54th Session United Nations General Assembly

Sixth Committee

On Item 158:

ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

October 20, 1999

Statement of Mr. Philippe Kirsch (Canada) the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission on the International Criminal Court

Mr. Chairman,

It is a great honour and privilege for me to participate in the work of the Sixth Committee in my capacity as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the

International Criminal Court.

You will recall that last year, by resolution 53/105, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to convene the Preparatory Commission, in

accordance with resolution F adopted by the Rome Conference, from 16 to 26 February, 26 July to 13 August and 29 November to 17 December 1999 to carry out the mandate of that resolution and, in that connection, to discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court.

The Preparatory Commission has already met twice for a total of 5 weeks. The last session of the Preparatory Commission for 1999 will begin on 29 November.

Needless to say, the mandate of the Preparatory Commission is daunting. The Preparatory Commission organized its work plan in accordance with the mandate and deadlines set out in Resolution F. It established Working Groups, identified Coordinators and Contact Points and conducted its business, in formal meetings

as well as in informal consultations. In other words, the Preparatory Commission used every minute that was available to it.

In addition, delegations consulted in inter-sessional meetings. In this respect, I wish to mention a meeting hosted by the Government of France in Paris in

April, 1999, dealing with victims' access to the International Criminal Court; and a meeting hosted by the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences in June, 1999, in Siracusa, Italy dealing with Rules of Procedure and Evidence. A wide cross-section of States participated at both

meetings where delegates were able to develop ideas which subsequently facilitated our work in the Preparatory Commission. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the organizers of those meetings, the Government of France and the International Institute and its director, Professor Cherif Bassiouni.

Also, I wish to mention the Intergovernmental Regional Caribbean Conference for the signature and ratification of the Rome Statute, hosted in March in Port-of-Spain by the Ministry of the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and the No Peace without Justice Foundation, and the two briefing sessions on ratification and implementing Legislation of the Rome Statute, hosted in July and August at the United Nations Headquarters, here, in New York by the International Human

Rights Law Institute of DePaul University and Parliamentarians for Global Action.

From my very brief review of its work, there is no doubt that the Preparatory Commission, in its first two sessions, has worked efficiently and effectively. It has made considerable progress in the preparation of Elements of Crimes and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the two instruments for which there is a deadline of 30 June 2000. In addition at its last session the Preparatory Commission decided to establish a working group on the important question of the crime of aggression. Delegations have also been conducting consultations with respect to the preparation of other instruments and issues under its mandate. The summary of the proceedings of the two sessions of the Preparatory Commission is issued as documents PCMCC/1999/L.3/Rev.l and L.4/Rev.1.

At this juncture I wish to acknowledge the contribution of the Coordinators, including yourself, Mr. Chairman, as well as Ms. Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi of Argentina, Mr. Herman von Hebel of the Netherlands, Mr. Rolf Fife of Norway, Mr. Medard R. Rwelamira of South Africa, and Mr. Tuvaku Manongi of Tanzania. I wish also to thank Mr. Hiroshi Kawarnura of Japan and Mr. Cristian Maquiera of Chile, who have agreed to serve as contact points for me on certain issues, as well as all the delegations that have participated at the Preparatory Commission. I am also grateful to the members of the Bureau of the Preparatory Commission for their guidance and continuing support. My special thanks go to the Secretariat of the Preparatory Commission for their dedication and competence, in particular, Mr. Corell, the Legal Counsel, Mr. Vaclav Mikulka, Mr. Manuel Rama-Montaldo and Ms. Mahnoush Arsanjani.

Mr. Chairman,

The Preparatory Commission organized its work plan with the aim of having it completed by the end of its third session in December of this year. As

I just stated, the Preparatory Commission made good progress. But despite the hard work and the tireless efforts of everyone concerned, a lot of work remains to be done. I indicated at the end of the last session that we have exhausted 65% of the time allotted and only completed 45% of the work required

to be completed by June 2000. Clearly, to complete the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crime and to effect a review of those instruments, sufficient time must be available. As a result, at the last

session of the Preparatory Commission, the Bureau of the Commission concluded that in order for the Commission to complete that work, it would need to have two more sessions in the year 2000 before June 30. Elements of Crimes and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence are complex documents and deal with many different issues. They should be prepared with great care to ensure high quality and consistency with the Statute.

In addition to the two sessions needed for the completion those two items for which a deadline was set, the Preparatory Commission needs more time at a

later stage to draft other instruments listed in resolutions F and to attend to other issues on its mandate, including that set out in Resolution 53/105. It is the view of the Bureau of the Preparatory Commission that one additional

session should be allotted to the Preparatory Commission before the end of the year 2000 for that purpose. In this regard, I wish to highlight the importance I and the Bureau of the Commission attach to ensuring that our work continues in a more systematic manner beyond June 2000, to address questions such as the crime of aggression and to otherwise complete the mandate of the Commission.

Mr. Chairman,

To summarize my own impressions of the work of the Preparatory Commission so far, I should begin by stating unequivocally that the atmosphere within the Commission has been excellent since its inception. All states have been working in a constructive and co-operative manner, and this has allowed the Preparatory Commission to make speedier progress than expected on issues that were considered to be potentially difficult.

At the same time, I believe that the Preparatory Commission could and should further improve its effectiveness. Progress in certain areas was sometimes slowed down by considerable insistence on points that are not of fundamental importance but rather of a technical nature. Without underestimating the importance of any issue, I would encourage delegations to show the necessary

flexibility in future sessions, which is indispensable if timely progress is to be made.

As we all know, some important issues remained to be resolved. Some are part of the draft instruments we have been considering so far, others are broader in nature, such as the request of the General Assembly to discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court. On those issues, let me simply express the hope that all delegations will keep in mind the importance

of achieving our overall objecttive, the establishment of an International Criminal Court which works fairly and effectively and is seen to act as such, in accordance with its Statute, and is widely supported. This objective is far more important than some of the narrower issues on which we may have differences from time to time. We should never let such differences obscure our essential

objective, or jeopardize its realization.

Mr. Chairman,

Before concluding my statement on the work of the Preparatory Commission, I wish to recognize those governments who made voluntary contributions to the trust fund established, pursuant to paragraph 8 of General Assembly resolution 53/105, to facilitate the participation of the least developed countries in the work of the Preparatory Commission. As a result of the support of these governments and of the International Human Rights Law Institute of DePaul University 14

delegates participated in the first session and 23 delegates participated at the second session of the Preparatory Commission. May I once again express my appreciation to the governments and to DePaul University and urge them to continue their financial support. For the International Criminal Court to have universal support, every effort should be made to have as many States as possible participate effectively in the preparation of the necessary instruments for the operation of the Court.

Mr. Chairman,

This concludes my statement and I thank you for your attention.