STATEMENT OF MR.ADRIAAN BOS

CHAIRMAN OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman,

Today the Sixth Committee begins its consideration of agenda item 147 entitled "Establishment of an international criminal court."

It may be recalled that as early as 1948, the General Assembly requested the International Law Commission to study the desirability and the possibility of establishing an international criminal jurisdiction in conjunction with the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide providing for the trial of offenders by an international criminal court.

As we approach the end of the twentieth century, I have noted that the debate has shifted from whether it is desirable and possible to establish an international criminal jurisdiction, to the kind of international criminal court that would attain the broadest support of States and best serve the interests of the international community. May I add that the determination of the essential characteristics of such a court was the fundamental aim of the work undertaken by the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court during the past year.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 50/46, the preparatory Committee discussed further the major substantive and administrative issues arising out of the ILC draft statute and, taking into account the different views expressed during the meetings, drafted texts with a view to preparing a widely acceptable consolidated text of a convention providing for the establishment of an international criminal court as a next step towards its consideration by a plenipotentiary conference. In this regard, the Preparatory Committee took into account the Ad Hoc Committee's report, the written comments submitted by States and the contributions of relevant organizations in accordance with the same paragraph.

The results of the Preparatory Committee's work at its two sessions held in March-April and in August 1996 are consolidated in its two-volume report (document A/51/52, volumes I and II). Parts I and II of volume I of this report provide a general introduction and explain the organization and working methods of the Preparatory Committee. Part Three contains a summary of the discussion of substantive issues relating to: the establishment of the court and its relationship to the United Nations; the organization (composition and administration) of the court; the scope of jurisdiction of the court and the definition of crimes; the trigger mechanism for activating the court; the principle of the complementary nature of the jurisdiction of the court and of national courts; general principles of criminal law; procedural questions, including fair trial and the rights of the accused; appeal and review procedures; the penalties to be imposed on convicted persons; cooperation between States and the Court; and the intern

ational cooperation and judicial assistance to be provided at various stages in the criminal justice process. here were specific drafting proposals on virtually all of these important issues. Volume II contains a compilation of these proposals comprising more than 300 pages.

At the end of its August session, the Preparatory Committee reached a number of conclusion which are set out in paragraphs 366 to 370 of the report. In the light of the progress made, the Preparatory Committee recommended that the General Assembly reaffirm the mandate of the Preparatory Committee and provide specific directions concerning its future work and working methods, namely:

(i) the Preparatory Committee would meet three or four times up to a total of nine weeks before the diplomatic conference;

(ii) the Preparatory Committee would organize its work to ensure that it would be finalized in April 1988 and to allow the widest possible participation of States;

(iii) the work would be conducted in open-ended working groups which would concentrate on negotiating proposals with a view to producing a consolidated text of a convention for submission to the diplomatic conference;

(iv) interpretation and translation service would be available to the working groups which would not meet simultaneously to facilitate the full participation of all delegations;

(v) the working methods would be fully transparent and by general agreement to secure a universally acceptable convention;

(vi) reports of debates would not be required.

As regards the substantive issues to be addressed, the Preparatory Committee would deal with the following:

(i) the definition and the elements of the crimes;

(ii) the principles of criminal law and penalties;

(iii) the organization of the court;

(iv) procedures;

(v) the principle of complementarity and the trigger mechanism;

(vi) cooperation with States;

(vii) establishment of the court and its relationship with the united Nations;

(viii) final clauses and financial matters;

(ix) and other relevant matters.

We have reached a very important moment in time. The Ad Hoc Committee and the Preparatory committee have in fact in their work anticipated in many respects the outcome of the work of the ILC on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind. We have received now the results of the work of the ILC and I regard these results as an endorsement of the work of our Committee, in particular with regard to the scope of application of the Code. This scope is limited to a very select group of serious crimes. A similar approach has been followed in our preparatory work.

In our future work the Preparatory Committee will therefore be very well served by the finalization of the Code and particularly by the provisions in the Code relating to the definition of crimes and the principles of individual criminal responsibility. Moreover, I believe that we may draw some lessons from the work of the ILC, in particular, from the concise manner in which the Code has been drafted.

One of the risks we are facing in the preparatory work is the tendency to go too far into details in regulating the procedures of the Court. Evidence of this can be found in the size of Part II of our report.

The finalization of the work on the Code can also be seen as proof that the international community is ready to take the necessary steps towards the enforcement of the criminal liability of individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Unlike in 1918 when, mainly due to the lack of substantive rules, only a few individuals were brought to trial for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the first world war and unlike in 1946, when there was discussion of whether the general rules of international criminal law were respected by the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, clear norms have now been developed.

We have at our disposal as a basis for our work the draft statute of the ILC and we are served the Code, by two Statutes already being implemented by the two Ad Hoc Tribunals. Furthermore, with regard to the core crimes, we have substantive rules reflecting international customary law.

While recognizing that the convening of the conference of plenipotentiaries to finalize and adopt a convention providing for the establishment of an international criminal court was a matter for the General assembly to decide, the Preparatory Committee considered that, based on its scheme of work, it would be realistic to regard the holding of such a conference in 1998 as feasible. In closing, let me mention that 1998 is the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime and Genocide which envisaged the establishment of such a court and that there is, in my opinion, no more meaningful contribution that the international community could make to the Decade of International law than the establishment of an International Criminal Court.