Commonwealth Law Conference, which took place on September 14, in Malaysia.

BY BERNAMA (THE MALAYSIAN NATIONAL NEWS AGENCY)

INTERNATIONAL COURT BEST FORUM TO HANDLE WAR CRIMES - JUDGE

SUBANG JAYA, Sept 14 (Bernama) -- The setting up of an International Criminal Court (ICC) will be the best solution to handle war crimes throughout the world, the 12th Commonwealth Law Conference here was told today.

Florence N.M.Mumba, a judge of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said the ICC would be more neutral and

would not take sides like domestic courts.

"But unless the ICC gains almost universal support, its effectiveness, which hinges on the cooperation of state parties, might be seriously jeopardised," she said.

The ICC Statue has been adopted by many countries but it has yet to be ratified by all of them. The ICC will come into existence through the ratification of the ICC Statue by 60 states.

Once in existence, the ICC will be a permanent institution having the power to exercise jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

Mumba said there had been criticisms that ad-hoc international criminal tribunals were only set up for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and not for other areas of similar ethnic conflicts and as such justice had been

selectively applied.

"Why Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and not Sierra Leone, Chechnya and others? But this argument only strengthens the argument in favour of a permanent international criminal court, so long as such court enjoys the universal support," she said.

Mumba said that while domestic trials had their advantages, they also had disadvantages such as lack of resources to handle a large number of detainees awaiting trials and concern about the impartiality of the

judiciary.

She said that having international criminal tribunals might lead to conflicting jurisprudence and standards being applied.

Mumba, a Zambian Supreme Court judge, said that the track record of national jurisdictions for prosecuting suspected war criminals was not satisfactory, so far.

Khawar M.Qureshi, member of the English Bar's International Relations Committee, said an international criminal court would be much preferred because when it came to war crimes, many sensitive issues had to be handled like dealing with a guerrilla leader or handling great atrocities.

"We hope that trials would take place at the national level but we need to create a safety net and that safety net can be provided by an international criminal court where these people can be tried by exerting political pressure at the national jurisdiction to transfer them (to the international court)," he said.

Qureshi said an international criminal court would also be more independent and impartial in its decisions.

"It (ICC) may have its weaknesses, but with time it is hoped that the sight of war crimes suspects providing media interview gloating over their seeming immunity from justice will be visions of a past which has been left behind," said Qureshi, who served as a legal adviser to the Bosnian Government from 1993 to 1998.

Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck, a senior state counsel of Singapore, however, said that in many respects domestic courts were in a better position to prosecute and punish war criminals as they had the resources of their state

and were supported in their work by the extensive investigative and administrative agencies.

"The ICC is not the only institution which can play a role in preserving world peace by prosecuting and punishing persons. There would be no need for the international community to bear the burden of operating and financing an International Criminal Court, " he said.