REPORT of the 12-30 June 2000
PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
I . INTRODUCTION:
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PREPCOM
The last session on substantive issues of the ICC
PrepCom was held from June 12 to 30, 2000. This session had working groups
on the Elements of Crimes (WGEC), Rules of Procedure and Evidence (WGRPE), and
Aggression (WGCA). The Elements Working Group began by a reading of the rolling
text of the Element Annexe completed at the last PrepCom session and the Rules
Working Group started with the document from the inter-sessional meeting held
at Mont Tremblant, Canada from April the 30 to May, 5th 2000. The
prepcom had the responsibility to finalize both these documents by June 31,
2000. While the first few sessions were held in formal / open meetings, most
of the work was moved to informal / closed meetings after the first week of
the prepcom.
The Women’s Caucus was represented by 35 women
from about 25 different countries. Some of the representatives had attended
previous PrepCom sessions though most were new participants. Nevertheless, combining
the experience and expertise of the veterans and the interest and enthusiasm
of the newcomers to the process, we were able to influence delegates on a number
of issues.
II . CAUCUS PREPARATION
AND PARTICIPATION
The Women’s Caucus, after a process of months of preparation
and vetting, produced a position paper for this PrepCom session that addressed
issues of our concerns both in the Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure
and Evidence documents. The paper was translated into Spanish and French and
distributed widely among delegates and NGOs. This document explained the problems
in the texts that formed the basis for discussion at the prepcom and put forth
our recommendations and alternatives with well-researched explanations and justifications
for the recommendations.
The Caucus brought together a delegation of women
from around the world that formed a large advocacy presence at the prepcom.
We had about thirty-five women in total at different times during the three-week
prepcom. They came from different regions and countries, including Guatemala,
Ecuador, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Liberia, Jamaica,
Uganda, Chile, Brazil, Kenya, Philippines, Cameroon, Japan to name a few.
The Caucus organized a two-day orientation session
with the participants before the start of the prepcom. At this meeting,
the participants were briefed on the issues that would come up for discussion
at the prepcom, the concerns of the Caucus and information on which delegations
were supportive or sympathetic to our issues and which were not. Other members
of the NGO coalition for the ICC also presented the status on ratification of
the treaty and the more pressing and political concerns that will be addressed
at the prepcom. The veterans in the Caucus’s prepcom delegation shared their
insights on their experience of advocacy at the prepcom and provided useful
tips to the newer participants.
During the prepcom, the different participants
functioned at different levels, which increased the overall effectiveness of
the Caucus. They represented the Caucus at meetings with different delegations,
attended other NGO meetings and followed debates on one or other issue to report
back to the Caucus and the larger NGO Coalition. At the same time, two groups
were made: one that worked on the Elements issues and the other on the issues
in the Rules document. The groups monitored the discussion in these sessions,
met frequently to discuss development and came up with alternative strategies
and language to suggest to delegates. Participants from different regions were
also involved in organizing / attending regional meetings to ensure that countries
within that region understood our concerns and to enquire about the status of
ratification. Delegations introduced new proposals at the informal meetings
and almost all the participants actively debated, discussed and revised the
Caucus positions as the negotiations went along. The Caucus produced short 1-page
legal text documents in response to these proposals. We also had the capacity
within our delegation to translate new documents to French and Spanish for distribution.
At the end of the second week when the negotiations
stood at a critical state, the Women’s Caucus organized a political act with
a strong message to delegations. The message came on T-shirts that were worn
by about 50 people including participants of the Women’s Caucus and other NGO
’s. The message said “No compromise on justice” in the front and “Gender Justice
now” at the back. The strong presence of T-shirt clad women and men outside
the Conference room took many delegations by surprise. The action received good
media coverage, particularly CNN, covering it. Participants were particularly
supportive of the T-shirt campaign and wore it several times during the rest
of the session.
On the last day of the Prepcom, the Women's Caucus
circulated a one-page statement expressing our dissatisfaction with certain
portions of the texts and the undemocratic manner in which some of the critical
issues relating to the U.S. proposal and chapeau negotiations were finalized.
III . OUTCOME OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
REGARDING OUR
ISSUES
As in the previous prepcoms, discussion was organized
between the morning sessions (Elements) and the afternoon sessions (Rules).
Again, at the formal (open) discussions, delegations merely expressed their
views on any issue under discussion. The main negotiations took place at informal
(closed) meetings. This created limitations for NGOs who could not observe
these sessions and for some smaller delegations who did not speak English.
While there were many issues of priority throughout
this series of Prepcoms, we give below only the details of the outcome on issues
identified as priority concerns at this Prepcom. The format followed below is
to state each issue of concern, followed by development and final outcome on
that particular issue. For the results of other issues or to see these texts
in their entirety, the documents are available on the UN ICC website at http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html.
Elements of Crimes
1. Issue: Include General Statement of Gender
Integration in the General Introduction: A general statement must be included
in a chapeau to all the Elements of Crimes stating that sexual violence can
be charged and prosecuted as genocide and other war crimes and crimes against
humanity where the acts of sexual violence meet the elements of those other
crimes.
Development: Originally, the statement sought
by the Women’s Caucus to apply to all the crimes in the Rome Statute was only
included in the section for genocide, with the expectation that the statement
would eventually be incorporated a more generalized context. There was a series
of up’s and down’s subsequently with some delegations not seeing the need at
first for such a statement. Then there were inconsistencies between different
sections of the elements texts where such a reference was not consistently included.
At one point, there was a danger of the losing the statement altogether. Because
there was still some confusion among delegations about the purpose and need
for such a statement, the Chair proposed as a compromise more general language
that indicated that certain conduct can amount to more than one crime. Colombia
then made an intervention in the formal to confirm that crimes of sexual and
gender violence were intended by this statement and the chair affirmed that
fact.
Final Outcome: In the general
introduction to the entire Elements Annex, paragraph 9 now states: “A particular
conduct may constitute one or more crimes”
2. Issue: Gender crimes must not
be held hostage to the compromise on the Crimes against Humanity chapeau:
Agreement on the formulations of the gender-specific crimes should not be predicated
on the compromise regarding the chapeau to the elements of crimes against humanity,
as suggested in footnote 16 to rape.
Development: Footnote
16 was basically a reminder of the compromise that was reached to accommodate
the untenable proposal by eleven Arab countries (submitted at the November-December,
1999 prepcom) that essentially restricted prosecution of gender crimes as crimes
against humanity when committed within the context of family, religion or culture.
It was essentially a threat that if the compromise language on the chapeau to
crimes against humanity was reopened, these delegations would bring their discriminatory
proposal with respect to crimes against women back on the table. This issue
is therefore linked with the discussion on the chapeau, which is given below
in detail. It suffices to say here that, in the end, many delegations agreed
that the link made with the chapeau was wrong.
Final Outcome: Footnote 16 was deleted
with no remarks.
3. Issue: Delete the "Actively
promote or encourage" language in the crimes against humanity chapeau:
The language in the crimes against humanity chapeau which requires that the
State or organization "actively promote or encourage" the criminal
conduct in question would impermissibly limit the statutory jurisdiction of
the Court over all crimes against humanity, particularly gender crimes, and
must be eliminated.
Development: This was among the two most contentious
issues of the prepcom. Negotiations on this issue began only in the second
week. A sub-coordinator was appointed to coordinate this part. Many countries
agreed that the “actively promote or encourage” language was too high a threshold
and should be deleted. At the forefront among such states was Portugal.
As noted above, this language first arose in efforts
to negotiate a compromise with 11 Arab countries who sought to exclude crimes
of sexual and gender violence when committed within the context of family, religion
or culture. As a move away from this untenable proposal, the negotiators came
up with language raising the threshold for all over the crimes against humanity.
While making all of the crimes generally more difficult to prosecute, the impact
of such language on the Court’s ability to address crimes committed disproportionately
against women would be devastating.
The discussion on this issue was held over numerous
and lengthy informal sessions. Some of these session lasted for hours and others
ended quickly with instructions from the Coordinator to come to an agreement
before meeting again. Delegations faced much pressure and fatigue on this sensitive
issue. Many countries held out as long as possible to try to get the language
which lowered the threshold for these crimes to a more acceptable and appropriate
level. In spite of all those efforts the strongest resistance came from Turkey,
China, Egypt and other Arab countries, who pressured that any alternative language
must have an entire agreement by all delegations, failing which the original
compromise of the “actively promote and encourage” language should stay.
The language that came about during the negotiation
had an even more difficult and detailed threshold than the one the session began
with. Delegates were considering retaining words "active promotion or encouragement"
on the part of states or organizations accompanied by a footnote which enunciates:
“…Such a policy may, in exceptional circumstances,
be implemented by a deliberate failure to take action which is consciously aimed
at encouraging such attack. The existence of such policy cannot be inferred
solely from the absence of governmental or organizational action”.
As soon as this language arose in the negotiations,
we advocated deletion of "deliberate" failure, as that requires a
showing of a level of intent inappropriate for these crimes. We were also concerned
about the reference to "exceptional circumstances" and its requiring
"deliberate failure" because deliberate failure to act is a high standard
and when faced with the nature and scope of crimes which qualify as crimes against
humanity "deliberate" failure should always be regarded as indicative
of a state or organizational policy.
In addition, the paragraph preceding this phrase
embodies the idea that because article 7 (crimes against humanity) pertains
to international criminal law, its provisions must be strictly construed and
therefore requires "conduct which is impermissible under generally applicable
international law, recognized as such by the principle legal systems of the
world." The limiting language requiring recognition by the principle legal
systems was another effort by Egypt and others to find ways of separating themselves
from the rights and violations recognized in international law and, specifically,
in the ICC. This presented Egypt with another venue to wage their battle, already
fought and lost in Rome, to require universal recognition of fundamental rights.
As the delegations were facing the June 30th deadline and intense
pressure from the coordinating chairs during this session to yield they adopted
this text as final.
Several countries expressed their concern about
the narrowness of the provision in the formal working group session and later
in the plenary, including Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba and Portugal.
Final Outcome: “1. Since article
7 pertains to international criminal law, its provisions, consistent with article
22, must be strictly construed, taking into account that crimes against humanity
as defined in article 7 are among the most serious crimes of concerned to the
international community as a whole, warrant and entail individual criminal responsibility,
and require conduct which is impermissible under generally applicable international
law, as recognized by the principal legal systems of the world.
3. Attack directed against a civilian population"
in these context elements is understood to mean a course of conduct involving
the multiple commission of acts referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the
Statute against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a
State or organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need not constitute
a military attack. It is understood that "policy to commit such attack"
requires that the State or organization actively promote or encourage such an
attack against a civilian population.”
Issue: Enslavement and Sexual Slavery
should not be restricted to commercial transactions: The elements of both
enslavement and sexual slavery in the rolling text which emphasize "purchasing,
selling, lending or bartering" and similar deprivations of liberty would
exclude many situations of slavery. The elements must therefore be modified
to de-emphasize the commercial exchange element by incorporating footnote 11
regarding forced labor and servile status to the elements of sexual slavery
in both war crimes and crimes against humanity and to enslavement, and adding
the words “with or without pecuniary benefit”.
Development: Delegations were asked
to air their views on this over at formal meeting. France pointed out that
footnote 11 was important because it gave specific definitions for crime and
stated that slavery does not require a pecuniary benefit is gained. Portugal
and Australia concurred with France as they said the crime of enslavement shouldn’t
be attached to commercial transactions. Belgium and New Zealand were among the
strong voices on this issue and did not want to overemphasize the pecuniary
interests.
The United Arab Emirates intervened to say that the
footnote was useless, since element 3 was clear enough to them and therefore
it should be deleted. On the contrary, Slovenia wanted the footnote to be included
as an element in the crime of enslavement and Spain wanted to include in the
footnote the terms forced labor and servile status.
The Caucus is satisfied by the definition of enslavement
and sexual slavery since both now include the element of forced labor and servile
status, though China also objected without blocking the consensus.
Final Outcome: The footnote attached to the
crimes of enslavement and sexual slavery now states:
“It is understood that such deprivation of liberty
may, in some circumstances, include exacting forced labor or otherwise reducing
a person to a servile status as defined in the Supplementary Convention on the
Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar
to Slavery of 1956..”
Issue: Do not add “universally recognized”
to the term “fundamental rights” in the elements of Persecution: The suggestion
in footnote 25 to persecution that the fundamental rights be universally recognized
diverges from the Rome language, further narrows the crime as it is currently
understood in international law, and should be rejected.
Development: This was another arena
wherein some countries sought to limit the notion of “fundamental rights” by
requiring that the rights be “universally recognized”. The debate first arose
in the context of the persecution, but then spread also to aspects of the crime
of imprisonment and inhumane acts. Canada was forceful in expressing concern
about introducing “universally recognized” to the crime of imprisonment, and
maintained that the reference should be deleted as well in the persecution and
inhumane act footnotes. France intervened in the formal working group saying
that the footnote requiring “universal recognition” should be deleted because
it narrowed the scope of the article, and was supported by the delegations of
Israel, South Africa, Ecuador, Portugal and Korea among others. Colombia stated
that the footnote could lead to different interpretations and therefore should
be deleted.
Pakistan and Bahrain maintained that “universally
recognized” should be added because it would strengthen the text but eventually
did not block the consensus. Iran finally wanted to be more specific about what
was meant by “universal recognition” and wanted to add the term “fundamental
rights recognized universally”.
Final Outcome: The footnote was deleted in
the final text.
Issue: “Genuine consent” in the crime of
enforced sterilization should be replaced by or qualified to include “voluntary
and informed”. The term "genuine" consent in the elements of
enforced sterilization should be replaced by or stated to include "voluntary
and informed" consent so that enforced sterilization by deception is included
in the crime. In addition, the principle that a person may be incapable of
giving genuine consent if affected by certain incapacities should be reinserted.
Development: Several delegations were concerned
about the term “genuine”. The Caucus strongly lobbied to add a footnote, which
would qualify genuine as “voluntary and informed”. The Cuban delegation made
a statement on the term “genuine consent” where they suggested using the term
“voluntary consent or informed consent”, supported by Spain who made a similar
suggestion to replace genuine by “freely or voluntary consent”. Portugal wanted
to replace “genuine” by “voluntary and informed”.
Trinidad and Tobago thought the footnote gave clarity
but wasn’t opposed to improving it. France wondered if the “genuine consent”
was the same as free consent in French, and supported the other delegations
suggesting that voluntary and informed consent was better. Also, Australia intervened
and wanted to add either the term voluntary to genuine consent or replace genuine
with informed. Regarding the term “genuine” itself, the delegate of Colombia
put forward that it didn’t mean anything in Spanish when translated and suggested
replacing the term “genuine” in Spanish with “free consent”, following the French
version.
Final Outcome: The footnote attached to “genuine
consent” now reads:
“It is understood that “genuine consent” does not
include consent obtained trough deception.”
Issue: Other sexual violence: The crime of “other sexual violence” should not be restricted to those of
a gravity comparable to offences in subparagraph (g) of article 7(1) as currently
done in the rolling text. Rather, it should be comparable to all the offences
under the statute or at least all offenses in article 7(1) so as to include
forms of sexual violence such as forced nudity, which do not involve physical
invasion of the victim.
Development: Colombia raised a concern on
article 7(1)(g) but only from a generic point of view. Israel, on the other
hand, pointed out that the conduct described in both crimes against humanity
and war crimes should be the same, although the context is different. He suggested
removing the inconsistencies since there was no point in having different wording,
which was respected on the final version of the Rome Statute with no specific
mentions on comparing these offences to those on article 7(1).
Many delegations, particularly the U.K., were of
the view that while the comparable gravity in the crime of ‘other sexual violence’
in war crimes section referred to grave breaches of Geneva Convention, the same
crime as crimes against humanity, in the absence of elaboration in the statute,
the gravity ought to be comparable to other crimes of sexual violence i.e. 7
(1) (g) and not to all crimes. In the final analysis, this view prevailed.
Final Outcome: Element 2 of the crime of
“Other Sexual Violence” reads as follows:
“Such conduct was of a gravity comparable to the
other offences in article 7, paragraph 1 (g) of the Statute.”
Issue: The elements of enforced disappearances
in the rolling text require that the same accused person commit the different
stages of the crime: The nature of the crime of enforced disappearances
is such that many actors are involved. It is unrealistic to expect that one
person would be involved at all the different stages. Thus, the elements of
enforced disappearances should be changed to reflect the nature of the crime.
Development: United Kingdom first intervened
on that issue stating that, since this is such a complex crime, the people who
actually commit the crime may be numerous and contribute to this single offense.
Portugal, Bahrain, and the majority of the delegations (Spain, Samoa, Egypt,
Germany, Liechtenstein, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Italy, Israel) concurred
with the UK that the chain-like nature of this crime involved various actors
and so the rule should be re-drafted.
France agreed and pointed out that the crime should
reflect the assurance that all persons must be prosecutable for this crime,
even if only committed one act, referred to in the UN Declaration of Enforced
disappearances. On the other hand, the United States suggested that even though
there are multiple actors, they are all part of one organization or policy,
which drives each actor to commit certain acts. Therefore, different acts must
be linked.
Colombia, supported by Cuba, was very concerned on
this issue since they didn’t see this crime as a continuous one, but as a permanent
crime and that it should be resolved thematically. The delegation put forward
a whole new structure for the rule, suggesting also deletion the last sentence
or at least clarifying its ambiguous meaning to them. The footnote was finally
restructured to reflect the complexity of the crime.
Final Outcome: Article 7 (1) (i)
Crime against humanity of enforced disappearance of persons
(Footnote 23, Given the complex nature of this crime, it
is recognized that its commission will normally involve more than one perpetrator
as a part of a common criminal purpose. Footnote 24, This crime falls under
the jurisdiction of the Court only if the attack referred to in elements 7 and
8 occurs after the entry into force of the Statute.)
Elements
1. The perpetrator:
(a) Arrested, detained (Footnote 25, The word detained
would include a perpetrator who maintained an existing detention. Footnote
26, It is understood that under certain circumstance an arrest or detention
may have been lawful.) or abducted one or more persons; or
(b) Refused to acknowledge the arrest, detention or abduction,
or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons.
2. (a) Such arrest, detention or abduction
was followed or accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of
freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or
persons; or
(c) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation
of freedom.
3. The perpetrator was aware that:
(Footnote 27, This element, inserted because of the complexity of this crime,
is without prejudice to the General Introduction to the Elements of Crimes.)
(a) Such arrest, detention or abduction would be followed
in the ordinary course of events by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation
of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person
or persons; (Footnote 28, It is understood that, in the case of a perpetrator
who maintained an existing detention, this element would be satisfied if the
perpetrator was aware that such a refusal had already taken place.) or;
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation
of freedom.
4. Such arrest, detention or abduction was carried
out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a
political organization .
5. Such refusal to acknowledge that deprivation
of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person
or persons was carried out by, or with the authorization or support of such
State or political organization.
6. The perpetrator intended to remove such person
or persons from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
7. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread
or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
The perpetrator knew that conduct was part of or intended
the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
a civilian population.
Rules of Procedure and Evidence
Issue: The US Proposal regarding Article
98 and the Supplementary Agreement should be rejected: The proposal sacrifices
the independence of the Court and is contrary to the Rome statute.
Development: This was the second most
contentious issue at the prepcom. The proposed rule purports to give effect
to Article 98 of the statute, which prohibits the Court from requesting surrender
of an accused from a State having custody of the accused if such a request would
require that State to act contrary to its international agreements relating
to surrender of nationals of the States party to the agreements.
This rule is intended to set the stage for introduction
of a subsequent provision, which the U.S. would propose in a supplemental agreement
establishing the relationship of the Court to the UN. The second provision would
introduce language relating to the Security Council and its chapter VII authority.
However, the U.S. would need a hook in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to
leave an opening for the second part of the proposal.
Article 98, by its language, applies only to international
agreements relating to surrender of individuals between States. The U.S. proposal
introduces two new concepts to the article, thereby impermissibly expanding
and amending the statute. In addition to limiting the Court's ability to request
surrender of an accused, the U.S. proposal would also limit the Court's ability
to accept an accused into custody, including the voluntary surrender by an accused
or by a State willing to surrender. Most importantly for the U.S. strategy,
the U.S. proposal expands the scope of international agreements originally envisioned
by article 98. Thus, by its vague reference to international agreements, the
U.S. desires to expand the scope of these agreements to include those agreements
the Court enters into also, which was not intended for Article 98.
The Caucus is extremely disappointed with the
results of the negotiations on this issue and especially with the failings of
the process in this regard.
When the U.S. first introduced its proposal, a large
number of countries recognized that theoretically they could negotiate a rule
for Article 98 using the U.S. proposal as a basis but reiterated the need the
to protect the integrity of the Rome Statute as well as the independence and
effectiveness of the Court. Most of the countries specifically pointed out the
problems of the additional concepts the U.S. was introducing to expand article
98. Based on the number of countries making interventions, including representative
interventions, it was clear that 87 percent of countries (courtesy: CICC non-table)
participating in the session expressed opposition to what the U.S. was attempting.
Several countries also firmly referred to the U.S. delegation's assertion that
this rule stands on its own and should not be considered together with any other
proposal that might arise in the future. Several countries wished to include
an explicit stipulation to this effect as a reminder that if any part of this
rule is eventually accepted that it is not to form the basis for the second
part of the U.S. proposal.
Between the initial discussion about
the proposed rule and the second to last day of the prepcom, the coordinating
chair of the working group acted as a liaison in informal discussions with different
delegations to try to come up with negotiated text. The efforts of the Coordinator
were to find maneuvering room for both the U.S. as well as the countries opposed
to the U.S. efforts. States attempted to negotiate a provision using the U.S.
proposal as a basis but eliminate any hook the U.S. hoped to plant in the Rules
document for its subsequent efforts.
The ‘negotiated’ text put forward by the Coordinator
read as follows:
"The Court may not proceed with a request
for the surrender of a person without the consent of the sending State if, under
article 98, paragraph 2, such a request would be inconsistent with obligations
under an international agreement pursuant to which the consent of a sending
State is required prior to the surrender of a person of that State to the Court."
Some delegations, including some EU and likeminded
countries, believed that the negotiated language, accompanied by the understanding,
was narrow enough to restrict future attempts by the U.S. And, if not, they
preferred to buy the process time with this as a temporary compromise rather
than have a final confrontation at this prepcom. However, the U.S. declared
the text as a victory in that it was successful in setting the stage for the
next proposal introducing the Security Council and exemptions for U.S. nationals.
This was reported in the press on Friday with the U.S. ambassador boasting
that they had achieved their goal and declaring openly the U.S. intentions to
put forward the second part of the rule at the November-December Prepcom - despite
his earlier assertions to the contrary.
Other countries, such as Cote d'Ivoire, were dissatisfied
with the fact that the working group had entertained the U.S. proposal at all
- no matter how narrow some countries believed the wording to be. Attempts by
Cote d’Ivoire to make interventions expressing his delegations’ dissatisfaction
were thwarted by the Chair, the Coordinators, delegations from the EU and like-minded
countries. There was no further discussion and the coordinator declared that
the working group adopted the text and it would be sent to the plenary the next
day for final approval.
At the plenary on the last day of the prepcom, after
the coordinator for elements of crimes presented the report and texts, Cote
d'Ivoire made an intervention pointing out that his delegation had difficulties
with the language for the threshold for crimes against humanity but that he
would not block consensus on that issue. He continued to speak on the issue
of the U.S. efforts and the resulting text adopted by the rules working group.
He stated that his delegation considered it an amendment of the Rome Statute.
Ultimately, he said that his delegation would seek to call that portion of the
rules document to a vote.
Immediately after Cote d'Ivoire's intervention, the
delegate of Australia intervened requesting suspension of the discussion so
that delegations could consult with each other based on Cote d'Ivoire's intervention.
There was much confusion at this point and many delegates were re-thinking the
compromise they had agreed to in light of Cote d'Ivoire's willingness to keep
this issue open. However, during the suspension, the Chair of the Prepcom agreed
to include a statement by Cote d'Ivoire in the report of the proceedings of
the Prepcom about Cote d'Ivoire's concern and disagreement with the rule as
well as its reasons if Cote d'Ivoire agreed not to call the rule to a vote.
When the session reconvened, amid much tension and
apprehension, Cote d'Ivoire made a statement to the effect that it would withdraw
its call for a vote with the understanding that the Chair would include its
explicit concerns in the Report. The rest of the working groups then presented
their reports. The Elements and Rules texts were then adopted by consensus.
Afterward, several delegations made interventions
stating their reservations and concerns about different texts. Cuba made the
strongest statement supporting Cote d'Ivoire and describing the destructive
and manipulative role played by the U.S. in this process and the absence of
any indication by the U.S. about signature or ratification. Cuba also attributed
the failings in the chapeau language to underhanded maneuverings by the U.S.
In spite of all this the Women's Caucus was touched
by the courage of smaller countries who were willing to act independently and
without the safety of hiding behind negotiating blocks such as the EU or likeminded
to take on the U.S. This is even more astounding given the high pressure the
U.S. has been applying in the capitals of every country, and the implied threats
about withholding military and economic aid as well as future cooperation with
the Court.
Final Outcome: A Rule 9.19(2) was included
in Part 9 of the document that read:
"The Court may not proceed with a request for
the surrender of a person without the consent of the sending State if, under
article 98, paragraph 2, such a request would be inconsistent with obligations
under an international agreement pursuant to which the consent of a sending
State is required prior to the surrender of a person of that State to the Court."
The proposed understanding issued by the coordinator
reads as follows:
"It is generally understood that Rule 9.19
should not be interpreted as requiring or in any way calling for the negotiation
of provisions of any particular international agreement by the court or by any
international organization or a State."
Issue: The Definition of victim should
not be unduly restrictive: The definition of victim should be based on
evolving international law, including the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles
of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. The definition should recognize
victims who have suffered environmental and cultural damage and incorporate
a broader concept of family relations.
Development: The delegations were all concerned
on this issue. Some delegations, such as France, Italy, Colombia, Mexico, wanted
to keep the definition as it was. Others wanted some part of the definition
to be deleted. This was the major concern of UAE and Chile who found the second
part of the definition redundant and sometimes contrary to the first part, and
therefore be redrafted or deleted. And there were delegations like United Kingdom
(supported by Germany, Israel and Sudan) who disagreed on including “organization
and institution” in the victims’ definition, since these would be at the expense
of those who individuals who suffer, so the final sentence should be deleted.
Holy See, on the contrary, firmly intervened to keep that sentence, since a
hospital that suffers direct harm is to be considered as a victim.
Austria was confused about the emotional suffering
stating that everybody could easily claim as a victim and suggested a strict
definition. Venezuela wanted the rule to be as precise as possible and Iraq
supported a simple definition adding that the Court should have discretion to
identify the victims.
In the working group, some Arab countries (Bahrain,
Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia,
supported by Libya) proposed a text for definition of victim.
Regional meetings were held with NGO’s and several
French speaking delegations, where Belgium and Cameroon preferred a general
and short definition to open it up to broader room for interpretation by the
judges. Since the delegations couldn’t find an agreement on this definition,
the Chairman of the working group came up with a proposal. The Women’s Caucus,
Victims Caucus and the members of the coalition are satisfied with this definition.
Final Outcome: The victim’s definition now
reads:
“For the purposes of the Statute and the Rules
of Procedure and Evidence:
(a) “Victims” means any natural
person who have suffered harm as a result of the commission of any crime within
the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) Victims may include legal entities
that have sustained direct harm to any of their property, which is dedicated
to religion , education, art or science or charitable purposes, and to their
historic monuments, hospitals and other places and object for humanitarian purposes.”
Issue: Allow Victim participation and
notification at all appropriate stages of the proceedings. The Rules should
ensure that the functions of all the organs of the Court, particularly the Registrar,
include their full responsibilities toward victims.
Development: Most of the rules relating
to the participation scheme as adopted were satisfactory from the Women’s Caucus
perspective.
Final Document:
Subsection 2
Victims and Witnesses Unit
Rule 16
Responsibilities of the Registrar relating to victims and witnesses
1. In relation to victims,
the Registrar shall be responsible for the performance of the following functions
in accordance with the Statute and these Rules:
(a) Providing notice
or notification to victims or their legal representatives;
(b) Assisting them
in obtaining legal advice and organizing their legal representation, and providing
their legal representatives with adequate support, assistance and information,
including such facilities as may be necessary for the direct performance of
their duty, for the purpose of protecting their rights during all stages of
the proceedings in accordance with rules 89 to 91;
(c) Assisting them
in participating in the different phases of the proceedings in accordance with
rules 89 to 91;
(d) Taking gender-sensitive
measures to facilitate the participation of victims of sexual violence at all
stages of the proceedings.
2. In relation to victims,
witnesses and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses,
the Registrar shall be responsible for the performance of the following functions
in accordance with the Statute and these Rules:
(a) Informing them
of their rights under the Statute and the Rules, and of the existence, functions
and availability of the Victims and Witnesses Unit;
(b) Ensuring that
they are aware, in a timely manner, of the relevant decisions of the Court that
may have an impact on their interests, subject to provisions on confidentiality.
3. For the fulfilment of
his or her functions, the Registrar may keep a special register for victims
who have expressed their intention to participate in relation to a specific
case.
4. Agreements on relocation and provision of support
services on the territory of a State of traumatized or threatened victims, witnesses
and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses may
be negotiated with the States by the Registrar on behalf of the Court. Such
agreements may remain confidential.
Rule 17
Functions of the Unit
1. The Victims and Witnesses Unit shall exercise its
functions in accordance with article 43, paragraph 6.
2. The Victims and Witnesses Unit shall, inter alia,
perform the following functions, in accordance with the Statute and the Rules,
and in consultation with the Chamber, the Prosecutor and the defence, as appropriate:
(a) With respect to all witnesses, victims
who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony
given by such witnesses, in accordance with their particular needs and circumstances:
(i) Providing them with adequate
protective and security measures and formulating long- and short-term plans
for their protection;
(ii) Recommending to the organs
of the Court the adoption of protection measures and also advising relevant
States of such measures;
(iii) Assisting them in obtaining
medical, psychological and other appropriate assistance;
(iv) Making available to the
Court and the parties training in issues of trauma, sexual violence, security
and confidentiality;
(v) Recommending, in consultation
with the Office of the Prosecutor, the elaboration of a code of conduct, emphasizing
the vital nature of security and confidentiality for investigators of the Court
and of the defence and all intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations
acting at the request of the Court, as appropriate;
(vi) Cooperating with States,
where necessary, in providing any of the measures stipulated in this rule;
(b) With respect to witnesses:
(i) Advising them where to
obtain legal advice for the purpose of protecting their rights, in particular
in relation to their testimony;
(ii) Assisting them when they
are called to testify before the Court;
(iii) Taking gender-sensitive
measures to facilitate the testimony of victims of sexual violence at all stages
of the proceedings.
3. In performing its functions, the Unit shall give
due regard to the particular needs of children, elderly persons and persons
with disabilities. In order to facilitate the participation and protection of
children as witnesses, the Unit may assign, as appropriate, and with the agreement
of the parents or the legal guardian, a child-support person to assist a child
through all stages of the proceedings.
Subsection 3
Participation of victims in the proceedings
Rule 89
Application for participation of victims in the proceedings
1. In order to present their views and concerns, victims
shall make written application to the Registrar, who shall transmit the application
to the relevant Chamber. Subject to the provisions of the Statute, in particular
article 68, paragraph 1, the Registrar shall provide a copy of the application
to the Prosecutor and the defence, who shall be entitled to reply within a time
limit to be set by the Chamber. Subject to the provisions of sub-rule 2, the
Chamber shall then specify the proceedings and manner in which participation
is considered appropriate, which may include making opening and closing statements.
2. The Chamber, on its own initiative or on the application
of the Prosecutor or the defence, may reject the application if it considers
that the person is not a victim or that the criteria set forth in article 68,
paragraph 3, are not otherwise fulfilled. A victim whose application has been
rejected may file a new application later in the proceedings.
3. An application referred to in this rule may also
be made by a person acting with the consent of the victim, or a person acting
on behalf of a victim, in the case of a victim who is a child or, when necessary,
a victim who is disabled.
4. Where there are a number of applications, the Chamber
may consider the applications in such a manner so as to ensure the effectiveness
of the proceedings and may issue one decision.
Rule 90
Legal representatives of victims
1. A victim shall be free to choose a legal representative.
2. Where there are a number of victims, the Chamber
may, for the purposes of ensuring the effectiveness of the proceedings, request
the victims or particular groups of victims, if necessary with the assistance
of the Registry, to choose a common legal representative or representatives.
In facilitating the coordination of victim representation, the Registry may
provide assistance, inter alia, by referring the victims to a list of
counsel, maintained by the Registry, or suggesting one or more common legal
representatives.
3. If the victims are unable to choose a common legal
representative or representatives within a time limit that the Chamber may decide,
the Chamber may request the Registrar to choose one or more common legal representatives.
4. The Chamber and the Registry shall take all reasonable
steps to ensure that in the selection of common legal representatives, the distinct
interests of the victims, particularly as provided in article 68, paragraph
1, are represented and that any conflict of interest is avoided.
5. A victim or group of victims who lack the necessary
means to pay for a common legal representative chosen by the Court may receive
assistance from the Registry, including, as appropriate, financial assistance.
6. A legal representative of a victim or victims shall
have the qualifications set forth in rule 22, sub-rule 1.
Rule 91
Participation of legal representatives in the proceedings
1. A Chamber may modify a previous ruling under rule
89.
2. A legal representative of a victim shall be entitled
to attend and participate in the proceedings in accordance with the terms of
the ruling of the Chamber and any modification thereof given under rules 89
and 90. This shall include participation in hearings unless, in the circumstances
of the case, the Chamber concerned is of the view that the representative’s
intervention should be confined to written observations or submissions. The
Prosecutor and the defence shall be allowed to reply to any oral or written
observation by the legal representative for victims.
3. (a) When a legal representative attends and
participates in accordance with this rule, and wishes to question a witness,
including questioning under rules 67 and 68, an expert or the accused, the legal
representative must make application to the Chamber. The Chamber may require
the legal representative to provide a written note of the questions and in that
case the questions shall be communicated to the Prosecutor and, if appropriate,
the defence, who shall be allowed to make observations within a time limit set
by the Chamber.
(b) The Chamber shall then issue a ruling on
the request, taking into account the stage of the proceedings, the rights of
the accused, the interests of witnesses, the need for a fair, impartial and
expeditious trial and in order to give effect to article 68, paragraph 3. The
ruling may include directions on the manner and order of the questions and the
production of documents in accordance with the powers of the Chamber under article
64. The Chamber may, if it considers it appropriate, put the question to the
witness, expert or accused on behalf of the victim’s legal representative.
4. For a hearing limited to reparations under article
75, the restrictions on questioning by the legal representative set forth in
sub-rule 2 shall not apply. In that case, the legal representative may, with
the permission of the Chamber concerned, question witnesses, experts and the
person concerned.
Rule 92
Notification to victims and their legal representatives
1. This rule on notification to victims and their legal
representatives shall apply to all proceedings before the Court, except in proceedings
provided for in Part 2.
2. In order to allow victims to apply for participation
in the proceedings in accordance with rule 89, the Court shall notify victims
concerning the decision of the Prosecutor not to initiate an investigation or
not to prosecute pursuant to article 53. Such a notification shall be given
to victims or their legal representatives who have already participated in the
proceedings or, as far as possible, to those who have communicated with the
Court in respect of the situation or case in question. The Chamber may order
the measures outlined in sub-rule 8 if it considers it appropriate in the particular
circumstances.
3. In order to allow victims to apply for participation
in the proceedings in accordance with rule 89, the Court shall notify victims
regarding its decision to hold a hearing to confirm charges pursuant to article
61. Such a notification shall be given to victims or their legal representatives
who have already participated in the proceedings or, as far as possible, to
those who have communicated with the Court in respect of the case in question.
4. When a notification for participation as provided
for in sub-rules 2 and 3 has been given, any subsequent notification as referred
to in sub-rules 5 and 6 shall only be provided to victims or their legal representatives
who may participate in the proceedings in accordance with a ruling of the Chamber
pursuant to rule 89 and any modification thereof.
5. In a manner consistent with the ruling made under
rules 89 to 91 ter, victims or their legal representatives participating
in proceedings shall, in respect of those proceedings, be notified by the Registrar
in a timely manner of:
(a) Proceedings before the Court, including
the date of hearings and any postponements thereof, and the date of delivery
of the decision;
(b) Requests, submissions, motions and other
documents relating to such requests, submissions or motions.
6. Where victims or their legal representatives have
participated in a certain stage of the proceedings, the Registrar shall notify
them as soon as possible of the decisions of the Court in those proceedings.
7. Notifications as referred to in sub-rules 5 and 6
shall be in writing or, where written notification is not possible, in any other
form as appropriate. The Registry shall keep a record of all notifications.
Where necessary, the Registrar may seek the cooperation of States Parties in
accordance with article 93, paragraph 1 (d) and (l).
8. For notification as referred to in sub-rule 3 and
otherwise at the request of a Chamber, the Registrar shall take necessary measures
to give adequate publicity to the proceedings. In doing so, the Registrar may
seek in accordance with Part 9 the cooperation of relevant States Parties, and
seek the assistance of intergovernmental organizations.
Rule 93
Views of victims or their legal representatives
A Chamber may seek the views of victims or their legal representatives
participating pursuant to rules 89 to 91 on any issue, inter alia, in
relation to issues referred to in rules 107, 109, 125, 128, 136, 139 and 191.
In addition, a Chamber may seek the views of other victims, as appropriate.
Issue: Adopt a mechanism for
ensuring non-disclosure of sensitive evidence: The Rules must ensure that
evidence, which may be private or endangers the safety of victims and witnesses
is not disclosed without the knowledge of affected victims.
Development: The delegations faced conflicting
approaches to the disclosure regime at the informals. A separate rule was added
to rule 5.32 in which the delegation of Bosnia, very supportive in our different
issues during the entire Prepcom, intervened on behalf of our proposal on the
protective measures.
With respect to the general provisions relating
to victims on rule 6.1., the Cameroon delegation supported our point of
view to include all categories of people referred to in the Statute of Rome
and intervened in a formal session to this effect.
Final Outcome: In its paragraph three, rule
5.32 states:
“When the disclosure of
such information may create a risk to the safety of the witness, the Court shall
take measures to inform the witness in advance.”
With respect to the proceedings before the confirmation hearing on rule 5.18,
sub-rule (h) was deleted and the second sentence of sub-rule 10 now reads:
“Subject to any restrictions
concerning confidentiality and the protection of national security information,
the record may be consulted by the Prosecutor, the person and victims or their
legal representatives participating in the proceedings pursuant to rules 6.30
to 6.30 ter.”
This ensures that the Prosecutor does not disclose
information to the defense at the pre-trial phase, which could endanger the
safety or violate victim’s rights to privacy.
The general principle on rule 6.1 is now:
“A Chamber in making any direction or order, and
other organs of the Court in performing their functions under the Statute or
the Rules, shall take into account the needs of all victims and witnesses in
accordance with article 98, in particular, children, elderly persons, persons
with disabilities and victims of sexual and gender violence.”
Issue: The Rules relating to evidence
in cases of sexual violence should be strengthened. Rule 6.5, 6.5 bis
and 6.5 ter in the rolling text is a dilution of the Rule in the ICTY
and ICTR Rules of Procedure. The Rule should be modified to strengthen the
prohibition against admitting evidence of the sexual conduct of the victim.
Development: The draft text containing negotiated rules of evidence
concerning consent and sexual conduct evidence in cases of sexual violence was
discussed in an open session at the end of the first week. In the last prepcom,
the smaller working group had reached a difficult compromise on the language.
At the open session, Turkey made interventions to the effect that the reference
to 69.4 in the second part of the rule should be deleted as such evidence is
always discriminatory and prejudicial to victims and witnesses and should never
be allowed. They further observed that article 69, since it's part of the statute,
applies equally everywhere and that its import is distorted if restated in this
context and no where else. Their interventions were quickly followed by a number
of delegations to the effect that the language was the result of a very difficult
compromise and that if debate were reopened on that issue, the entire rule would
come into question.
The group included countries which originally desired a more progressive rule
and those who had desired a more restrictive one favoring greater deference
to the rights of the accused. The first group included France, Australia, Bosnia.
The second group included Japan, U.S., Austria, Germany and the Holy See. As
no further debate ensued after the reminder by these countries of the compromise,
the text was adopted by the chair of the working group without further debate.
The rule will now go as it stands into the report of the working group.
Currently, the rule has 3 parts. First, the rules lays out a series of principles
which establish that consent may not be inferred from different circumstances,
such as the victim's silence or acquiescence. Second, the rule states that sexual
conduct evidence shall not be admitted but makes a controversial reference to
article 69.4 of the statute, which is a restatement of a basic evidentiary principle.
This reference was insisted upon by Germany, Austria and other delegations who
were concerned about reiterating a recognition of the rights of the accused.
The third component of the rule sets up a screening procedure to be held in
chambers whenever one of the sides wishes to admit consent or sexual conduct
evidence. The hearing must be held confidentially and the judge must find that
the evidence is highly relevant and admissible and is not being admitted for
any of the prohibited purposes.
Final Outcome: Rule 70
Principles of evidence in cases of sexual violence
In cases of sexual violence, the Court shall be
guided by and, where appropriate, apply the following principles:
(a) Consent cannot be inferred by reason of
any words or conduct of a victim where force, threat of force, coercion or taking
an advantage of a coercive environment undermined the victim’s ability to give
voluntary and genuine consent;
(b) Consent cannot be inferred by reason of
any words or conduct of a victim where the victim is incapable of giving genuine
consent;
(c) Consent cannot be inferred by reason of
the silence of, or lack of resistance by, a victim to the alleged sexual violence;
(d) Credibility, character or predisposition
to sexual availability of a victim or witness cannot be inferred by reason of
the sexual nature of the prior or subsequent conduct of a victim or witness.
Rule 71
Evidence of other sexual conduct
In the light of the definition and nature of the
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and subject to article 69, paragraph
4, a Chamber shall not admit evidence of the prior or subsequent sexual conduct
of a victim or witness.
Rule 72
In camera procedure to consider relevance or admissibility of evidence
1. Where there is an intention to introduce or elicit,
including by means of the questioning of a victim or witness, evidence that
the victim consented to an alleged crime of sexual violence, or evidence of
the words, conduct, silence or lack of resistance of a victim or witness as
referred to in principles (a) through (d) of rule 70, notification shall be
provided to the Court which shall describe the substance of the evidence intended
to be introduced or elicited and the relevance of the evidence to the issues
in the case.
2. In deciding whether the evidence referred to in sub-rule
1 is relevant or admissible, a Chamber shall hear in camera the views of the
Prosecutor, the defence, the witness and the victim or his or her legal representative,
if any, and shall take into account whether that evidence has a sufficient degree
of probative value to an issue in the case and the prejudice that such evidence
may cause, in accordance with article 69, paragraph 4. For this purpose, the
Chamber shall have regard to article 21, paragraph 3, and articles 67 and 68,
and shall be guided by principles (a) to (d) of rule 70, especially with respect
to the proposed questioning of a victim.
Where the Chamber determines that the evidence referred
to in sub-rule 2 is admissible in the proceedings, the Chamber shall state on
the record the specific purpose for which the evidence is admissible. In evaluating
the evidence during the proceedings, the Chamber shall apply principles (a)
to (d) of rule 70.
Issue: Privileges All communications
between the witness and medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists or therapeutic
counselors, whether secular or religious, and including those in the Victim
Witness Unit, should be absolutely privileged, and not subject to disclosure
at trial, unless the client consents to such disclosure.
Development: The issue was not re-opened
for discussion or negotiation at this prepcom.
Final Outcome: The rule on privilege is as follows:
Rule 73
Privileged communications and information
1. Without prejudice to article 67, paragraph 1 (b),
communications made in the context of the professional relationship between
a person and his or her legal counsel shall be regarded as privileged, and consequently
not subject to disclosure, unless:
(a) The person consents in writing to such
disclosure; or
(b) The person voluntarily disclosed the content
of the communication to a third party, and that third party then gives evidence
of that disclosure.
2. Having regard to rule 63, sub-rule 5, communications
made in the context of a class of professional or other confidential relationships
shall be regarded as privileged, and consequently not subject to disclosure,
under the same terms as in sub-rules 1 (a) and 1 (b) if a Chamber decides in
respect of that class that:
(a) Communications occurring within that class
of relationship are made in the course of a confidential relationship producing
a reasonable expectation of privacy and non-disclosure;
(b) Confidentiality is essential to the nature
and type of relationship between the person and the confidant; and
(c) Recognition of the privilege would further
the objectives of the Statute and the Rules.
3. In making a decision under sub-rule 2, the Court
shall give particular regard to recognizing as privileged those communications
made in the context of the professional relationship between a person and his
or her medical doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist or counsellor, in particular
those related to or involving victims, or between a person and a member of a
religious clergy; and in the latter case, the Court shall recognize as privileged
those communications made in the context of a sacred confession where it is
an integral part of the practice of that religion.
4. The Court shall regard as privileged, and consequently
not subject to disclosure, including by way of testimony of any present or past
official or employee of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
any information, documents or other evidence which it came into the possession
of in the course, or as a consequence of, the performance by ICRC of its functions
under the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,
unless:
(a) After consultations undertaken pursuant
to sub-rule 6, ICRC does not object in writing to such disclosure, or otherwise
has waived this privilege; or
(b) Such information, documents or other evidence
is contained in public statements and documents of ICRC.
5.
Nothing in sub-rule 4 shall affect the admissibility of the same evidence obtained
from a source other than ICRC and its officials or employees when such evidence
has also been acquired by this source independently of ICRC and its officials
or employees.
6.
If the Court determines that ICRC information, documents or other evidence are
of great importance for a particular case, consultations shall be held between
the Court and ICRC in order to seek to resolve the matter by cooperative means,
bearing in mind the circumstances of the case, the relevance of the evidence
sought, whether the evidence could be obtained from a source other than ICRC,
the interests of justice and of victims, and the performance of the Court’s
and ICRC’s functions.
IV . OTHER PREPCOM DEVELOPMENTS
Ø Crime of aggression: The working group on aggression
(WGCA) met at informals. Some African delegations are very concerned about
aggression and were present at the prepcom mainly to attend the negotiations
on this issue. The main concerns were the possible definition of aggression,
specially the broad ranges of various notions relating to aggression and the
needs to have common ground to allow the Court to have jurisdiction over the
crime of aggression. By the end of the prepcom, a reference document on the
crime of aggression was prepared by the Secretariat and adopted in the working
group.
Ø Other meetings: The Caucus held every morning,
open strategy meetings with the participants, where participants shared information
of the day before and reviewed the issues in order to be up to date with information
and strategies for the day. Some members of the coalition attended our meetings
from time to time. On 22nd of June, the Hon. Judge Garzon, the Spanish
judge in charge in the Pinochet’s case, addressed the Caucus participants at
one of the morning meetings. He shared with us his experience, perspectives
and hopes he has on this Court. He was very receptive to our issues and supported
them in many ways during his brief appearance at the prepcom.
Ø Announcements: Belgium announced that the draft
bill allowing the ratification of the Statute of Rome was lodged and will deposit
the instrument of ratification before the end of the prepcom. Canada made similar
announcement. They were the 13th and 14th country respectively
to ratify the ICC treaty.
V . REFLECTIONS ON CAUCUS PARTICIPATION
Delegates at this prepcom felt a strong presence of the Caucus and advocacy
in gender. Some delegates appreciated the quality of our position papers and
suggested that the Caucus should also produce documents on other issues and
not only on gender issues, like on the crime of aggression.
The participants of the Caucus generally found its participation in the Prepcom
satisfying and was proud of the work accomplished on several important gender
issues both in the Elements and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Several new participants found our position paper very complete and interesting.
They also appreciated the participatory approach of the Caucus. However, the
division of participants in two group made it difficult for some participants
to follow issues of the other group and were sometimes also called upon to work
with other group when strong advocacy presence was required on those issues.
VI . OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Ø On June 27th , the Caucus presented a seven-minute
preview video in the UN building.
The members of the Caucus were all invited to this
preview and to give comments to improve it. This project will be completed in
October (approximately 45 minutes in length) and aims to promote awareness on
the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, the process for its ratification
and entry into force and will emphasize its importance and relevance to women.
It will be distributed internationally among non-governmental and grass roots
organizations.
The project is coordinated by Miho Tsujii, who is
the chief liaison person for the Caucus on the video project. Other include
Michelle Stevenson from the Witness Project and Leeza Sultana, an intern from
Bangladesh. Margaret Crehan, a new filmmaker is the Director of the video.
Ø The Caucus took the opportunity of the presence of
women during the Prepcom to plan our outreach activities.
Several needs were identified to assist bringing the
ICC process back home, such as a support for initiatives for to assist law reforms
which could be accompanied by an information service about the ICC. The participants
emphasized that in their countries and regions very little is known about the
ICC and its relevance for protection of women's human rights. Participants shared
information on their projects for the months to come.
A project on universal jurisdiction initiated by some
NGOs was discussed. Two Caucus persons attended a meeting in Paris on the issue.
The group has plans to create a network with a website to collect information
all over the world in which different aspects and approaches will be developed.
Several members of the Women’s Caucus are involved
in different activities in several regions of the world:
- Rashida Manjoo is coordinating
a meeting in Cape Town, South Africa on August 24-26, 2000 with the assistance
of Betty Murungi and Sume Epie Eyoh.
- Betty Murungi will participate
in Women’s jurist meeting in Nairobi on August or September.
- A two-day seminar was held
in Bangladesh in May that drew participation of participants of the New York
office.
- In October, in response to
the needs expressed from the region, the Caucus will organize workshop in Central
America (Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua) with several domestic legislators to
discuss about the ICC;
- Also, in October, the Women
in Media Collective in Colombo, Sri Lanka will begin its ICC campaign for South
Asia with a regional conference in Colombo to be followed by national conferences
in each country.
- On December 8-13, in Tokyo,
Japan, supporters of Comfort Women’s survivors will hold the Women’s International
War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery. The Women’s Caucus will
coordinate the one-day public hearing which will comprise of testimonies of
victims and survivors of on-going war and conflict situations from different
regions of the world. (Chiapas, Columbia, Guatemala, Algeria, Congo , Liberia,
Rwanda, etc.)
VII . CONCERNS FOR THE NEXT PREPCOM
The next preparatory commission for the International
Criminal Court will be held from the 27th November to 8th
December 2000. It will be devoted to developing a relationship agreement between
the ICC and the UN as well as a budget development.
Since the issues being discussed at the next prepcom
are technical in nature, the participation of the Caucus will be minimal. However,
the Caucus will continue opposing any moves by the United States or other countries
to introduce proposals that would weaken the ability of the Court to effectively
prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
