INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT’S PRESIDENT, NEWLY ELECTED PROSECUTOR ADDRESS STATES PARTIES, OUTLINE COURT’S INITIAL CHALLENGES

International Criminal Court
Assembly of States Parties
First Session (Resumed)
22 April 2003
11th Meeting (AM)



National Audit Office of United Kingdom
Appointed to Four-Year-Term as Auditor of Court



Addressing the States parties to the International Criminal Court for the first time since their election, the Court’s first-ever Prosecutor, elected by consensus yesterday, and its President outlined the challenges facing the recently established Court in its critical initial years, as the States parties to the Court continued their second resumed first session this morning.

At the opening the meeting, the President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute, Zeid Raad Al-Hussein (Jordan), informed States parties that the Assembly’s Bureau had decided to appoint the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom as Auditor of the Court for a four-year term. The authority to make that appointment had been delegated to the Bureau by the Assembly at its September session.

Describing his vision as the Court’s first Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo of Argentina said his election was both a great privilege and responsibility. The Court had been established following 10 years of complex discussion and in recognition that certain crimes affected the entire international community. National borders could not confine the investigation and punishment of certain crimes. The Court had been created, moreover, on the principle of complementarity, which represented the will to create a global institution that was respectful of State sovereignty. The primary responsibility to prevent, control and prosecute atrocious crimes resided with the States in which jurisdictions they were committed.

As Prosecutor, his first task was to help national jurisdictions fulfil their mission, he said. That could be done by providing States with information, training and technical support. Argentina, for example, had faced a period of unprecedented political violence in the 1970s. Guerrilla groups had killed more than 800 people and “death squads” hundreds more. Following the 1976 coup d’état, the State had implemented a criminal plan, and members of the armed forces had attacked the very society it was supposed to protect. In all, more than 15,000 people had been killed. International pressure had played a key part in bringing criminals to justice.

He said the role of the Court was to fill in the gaps left by States when they were not able to –- or did not wish to -- fulfil their basic mission of investigation and judgement. As Prosecutor, he would be entrusted with “triggering” international jurisdiction. He would use that power responsibly, firmly and in strict compliance with the Rome Statute. It was his hope that the horrors humanity had suffered during the twentieth century would serve as a lesson and that the Court’s existence would help to prevent such atrocities from being repeated.

He understood fears regarding his power to launch investigations. It was time, however, to rethink such apprehensions and to analyse how the Court could strengthen global peace. The Court’s architects had been wise in providing for an adequate system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power or arbitrary decision. The Assembly would control the Prosecutor’s behaviour, the Prosecutor would supervise his team, and the pre-trial chamber would control cases. The Court’s judges, moreover, had been selected from among the best candidates from 43 countries, and the world could trust them.

The Court’s effectiveness must not be measured by the number of cases that reached it or by the content of its decisions, he concluded. On the contrary, because of its special nature, the absence of trials conducted by the Court, as consequence of the effectiveness of national institutions, would be its major success.

Also addressing the Assembly this morning for the first time since his election as Court President, Philippe Kirsch of Canada said the swearing-in of the Court’s 18 judges in The Hague on 11 March had symbolized the Court’s birth. Since the inauguration of its interim building in The Hague, the Court had been in close contact with the Government of the Netherlands, on issues such as a permanent building and adaptations to the office building temporarily at the Court’s disposal.

The Court had also begun to create its permanent framework, he said. At the beginning of April, he had assumed the presidency of the Court, which was composed of 18 skilled judges. Calls for nominations had been made for a Registrar, to be appointed by the judges, and a list had been submitted to the Assembly. The swearing-in of the Prosecutor would complete the Court’s principal bodies, namely, the Judges, the Registrar and the Prosecutor.

Eight working groups of judges had been created, he continued, to study subjects essential to the Court’s smooth functioning. They included administrative issues, the Rules of the Court and Registrar, issues related to defence, witnesses and victims, creating pre-trial and appeal procedures, and issues related to the principle of complementarity. Thanks to quality staff and efficient organization, the Court was now functional.

One of the Court’s immediate challenges was the preparation of a budget for the year 2004, he said. The budget process would draw on the strategic planning capability of both the Court and States parties. The Court’s budget had, to date, built on the need for efficiency, flexibility and transparency as the cornerstone of its operations. In the short term, the Court must make certain investments in its infrastructure to allow it to operate as an effective international organization.

The overarching goal of the budget, he said, was the creation of a system for the efficient, effective and independent administration of justice. States parties must scrupulously respect the Court’s independence throughout the budget’s preparation. The Court’s success would depend on regular budget funding.

States also had to ensure the Statute’s full integration into national legislation, he added. By focusing on the Statute’s ratification, attention on the ratification of the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities had been lost. Only two States had ratified the Agreement. While the Rome Statute was the sine qua non of the Court, the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities was increasingly important as the Court began its work in earnest. He called on States parties to accelerate the ratification of the key Agreement.

In a short period of time, the Court had developed beyond all expectations, he concluded. While its existence was tangible, its future depended on collective action. The tendency to consider that work was done would be a profound mistake. The international community had been waiting for an independent Court for some 50 years. In a few years, the international community and States parties had made an incredible effort to achieve the Court’s realization. Now was not the time to abandon such efforts. The Court needed States now more than ever.

In other action this morning, the Assembly decided to fix the nomination period for election to the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims from 28 April to 21 August 2003.

Regarding the Agreement on the Immunities and Privileges of the Court, which was opened for signature on 10 September 2002, the Assembly President told States parties that, as of 21 April 2003, there had been 27 signatories and two parties to the Agreement. He urged all States to become party to the Agreement, which required 10 instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to enter into force.

The Assembly also decided to inscribe on the agenda for its second session an item on an international criminal bar, in particular, a report by the Assembly’s focal point on developments related to that issue.

The Assembly will meet again tomorrow, 23 April, at 10 a.m. to conclude its work for the current session.




* *** *