Plenary Session

Chairman, Adriaan Bos (Netherlands), opened the plenary session.

1. Announcement that the previous Rapporteur, Mr. Yoshida of Japan resigned. Election of Masataka Okano of Japan as new Rapporteur.

2. Adoption of Agenda.

3. Organization of Work

- Open-ended working groups.

- Negotiating proposals with a view to preparing a consolidated text for a diplomatic conference.

- No simultaneous meetings.

- Working methods will be fully transparent.

- Bureau decided to ask delegate from Sweden to continue as chair of the working group on general principles of criminal law.

- Mr. Bos will serve as chair of working group on definition of crimes.

4. Italy discussed its offer to host the diplomatic conference in June 1998. The Italian Government has begun preparations for the conference, but it requires preparations and commitments from the UN and member states. Several preliminary determinations have been made:

a. Diplomatic Conference will take place in Rome.

b. Will need to prepare text for the funding of the conference.

c. Rapid establishment of honorary and organizing committees needed.

d. Feasibility study needed.

Although it is up to the 52nd General Assembly to make a final decision, Italy hopes the PrepCom will make a preliminary decision on their proposal.

Working Group on Crimes

Genocide

Inclusion: Every delegation which made a statement favored the inclusion of genocide within the Court's jurisdiction.

Definition: The Chair described two alternative proposals contained in volume H of the Report of the PrepCom, located on pg. 56: (1) definition by reference, or (2) definition reproduced from the Genocide Convention.

A few states favored defining genocide by refer-ring to the Genocide Convention of 1948 (alternative 1). Several states stated no clear preference for either method. However, most delegations favored reproducing the definition of genocide from the Convention in the ICC Statute (alternative 2).

A large number of delegations stated that the definition of Genocide from the Convention has achieved the status of customary international law and should not be expanded because that is outside the PrepCom's mandate. Sticking to the widely agreed to definition in the Convention will prevent controversy and encourage more states to participate in the Court.

Ancillary Crimes: Another issue was where to put the section of Art. 3 of the Genocide Convention that deals with conspiracy, complicity and attempt. Many delegations suggested it made more sense to put these articles in the section on General Principles of Criminal Law rather than in the definition of Genocide because they could apply to all crimes in the ICC Statute. There was general agreement that it would make sense to "wait and see" what the working group on general principles of criminal law would do with this issue.

Other Issues:

One delegation opposed deportation as part of genocide.

Can genocide occur in both war time and peacetime? Several states mentioned that it can occur in either peace or war. However, the delegates who addressed this issue were split on whether it was

necessary to mention this in the Statute.

A few delegates questioned whether "substantial" should be added to "to destroy, in whole or in [substantial] part" as part of the chapeaux of article 1 of alternative 2. There was no clear leaning in either direction.

Should the definition be expanded to include social and political groups? There were a few states that said yes and an almost equal number who said no. However, many delegates stated that no changes should be made at all to the definition (see above).

Should the word children be changed to persons in Art. l(e) "forcibly transferring children [persons] of the group to another group?" There were a few states that said yes and an almost equal number who said no. However, many delegates stated that no changes should be made at all to the definition (see above).

There was a question on whether some rules of interpretation should be included, i.e. is it necessary to spell out the specific intent needed for each type of perpetrator? A few states thought it would be a good idea. Other states felt that the judiciary could deal with this on their own.