Coalition for the International Criminal Court
Follow Us: Facebook Twitter
CICCCourtCoalitionCoalitionDocumentsPressDonation
Browse by Region
map Americas Africa Asia and Pacific Europe Middle East and North Africa
UN Excerpts: ICC references, 9 October – 31 December 2006
07 Jan 2007
Dear All:

In addition to excerpts previously distributed from UN reports, meetings and resolutions, please find below additional references to the ICC from 9 October - 31 December 2006. These include:

(1) United Nations Security Council Meeting, International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991; International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994; S/PV.5594, 15 December 2006, http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2006.htm

(2) Report of the Secretary-General, Uniting our Strengths: Enhancing United Nations Support for the Rule of Law, S/2006/980, 14 December 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

(3) Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a special tribunal for Lebanon, S/2006/893, 15 November 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

(4) Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict, S/2006/826, 26 October 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

(5) The report of the International Court of Justice, A/61/4, DPI Press Release GA/10528, 26 October 2006, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10523.doc.htm

(6) Tenth progress report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire, S/2006/821, 17 October 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm


**********************************************

(1) International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991; International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994; United Nations Security Council, S/PV.5594, 15 December 2006, http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2006.htm

Mr. Malpede (Argentina):
"The problems encountered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, to which we have referred and which emerge from the report, demonstrate, in our view, that the fragmentation and proliferation of ad hoc tribunals is not the right path through which to deal with cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We believe, therefore, that it is necessary for States and civil society to lend support, political will and the right resources in order to bolster the work of the International Criminal Court, so that in the future a single international tribunal, with robust human and material resources and with universal authority and legitimacy, can be the legal weapon of the international community to try those committing crimes against humanity and to uproot impunity."

**********************************************

(2) Report of the Secretary-General, Uniting our Strengths: Enhancing United Nations Support for the Rule of Law, S/2006/980, 14 December 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

II. Background
[...]
6. In addition, clear and unambiguous language was accepted by all Governments concerning the responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The international community also accepted its role to take collective action, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to help such populations, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from the above crimes (para. 139). Since then, the Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The Court also commenced its first trial in the context of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [...]

III. Existing roles and capacities
[...]
C. Guidelines and other materials
22. Since 2004, United Nations departments, funds and programmes have made considerable efforts to supplement existing rule of law materials, focusing on tools that support our limited knowledge base and capacities in the field. These guidelines and manuals cover a broad range of subjects, including the judiciary, transitional justice, criminal law and general legislative assistance and reform, and police, prisons systems and housing and property issues.
23. As the United Nations system’s point of entry for interaction with the International Criminal Court, the Office of Legal Affairs provides advice to other entities of the United Nations system in initial contacts between United Nations actors and the Court to ensure that policies set out by the Office are followed.[...]

V. Strengthening our capacities, coherence and coordination [...] Rule of law baskets and sectors 40. For purposes of coherence and coordination, the rule of law activities of the Organization can be grouped into three main baskets, as mentioned above. The first basket, Rule of law at the international level, includes issues related to the Charter of the United Nations, multilateral treaties, international dispute resolution mechanisms, the International Criminal Court and advocacy, training and education regarding international law.

**********************************************

(3) Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a special tribunal for Lebanon, S/2006/893, 15 November 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

C. Subject matter jurisdiction
[...]
24. Mindful of the differences in scope and number of victims between the series of terrorist attacks committed in Lebanon and the killings and executions perpetrated on a large and massive scale in other parts of the world subject to the jurisdiction of any of the existing international criminal jurisdictions, it was nevertheless considered that the 14 attacks committed in Lebanon could meet the prima facie definition of the crime, as developed in the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals. The attacks that occurred in Lebanon since 1 October 2004 could reveal a “pattern” or “methodical plan” of attacks against a civilian population, albeit not in its entirety. They could be “collective” in nature, or “a multiple commission of acts”4 and, as such, exclude a single, isolated or random conduct of an individual acting alone. For the crime of murder, as part of a systematic attack against a civilian population, to qualify as a “crime against humanity”, its massive scale is not an indispensable element.

__________________
4 Article 7, paragraph 2 (a), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines an “attack directed against any civilian population” as “a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts ... against any civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack”. [...]

D. Individual criminal responsibility
26. Under article 3, paragraph 1, of the statute, all those who committed, participated as accomplice, organized or directed others to commit the crime, or otherwise contributed to the commission of the crime, shall be individually responsible. This is a reflection of the Lebanese Criminal Code and general criminal law principles, evidenced, inter alia, by article 2, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 1997 (General Assembly resolution 52/164, annex). Article 3, paragraph 2, reflects the principle of command responsibility both under international law and national criminal and military codes as more fully articulated in article 28, subparagraph (b), of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Under article 3, paragraph 3, obedience to superior order is no defence, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment.

**********************************************

(4) Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict, S/2006/826, 26 October 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

35. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the former leader of the political and military movement, the Union des patriote congolais (UPC), was arrested by the Congolese authorities in March 2005 in connection with the assassination of nine United Nations peacekeepers. On 10 February 2006, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Lubanga for the war crime of “conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 years and using them to participate actively in hostilities”. On 17 March 2006, Mr. Lubanga was transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. As a result of the disarmament and community reinsertion process in Ituri, the UPC-Kisembo (UPC-K) wing ceased to exist in the course of 2005. Further, in March 2006, Jean Pierre Biyoyo of the armed group known as Mudundu 40, was condemned to five years’ imprisonment for the arbitrary arrest and illegal detention of children and child recruitment committed in South Kivu in April 2004. However, he escaped from prison during the Bukavu Central Prison outbreak in early June 2006 and remains at large. [...]

Developments in Uganda
107. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) continued to abduct children for use as combatants and as sexual slaves in northern Uganda, although the total number of abductions has significantly reduced over time. The total number of abductions since January 2005 is estimated to have been approximately 1,500, significantly reducing to 222 over the first six months of 2006. For example, in May 2006, all 17 children reported to the United Nations country team to have been abducted were released within 48 hours. On 13 October 2005, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for LRA leader Joseph Kony and four others. The five are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, abduction, sexual enslavement, mutilation and forced recruitment of children. In May, June and July 2006, Mr. Kony met with southern Sudanese mediators attempting to broker an end to the hostilities between LRA and the Ugandan Government. The LRA leader reportedly said that he was committed to the peace process. Although President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni had given LRA leaders until 31 July 2006 to surrender and receive amnesty, on 15 July, Uganda’s representatives agreed to send a delegation to meet with the LRA delegation in Juba, southern Sudan, and began negotiations. On 29 August 2006, a ceasefire between the Government of Uganda and LRA came into force. LRA has since begun to assemble in the Ri-Kwangba and Owiny Ki-Bul camps at the border with southern Sudan, and has agreed to release all women and children present in the group.

**********************************************

(5) The report of the International Court of Justice, A/61/4, DPI Press Release GA/10528, 26 October 2006, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10523.doc.htm

Finland (Irma Ertman) recalled the Court's sixtieth anniversary and said the occasion came at a time when the international legal order was rapidly developing [...] Continuing, she said that international law was increasingly governing new areas of life, with the rapid expansion of its scope and the growth of specialization, particularly in the area of special treaty regimes. The Court had a central role in interpreting and applying that expanding body of law, as new challenges arose for the international judiciary, which included new courts of law, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the other tribunals and the International Criminal Court. All complemented each other and strengthened the international legal order, but the Court of Justice was the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the only truly universal court in exercise of general jurisdiction in settling disputes between States.

**********************************************

(6) Tenth progress report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire, S/2006/821, 17 October 2006, http://www.un.org/docs/sc/sgrep06.htm

75. In addition, in order to eliminate the existing loopholes and avoid previously encountered obstacles, it would be essential for the Security Council to consider setting the following ground rules and safeguards: [...] (c) all commanders of the Defence and Security Forces, as well as political leaders, should be held personally responsible for activities that disrupt the implementation of the road map, and should be subject to the imposition of individual sanctions by the Security Council in this regard, with the more serious cases referred to the International Criminal Court; [...]

77. With regard to the role of the international community, I recommend that the United Nations have an enhanced role in supporting and implementing the key processes of disarmament, identification, the re-establishment of State authority, the dismantling and disarmament of the militias and the technical preparations for the elections. In this context, it would be necessary for the Council to review the mandate of UNOCI and to augment its resources. It is also important for the Security Council to closely monitor the implementation of the road map during the new transition period, in particular, with a view to imposing targeted sanctions against those obstructing the peace process, or seizing the International Criminal Court.