The Committee of the Whole this morning continued to hear views of delegations on the contentious issues on matters related to crime, jurisdiction and applicable law included in the bureau's discussion paper that delegations received on Tuesday afternoon.  At around midnight yesterday, the Committee completed the list of almost 70 speakers who addressed provisions of article 5 (Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court).

This morning the matters being addressed were jurisdictional issues, basically views on automatic jurisdiction or preference for State consent; the question of types of States over which the Court should have jurisdiction, which involves four types -- State in which a crime is committed, States which holds the accused, State of which the suspect is a citizen and the State of the victims nationality; an approach to the proprio motu power of the Prosecutor to initiate proceedings, and if safeguards are required; and the role of the Security Council on issues other than aggression, which was considered yesterday. Thirty-four delegations spoke this morning, including the five permanent members of the Security Council, and the Committee has two more meetings scheduled for this afternoon and evening.

On the basis of the two-day debate on the proposals included in the discussion paper (document A/CONF.183/C.1/L.53), the bureau will present tomorrow a new set of proposals on those contentious issues.  Delegations will have the weekend to study them, so hopefully final decisions could be taken at the beginning of next week.

On the question of acceptance of jurisdiction (article 7), there was broad support for a Court with automatic jurisdiction over the core crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and for some form of State consent over treaty crimes, if there is agreement at the Conference to include those crimes in the Statute.  Several countries, including Germany, continued to express their preference for universal jurisdiction of the Court.
 
Many States supported the idea that a State would accept the Court's jurisdiction upon becoming a party to it. There was also broad support for this suggestion but the consent of at least one of the following States would be required for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction: State in where the crime was committed, State holding the accused, State of the suspect's citizenship and the State of the victims nationality.

There was widespread support to the provision that would give proprio motu power to the Prosecutor to initiate proceedings, with most speakers addressing the need to provide safeguards in the form of a pre-trial chamber.

As for the role of the Security Council, there was wide support that the Council should first determine that there is an act of aggression, under its Chapter VII powers, before the Court could exercise its jurisdiction.  In addition, there was support expressed for the provision more commonly known as the "Singapore proposal", under which the Council could stop consideration of situations by the Court for a period of 12 months, but approval by the Council would not be required for the Court to try cases.  It was stressed by some that the 12 months should not be renewable and it was also suggested that the time period should not be longer than six months, renewable just once.  It was emphasized that a referral of a situation by the Council to the Court should be made in a transparent way by means of a resolution adopted in a formal meeting.

The United Kingdom was in favour of automatic jurisdiction; as for the Prosecutor it called for an appropriate system of checks and balances to guarantee its independence; it supported the Singapore proposal or something along those lines concerning the role of the Security Council.

The United States called for deletion of language in article 6 allowing the Prosecutor to initiate investigations and also of article 12, which refers to the Prosecutor proprio motu powers; and favoured jurisdiction of the Court only over States parties to the Statute, rejecting other options under article 7 (acceptance of jurisdiction) as a form of "extraterritorial jurisdiction".  It favoured automatic jurisdiction only over genocide, with State consent required for crimes against humanity and war crimes.  On the role of the Security Council, it said it was still studying proposals.  It noted, however, that the Statute must recognize the Council's responsibility under the Charter in the maintenance of international peace and security, its powers and functions cannot be rewritten, and it cannot have obligations with a specified time period for its applicability.  It was also against referral of a situation to the Court by a State.

France was in favour of automatic jurisdiction for crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression, but preferred the State consent approach for war crimes.  It was in favour of a Prosecutor with proprio motu power.   As for the role of the Security Council, it said the Court could not act unless the Council had first determined that an act of aggression had been committed, and it favoured inclusion of the provision based on the Singapore proposal.

China stressed the importance of the principle of State consent, could not accept proprio motu power for the Prosecutor, and stated that the Security Council should be empowered to refer a case to the Court, and existing language in the proposals should be revised to reflect that position.

The Russian Federation was in favour of automatic jurisdiction for genocide, but State consent for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was against proprio motu power for the Prosecutor and also against any language in the Statute that would modify the obligations of the Council under the Charter, including by imposing a time limit for its actions.