13 August 1996

Preparatory Committee on Establishment of International Criminal Court

Second Session

29th meeting (pm)

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT COMMENCES EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

Only States party to the statute of an international criminal court should be allowed to lodge complaints with that legal jurisdiction, several delegations stated yesterday afternoon as the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court began deliberating on procedural questions, fair trial and the rights of the accused.

Several speakers expressed concern over elements of the court draft statute providing for the "triggering" of prosecutions by either the curt prosecutor or the Security Council.

According to the representative of Austria, complaints brought to the court should include the basis of jurisdiction; the identity and whereabouts of the suspect, where possible; and information regarding witness and evidence.

The representatives of Mexico and of the United States said that complaints before the court should include information on specific crimes, actions, suspects and evidence. The United States went on to say that the prosecutor need not to be overly bound by complaints and should be free to pursue additional suspects of prosecute other crimes, should evidence indicate.

The content of the complaint should contain as much information as possible, the representative of Singapore stated. The amount of information required would be determined by each case. China added it was not always for States to identify a suspect when bringing a complaint.

The representative of Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Portugal, Thailand, United States, Venezuela and the Russian Federation urged that the court not be burdened by frivolous complaints.

In some cases, said the representative of Slovenia, core crimes could be committed even though States did not have sufficient evidence to bring complaints. Hence, the prosecutor might be given discretion to initiate investigations based upon "informal information".

The representatives of France, Germany and Japan stated that the rules of procedure governing trials and rules of evidence should be clearly stipulated in the statute. France favoured the development of a single system to govern all complaints brought to the court, without distinction between classes of crimes.

Joining the representatives of the Netherlands and Finland in calling for the drafting of a "lean" document, the representative of Egypt said the statute should include only those norms essential to the functioning of the court. The rules of procedure should be issued separately, so as to facilitate any necessary amendment, he said . Italy and Ireland expressed support for that concept.

Denmark and Argentina cautioned that the functioning of the court should not be imperilled by burdensome rules of procedure. Rules should not restrict unnecessarily the activities of the prosecutor.

Also on the subject of the rules of procedure, the Republic of Korea said that the draft statute had adequately established the need for substantive information, to support complaints, without overburdening the complaint-making process. Guatemala suggested, however, that the statute should be amended to allow more flexibility for the prosecutor to seek additional information.

Concerning the specifics of the complaint procedure, the representatives of India, Israel, Japan and the United Kingdom said complaints should be brought to the court solely by States. More specifically, the Russian Federation said any State should be able to bring a complaint of genocide to the proposed criminal court; they need not be signatories of the Genocide Convention.

As to the role of the Security Council initiating court action, the representatives of India and Venezuela said that the Council should not be able to bring cases to the Court without a prior complaint be made.

Israel offered the view that allowing the prosecutor to file complaints would create a conflict of interest whereby the prosecutor would both file evidence and then judge the applicability of that evidence. In contrast New Zealand said that the prosecutor, non-govermental organizations, and individuals should be allowed to initiate court complaints.

also this afternoon, the Committee accepted its programme of work. Chairman Adriaan Bos (Netherlands) said this week the Committee would concentrate on procedural questions, fair trial and rights of the accused; general principles of criminal law; and cooperation between the court and national jurisdictions. The Committee also agreed to hold a closed meeting on Wednesday, 14 August, with members of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with a view to learning from their work and practical experience. Statement were made regarding the agenda by the representatives of India, United States, Canada, France and Japan.

When it meets again at 10 a.m. today, the Committee will continue its discussion of procedural questions, fair trial and the rights of the accused.