Mr. President, Dear colleagues, Distinguished delegates,

Allow me to begin, Mr. President, by adding my compliments to the chorus of congratulations on your election.

It is a pleasure to be here and to represent Latvia at the start of a conference to adopt a treaty creating a new institution, the International Criminal Court, the ICC. The need has become quite apparent and clear. We have the chance to proceed by directly addressing an issue which matured in our minds over the last fifty years of world history.

Satellite TV and real-time communications have presented us with an increased global awareness of unpunished crimes committed in almost all corners of the earth. 717he awareness has contributed to the steady and gathering momentum "to do something" and it is this upon which we am seizing to justify our attempt to take a quantum leap forward in the enforcement of values of individual human life and health that we hold dear.

We in Latvia believe that the international community has gathered a sufficient consensus, so that today we may be ready to provide the moral and material support for a permanent Court.

Such a Court would obviate the need for further ad hoc tribunals and would be prepared to respond to future violations at their outset. This will aid in prevention of spill-over situations and it will send a signal to criminals that they must account for their deeds even in this life, not only in the next one.

Our task is not easy. We have the statute text which is lengthy and complex. We have plenty of divergence in viewpoints on key issues relating to the Court's power structure, functioning, and jurisdiction. These major unresolved issues in the draft statute go to the very heart of the future Court's effectiveness.

Much hard work and toiling will precede success in the adoption of an ICC treaty. In our view, however, the Statute must not be pushed through just for the sake of creating a symbolic entity. The ICC that we create must be viable and effective, and interoperable with other institutions. The ICC must really work. We have enough toothless institutions and enough institutions bogged in bureaucracy. Let's make this one modem and manageable.

Dear colleagues,

We think the Statute should clearly define the serious crimes which fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Ibis could be accomplished through the existing relevant conventions that have gained acceptance and consensus internationally. But we would prefer a precise definition contained within the Statute.

Latvian delegation supports the idea of clearly defining the jurisdiction of the ICC including the crimes of a certain serious nature as well as the crime of aggression. We comprehend the hesitation expressed by some delegations in this regard. We agree that there are difficulties in establishing a satisfactory legal definition of aggression, however, we do not consider these difficulties insurmountable.

We may note the words of the Nuremberg prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, "aggressive wars civil wars against the international community". Latvia has seen the face of aggression, war crimes, and occupation.

Dear colleagues,

The Latvian delegation maintains the view that the ICC should be financed from the regular UN budget and supplemented by voluntary contributions as needed. The ability to pay expenses promptly and in full is an essential aspect of a viable and effective Court. We believe that a diverse sources of funds - contributions of States Parties, funds provided by the United Nations and voluntary contributions - is the best possible guarantee of the financial security of the Court that negotiations in this Conference can achieve. Despite current problems, this method is most likely to provide the Court with reliable and adequate resources required to carry out its mandate. Such a funding mechanism would also ensure the Court's universality by encouraging financially weaker states to become parties to the ICC treaty. The Statute should address budgetary considerations to ensure that all States, as well as the Court itself, are able to initiate proceedings without undue financial burdens. Justice should be available to all, regardless of their financial means.

The ICC should have the same jurisdiction over the core crimes as states currently do under international law in accordance with the principle of universal jurisdiction.

We support the concept that the ratification of the ICC treaty would mean that the Court's jurisdiction over the core crimes is accepted immediately. Given that a permanent international criminal court would have no law enforcement capacity at its disposal, state co-operation and judicial assistance will be absolutely vital to its smooth functioning.

We fully support the position that the Court is intended to complement national criminal justice systems only in those cases where those systems are not available or are ineffective. We agree moreover that the Court should have the authority to determine such availability or effectiveness. The Statute should include a detailed definition of this principle of complementarity and of the procedures that States and the Court would apply in determining jurisdiction and associated issues.

Mr. President, the Latvian delegation hopes that the International Criminal Court, when our discussions are said and done, shall be an entity which not only prosecutes and punishes perpetrators of crimes, but which will introduce an international deterrent causing those who may perpetrate future infractions to think twice. Such a deterrent value will be established by assigning the Court a viable punitive capacity as well as an unimpeachable moral authority.

At this end to my remarks, may I express my warm feelings and gratitude for the excellent hospitality of the Italian Government which has taken upon itself the work of hosting a conference which will no doubt leave its permanent mark in legal history and human development.