UNITED NATIONS

Department of Public Information

Press Release

TRIAL VERDICTS, REPRISAL AND REVISION PROCEDURES FOCUS OF DEBATE IN

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

If the judges in the trial chamber of the proposed international criminal

court could not reach a verdict, the accused should be acquitted, several

delegations said at this afternoon's meeting of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.

The representatives of Germany and of Italy said that all the judges should

be present while the trial was in progress, and not a minimum of four as

stated in the draft. Sweden stressed that "the same four judges" should be

present "at each and every stage" of the trial.

Regarding the quorum of judges for the court, France said that the trial

chamber should be comprised of five judges, with a majority of three

required to pass judgement. Deliberations should be secret, and only one

hearing would be necessary for both the determination of guilt and the

sentence, he said. Israel said that the number of judges on the bench might

be increased to seven or nine in complicated cases.

Singapore said that accused persons should not be convicted by a simple

majority of three out of five judges. Conviction should be unanimous with

sentencing decisions made by a majority. The representative of Canada said,

however, that a majority decision by judges should be sufficient to convict. Unanimity on the part of jurors was required because juries only determined facts. Judges made determinations of both fact and law, and could reasonably be expected to disagree over legal interpretations.

Ireland said that if, for whatever reason the number of judges on a

five-member tribunal was reduced, conviction should still require the

agreement of three judges. Argentina proposed "one or two" alternate judges, to take the place of judges unable to attend proceedings.

Chile expressed concern that the draft did not provide for the inclusion of

minority views in final judgements of the court. The representative of the

Russian Federation said that the statute should contain an article which

specifically stated that judges with a dissenting view should be able to

present their views in writing.

According to Malaysia, there should not be a "single judgement" on the part

of the international court. Every judge on the tribunal should be entitled

to express their opinion, according to the representative of China. Taking

another position, Austria said that dissenting opinions should not be

admissible. Switzerland said that his Government also opposed the expression of individual views or dissenting opinions.

In a discussion on the question of appeal and revision procedures, the

representative of France said that on the one hand, the revision of a trial

should follow strict rules; on the other, "the possibility of appeal should

not be subject to any conditions". The representative also said that the

statute should include the possibility of compensation for persons found not guilty after revision procedures, and also mentioned the possibility of the revision of a trial being requested posthumously by the relatives of a

person found guilty.

Argentina said that the principle of reformatio in pejus, according to which a person who appeals should not receive a sentence worse than the one

already received, should be included in the rules referring to appeals.

Egypt said that the disparity of proportion between the crime and the

sentence as a foundation for lodging an appeal would give every accused "a

good legal reason" to do so and lead to the possibility of always having the same trial twice.

Also commenting on the reasons for lodging an appeal, the United States said that the prosecutor already had a very heavy burden of proof; an appea l based on an error of fact would be like "taking a second bite out of the

apple", she said.

Israel noted that the quorum of the appellate court should be seven, so as

to allow for a majority, and not six as stated in the draft statute on

appeal proceedings. The representative of Singapore said that the draft

should contain some time period -- such as 30 days -- during which appeals

should be allowed. Such a period might be extended for special

circumstances.