The morning session was focused on two of the acts proposed to be identified as crimes against humanity, and thus under the jurisdiction of the future ICC - the issues of deportation and imprisonment. The two acts are listed respectively in Volume II, Part 3, Article 20, d (d) and (e).

1. Deportation

Deportation was the first issue discussed in the morning session. It should be noted that the NGOs were not present for a brief period during the debate on this topic, rendering this report somewhat incomplete. There was also a widespread feeling among delegates that the debate lacked in focus, as various nations chose to address disparate concerns under the same topical heading.

A proposal was put forth that the mention of deportation as a crime against humanity should be clarified by the addition of the word "arbitrary". This idea provoked a number of divergent reactions among the delegations.

A number of nations expressed serious opposition to the aforementioned proposal. France argued that there is no such thing as a non-arbitrary deportation and thus found the proposal superfluous. United Kingdom, Ivory Coast, Portugal, Greece, Lebanon and Italy concurred with France.

After China suggested that "legal' and "illegal" deportation be distinguished, some delegations also questioned the existence of lawful massive deportation. Austria and Germany, on the other hand, seemed to second China's views, supporting the inclusion of the term "arbitrary". Austria in particular voiced the concern over the potential inclusion of deportations of illegal residents within the definition of crimes against humanity. Lesotho, moreover, brought up the possibility of legal deportations for reasons of public health, and was promptly opposed by Portugal which failed to envision such a scenario.

Finally, some delegations stated that it is quite possible that a thoroughly non-arbitrary practice of deportation may in fact constitute a crime against humanity, as well. Israel in particular opposed the proposal on those grounds.

2. Imprisonment

The chairman of the committee was the first to note that this topic seemed to present more difficulties than was anticipated.

The delegation of the United States opened the floor and appealed to the states to focus on the fundamental issues in their contributions.

Austria proposed the deletion of the term "civilian" in the "taking of hostages" clause, citing the term as an unnecessary anachronism dividing the civil and military societies. This view was supported by a number of nations, including Spain, South Korea, Cuba, Trinidad & Tobago and Venezuela. Argentina and Poland were of the opposing opinion.

It was, however, a more fundamental problem of defining imprisonment that troubled the debate. Some countries, such as Canada, Costa Rica and Jamaica, were opposed to more precise definitions of crimes against humanity in general, citing the existence of definitions in various international conventions.

Most delegations, however, looked for ways to diminish the uncertainty of interpretation. Solomon Islands suggested the addition of "forced disappearance' in the "imprisonment" clause. Argentina submitted that any deprivation of liberty should be viewed as 'imprisonment", thus further clarifying the term. Blockades of entire groups of population were also suggested for inclusion by some Middle Eastern states. Israel opposed this idea, considering it a political ploy.

A number of states, such as Mexico, Uruguay and Singapore, unequivocally underlined the necessity of unambiguous definitions which would leave little interpretation and uncertainty.

The discussion on imprisonment often meandered into the practical difficulties of where, if anywhere, the defining words are to be found. Some delegates found the "chapeau' to be the appropriate and satisfactory location, although many of them view the current version as requiring improvement. Particularly notable was the idea of distinguishing between wartime and peacetime acts. A number of other nations saw the annex as a more proper forum for definitions, allowing for more specific focus on each of the crimes against humanity.

Finally, the morning session was appropriately summarized by the Irish delegation which pointed out the lack of cohesion in the various approaches to the debate. Namely, it was becoming increasingly unclear whether the crimes against humanity should be agreed upon first and specifically defined later, or whether the two processes should be integrated.

The chairman responded by reiterating his support for the first of the two approaches and proceeded by adjourning the morning meeting.

2