31 January 2003

To: All Permanent Representatives
to the United Nations
of ICC Member States
Via: Email and Fax

Re: Concerns about 2 ICC Candidates

Excellency,

As the election of judges to the International Criminal Court draws close, we are writing to remind States Parties of their moral responsibility and obligation to seat as judges only the most qualified, experienced, credible, committed and untainted -- those with the highest personal integrity. While most of the candidates nominated meet these requirements to varying degrees, we would like to draw your attention to the following two nominees who have been opposed by women’s groups and civil society at the national level. More information about both of these candidates can be found on the website of the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice (www.iccwomen.org).

Antonio Boggiano, Argentina
Mr. Boggiano is a judge of the High Court in Argentina. His nomination was put forward at the last minute by the Executive and was not undertaken in accordance with the procedures mandated by the Rome Statute (either the same procedure as nominations for highest judicial office or through the same procedure as nomination to the International Court of Justice). Women’s groups and other human rights organizations opposed his nomination on these grounds as well as on the ground that he has been the subject of corruption charges. He has also been involved in issuing decisions which have an adverse impact on women’s reproductive health and rights, such as a controversial decision prohibiting the use and manufacturing of the morning-after pill even for cases of rape and incest. These facts call into question the suitability of his candidacy for the position not to mention his ability to judge crimes violating women’s bodily integrity in particular crimes such as rape, forced pregnancy and enforced sterilization.

Timoci Tuivaga, Fiji
Mr. Tuivaga has held a seat on the highest court in his country. His nomination has also been opposed by women’s groups and other NGO’s on the grounds that the nomination was not taken pursuant to the required procedures and also on the ground that he was involved in efforts to abrogate the Fiji constitution during the attempted coup two years ago. Women’s groups in particular were very vocal in their opposition to Mr. Tuivaga’s candidacy. Subsequent to their protests in the media, he threatened them with a lawsuit. The Fiji Women’s Rights Movement has put together a dossier on this candidate detailing the ways in which he played a major role in the effort to abrogate the constitution. Again, this raises concerns about his ability and commitment to uphold the integrity of the Rome Statute in situations where the provisions of the Statute do not match his personal views about issues.

You understand, of course, that the first elections to the International Criminal Court will be enormously significant given the political climate into which the world’s first permanent criminal court will emerge. There will be enormous political and logistical challenges to the Court in its first years. The judges and prosecutor will be scrutinized by the media and public in a way never before encountered in elections for posts in other international judicial institutions.

When candidates are put forward who are believed to have circumvented, rather than upheld, their constitutions or have held views that goes against the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute, they cannot expect to have this go unnoted as it has a direct bearing on the assessment of their independence, impartiality and moral character.

We therefore call upon all States Parties not to vote for the above two candidates and ensure that they do not get elected to sit as judges on the International Criminal Court. We are sure you would agree the world’s first permanent international criminal tribunal would lose credibility if seated with judges whose careers are tainted.

In trust that these matters will be dealt with appropriately,

Women's Caucus for Gender Justice
New York, NY