The chairman began this afternoon's session examining Article II of the statute. Three primary issue:5 were brought to the floor during the course of the meeting: whether or not to distinguish between

principals and accomplices charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity and with that, if there is a distinction to be made with the degree of responsibility for each group; inclusion of a provision stating no immunity for persons with official positions; and whether or not "command" responsibility should include both military and civil responsibility.

Principals and Accomplices/Degree of Responsibility

Most delegations intervening on this topic agreed that there should be no distinctions made between principals and accomplices. The few delegations who did state that the statute could accommodate distinctions agreed that they should be made without detailed elaboration. All delegations which supported these arguments further stated consensus that the degree of responsibility should be equal for both groups.

Only the delegation from Israel had dissenting opinions concerning this topic.

Relevance of Official Positions

As for special immunity for persons with official positions who are charged with war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, all delegations reached consensus that no such immunity be allowed. Proposal II was the overwhelming choice for this provision to be included within the statute.

A collaborating effort between the distinguished delegates of "Australia and Jamaica produced the following wording for this provision:

"Any immunity or special procedural rules attached to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, may not be relied upon to prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction with respect to that person. "

A few delegations argued lesser substantive concerns with this provision but generally all agreed with the provision and its inclusion into the statute.

Scope of Command Responsibility - Military and Civil

There were many concerns surrounding this topic. Generally all delegations agreed that the scope of command responsibility should not be limited to just that of military responsibility but should include civil as well. Many agreed that effective control be included under this specific provision.

The meeting ended with debates still surrounding this topic and a few delegations still wishing to voice their concerns and opinions. The chairman then asked if there were any delegates who wished to stay for an exercise in revising a draft statute since it was pointed out by the delegate from France that the English and French versions of the statute were in minor disparity. The chairman stressed the importance of evaluating similar texts and made the suggestion for the revision exercise.