The draft statute of the proposed international criminal court should forge

a compromise regarding the hearing of guilty pleas, the Preparatory

Committee on the establishment of the court was told this morning. The

expedience of accepting guilty pleas and abbreviating court proceedings was

balanced in discussions against the need to ensure that pleas were not

entered under duress or entered with a view to concealing other facts under

consideration.

Representatives also discussed the possibility of closed sessions of the

court for the purpose of protecting confidential or sensitive information,

as well as the rights of accused persons.

Noting that the use of a guilty plea pertained only to common law, the

representative of Argentina proposed a system in which suspects could

acknowledge the truth of evidence presented against them, after which the

trial chamber could decide whether to make an accelerated determination of

guilt or innocence, or to proceed with a full trial. Mexico said that

defendants should not be condemned based solely upon a confession. The

admission of guilt was "only one means" of deciding the outcome of a trial,

the representative of Austria said.

Several other delegations supported the idea of abbreviated procedures

following guilty pleas. The United Kingdom said that while the cost of a

trial "when guilt was no longer an issue" was not the only consideration,

the time and resources of the proposed court could be better focused on

cases in which guilt was still to be determined. France expressed opposition

to any notion of abbreviated trials in response to pleas. The United States

said that a compromise in the form of an abbreviated proceeding might be

appropriate, but the court must be certain that pleas were entered

voluntarily.

The Russian Federation favoured the deletion of draft articles providing for guilty pleas. He recalled a "sad precedent" in his country, in which "a

confession of guilt was the only proof of guilt". China said that pleas by

accused persons should be treated like any other piece of evidence; judges

should still be obliged to determine the facts of a situation.

Referring to the possibility of holding closed sessions for certain

procedures, Austria said that the statute should add "specific grounds" for

such sessions. The representative of Venezuela said that the principle of

the public nature of the trial should be included in the statute.

Regarding the rights of accused persons, Australia said that accused persons should be able to appear in their own defence, defend themselves with counsel or have counsel provided if they could not afford it.

Singapore said that a list of prosecution witnesses should be presented to

the defence at an early stage, with additional prosection witnesses allowed

only with the permission of the court. The prosecution should be informed of any "alibi evidence" that defendants intend to use so it can examine the

veracity of those claims.

The right of the defence to cross-examine witnesses was cited by several

delegations, including the United States and Canada. The representative of

Canada, referring to the presentation of exculpatory evidence prior to the

conclusion of the trial, said that inculpatory evidence should also be

disclosed to the accused.

Mexico suggested that the right of the accused to be informed promptly and

in detail of the nature and cause of the charge be specified by a time-

frame of 24 to 48 hours. France said that the draft lacked one fundamental

guarantee, which was the right to legal counsel without surveillance during

the phase of judgement.

New Zealand noted that the draft statute should honour the terms of

international law relating to the rights of accused persons, including

relevant United Nations conventions and guidelines.

When it meets again at 10 a.m., Monday, 19 August, the Preparatory Committee will continue its discussion of the draft statute of the international criminal court.