Mr President,

Let me congratulate you and the other officers of the Rome Conference upon their election and send warm greetings to Mr Bos. I thank all those who contributed to the progress which brings us here, not least the NGO's.

The Secretary-General underlined the truly historic character of this opportunity. We must not fail to use it. It is imperative to send a signal of hope to victims of war and oppression world-wide, to close the gap of impunity, and to create a possibility for redress for victims and reconciliation in societies torn by conflict.

Sweden fully concurs with the statement made earlier by the UK on behalf of the EU. What do we mean, then, when we say that we want a truly effective Court?

In Sweden's vision, prosecution before such a Court should be readily possible when it is clear that national legal systems have failed, due to unwillingness or inability, in their primary duty to genuinely bring to justice those suspected of serious crimes under international law.

The Court should not have to ask anyone's permission to act, neither the  State which had the opportunity but failed in its duty to prosecute, nor the Security Council. We reject a consent regime other than for non State Parties because it would seriously stand in the way of justice. It should suffice that either the State where the crime occurred, the State with custody over the suspect, the State of nationality of the suspect or the State of nationality of the victim is a Party to the Statute.

It is proper that the Security Council, under Chapter VII, be able to refer situations to the Court in which crimes under ICC jurisdiction appear to have been committed and gone unpunished. This will obviate the need to create new ad hoc tribunals in the future. We have serious doubts, however, that just the fact that the Council is seized with a matter should stop a case, pertaining to that matter, from being brought before the Court, unless the Council so allows. In exceptional cases, there may be good reasons to coordinate the timing of Council and Court action. But the presumption should be reversed. Only by specific decision should the Council be able to delay proceedings before the Court.

In the same way as the Security Council, States Parties should be able to refer situations to the Court where crimes under ICC jurisdiction appear to have been committed and not been prosecuted in a genuine way.

The role of the Prosecutor is crucial for the Court's effectiveness in closing the gap of impunity. Even without a State or Security Council referral, the Prosecutor must be able to open a file when he or she receives information that forms a reasonable basis to believe that crimes under ICC jurisdiction have been committed without genuine investigation or prosecution taking place. After judicial review, an investigation should then be allowed to proceed. We attach importance to the duty of the Prosecutor to act objectively to safeguard the rights of the suspect, and see a role for the pre-trial Chamber also in this regard.

For effectiveness, the system of State cooperation is a key issue. There should be a mandatory obligation to comply with the Court's requests for assistance. They must take precedence over requests for mutual assistance from States. The Court is a unique institution. The system for cooperation with it cannot be built on national extradition and assistance provisions. Traditional grounds for refusal cannot be accepted.

Effectiveness is also about procedures. Cumbersome procedures, which delay due process without adding to the rights of the suspect or accused, must be avoided. While keeping an eye on cost-effectiveness, we must never loose sight of the highest human rights standards. We also need effective measures to protect witnesses and victims with particular regard to women and children. We must find ways to ensure the possibility of reparation to victims in a way which respects the particularities of the Court.

It is essential that the Court's final judgements be immediately enforceable. A sentence of imprisonment should be implemented without change in State Party willing to accept convicts.

Sweden emphatically says no to the death penalty.

There is a movement towards general agreement to concentrate jurisdiction to the so called core crimes. Sweden is of the view that competence should extend only to the most serious crimes under international law, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We also favour the inclusion of the crime of aggression, with the proviso that aggression must be properly defined and treated in a way that respects the role of the Security Council while safeguarding the independence of the Court. To this list we would like to add crimes against UN and associated personnel.

By becoming a Party to the Statute, a State must accept the Court's jurisdiction over all these types of crimes. We cannot have a Court A la carte.

When defining the crimes, attention should be paid to the fact that international law constantly develops. A review conference focussing on the list of crimes some years after the entry into force may be a good idea.Some flexibility should also be built into the Statute to take care of developments, such as emerging prohibitions on means and methods of warfare. Anti-personnel land mines is a case in point.

We must bear in mind that today, most conflicts are non-international in character. It is in that type of conflicts that most atrocities occur. We would fail our duty to the victims if the definition of war crimes did not mirror that fact. Gender-related crimes must be given due attention as well as the child soldiers issue. Sweden rejects attempts to impose an arbitrary threshhold for the Court's competence to deal with war-crimes.

Mr President,

Sweden will make every effort to contribute to the adoption of the Statute and its opening for signature here in Rome. But the negotiating process will not be over with this. We need Rules of Procedure and Evidence and otheraccompanying instruments. They should be speedily negotiated in an open-ended setting before the Statute enters into force.

With a constructive spirit and much hard work, success is within reach. Let us make effective the institution which will soon emerge in The Hague.With the horrors of history on our minds, we owe that to future generations.

I thank you, Mr President