Background
The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to complete its debate on measures to eliminate international terrorism. [For details, see Press Release GA/L/3233 of 15 October]. It was also to start discussions of two new items concerning the administration of justice at the United Nations and the newly established International Criminal Court based at The Hague, the Netherlands. This afternoon, the Committee was expected to continue debate on the International Criminal Court and to begin deliberations on the question of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings.
Administration of Justice
The agenda item on the administration of justice at the United Nations was allocated to the Fifth Committee by the General Assembly and also to the Sixth Committee, but for the sole purpose of considering the question of an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly, in its resolution 57/307, agreed that the United Nations Administrative Tribunal should be strengthened through an amendment to its Statute.
The amendment would require that the candidates for the Tribunal possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent within the candidate’s national jurisdiction (Article 3 paragraph 1), as recommended in paragraph 13 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (document A/57/736). The General Assembly decided to take a decision on the matter at its fifty-eighth session. (At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly by resolution 55/159 amended a number of articles of the Statute including the original Article 3 paragraph 1. The amended version of Article 3 paragraph, which took effect from 1 January 2001, read as follows: “The Tribunal shall be composed of seven members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State. Members shall possess the requisite qualifications and experience, including, as appropriate, legal qualifications and experience. Only three members shall sit in any particular case.”)
By a draft resolution on the administration of justice at the United Nations (document A/C.6/58/L.7), the paragraph would be amended to read: “The Tribunal shall be composed of seven members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State. Members shall possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent within the member’s national jurisdiction. Only three members shall sit in any particular case.”
International Criminal Court
A report of the Secretary-General on the International Criminal Court (document A/58/372) provides a brief account of the two sessions of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the Court. It also focuses on activities relating to the United Nations Secretariat in its capacity as provisional secretariat for the Assembly of States Parties.
According to the report, the 18 judges of the Court and the prosecutor had been elected by the Assembly of States Parties. The deputy prosecutor and the Court’s Registrar have also been appointed, and the programme budget for the Court for fiscal year 2004 adopted. Also adopted were resolutions concerning, inter alia, the committee on budget and finance and the recognition of the coordinating and facilitating role of the non-governmental organization, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Staff regulations of the Court had been approved and a decision has been taken to establish a permanent secretariat for the Assembly of States Parties.
The Court’s Registrar had been asked to establish a trust fund under the authority of the Assembly’s secretariat for the participation of the least developed countries in the work of the Assembly and its subsidiary bodies. Consequently, the Secretary-General was asked by the Assembly of States Parties to close the special fund established by the General Assembly for that purpose and to take steps to transfer any funds remaining in the account to the new trust fund, for which voluntary contributions had been sought.
Another resolution adopted by the Assembly of States Parties acknowledged the important role played by the United Nations in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. It expressed deep appreciation to the Secretary-General and the United Nations Secretariat for their outstanding support in the Court’s establishment. It also acknowledged with satisfaction the dedication and professionalism of the staff of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, which served, it said, in an exemplary manner as secretariat, and in particular of the Ad Hoc Committee and Preparatory Committee on the establishment of the Court.
International Convention Against Human Cloning
The Committee had before it a report by the working group on the international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings (document A/C.6/58/L.9). Also before the Committee are two resolutions offering approaches to the convention -- one submitted by sponsors associated with the delegation of the United Kingdom (document A/C.6/58/L.8), and the other offered by delegations associated with the final sponsor of the United States (document A/C.6/58/L.2).
Statements on International Terrorism
RUSSEL MEZEME-MBA (Gabon) said the 11 September terrorist attack against the United States and the recent bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations were urgent reminders that international action was needed to combat the scourge. A comprehensive convention was necessary to supersede the 12 sectoral instruments against terrorism. More extreme measures were required to make the fight against terrorism more effective.
He paid tribute to the tremendous work carried out by the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee and said his Government had submitted two reports on measures it had taken to combat the scourge. The President of Gabon had recently issued a decree creating a commission to deal with terrorism issues. The Government was also adopting banking legislation to monitor all financial transactions.
THOMAS KWESI QUARTEY (Ghana) said international terrorism did not begin on 11 September 2001 and did not end on that day. As globalization increased, so had the mindless violence of international terrorism. The international community must face up to the task and confront the problem globally. His Government supported the central role of the United Nations and the Sixth Committee in its work to bring to early fruition an acceptable draft comprehensive convention on terrorism and a treaty on nuclear terrorism.
That endeavour must take into account all legitimate concerns, such as targeting of innocent civilians, women and children; the role of armed forces when they violated international humanitarian law; the nuances involving self-determination; bilateral cooperation and information-sharing; and the definitional problems associated with those concerns. The hopelessness and injustice that fed that frustration and consequent nihilism must also be addressed. Difficult as it might seem, the international community must try to understand what animated international terrorism. Ghana supported a joint international response to the problem. It had ratified most of the United Nations and regional conventions, and was in the processing of completing that task.
TULL TRAISORAT (
Thailand) said his Government had taken measures under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) to put into effect anti-terrorism legislation. It had become party to a number of anti-terrorism instruments. Thailand commended the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee and supported its work. It had consistently submitted reports to the Committee on measures its Government had taken to combat terrorism, as required of Member States. Thailand associated itself with the statement made by the representative of Viet Nam on behalf of the member States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). It had effectively participated in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and would contribute towards the completion of work on a draft comprehensive convention against terrorism and an instrument for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. He called for the strengthening of cooperative efforts to combat terrorism.
TAL BECKER (Israel) said important legal milestones had already been achieved in confronting terrorism, including Security Council resolution
1373 (2001) that was a crucial contribution to the legal counter-terrorist architecture. There was also clear support for the principle that no remembered wrong or grievance could ever justify the deliberate murder of innocent civilians. States that abused the language of “resistance” to whitewash the premeditated targeting of innocents were increasingly alone.
Recounting recent terrorist acts in his country, he said the odds were against innocents, since those without moral scruples had a tactical advantage in their moral blindness. Yet the fight had to be conducted in accordance with international law, which was not a suicide pact. The scale of the threat must be recognized in order to confront it, which meant it was necessary to assess the threat according to those attacks that had been planned and yet prevented, not just by those that had succeeded. In his country’s case, as in that of many, that meant not just considering the hundreds of civilians killed in attacks but those who had been saved through prevention. In looking at the root causes of terrorism, too little attention was paid to the role played by the incitement that fostered the kind of culture that bred terrorism. Also, the question of State sponsors of terrorism must be addressed. They sought to conduct “war on the cheap” by facilitating aggression by proxy groups against civilians.
FELIX AWANBOR (Nigeria) recalled terrorism against his country, including the 1998 attack on the Nigerian Embassy in Tanzania. He strongly condemned the August terrorist attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and expressed strong support for the United Nations actions against terrorism, including the Secretary-General’s report before the Committee. He reaffirmed his cooperation and commitment to fully implement the relevant international instruments relating to terrorism, and outlined the steps his country had taken to put instruments in place so as to freeze funds and financial assets of terrorism-related parties and to deny safe haven to them.
Declaring the need for a comprehensive convention on combating terrorism and a convention to fight nuclear terrorism, he said that while no cause justified terrorism the root causes must be addressed. As the Secretary-General had said, while terrorism must never be excused, genuine grievances must not be ignored just because terrorism was committed in their name.
ALEJANDRO RODILES (Mexico) said it was urgent to bring both convention drafts to fruition, since both were indispensable to give the international community a complete framework along which terrorism could be defeated. They should be aimed toward prevention. An unnecessary linkage was being created between the two and that was inappropriate. Both were valuable in and of themselves. Viewing them separately as stand-alone instruments could help resolve the outstanding issues.
MOHAMMED HAJ IBRAHIM (Syria) called on all States for real cooperation in giving legitimacy to the fight against terrorism through the lead of the Counter-Terrorism Committee. He said some States acted under the pretext of fighting terrorism while continuing terrorist practices on the ground. Israel committed actions that constituted a persecution of Palestinians, by carrying on illegal settlements, as an example. Palestinians had the right to protest illegal occupation of their land by the principles set out in the Charter. That was not terrorism. Any people whose land was occupied had the right to fight that injustice through any means, and such action did not warrant isolation or segregation.
Calling for a definition of terrorism in the comprehensive convention that was in line with the right of people to struggle against occupation, he said no actions taken by armed forces should be exempt from the convention unless they were in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Syria was ready to combat terrorism in all its manifestations and forms. It was ready to cooperate with the national community in the fight. His country had called for a high-level conference to clarify the definition. Holding that conference now was more critical than ever.
GAILE ANN RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago), who is also a Vice-Chair of the Sixth Committee, said the fight against terrorism could not be successfully waged by States acting individually. It called for collective action. She said the progress achieved by the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee had contributed to a large extent to highlighting the need for strengthening the international capability to fight terrorism and to encouraging States to take the required action at the domestic level.
Trinidad and Tobago reaffirmed its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and remained committed to working at all levels to ensure that the necessary measures were put in place to eradicate the threat. It intended to avail itself of the technical assistance offered by the Counter-Terrorism Committee. She said her country was a party to 11 of the
12 international legal instruments relating to the prevention and suppression of international terrorism and would take steps in accordance with the country's parliamentary processes. In addition, Trinidad and Tobago had also signed the two Inter-American Conventions as well as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. It was in the interests of all States to work closely together to deal effectively with terrorist networks on their territories. As such, she said there was a real need for capacity-building and cooperation in areas such as intelligence, equipment, policing, and compliance with international codes and standards.
MARIA LAVELLE (Canada) said terrorism was a global problem which required a durable and effective global response, and one that respected international law. The response should be united, resolute and unwavering. Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act addressed the spreading of hatred as a factor that must be dealt with in the fight against terrorism. The act reaffirmed Canadian values and ensured that Canada’s respect for justice and diversity was reinforced. The Act addressed hate through amendments to the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. She said a sound international legal architecture to combat terrorism had been created. Canada had signed and ratified all 12 international counter-terrorism conventions and continued to support the Secretary-General’s appeal for States to ratify and implement all existing counter terrorism instruments. She announced Canada’s readiness to assist States with the national mechanisms needed to implement the required standards.
ANA CARLINA PLAZAS (Colombia) said there was no such thing as just terrorism, because the act was one of destruction. The only difference between terrorism and other crimes against humanity was the purpose, which was nothing more than to create terror for its own sake. The subject of terrorism must be freed of any political context, so it could be fought as the scourge it was -- an action intended to terrify, because of its links to transnational crimes.
She said her Government was fighting terrorism by aiming for “democratic security”, by giving special authority legislatively to law enforcement persons. Criticisms were lodged against the programme. They were listened to and addressed. Peace in the region was being brought about on the principle of shared responsibility. Her country had reported to the Secretary-General on actions taken against terrorism. The two conventions should be finalized on an urgent basis without delay.
IYA TIDJANI (Cameroon) recalled recent tragedies demonstrating the world’s vulnerability to terrorists. He said nobody could deny the global nature of terrorism today and its links to transnational crimes. Collective security must be the approach taken against it, along with the recognition that nothing could justify terrorism. The best way to show the determination to defeat terrorism was to elaborate the instruments before the Committee. That would augment the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, which had established a useful dialogue between national, regional and subregional players in fighting terrorism and its root causes such as poverty.
The fight against terrorism required a change in culture, he said. Today’s culture must be centred on peace, humanity and equality. Industrialized countries must cooperate in implementing real and specific policies, with the fight seen in view of the magnitude of the threat. The comprehensive convention must be a value-added document. Its elaboration should be associated with a high-level conference.
YASHAR T. ALIYEV (Azerbaijan), speaking on behalf of the GUUAM Group of States –- Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan -– said the Group welcomed the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee’s endeavours to facilitate dialogue and information exchange with regional bodies. Such exchanges would benefit the global anti-terrorist effort. The setting of international norms through the continuing promotion and adoption of international legal instruments should remain a priority of United Nations efforts in combating international terrorism.
He said one of the main objectives of GUUAM’s charter was combating international terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking. At the Group’s summit held in Yalta, last July, they had reaffirmed their readiness to cooperate in combating terrorism, separatism, ethnic hatred, extremism and other challenges to international security. Experts of the Group met on 3 October at Baky, capital of Azerbaijan, on implementation of their project to combat terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking. He noted the high level of cooperation between their Group and the United States, to coordinate efforts to combat terrorism and transnational crime.
RAM BABU DHAKAL (Nepal) said there was an imperative need for the Ad Hoc Committee to complete its work on drafting a comprehensive convention on international terrorism and an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. Nepal supported the convening of a high-level conference under United Nations auspices to prepare a joint, organized response to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Regional cooperation would complement global efforts, and he referred to work of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Nepal was party to several international legal instruments relating to the various aspects of international terrorism. It had submitted to the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee the periodic reports required of Member States.
He said terrorist activities had posed a serious threat to peace, security and development of Nepal. The Government was determined to protect its people and defend their freedom. It hoped the global community would continue to provide Nepal with moral and financial support to overcome the scourge.
ARIF HAVAS OEGROSENO (Indonesia) said the most important task in dealing with terrorism was to lay down a legal foundation to protect both the public interest and human rights, as a basis for enforcing laws to root out terrorism. The strong legal infrastructure would become the basis for national policy and for actions based on both national and international processes.
He reviewed the national steps his country had taken to fight terrorism, for example, through linkages with money laundering at the domestic, regional and international levels, and he said international cooperation was extremely important in areas such as information exchange and enforcement cooperation, including by extradition provisions. Finally, he said the adoption of the two conventions before the Committee would send the clear signal that the international community was united and determined in its intention to eliminate the scourge.
Mr. THIAM (Senegal) said his delegation was pleased with the progress made in the Ad Hoc Committee on the framing of a comprehensive international convention on terrorism and an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. He noted the difficulties encountered in that Committee, including the issue of definition of terrorism. There was need for an agreed definition of international terrorism which took account of all relevant issues in today’s world. That approach would achieve the required consensus. He assured the Committee of the full support of his delegation. Senegal was fully committed to the fight against terrorism and had adopted appropriate measures to that end. It had presented its required reports to the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. A number of legislative actions were being taken, including one on eco-terrorism. Measures had been introduced to control movement of people across borders and airports. Senegal had ratified 10 of the 12 United Nations conventions on terrorism. It supported the call for the convening of an international conference to take up the question of joint international response to terrorism and a search for its definition.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Israel said he had not identified any country as a supporter of terrorism although there were a number of candidates present. Political sides of issues did not belong in the Committee. The statement by Syria’s representative, however, compelled him to respond. How could Syria defend itself against its known behaviour of harbouring terrorists even as it sat on the Security Council? Syria was the last State to be lecturing anyone on international law or on the Charter.
Syria’s representative said the Zionist entity had just stated that political aspects of issues had no place in the Committee. In fact, acts perpetrated on the ground in the occupied territories derived from State terrorism and genocide. Israeli used United States-built aircraft to target civilians in his own country, among many other actions condemned by the international community. To call Israel the victim was to reverse reality. Israel claimed democracy but had sown the seeds of terrorism in the region and it continued to pursue that policy. The Prime Minister boasted of it and pursued the plan to build the wall destroying any chance of the two-State plan for the region. The Prime Minister was torpedoing any chance for peace in the region. Those bombarded from aircraft had no choice but to protest and resist in exercise of a right guaranteed by the Charter.
Israel’s representative said he did not blame the Syrian representative for the misrepresentations he had just stated on instructions from Damascus. Delegations needed only to consult the Internet to see what kind of democracy was practised in Syria.
Syria’s representative said he was used to the kinds of lies being spoken by the other delegate. The fact was that half a million Palestinians in Syria could not return home because their land had been taken from them. The representative of the occupying forces was the last to be talking about democracy. The kind of suffering meted out to Arabs by Israel in history was well known and the corruption occurring in Israel now was indicative of the form of democracy there. All took pride in carrying out the directives of their countries; it would be more prideful if all countries’ views received equal acceptance.
Administration of Justice at United Nations
LAURO LIBRON BAJA (
Philippines), Chairman of the Sixth Committee, said this item had been allocated to the Fifth Committee for its consideration, and to the Sixth Committee for the sole purpose of considering the question of an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. He recalled that the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly , in its resolution 57/307, had agreed that the Tribunal should be strengthened through an amendment to its Statute, requiring that the candidates for the Tribunal possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent within the candidate’s national jurisdiction, as recommended in paragraph 13 of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions’ (ACABQ) report, document A/57/736. It further decided to take a decision on the matter during its fifty-eighth session.
He drew attention to a draft resolution on the item contained in document A/C.6/58/L.7, and said action would be taken on it tomorrow.
The representative of Syria raised a procedural point that the Sixth Committee could not adopt a decision regarding an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and that it could only make a recommendation. He suggested that the Committee should make its recommendation in a letter to the Chairman of the Fifth Committee.
The Chairman of the Committee said a response would be given by the Secretariat at tomorrow’s meeting of the Committee.
International Criminal Court
The Chairman, introducing the agenda item on the International Criminal Court, said that since the consideration of the item last year by the Committee, several significant developments had occurred. The first session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute that established the Court was resumed twice in February and in April. The Assembly had its second session last month. The report of the Secretary-General reviewing the various activities undertaken in accordance with General Assembly resolution 57/23 was contained in document A/58/372.
PRINCE ZEID RA’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN of Jordan, President of the Assembly of States Parties, said the number of States Parties to the Rome Statute had grown from 81 to 91 in the past year. On 1 December 2003, the Statute would enter into force for Georgia, bringing the number of States parties to 92. The universality of the Statute remained a realizable goal that should be striven for. The increasing acceptance of the Rome Statute was a firm indication of the continuing interest in the Court and an affirmation of support for its purposes and objectives.
He said efforts to ensure that the Court, as a judicial institution, became fully operational had proceeded steadily and resolutely despite many challenges. Earlier in the year, elections were held for key officials of the Court. The Judges, the Prosecutor and the Registrar of the Court had all assumed their responsibilities. The International Criminal Court was an operational criminal justice institution, he asserted.
In other actions, he went on, the Assembly of the States Parties had elected members of the Board of Directors of the Victims’ Trust Fund. He said the pronounced role accorded to the participation of victims in the criminal justice system created by the Rome Statute constituted one of the important developments in international criminal law. It was therefore gratifying that the Assembly elected by acclamation eminent personalities of international standing who would play a pioneering advisory function in the critical component of the justice system.
Turning to issues that would require follow-up action in the Sixth Committee, he said it would be necessary for arrangements to be made for a smooth transition from the valuable contribution of the United Nations Secretariat to the secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties. He spoke of the professionalism and competence with which the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat had discharged its responsibilities as provisional secretariat of the Assembly. It would also be necessary, he said, that arrangements were made for the conclusion of the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations. The early conclusion of such an agreement would enable the two institutions to enhance their cooperation of mutual interest.
WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said a milestone had been reached in the past year with the formal adoption of all the Court’s primary governing instruments and the election of all its senior officials. States had new motivation in fulfilling the duty of bringing to justice those who had committed atrocities.
He said the Court had recruited excellent human resources and continued to search for highly qualified professionals. It was regrettable that his country and Trinidad and Tobago were the only two States so far to have ratified the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities. The Court could not work efficiently until the Agreement entered into force. All States must sign and ratify the Treaty. They must also adopt implementing legislation and acquit themselves of their financial commitments. Priority should be given to dialogue on issues concerning the fight against impunity for the worst international crimes, particularly with those who showed a preference for addressing the issues within their national systems framework. Time would show that the Court would work in the national interest of States committed to the rule of law.
GIUSEPPE NESI (Italy), speaking for the European Union and associated countries, said he was confident the Court would soon prove to be an independent and effective institution that would verify the Rome Statute as guaranteeing the highest criteria of justice, without lending itself to political manipulation. The Court’s having come into reality had important consequences for States. Yet that did not mean States had fulfilled their obligations to the development of the international criminal justice system. They must promote the widest possible participation, through ratification of, or accession to, the Rome Statute. They must also preserve the Court’s integrity.
He said the European Union was carrying out initiatives to reflect its Common Position. It was inviting States to join in ratifying or acceding to the Statute and urging States to enact necessary national legislation. It was encouraging the Secretary-General to take steps to conclude the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations. It was defending the Court’s integrity, in part by maintaining a broad-based dialogue with States who had concerns about it.
The Court did not aim to replace domestic jurisdiction and it could assume responsibility only as a last resort, he emphasized. The Court was also not just a judicial institution to put an end to impunity, but was an essential means of promoting respect for international humanitarian law and human rights. Thus it contributed to freedom, security, justice and the rule of law, as well as to preserving peace and strengthening international security.
YISHAN ZHANG (China) said the Chinese Government had all along given its understanding and support to the establishment of an international criminal court that was independent, just, effective and universal. China had noted the report submitted by the Court to the second meeting of the Assembly of States Parties on its activities. It had also noted the Prosecutor’s report submitted to that session, and had gained an overall knowledge about the main activities carried out so far by the Court. China welcomed the practical and transparent approach adopted by the Prosecutor in formulating the prosecution policy of his Office. The document was of interest to China, particularly with those areas concerning interpretation and implementation of the principle of complementarity. However, further clarifications were still needed and China would continue to follow closely the formulation and implementation of the prosecution policy.
The Court needed time to grow, he said. History and reality would test the Court’s ability to strictly observe the principle of complementarity. The Court would also be tested in its ability to prosecute within its limited resources the most serious international crimes as set out in the Statute and to carry out its mandate in an objective and fair manner, free from political bias and double standards.
STEFAN BARRIGA (Liechtenstein) said the issue of the relationship between the Court and the United Nations was an important one which should be addressed by the Sixth Committee. The General Assembly was the place where the idea of an international criminal court was born and where a great deal of the preparations leading to the adoption of the Statute and the subsequent establishment of the Court were undertaken. On the other hand, he said, the United Nations was also a place where the Court had not yet found its rightful place, most obviously regarding its relationship with the Security Council.
He said the momentum must be kept to make the Court a natural part of the landscape of international institutions. He stressed the increasing relevance of the Court for the substantive work of the United Nations, and vice versa; the United Nations could greatly benefit from the work of the Court, and the Court could also greatly benefit from cooperation, in particular with United Nations agencies in the field. Provisional measures should be taken to ensure a constructive and sustainable relationship between the Court and the United Nations, pending the conclusion of the agreement on their relationship.
ANDY MWANDEMBWA (United Republic of Tanzania) said the choice of Prosecutor had been a big point of contention by the Court’s detractors, and the election of Louis Moreno Ocampo had allayed apprehension. It should be remembered that certain crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction affected the entire international community, with national boundaries being no confinement on the punishment of those crimes. The principle of complementarity should assuage those worried about interference in sovereignty.
He urged the Prosecutor to look into atrocities that had been committed in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for possible first cases to see indictment by the Court. Further, he recalled that a definition of the crime of aggression was a major outstanding issue for the Court. And finally, the impressive speed of ratification should not bring on complacency. The need to bring more countries on board was urgent, particularly the largest, most populous and most powerful ones.
ORLANDO REQUEIJO GUAL (Cuba) said the Rome statute had brought about real progress in international law. The organ that had been created was not the one originally envisioned, however. An international justice system was not viable without a definition of the crime of aggression. The Court had been short-changed by hegemonistic interests. His country was not a party to the Treaty but it had participated as an observer. It also respected the decision of parties who had signed and ratified the Treaty. It would continue to work for an international organ that would do justice to the need for the international rule of law with all parties equal before it.
