PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DISCUSSES DEFINITION

OF CRIMES; POTENTIAL USE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

23rd August

Penalties for the crimes within the jurisdiction of the proposed

international criminal court should be clearly defined in its statute,

several delegations said at this afternoon's meeting of the Preparatory

Committee on the court's establishment. Representatives discussed the death

penalty, imprisonment, fines, disenfranchisement, confiscation, restitution

to victims, and other penalties.

The Russian Federation stressed the need to respect the principle of nullum

crimen sine lege (no crime without law) in an "exhaustive" manner in the

court statute. Venezuela said that the draft statute at present was

imprecise regarding terms of imprisonment. The type, degree and duration of

the punishment applied should be clearly spelled out in the statute, he

said.

Mexico said that the statute should specifically set out minimum and maximum penalties, along with the circumstances which might be taken account in deciding on penalties. The representative of Ireland said that the draft did not present a coherent sentencing policy.

The representative of the United States said that the court should have a

broad range of penalties at its disposal, including fines, restitution and

disenfranchisement (the denial of certain citizenship rights such as the

right to hold public office).

Several representatives, including those of Italy, Portugal, Mexico, New

Zealand and Denmark stated that the death penalty should not be allowed

under the court statute. The representative of Portugal noted that her

Government had outlawed the death penalty in the mid-nineteenth century.

The representative of Malaysia, however, said that the death penalty should

be an option for the court. Capital punishment was provided for under many

national legal jurisdictions, he noted.

The representative of Israel said that in many criminal trials, evidence

often was not sufficient to convict defendants of crimes for which they were originally indicted. He recommended that in such a situation, the court should be able to convict defendants of a lesser offence, so long as they had been able to defend themselves properly, and so long as penalties

imposed did not exceed those allowable for the original crime for which the

person was indicted.

The representative of Netherlands said that the proposed court should have

the power of disenfranchisement. He recalled that at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Hans Fritsche, head of the Nazi radio apparatus, had been acquitted of conspiracy to commit aggression and war crimes. The Tribunal stated afterward that it had regretted not being able to disenfranchise him.

Delegations disagreed over the question of the court levying fines on

convicted persons. Mexico recommended that the court be empowered to impose

fines and to demand restitution for victims. Greece suggested that fines

might be imposed for crimes such as threat or attempt.

Venezuela said that fines were inappropriate to the nature of the serious

crimes outlines in the proposed court's statute. China said that less

serious crimes should not be included in the statute of the court.

Consequently, he expressed doubt as to whether the court should be allowed

to impose fines, but added that confiscation of property should be an option for the court.

Finland also said that fines were not appropriate but added that they might

be considered for procedural offences such as perjury or contempt of court.

Australia expressed agreement. The representative of Slovakia asked what

would be done with money collected in the payment of fines.

The representatives of the Republic of Korea and of Italy said that the

confiscation of ill-gotten property would be an appropriate means of

providing restitution to crime victims.

The Preparatory Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 26 August to continue its discussion of the draft statute of the proposed international criminal court.