The informal session, including around 15-20 country delegations, was convened for the purposes of discussing more precise definitions regarding the acts which are to constitute crimes against humanity. 'Me meeting was generally led by the United States delegation in what appeared to be a very collegial and productive atmosphere.

'Me delegates agreed not to discuss the fairly procedural issue of whether definitions of crimes against humanity should be included next to the enumerated acts, or in the articles annex.

a) Murder

The discussion on murder was quite brief, with the only question turning on whether the term 'willful killing' may be more appropriate. Although no definite decision was reached at the end of the discussion, it appeared that this topic would not present great problems, particularly since a number of delegates pointed to the fact that the term 'murder" is sufficiently well understood by the global legal community.

b) Extermination

The issue of extermination presented more pressing problems for the group. Some delegates viewed the definition in the Annex on page 68 as giving too much possibility for defense. Particularly questioned was the term 'intentional', although it was aptly pointed out that extermination may result from an unintentional act (such as a massive breakdown of a dam or another man-made structure).

'Me term 'defined' in the Annex (b) (ii) was also challenged by a number of delegates, as its existence may provide a defense for arbitrary extermination.

Finally, there was disagreement within the group regarding the necessity of definition. In the end, the United Kingdom proposal appeared to have general acceptance.

c) Enslavement

This topic, perhaps unsurprisingly, includes numerous difficulties of definition. 'Me difficult and unclear relationship with the term 'forced labor' was mentioned, as were some other notions in the proposed texts.

One particular area of debate was the idea of 'ownership" in Annex (c). It became quite clear that this term carried varying definitions in various nations and was thus rather troublesome as a tool used to define enslavement. Some countries, particularly those whose legal systems require a specific procedure for acquisition of ownership, viewed it as extremely strict and formal, rendering it less useful for the court's purposes. Some even found it misleading, citing its failure to correctly depict the relations at hand. Others thought that at least a solid starting point has been attained, while referring to the need for improvement. 'Thus, after a very lively debate, there appeared to be no general consensus on the exact definition.

d) Deportation

Possibly the most contentious issue for the group appeared to be that of deportation, partly due to the fact that this is one of the few acts which may be quite legal and acceptable, providing the satisfactory procedure of due process in individual instances. Numerous specifics were discussed relating to the proposed terms in the Annex.

7he idea of 'lawful justification" was immediately criticized as a tautological one, and a proposal was made that it be replaced with 'legitimate". Some even thought that both notions could be included ('legitimate reasons or legal justification"), with the court having the freedom to interpret them. Others deemed such additions unnecessary-, One delegation cited the inherent distinction of legal deportations, which are performed on an individual basis.

A number of delegations also questioned the wisdom of the term 'resident populations', regarding the persons to be protected by the article. Some deemed it superfluous; Others saw it as overly restrictive. It was also duly noted that such a term may inadequately protect the gypsy populations who may not have a qualified residence per se. Thus, a seemingly acceptable formulation was proposed, worded as 'lawfully present under national or international law'

The terms e) imprisonment and)9 torture were omitted in the interest of time.

g) Rape

Due to time constraints, the discussion on rape was not completed, although a few important ideas were nonetheless discussed.

It appeared clear that the heading "rape" was currently incomplete and would need to include some other forms of sexual abuse. The notion of 'other acts of comparable gravity' was criticized for its great vagueness. With the ultimate question turning on what acts should be viewed as sexual abuse under the court's jurisdiction, there were very few specific suggestions. Most terms suggested, in fact, were also rather vague, such as "serious sexual abuse". 'Me definition of rape therefore remains unresolved.

General points

In conclusion, it should be noted that the lunch meeting appeared to be quite productive and was founded on active participation by a number of delegations. Interestingly, much as in the scheduled prep com sessions, the delegates often had to remind themselves of the fact that the chapeau includes the provision for the mass character of these crimes, or for singular crimes committed as a part of a massive campaign. The difficulties of language seemed to be easily negotiable.

'Me meeting was viewed as a very positive and useful effort, at least by the author of this report.

2