Opening remarks of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at NGO meeting on the establishment of an international criminal court, Geneva

15 April 1998


It is a pleasure for me to open this meeting of non-governmental organizations on the establishment of an international criminal court, not only because I strongly support the creation of a fair and effective court, but also because I realize and appreciate the important role NGOs are playing in the preparatory process.

It is perhaps axiomatic that States and their Governments have a vested interest in maintaining international peace and security, and hence, in establishing credible institutions, such as a permanent international criminal court, that could further this aim.

However, it is no secret that some Governments feel threatened by international scrutiny into their human rights practices, and do not welcome the creation of a powerful institution that could investigate and indict even top leaders for serious violations.

As we all know, the tension continues to exist between broad international recognition that the world needs a permanent court, and persistent hesitance on the part of some Governments to see a truly powerful and independent court created.

In the Preparatory Committee meetings, your organizations have often demonstrated that, being independent from Government, you are uniquely placed to advocate and support the more responsible and progressive positions on particularly sensitive issues surrounding the proposed court.

Issues such as the scope of application of the court's statute in prohibiting "crimes against humanity", the court's `trigger mechanism', the relationship of the Security Council to the court and the authority of the Prosecutor to conduct independent investigations and to lay indictments - all areas which concern more or less directly the application of international human rights and humanitarian law - have not yet been fully resolved.

Indeed, many of these issues have not even come close to being resolved.


We must remain vigilant at this stage also that the right to fair trial, the security of victims and witnesses and the right to receive reparation or compensation, as guaranteed by international human rights law, figure in a permanent court statute.

The need to ensure that statutory provisions prohibiting war crimes and crimes against humanity cover criminal acts perpetrated on a gender basis remains particularly acute given the high incidence of mass rape during armed conflict.

We have seen in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda how mass rape has been perpetrated in a deliberately systematic manner and on a large-scale as part of a genocidal policy. In the former Yugoslavia, forcible impregnation has been used not only to try to destroy the individual woman or girl, but to tear at the fabric of her entire community.

Nowhere is the need for particular gender sensitivity in the administration of international criminal justice more apparent perhaps than in Rwanda.

Women survivors of the holocaust in Rwanda suffer not only the physical and psychological scars, but also sheer poverty, including lack of access to basic necessities, property and a place to live. These problems are often complicated by conflicting claims over title to property and outdated laws of inheritance and succession which in many cases favour males over females.

So at all stages in this context, we see a disproportionate impact on women and the girl-child, during the armed conflict itself and then for a long time in the post-conflict period as well, long after hostilities may have ended.

A permanent international criminal court will not claim the moral authority it needs to function effectively unless it can address the most acute problems of this kind.

If a permanent international criminal court is to be more than symbolic, it must be accorded the power and resources to provide material redress to women in these kinds of special circumstances.

Nor will it be enough for a permanent court to approach these problems in an ad hoc manner; mass rape and its aftermath has been ignored by the international community for too long.

It was therefore encouraging for me to see that draft Article 36(7) was proposed at the last session of the Preparatory Committee (A/AC.249/1998/CRP.10 of 1 April 1998) concerning the Office of the Prosecutor, which if adopted, would provide that:

"The Prosecutor shall appoint advisers with legal expertise on specific issues, including, but not limited to, sexual and gender violence and violence against children."

"The Office of the Prosecutor shall be responsible for providing protective measures to witnesses to be called by the Prosecution. The Office of the Prosecutor shall include staff with expertise in trauma, including trauma related to crimes of sexual violence."

Aside from the specific issues as to whether this formula could not be improved or precisely where such provisions ought to be placed (statute or rules of procedure), one thing is clear: gender sensitivity in prosecutions and redress must be fully incorporated in the proposed court's procedures on a comprehensive basis.

As this and so many other critical issues remain to be tackled by the Diplomatic Conference in Rome, I shall remain fully and actively involved in the process through my Office.

I know we shall not be able to take pride in a permanent international criminal court unless internationally recognized human rights standards are comprehensively enshrined in the structure, substance and procedure of such an institution.

Currently, my Office is preparing a position paper outlining my vision of a permanent international criminal court and I wish to assure you that the views of your organizations are being taken fully into account as I identify in what ways the proposed court could best advance the cause of human rights.

I wish you all a fruitful meeting.