In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Mr. President,
It is a great pleasure and honour for me to attend this important historic diplomatic conference today here in the beautiful city of Rome in Italy. The Italy, where in the fifteenth century the renaissance and Bolognese revival of Roman law inspired many jurists and contributed highly to the formation of what is called later civil law, henceforth the positivist school of criminology in 19th century with its pioneers as Lombroso, Ferri and Garofalo had given a new impetus to the emergence of new science named criminology.

Mr. President,

The Islamic State of Afghanistan reaffirms its support for the establishment of International Criminal Court. We are of the view that after the creation of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court is the most important international institutional innovation.
Since the second World War in the framework of the United Nations we have been witnessing an unprecedented expansion in the international protection of Human Rights. This expansion could be ascribed to an ever-increasing sharing of fundamental values and expectation among nations. Consequently the World community now acknowledges the need to protect the individual from different varieties of human depredations by creating an International Permanent Criminal Court, which should prosecute and punish those who are escaping national jurisdiction under different circumstances.

Mr. President,

It is with great regret that I concede to say since Afghanistan was and still is victim of aggression and the theatre of actions against humanitarian law in recent two decade of its history, we are best placed to insist on the necessity of such a Court. If such a Court existed twenty years ago we would have less victims, horrors and atrocities. Mr. President,

As we have experienced in recent twenty years in Afghanistan, the aggression is the main cause of crime and horrors committed in my country. In 1980s the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan as occupying power faced the just resistance of the people as a legitimate defence. To suppress the resistance, the aggressor resorted to all means including bombardment of civilians, forced displacement of population, massive deportation. massive imprisonment, indiscriminate attacks of village, destruction of irrigation system, torture etc. These acts either constitute war crimes or crime against humanity.

The main source of these heinous acts lied in aggression. It is with great dismay we recall these events and remind the audience how the United Nations and Security Council were unable to address according to the Charter, this aggression at that time. The Security Council did not deal with the subject and the General Assembly was just adopting resolutions for nine years calling on "foreign troops" to withdraw from Afghanistan without daring to name who was the aggressor. May be somebody would say that the cold war and the veto right have crippled the Security Council to take drastic action. For those who are arguing in this way I would like to elucidate that after 1992 and the establishment of Islamic State of Afghanistan, my country became victim of foreign intervention and aggression, once again this time the aggression came from the south and the cold war no longer exist.

For those who are interested in this major Human Rights subject, I invite them to read the 1997 reports of the Secretary General of the United Nations on the situation in Afghanistan and its implication for international peace and security and also to have a look at the 1997 reports of special rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan. In these reports, the existence of foreign nationals and military personnel have been admitted clearly in Afghanistan. Despite this clear fact, and the abundance of resolutions and decision of the General Assembly's of 1974 on definition of aggression, the United Nations is unable to prevent and condemn aggressor.

In the same manner, in an open challenge to the laws and customs of warfare, in defiance of all United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, in an expressed contempt for all internationally recognized Human Rights and norms, the Taliban mercenaries together with direct participation of foreign militia and military personnel, are continuing to perpetrate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Despite these grave breach of international Human Rights and Humanitarian law the United Nations cannot take appropriate measure to halt these crimes.

Mr. President,

This tragic events should guide us to establish an independent, credible and impartial Court which, as a judiciary body should not become hostage of a political body. The political consideration, the geo-strategic and geo-economic interests of veto holders should not prevent at least to have a decision of the Court condemning aggressor. Victims are entitled to justice offenders deserve punishment. The world needs to establish a historic record of major international crimes if for no other reasoij than to establish the truth and to educate future generations. May be then we can deter potential criminals and avoid the repetition of these crimes.

Consequently, we lay stress on the principle that the aggression should be among the core crimes within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In case the same subject comes under consideration of Security Council, the Court as a juridiciary body should continue its work independently. Any impediment to the independent exercise of justice damages greatly the credibility of the Court especially in the eyes of those who are victim of aggression. There is a risk that selectivity, and double standard which prevails in the evaluation of Human Rights in the world would become a common practice in an International Criminal Court.

My delegation considers that the subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court should be limited to Core crime of agression, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. At the same time the possibility of broadening the scope of the Court's jurisdiction through periodic amendment of the statute should be left open.

Mr. President,

In the actual stage of international relations the sovereign States are the main actors of international relations. The alleged criminals should normally be tried by their own national judicial institutions. The International Criminal Court should perform a complementary role in relation to National Court. Unavailability and ineffilcacity of national Courts should be defined properly to avoid conflict of competence with national courts, and with sovereign rights of independent State. In some cases the hasty decision would cause fragmentation polarization and disintegration of a national political structure which encounter intervention, disturbance and unrest. The decision of political bodies of a State with regard to grace and amnesty and also national reconciliation, agreement among the parties in a conflict which would be based on "forgive and forgeC for the purpose of national reconciliation should be respected by extranational institutions since there are time when even justice may not serve its own purpose. In certain cases amnesties could provide a mechanism to facilitate the restoration of rule of law and normality of situations characterized by conflict and hostility.