In this Statement, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) would like to raise a number of issues that ought to be bench-marks for the successful conclusion of this critical and historic Conference. The ICJ, as an organisation has been documenting these atrocities for over 45 years. We have been heavily involved in the drafting of numerous treaties to respond to human-rights violations throughout the world. The International Commission of Jurists considers these as essential elements for the creation of an effective institution that could deter violators and put an end to impunity.

First Mr. Chairman by determining which crimes the Court will have jurisdiction over, and defining their content, States will determine the profile and range of the Court's activity. The Court should have jurisdiction over the three core crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While do not take a position over the crime of aggression, but we believe that a mechanism should be established to add jurisdiction to the ICC, either through an additional protocol to the Statute, or through other Conventions.

Second, while the crimes should be precisely defined, the definition should be wide enough to apply in situations of international and internal armed conflict, as well as in peace time; the Statute should apply to State agents as well as non-State actors. Otherwise, the Court will not be relevant to the current world of internal conflicts. The thresholds in these crimes should be minimal. Where thresholds do not currently exist in law as is the case for war crimes, no threshold should be added.

Third, the Court should be able to exercise its jurisdiction automatically. While the role of national courts is essential in combating impunity, experience shows national legal systems often protect the violators of these crimes. The role of the national courts therefore should not be exaggerated and the addition of lengthy and complex admissibility procedures should be avoided.

Fourth, it is essential that there be an independent and full-time prosecutorial organ to bring charges against accused persons and to collect, prepare, and present necessary evidence, and with the power, subject to sufficient checks, to initiate complaints. It is essential for the independence of this Court, like all credible courts in the world, that it be free from political interference. While the UN Security Council should be able to refer matters to the Court, the Council should not be able to interfere in the Court's jurisdiction and protect certain individuals from prosecution.

Fifth, this Court should be a universal bod,y associated with the United Nations and funded from its regular budget. The subject that this treaty will cover, does not leave room for reservations over the provision of this Statute. The core crimes covered by this Court should not also be subject to a statute of limitation. Finally if we are looking at a speedy establishment of this Court, the Statute should not require a high number of ratifications.

These are some of the bench-marks that will determine how the International Commission of jurists will view the Rome process. We look forward to a successful conclusions of your deliberations.

The International Commission of jurists (ICJ) has been following the progress made in this field for long. It closely followed the work of the International Law Commission and in 1993, it placed the court of the agenda of the World Conference of Human Rights. The ICJ actively participated in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Preparatory Committee. During the course of this meeting, the ICJ is issuing three briefs for this meeting on the definition of crimes, the exercise of jurisdiction and the final clauses. The aim is to assist delegates in narrowing differences and to bring this process to a meaningful conclusion.