Before giving the floor to Mr. Kirsch, she recalled that on Monday afternoon, the Secretary-General's Special Representative, Hans Corell, had addressed the Committee of the Whole, appealing to delegations to seek solutions on the remaining substantive issues.  The text of his statement was available in the press documents area, as were notes from his briefing on the same day.  Also available in the press documents area were press releases in English, French and Italian on the two meetings held yesterday.

The meeting of the Committee of the Whole had lasted until 10:40 pm on Tuesday, with some 81 speakers.

Responding to a question raised at yesterday's briefing as to how many United Nations Member States were not participating in the Conference, she said the answer was 26, adding that a list was available in her office for interested correspondents.  A total of 161 countries were attending.  As of the end of yesterday, there were 2,818 participants at the Conference, including some 1,400 members of delegations, 390 media and 553 non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Ms. Markham said that at 1:45 today, there would be press conference by the NGO coalition.  She added that tickets to this afternoon's meeting of the Committee of the Whole would be available in her office at 2:30 pm -- half an hour in advance of the meeting..

Mr. Kirsch began by stressing that he was speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and not as Canada's representative.

He said there had been a lot of progress in recent weeks on the draft statute.  At the outset, he had been concerned that the number of contentious issues might be "of such a weight as to bring down the Conference" as a result of its inability to resolve them. "This to me is no longer a concern."  He estimated that agreement on at least four-fifths of the draft statute had been achieved.

"As we all know, there are some serious differences remaining in various areas," Mr. Kirsch said.  The most visible were those relating to the definition or inclusion of certain crimes, and those concerning the  acceptance or exercise of the court's jurisdiction. There was a lack of agreement as to whether aggression should be included in the draft statute.  Another point of disagreement was whether or not terrorism and other "treaty crimes" would be covered.  Delegations were still negotiating the question of when a State would be bound by the court's statute, for example either at the time of ratification or through a second act.  Also unresolved was the issue of how many States must be party to the court's statute in order for it to begin to exercise its jurisdiction.

Several less visible issues had not really been discussed in the Committee of the Whole, such as the question of how the international criminal court would be funded, he said.  Another less visible issue concerned reservations to the statute, but it was expected that this issue would be resolved later in the day.

A number of the issues that had been raised yesterday during the meetings were now being negotiated to see if further progress could be achieved.  "So the situation from that perspective is more positive today than it was yesterday," he said.

A correspondent asked about the negotiations on the role of the Security Council.  Mr. Kirsch replied that there were problems concerning whether the Council would be able to trigger the court's jurisdiction.  Also at issue was whether the Council should be able to suspend the exercise of the court's jurisdiction in certain circumstances.  Finally, delegations were still divided on the issue of aggression as it related to the Security Council, specifically whether the Council would have to determine that an act of aggression between States had been committed for the court to act, presuming that aggression would have been included in the draft statute.  "None of those three issues have been resolved," he said.

Asked whether he regretted not presenting a discussion paper to the Committee sooner, Mr. Kirsch said that would not have been possible.   It had been necessary to first conduct a general debate and hear the views of all delegations before a paper based on those views could be formulated.  "I don't think you can table papers like that in the abstract," he said, noting, "You have to have heard delegations."  He said he would have liked to have had more time, but the schedule could not have been different given the prevailing constraints.

In response to a question on whether there would be a vote on the court's statute, Mr. Kirsch declined to speculate, but added that obviously, his hope was that there could be a consensus. "The difficulty we have now is that some States tend to forget that the main objective of this Conference is to adopt an international criminal court for the benefit of all."  He said that if States could rise above their particular interests, consensus would be possible..

A correspondent asked if there was a possibility that the work of the Conference would be postponed if agreement were not reached.  "The last time I looked, the mandate of the Conference is to adopt a statute this week," Mr. Kirsch replied.

Asked about the significance of the court's statute, Mr. Kirsch said it would be the first ever to have universal application for prosecuting and punishing those who committed very serious crimes.  He noted that the Security Council had already established two ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but creating a statute by treaty is "entirely new and quite revolutionary" when compared with any previous efforts.

Mr. Kirsch was then asked when a new discussion paper would come out and what it would contain.  "You will see when the paper comes what it contains," he replied.

To another question, he said it was hoped that the United States would be a party to the statute, but added that queries about that country's position should be posed directly to its delegation.

Asked to explain the difficulties surrounding the question of aggression, Mr. Kirsch noted that discussions on the matter dated back many decades.  One problem was reaching agreement on how aggression should be defined.  In 1974, the General Assembly had adopted a definition aimed at guiding the Security Council in determining whether or not an act of aggression had been committed.  There was another definition which was geared towards a court prosecuting individuals, but no agreement on the matter had been reached.

Problems were also involved in determining what role if any the Security Council would play in determining that an act of aggression had been committed.  There was a conflict between those who said that the Council had a primary responsibility in the area of international peace and security, and those who argued that the court should be completely independent in deciding on cases of aggression.  "I am not at all saying that these questions are impossible to resolve, but this is the situation at this time," he added.

Once the draft statute was presented, would delegations have the opportunity to amend  the text?  Mr. Kirsch replied that he would not be ready to address questions about the text until it was presented.

A correspondent asked how Mr. Kirsch would make up his mind on how to proceed.  "I'll have to reflect on how I'll make up my mind," he replied.  He also noted that all papers were tabled by the Bureau, which included five representatives from all regions of the world, so obviously he was not entirely by himself on this.

Asked about the relative importance of how many countries would participate in the court versus how to have the strongest possible court, he said that the question assumed that the choice was his.  "The choice is not entirely mine at all," he stressed.  In order to be strong, the court would require both strong provisions and wide support.  It would be extremely difficult to define how the balance would be struck.   It was hoped that consultations would resolve the issue.

Asked if the Conference would end at midnight on Friday or "stop the clock," Mr. Kirsch said that would depend on circumstances.

A correspondent then asked if the funding question would be resolved in Rome or after the Conference.  "It has to be resolved here; it has to be part of the of the Conference,"Mr. Kirsch replied.

Another correspondent said that some delegates were complaining that not everyone was being consulted, and asked Mr. Kirsch to comment.  In response, he noted that there were some 12 coordinators handling various issues related to the draft statute.  Discussions were being held in working groups, informal meetings and private discussions.  He said that every effort was being made to provide information to delegations, including through posters on meeting room doors.  "I'm taking every step I can to make the process as transparent as possible," he said.

Asked to name the States that were not willing to adapt their positions, Mr. Kirsch replied, "The meeting is adjourned."