I. The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 420-435

  Warbrick, Colin ^a   Mcgoldrick, Dominic ^a   Byron, Christine ^a   Turns, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015954394     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/50.2.420     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/10, Resolution F.
2. The timetable for the RPE and EOC required that their draft texts be completed before 30 June 2000, Resolution, para. 6.
3. Resolution, para. 5.
4. Resolution, para. 7.
5. Resolution, para. 2.
6. G.A. Resolution 53/105, 26 Jan. 1999, para. 6.
7. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.1, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, pp.20–21.
8. PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/Add.2, 7 April 2000, pp.6–8.
9. PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2, 6 July 2000, pp.6–8, now reissued unchanged in the English version as PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2.
10. PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2.
11. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.1, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, pp.20–21.
12. See also K. Dörmann, ‘The First and Second Sessions of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, 2 YIHL (1999) 283–306, p.286.
13. YIHL, pp.6–8.
14. YIHL, p.6.
15. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.3, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, p.23.
16. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.3.
17. This confirms the finding of the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case of The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, where it stated that “rape and sexual violence … constitute genocide in the same way as any other act”, Judgment, 2 Sept. 1998, Case No. ICTR-96–4-T, para. 731.
18. Judgment, p.6 footnote 2, p.7 footnote 3 and p.8 footnote 4.
19. Judgment, p.6.
20. Compare P. Drost, Genocide (1959, A. W. Sythoff, Leyden), p.85
21. who believes that one murder may suffice for genocide, with L. Kuper, Genocide: Its Political use in the Twentieth Century (1982, Yale University Press, New Haven), p.32, who assumes that there must be an “‘appreciable’ number of victims”.
22. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.1, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, p.21.
23. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.1, p.8.
24. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, 22 Dec. 1999, pp.8–15.
25. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, pp.9–17.
26. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, p.8
27. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, p.9.
28. See discussion of the chapeau to the Elements of crimes against humanity in Human Rights Watch Commentary to the Third Preparatory Meeting on the ICC, available at CICC website: http://www.igc.apc.org/icc/html/n.g.o.html Also see statements on this by Côte d'Ivoire, PCNICC/2000/INF/4, 13 July 2000, p.1.
29. Article 7(2)(a), Rome Statute.
30. Rome Statute, p.9.
31. Rome Statute, footnote 6. However, this footnote also states that “the existence of such a policy cannot be inferred solely from the absence of governmental or organizational action”.
32. Rome Statute, p.11, see footnote 13. See forward EOC of war crimes for a discussion of the Elements of these offences.
33. Rome Statute, p.12.
34. Rome Statute, p.13.
35. Rome Statute, p.15, emphasis added.
36. Compare Rome Statute, p.14
37. with Rome Statute, pp.15–16.
38. Rome Statute, pp.15–16.
39. Rome Statute.
40. Rome Statute.
41. Rome Statute.
42. Rome Statute.
43. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.2, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, pp.21–23
44. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, 18 Aug. 1999, pp.66–68.
45. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, pp.18–23.
46. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, pp.15–21.
47. Such a statement is essential, as otherwise an unacceptable loophole would be available to defendants from conflicts of an uncertain nature, such as that of the former Yugoslavia. This addition was maintained in the Finalized Draft Text of the EOC, PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, pp.18–23.
48. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.2, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, pp.21–23
49. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, 18 Aug. 1999, pp.66–68
50. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, pp.18–23.
51. This requirement for knowledge on the part of the accused of the factual circumstances establishing the protected status of a victim is modified by a footnote in the Finalized Draft Text of the EOC which states that “[w]ith respect to nationality, it is understood that the perpetrator needs only to know that the victim belonged to an adverse party to the conflict”, PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, p.18, footnote 33.
52. Although this is not stated expressly in Article 8(2)(a), it is the clear meaning of the text as a whole, as is demonstrated by the expression “[o]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict”, used in Article 8(2)(b). This is consistent with the approach of the majority in The Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct. 1995, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72, paras.80–84.
53. Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, p.19.
54. Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (This definition was altered somewhat from that proposed at the First PrepCom, see PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.2, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, p.22.)
55. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, Art.1(1)
56. The Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Trial Chamber Judgment, 10 Dec. 1998, Case No.IT-95–17/1-T, para. 162.
57. Trial Chamber Judgment, p.20.
58. (This Element has not changed significantly since the First PrepCom, see PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.2, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1, 2 March 1999, p.23.)
59. H. von Hebel and D. Robinson, ‘Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court’, pp.79–126, Chapter 2
60. in R. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999, Kluwer Law International, The Hague), pp.108–109.
61. The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results, p.21.
62. This Element has not changed in substance since it was proposed in the Second PrepCom, see PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.4, reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.4/ Rev.1, 18 Aug. 1999, p.67.
63. Article 84, Third Geneva Convention, 1949.
64. K. Dörmann, ‘Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court: the Elements of War Crimes’, 839 IRRC (2000) 771–795.
65. IRRC, pp.23–37. These Elements are also common to the grave breach war crimes.
66. Art.8(2)(b)(xxii), Rome Statute.
67. Rome Statute, p.34.
68. See The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 Sep. 1998, Case No.ICTR-96–4-T, para. 688
69. The Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Trial Chamber Judgment, para. 185.
70. Art.8(2)(b)(viii), Rome Statute.
71. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/INF.3 reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.4.Rev.1, 18 Aug. 1999, pp.78–80.
72. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/INF.3, p.28.
73. Israel signed the Rome Statute on 31 Dec. 2000.
74. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.10 reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, 18 Aug. 1999, pp.76–77 at p.77.
75. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.10, p.30.
76. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.10, p.20.
77. This footnote was initially adopted in the Fourth PrepCom, PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/ Add.2, 7 April 2000, p.22, footnote 42.
78. PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/ Add.2, pp.24–25, footnote 36.
79. PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/ Add.2, pp.37–41. These Elements are also common to Art.8(2)(e).
80. PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/ Add.2.
81. The Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeal Chamber, 2 Oct. 1995, Case No.IT-94–1-AR72, para. 70. The ICC may also refer to the stricter definition of a non-international armed conflict laid down in Art. 1, 1977 Additional Protocol II.
82. Compare PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.5/Rev.1 reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, 18 Aug. 1999, pp.68–70, with Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeal Chamber, pp.37–41.
83. See the Elements for Art. 8(2)(b)(x) of the Rome Statute, PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2, 6 July 2000, p.29.
84. Rome Statute, p.40.
85. Rome Statute.
86. Rome Statute, p.46
87. Rome Statute.
88. PCNICC/1999/WGCA/RT.1 reprinted in PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1, 22 Dec. 1999, pp.26–30.
89. PCNICC/2000/L.4/Rev.1, 14 Dec. 2000, pp.13–17. See also UN Press Release L/2967, 1 Dec. 2000.
90. Human Rights Watch: Commentary to the Preparatory Commission Rules of Evidence and Procedure [sic] for the International Criminal Court (Part 1, Feb. 1999), available on the Internet at http://www.iccnow.org/.
91. Eventually issued as UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1.
92. Witness protection has been a major issue for the ICTY in particular, as many prosecution witnesses have been placed in fear of or actually subjected to intimidation, targeting either themselves or their families, in the often small communities in the former Yugoslavia from which they or the accused come: see M. Leigh, “The Yugoslav Tribunal: Use of Unnamed Witnesses Against Accused” (1996) 90 A.J.I.L. 235
93. F. Hampson, “The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and the Reluctant Witness” (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 50.
94. Human Rights Watch Commentary, I.C.L.Q., p.1.
95. UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/DP.1.
96. UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/DP.43.
97. RPE, Rule 58.2.
98. RPE.
99. RPE, Rule 51.
100. RPE, Rule 44.2.
101. RPE, Rules 89–93.
102. RPE, Rules 94–99.
103. See K. Askin, “Sexual Violence in Decisions and Indictments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals: Current Status” (1999) 93 A.J.I.L. 97.
104. RPE, Rules 70 and 71.
105. UN Doc. IT/125 (1997).
106. UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGFIRR/L.1.
107. UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGICC-UN/L.1.
108. UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGAPIC/L.1.
109. UN Doc. SPLOS/36 (8 Oct. 1998).
110. See UN Doc. SPLOS/36, “Introductory note”, paras.2–4.
111. Relationship Agreement, Art.4.
112. Relationship Agreement, Art.5.
113. Relationship Agreement, Art.7. The war crimes in question are defined in Art.8(2)(b)(iii) and (vii) of the Rome Statute.
114. Relationship Agreement, Art.8. Such persons are normally covered by the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1 U.N.T.S. 15); however, Art.27(2) of the Rome Statute provides that, “Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person”.
115. See the Preamble to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (500 U.N.T.S. 95).
116. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.6.
117. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.7.
118. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.8.
119. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.11.
120. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.13.
121. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.14.
122. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.15.
123. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.16.
124. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.17.
125. Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, Art.19.