Mr. Per Saland expressed his gratitude to the PrepCom for entrusting him with the task of chairing the Working Group on the General Principles of Criminal Law (GPCL). The mandate was the same as for the morning working group, and his aim is to produce a consolidated text to be usefully employed at the

Diplomatic Conference.

He explained that the compilation of proposals had been prepared by the informal working group in August 1996, and was not a final text.

The discussion focused on articles A and B of Part 3 bis.

Article A: nullum crimen sine lege 12rincil2le / non-retroactivity, jurisdiction ratione temporis The merits of including all these principles in one article was questioned. Most states felt that the three principles should be explicitly stated in separate articles.

Nullum Crimen Sine Lege

All delegations supported the inclusion of this principle in the statute. Most delegations favored a clear and simple principle being made explicit in the statute, with regards to the crimes defined in the statute itself. Most delegations were therefore in favor of proposal I (a) referring to crimes "under the definition of the crimes in this statute", and thus deleting brackets 1 and 3. It was suggested that reference to national law would only lead to ambiguity.

Several delegations proposed adding the principle nullum pene sine lege to the principle being discussed.

Non-retroactivity

Different views were expressed as to the triggering date for non-retroactivity. Some delegations expressed support for the date of the statute's entry into force. Others favored the date of deposition of the instrument of accession or ratification.

Temporal Jurisdiction

Doubts were expressed as to whether this issue was in fact a GPCL. Some delegations felt that it was inappropriate to make comments on this question, and that it had best be addressed in the context of the debate on the acceptance of the competence of the court.

The relationship of the ICC to the ad hoc Tribunals was also discussed. In general, states felt that the principle of non-retroactivity should avoid any conflict with the existing ad hoc tribunals. The Chair however alerted the delegates to the fact that although the ITR had a precise jurisdiction, ending on a certain date, the ICTFY did not. Hence a conflict could potentially arise.

With regards to the creation of future ad hoc tribunals, it was pointed out that the establishment of the ICC would hopefully obviate the need for future tribunals created by the Security Council. One delegation expressed reluctance at Security Council involvement, in general.

At the break, the Chair suggested consolidating the present text in light of the discussions, and requested help from the floor. Six delegations offered their assistance.

2

Article B: Individual Criminal Resi2onsibiliiy

a. Personal jurisdiction

b. Princil2le of criminal responsibility

The debate focused on whether or not the statute should apply not only to natural/physical persons but also to "legal entities'. The Nuremberg statute had provided for the indictment of organizations. A legal entity was suggested to include legal entities of private law, a commercial type enterprise, a non-profit

type organization or a political grouping.

Doubts were expressed as to whether customary international law recognized the liability of non-natural persons. Several states also expressed reluctance with regards to this proposal, the concept of individual criminal responsibility for legal entities being foreign to their national judicial systems. Another delegation stated that defining a "legal entity" would require a lot of time.

Article 2 (bis) was held to mean that in questions concerning reparation, liability for damage etc., there must be a link between an individuals possessions and any judgment concerning reparation.