial progress, she said it should be highlighted that the Court’s jurisdiction would not come to fruition until the international community defined the crime of aggression and included it in the Rome Statute.  The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute had made great efforts to define that crime and the Court’s control over it.  Viet Nam hoped the sixth session of the Assembly of States Parties in New York, at the end of the month, would offer another opportunity to resolve that unsettled portion of the Court’s authority.

Finally, she said the authorities in Viet Nam had studied the possibility of acceding to the Rome Statute.  They particularly took great interest in the work of the Special Working Group and believed General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) should be an important guide to the Group’s substantive work.

PETER MAURER ( Switzerland) welcomed the positive cooperation between the Court and various United Nations offices, as well as the Court’s institutional support to the Special Court for Sierra Leone.  The conclusion of various bilateral arrangements with the Court during the previous year was a welcome show of support and cooperation from States.  He welcomed the important advancements made in the first referral of a case, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, to the trial stage and the transfer of Germain Katanga to The Hague.  The fact that the Court, so soon after its creation, had already started legal proceedings in four situations confirmed that a need for such a Court existed.  

The United Nations and its Member States needed to support and promote the Court’s work now more than ever, he said.  The Court’s activities had a particularly positive effect in the field, such as in northern Uganda.  Without international justice, there could be no lasting peace and security worldwide.  The international community had very high expectations for the Court, since fighting impunity and providing justice were two crucial elements necessary for lasting peace in post-conflict situations.  The Rome Statute had given the Court the necessary jurisdiction and legal tools to try those responsible for the most heinous crimes, in cases where States would or could not do it themselves.

Though the Court did not lack the financial resources to carry out its task, he said it did lack the enforcement tools.  States were the enforcement pillar of the international criminal justice system, and it was each State’s responsibility to uphold peace and security by supporting and cooperating with the Court.  Full cooperation with the Court must exist at all stages, from the investigation period to the enforcement of decisions.  That cooperation concerned all States, not just those directly involved in the cases under consideration.  He concluded by calling on all States to join the Rome Statute as soon as possible, since the aims of the Statute overlapped with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

MANUEL DE JESUS PIREZ PEREZ ( Cuba) said the International Criminal Court’s lack of independence was of concern, specifically its relationship with the Security Council.  The Rome Statute granted power to the Council to suspend the Court’s investigations or indictments and purported to regulate, in the future, “the Criminal Court’s jurisdiction to the ruling that the Security Council could make on the existence of an aggression act committed by a State”.  The true efficiency and independence of the Court was, thus, called into question.  Attempts by the United States to sign bilateral immunity agreements to exempt its citizens from the Court’s jurisdiction were also of concern.  Such agreements would prevent the Court from trying certain United States citizens, but did not oblige the United States to try those persons themselves.  An attempt to sign such an agreement was a violation of international law and an attempt at weakening the efficiency and credibility of the Court.

He said his Government had participated in the establishment process of the Court, but basic expectations set at the beginning of the process, such as the definition of the crime of aggression, had not yet been met.  The Assembly of States Parties should provide more possibilities for the functioning of the working group on the crime of aggression.  United States authorities had denied the Cuban delegation permission to travel to the informal meeting of that working group, held in Princeton.  He said such actions were a violation of the Headquarters Agreement and the rules of diplomatic law.  It was difficult for Cuba, a small country blockaded economically and financially, to make a decision on whether to adhere to the Rome Statute without a clear and precise definition of the crime of aggression.  In closing, he reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to the establishment of an international criminal justice system that was impartial, efficient, independent, and complementary to national jurisdiction.  To that end, his Government had followed with interest the evolution and functioning of the Court, and it would continue to work towards building truly efficient international criminal justice in the future.

MONA JUL ( Norway) said that, despite having existed for only five years, the International Criminal Court was steadily being integrated into legal systems and international institutions and relations.  She noted the importance of the relationship between the Court and the United Nations in achieving their common goals of promoting peace and justice based on human rights.  The Court could bring the perpetrators of mass atrocities to justice when national systems were not able or willing to do so.  It should not be evaluated by the number of cases it heard.  The mere existence of the Court was having an impact on national systems, which were moving towards prevention and prosecution.  The success of the Rome Statute should, therefore, be measured by the decrease in impunity for such crimes.

The interplay between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations was made clear in the Rome Statute and in the relationship agreement between the two parties, she said.  The preamble of the Statute reaffirmed the principles of the United Nations Charter, and noted in particular that “all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State” or in any other matter inconsistent with United Nations goals.  She urged all States to support the Court and the United Nations in attaining their goals, and said that Norway would contribute to achieving full implementation of the Rome Statute.

She called for universal adherence to the International Criminal Court and for States party to the Statute, or that have entered into cooperation agreements, to fulfil their legal obligations, particularly with regard to complying with the six outstanding arrest warrants:  two related to Darfur and four to Uganda.  Further, she drew attention to the Court’s legal tools programme, funded by the Norwegian Government, which aimed to improve the quality of work and increase access to accurate information with regard to how institutions and individuals worked on international crimes.

LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ ( Peru) said the Court had been established as a tool for punishing perpetrators and a body for detention and deterrence.  The Court’s assistance to the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the case involving Charles Taylor was proof of its contribution to a broader system to promote international justice.

He said the Court’s progress during the reporting period had been significant with respect to investigation and judicial proceedings.  He noted the recent detention and surrender of Germain Katanga, who would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and other crimes, as well as the decision of the Prosecutor to open an investigation in the Central African Republic.

However, for the Court to fulfil its mandate, it must receive the cooperation of States, international organizations and non-governmental organizations, he continued.  For that reason, he urged all States to cooperate with the Court.  Moreover, Peru believed the United Nations, including the Security Council, must offer assistance within the legal framework of cooperation.  He regretted that members of the LRA had not been arrested.  On the situation in Darfur, he said the issue had been referred to the Court by the Security Council, through resolution 1593 (2005).  There was a legal obligation to cooperate with the Court, which was why the corresponding arrest warrants should be executed.

He was pleased at steps to increase international cooperation, especially to facilitate work in the field, where enormous challenges had arisen.  Safety was a matter of constant concern.  He urged international organizations to join efforts with the Court, in that regard.  In closing, he said Peru firmly supported the fight against impunity.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU ( Sierra Leone) said his remarks were shaped by the experience gained through the operation of an international criminal court in Sierra Leone.  He welcomed the States that had joined the Rome Statute over the past year, adding that universality was critical for the International Criminal Court to reach its potential as a key actor in the fight against impunity worldwide, and as a necessary component of lasting peace.  He urged those who had not yet done so to sign the Statute.  Further, he hailed the arrest and transfer of Germain Katanga to face trial for crimes allegedly committed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and hoped that it would be an impetus to the arrest of those whose warrants were long outstanding.

The International Criminal Court needed support and cooperation, he said.  Its real deterrence value, he stressed, was the likelihood of enforcement.  Justice and accountability could assist societies to attain sustainable peace only when all the components of conflict and post-conflict resolution had the space to do their jobs.  In Sierra Leone’s experience, the cooperation needed by the Special Court was translated into law.  The Court required similar support, he said, and urged all States to cooperate with the Court, particularly through enforcement of outstanding arrest warrants.

He commended the outreach work undertaken by the Court to engage local populations so that they might understand their stake in the Court, noting that outreach was a core function of the Court and an operational necessity.  He said it was urgent for the Court to develop its strategic vision for Darfur and to implement its outreach plan in the Central African Republic.  He expressed a strong preference for seeing proceedings held in the countries where the crimes occurred, and hoped that the Court held that goal as well.  He also said that the Court’s relationship with the United Nations must be developed, as well as with other international and regional actors.

JORGE ARGUELLO ( Argentina) said numerous happenings over the past year highlighted the success of the International Criminal Court.  While in 2002 the Rome Statute received only 60 ratifications, by this year 105 States had become parties, signifying their belief that there could be no peace in countries in conflict if those who violated human rights remained unpunished.  The detention of Germain Katanga by the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and his transferral to the Court further demonstrated the Court’s legitimacy.  And finally, the decision of the Prosecutor to open new investigations on the situations in the Central African Republic and Uganda sent a clear message that, even if Governments would not try perpetrators of crimes against humanity, the possibility of international justice existed. 

He continued, saying that since the Court did not have its own police force, the cooperation of Member States, the United Nations and regional organizations was essential to achieve the objectives expressed in the preamble of the Rome Statute.  For its part, at the end of last year, Argentina implemented the dispositions of the Rome Statute and ratified the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, allowing the Court to act without limitation on Argentine territory.  Argentina called on all Member States that had not ratified the Rome Statute to act immediately to guarantee “universality in the fight against impunity”.

MIRJANA MLADINEO ( Croatia), fully aligning himself with Portugal’s statement on behalf of the European Union, said his country was proud of the Court’s impact thus far.  Its establishment, while a common endeavour, was not an end in itself, and it remained a common responsibility to effectively prevent conflicts, protect and promote human rights, and uphold international humanitarian law.  Without ending impunity, those efforts would remain incomplete.

Nothing could serve the interests of justice better than a credible Court, he continued, adding that it was reassuring that the Court had made its presence felt.  However, the experience of the ad hoc criminal tribunals had made it all too clear how dependent justice was on the goodwill of States and other international actors.  State cooperation and support were indispensable for making justice operational.  It was equally important that other regional and global actors, starting with the United Nations, did not lose sight of the Court dimension when addressing issues of peace and security relevant to the Court’s mandate.

The Court did not operate in a “textbook reality”, he said, and it would be wrong to contemplate its mandate without considering the ways its actions could influence decision makers.  It was, first and foremost, a judicial body that dealt with individual criminal accountability, which was of paramount importance, as all crimes were individual.  Timely and just prosecution and punishment were essential for sustainable peace.

PAVE JEVREMOVIC ( Serbia) said, with the four situations before the Court, it was evident that the Court had evolved into a pillar of international justice.  Japan’s accession to the Rome Statute as its 105th member was a significant step to achieving universality of the Court, and he called on States to continue to support universal ratification.  He fully aligned itself with Portugal’s statement on behalf of the European Union. 

Nationally, he said Serbia was proud to be one of the founders of the Court and, as such, had committed itself to incorporating all obligations into its domestic legal system.  He discussed Serbia’s activities to facilitate the Court’s work, noting that Serbia was among the first countries to ratify the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court.  Also, the country was negotiating an accord on the serving of prison sentences in Serbia of those charged by the Court.  An initiative had been launched to conclude an agreement on witness relocation, and a working group had been formed in the Serbian Ministry of Justice to prepare a draft law on cooperation with the Court. 

On Serbia’s judicial capabilities, he said the District Court of Belgrade, its War Crimes Chamber, and Office of the Prosecutor for War Crimes had proven their professional and technical ability to process the most complex cases, in line with international standards.  That Court also stood ready to help establish a database at the International Criminal Court of all its national decisions pertaining to international law, including on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  In closing, he said Serbia supported the strengthening of the Court’s institutional capacity, stressing the necessity of full cooperation by all States.  The only way to eradicate impunity was through universal acceptance of the Rome Statute.

PARK HEE-KWON ( Republic of Korea) said that his delegation supported universal adherence to the ICC’s Rome Statute.  While there were some 105 States party to the Statute, only 13 of them were from the Asian region and the Republic of Korea was eager to see more Asian States become party to the Statute as soon as possible.  Those States should also become partners in the effort to establish and promote international justice, which would serve the interest of regional peace and security.  He hoped that the Court and other States parties would provide assistance, so that Asian States could prepare for accession to the Statute.

Welcoming the progress the Court had made since its establishment and noting the cases on the Court’s agenda, he said that how the Court handled those important cases would be a crucial “determinant of its future and whether it would be embraced by the wider United Nations membership”.  In the meantime, States should provide the Court with the financial, logistical and political support it needed to carry out its work.  States Parties must also ensure that assessed contributions were paid on time and in full.

It was also important to note that the Court did not have its on enforcement arm and needed assistance and cooperation from States to apprehend indictees, collect evidence and execute its sentences.  He also called on the United Nations system to support the Court in those matters.  He said that the Court also needed assistance in witness protection, investigations and the collection of evidence.  Information-sharing between the United Nations and the Court was essential, both at Headquarters and in the field.  Finally, he urged States to continue participating in the working group on the crime of aggression.  It was important for States to actively participate in the discussions on the definition of such a crime, including the conditions under which the ICC would exercise its jurisdiction.

MOHAMMED F. AL ALLAF ( Jordan) said his country welcomed the report, particularly as it demonstrated the continued interaction between the United Nations and the Court in the service of the two entities.  The Court had proven itself a major pillar in the maintenance of peace and security, and he welcomed the United Nations’ cooperation with the judicial body. 

His delegation emphasized the importance of the Plan of Action adopted by the Assembly of State Parties on the universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute.  In that context, he stressed an end to the impunity for perpetrators of the world’s most heinous crimes.  Furthermore, Jordan emphasized that States must fully and comprehensively prepare for the upcoming Review Conference of the Rome Statute, which would include discussion of a definition of the crime of aggression.

ANDRE STEMMET, State Law Advisor for South Africa, said that his Government was a committed supporter of the International Criminal Court, having been among the first to sight the Rome Statue in 1998.   South Africa saw the Court as a central element in ending impunity for international crimes and in establishing conditions under which justice could be maintained.  It was also aware of the challenges the Prosecutor faced, arising particularly from the fact that the Court did not have its own police or military to give effect to its arrest warrants, and had to depend on the cooperation of States in that regard. 

Therefore, States committed to the principles of justice had a responsibility to individually and collectively cooperate with the court, be it in the context of regional organizations, such as the African Union and the Arab League, or in the wider United Nations family.  He said that South Africa had noted the court President’s concern at the lack of execution of six arrest warrants –- some of which had been outstanding for two years.  “The Court has played its part by issuing the warrants, now it is up to States to play their part by implementing,” he said, expressing the hope that all States of goodwill that wished to put an end to impunity would cooperate with the Court by giving effect to its decisions. 

JOEL HERNANDEZ GARCIA, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, welcomed Japan’s recent adherence to the Rome Statute.  He recalled that, on 29 January 2004, Uganda had referred the first case to the Court and that, five months later, the Prosecutor had announced the first investigation on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and those events had led to the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo.  He observed with great interest the recent detention and surrender of Germain Katanga.

In the spirit of having a transparent, prompt and efficient model of justice, he said it was crucial for the Court to carry out in-depth outreach, allowing it to get close to members of affected communities.  Indeed, fundamental parts of the Court’s mandate related to victims’ rights to participate in the different stages of the judicial process. 

On the issue of prompt justice, he said the one-year period needed to issue arrest warrants was acceptable.  Nonetheless, he was concerned that arrest warrants in the cases of Uganda and the Sudan had not been executed.  That situation was no longer within the court’s competence, and could not continue.  It was the responsibility of States to urgently adopt measures to cooperate with the Court.  The United Nations also had tools that could be used by the Court.  He recalled the Statute’s preamble, which recognized that ending impunity contributed to preventing international crime.  Without justice there was no long-lasting process of prevention.  He was concerned at the absence of cooperation and for the fact that it might affect the preemptive role of the Court.  He called upon relevant actors to bring those responsible for crimes to justice.

In that context, Mexico was extremely worried that the situation in Darfur had prevailed for more than four years, generating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.  Mexico firmly condemned the attacks against United Nations humanitarian workers, and called on actors to stop such crime.  Cooperation by the Sudanese Government was essential.  Those who had committed or ordered the commission of crimes over which the Court had jurisdiction must be brought to justice, regardless of their status, official position or military degree.  On finances, he said the Court must be a model for international administration and could benefit from the experience of other organizations to be cost-effective.

Z. D. MUBURI-MUITA ( Kenya) said that the success of the International Criminal Court depended on the widespread ratification of its Rome Statute, as well as States parties’ compliance with their obligations under that treaty.  Kenya was gratified to note progress in the Court’s operations and procedures, and commended the body in monitoring the overall situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and gathering information on armed groups operating in that territory.   Kenya also recognized the ongoing efforts to raise worldwide awareness about the Court’s work. 

He said that it was evident that the Court’s cooperative arrangements with the United Nations had been very instrumental in the success of its activities, adding a call for such arrangements to be strengthened and expanded.  He also said that the international community’s support was critical to keeping up the positive momentum the Court had achieved.  To that end, the Court should intensify its efforts to conclude negotiations on cooperative arrangements with States parties, regional organizations and other actors. 

That would promote and enhance the dialogue necessary to move towards universal ratification of the Rome Statute, he said.  Noting the similarities between the Statue and the United Nations Charter, he urged States to “uphold the model of law they have helped establish”, by enforcing arrest warrants issued by the Court.  “This call should transcend political considerations to help preserve the Court’s independence and integrity”, he added.

RODRIGO RIOFRIO (Ecuador) said the work undertaken by the International Criminal Court demonstrated not only that the Court was fully operational, but also the fundamental and global nature of its work.  It was an unprecedented moment in history when victims in one of the cases participated in the trial in their own rights, instead of as witnesses.  It was important to highlight the Court’s efforts to provide security to victims, witnesses and their families, to the point where it had, at times, put their protection ahead of its own judicial responsibilities.  Those efforts helped bring the international community closer to the recognition of the individual as the main subject in international law and the need to place people at the centre of polices and actions of States, international organizations and civil society.  Despite that progress, it was worrisome that agreements on the protection and relocation of witnesses had not grown in proportion to the number of protected persons.

He said Member States should help to strengthen the mechanisms to enforce detention orders and, in all ways, should support and cooperate with the Court to make it more effective and efficient.  Ending impunity and strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights would contribute to building international peace and security.  Nationally, his Government had promoted legislative and judicial reforms that would enable the full application of the Rome Statute.  The inauguration of the National Assembly would reform the political Constitution of Ecuador and would place the individual at the centre of the actions of the State.  It would also provide wide and unrestricted protection of human rights and extend judicial reform to include a law on crimes against humanity and to ensure it fully complied with the International Criminal Court’s work.  He congratulated Governments that had recently ratified the Rome Statute and encouraged all States to work towards universal adherence.

TAKAHIRO SHINYO ( Japan) said that Japan had deposited its instrument of accession to the Rome Statute this year on the World Day of Justice and had become its 105th State Party as of 1 October.  Ratification of accession had been facilitated by the visit of President Kirsch to Japan last December, where he had had productive talks with political leaders.  He commended the Court for its efforts to address the four situations in Africa it was currently considering and hailed the arrest of a perpetrator in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  He said that the Court’s work with regard to Africa would contribute to peace and stability on the continent.

He noted that Japan wanted to contribute as much as possible to the Court’s success, noting that it would become the largest financial contributor, providing 22 per cent of the budget.  He said, further, that Japan intended to send many skilled Japanese to serve the Court as judges and staff, noting that currently Asia was underrepresented on the Court.  He expressed the hope that the Court would continue to work diligently towards the eradication of the culture of impunity and to further consolidate its status as the only permanent criminal court in the world.

FRANCIS K. BUTAGIRA ( Uganda) said his Government held the work of the International Criminal Court in high regard and had the utmost confidence in it.  Without confidence in the Court, his country could not have made referrals to the Prosecutor to begin investigations in the situation of the Lord’s Resistance Army.  His Government was determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of grave crimes and would do everything possible to bring them to account.  

He noted with concern the statement made by the President of the Court that a number of requests for cooperation had not yet been fulfilled.  He pointed out that, in regards to outstanding warrants, none of the indicted individuals was on Uganda’s territory.  Moreover, the peace talks between his Government and the Lord’s Resistance Army were being held outside Uganda.  Uganda had no control over the indicted persons and should, therefore, not be viewed as refusing to hand over indicted persons.   Uganda had benefited tremendously from the work of the Court and it was thanks to the warrants of the Prosecutor that the peace talks were able to take place.  

He promised continued cooperation with the Court in the future and reminded the Assembly that, to date, his Government had not withheld any evidence from the Office of the Prosecutor, had made witnesses available to investigators, and had not interfered in the investigations.  Again referring to statements made by the President of the Court, he said his Government was proud to be associated with the work of the Court, which had been crucial for promoting peace and improving security in northern Uganda.  It was for that reason that Uganda was the first country to offer to host the Review Conference.

YASIR A. ABDELSALAM ( Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said that some delegations made statements about the need for the Sudan to cooperate with the Court under a relevant resolution of the Security Council.  While the Sudanese delegation commended those countries for their boldness, it called on them to have the same amount of courage and draw on the jurisdiction of the court in their countries.  What kind of justice did they expect in Darfur, while they closed their eyes against daily violations taking place in their own nations?

Additionally, another relevant resolution was defective, because not only was it shameful, it was aimed only at settling political accounts.  The Sudan was not a member of the Rome Statute and the Court held no jurisdiction there.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record