The Chairman started the meeting reintroducing the discussion about the "individual criminal responsibility" (Art. B, a; Vol. II Compilation of Proposals GA 51st Session).

Between Tuesday and Wednesday almost 30 delegations took the floor. No consensus was reached on the subject.

Israel was in favor of including juridical person (legal entity) as responsible for crimes to prevent the possibility of shielding perpetrators behind the immunity offered by corporations. They also pointed out the necessity of punishment for legal entities proposing actions like boycotting, stigma on the reputation, publicity of the international trial.

Australian Criminal Law recognizes the Corporate Criminal Responsibility, but the Australian Delegation, given the fact that so many strong oppositions were reaffirmed by those countries whose legal system doesn't recognize such a responsibility, has declared to be fully open to take into consideration the necessity of working through this issue. Moreover they said that they are ready to give up if objections remain.

Russian Federation: corporate criminal responsibility is not in their Criminal code, but they are open to eventually include it.

Italy is in favor because of the consequences it might have on weapons trafficking.

Japan: skeptical to introduce it , because penalties and sentences are too difficult to be defined and to be enforced towards a juridical person.

Indonesia is not in favor of the inclusion of a criminal responsibility extended also to juridical entities.

Canada, like the Australian delegation on one hand pointed out the presence in their legal system of a Corporate Criminal Liability, and on the other hand declared their openness to a compromise able to satisfy the delegations who are not in favor. Nevertheless the question arises on the substance of this compromise, on the concrete possibility to hold a corporation, or a company as responsible for committing a crime: on what basis, on what burden, a civil or a criminal burden? Is it possible to create a system in which the individual persons are liable on a criminal burden and the legal entities are liable on a civil burden, as suggested by many delegations?

USA, as the other delegations belonging to the common law system, stated that the possibility of a compromise must be followed for the difficulties arising in such a field reflect the existing differences, this should not give a way to allow the protection of individual persons committing a crime only because they are part of a legal entity. And above all with regards to those profits gained by committing a crime by means of the shield provided by a juridical person.

The Slovakian delegation suggested not to include the provision of a corporate criminal responsibility, as this question was not sufficiently studied, even though declared necessary to operate on the basis of a general consensus and thus open to any according solution.

Netherlands was in favor of Art. B, but suggested to delete the content in the square brackets. The delegation considers unnecessary Art. 2-bis and that 3 has not to be dealt in this occasion. It has also declared that the issue of a corporate criminal responsibility is too controversial at this stage and ought to be reconsidered within the extent of art G ("Conspiracy"), including a special provision.

Guatemala is not in favor of the inclusion of this issue , because of the heavy work necessary to deal with such a matter, and also for the reason that this is a provision that goes far beyond the General Principles of Criminal Law.

Korea would not include the responsibility of a legal entity in the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Egypt sustained that the possibility to hold natural persons responsible for crimes before the ICC should be the only way to punish also the legal entities that provide protection to those perpetrators. As the legal entities are formed by individual persons the responsibility of the entity is not considered necessary.

The discussion went on about Art. b ("Principle of criminal responsibility", and Art. c ("Participation /Complicity") and d ("Combined proposal covering both: (b)principle of criminal responsibility and (c) participation/complicity.)

Again no general consensus was reached on the proposal concerning Art. b: many delegations, as Japan and South Africa had not difficulties in accepting the elements of the article.

Other delegations affirmed the necessity of deleting para 1 in the article, as Austria and Romania, while Canada said that it is exactly the first paragraph which represents the fundamental basis of the entire structure in the definition of the elements of the criminal responsibility

Some other points came into consideration, as the proposal of the entire redrafting of the paragraph, suggestion that came from Tanzania; doubts were expressed by Jamaica who stated that this paragraph helps the perpetrators of a crime instead of helping the ICC preventing the crimes. Jamaica proposed to start again with the approach followed by the ILC draft (art.2), so did the US, while stating that the model has to be improved and furthermore discussed. The USA stressed also that para. 1 presumes detailed articulation which may not serve the intent of the Statute and to use extreme caution in this regard. Canada and UK were favorable to the USA statement and the UK too added to be very careful in handling with the definition of para 1 which may lead to the exclusion of some area that the PrepCom wanted at first to cover.

After having remembered that the extent of the debate was limited to the completed crimes, delegations proceeded in terms of free general and specific comments on both Art. c and d.

The United States structured their proposal suggesting the distinction of 3 key concepts to focus in defining the criminal conduct, and specifically: 1) Ordering or directing; 2) Assisting; 3) Planning the perpetration of a crime, and eventually including another category for the Incitement.

Both Canada and Australia voiced their general support to the structure of analysis suggested by the United States; in a more detailed approach Canada proposed to work through the essence of participation, the mental element to be defined as 'culpability''. The necessity to determine what a participant carries out to be considered as responsible could therefore be better faced if the works follow the 3 categories of concepts illustrated by the American delegation.

Portugal and Costa Rica agreed on the combined proposal d.

France, after a comment on proposal 2, concerning the adjective 'knowingly', tried to carry the attention to the importance and the necessity of the punishment of participation. And in this view to try not to follow the solutions given by the domestic legal systems, but looking at the question from a different angle.

Argentina proposed a careful distinction of the level and intensity of participation in committing a crime.

Austria and Greece had a similar position on proposal 1, even though simplified and with different technical points on the different chapters in the proposal.

Japan expressed its preference to proposal 2, but also that, with reference to the second paragraph they said it was convenient to discuss it in a different occasion, as this was more in the 'punishment' matter than in the 'general principles' one.

The latest suggestion, coming from the Chairman was to refer once again to the ILC draft description of conduct.