I thank you for the opportunity to address this historic United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries as you progress in this collective effort to create a permanent International Criminal Court. The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which I represent, is a Canadian institution whose function is to encourage and support the promotion and development of democratic and human rights institutions as defined in the International Bill of Human Rights. We believe that without effective measures to protect and promote human rights, there can be no democratic development.
In our view, a true democracy must be based on respect for the whole family of human rights namely economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights and the elimination of impunity. By combating, impunity, the Court can be an effective instrument in the promotion of democratic institutions.
We believe the Court can potentially be a significant step and a credible instrument in the process of democratization only if the Court itself is based on the Rule of Law which is a fundamental principle of democracy. In other words, the ICC must not be a political tool of any particular State. If some States are able to use the ICC for their political motives, or if some individuals are beyond the reach of the ICC because of their position within a State, the Court will lose credibility, human rights will continue to be violated, and democratic development will be stifled. We understand that some States propose granting the Security Council sweeping powers to determine the docket of the Court. The granting of such powers to an essentially political body is incompatible with the establishment of an effective judicial body. The Court requires total independence in order to guarantee that the highest standards of international justice are respected. We have heard the arguments of those states who wish to establish a Court controlled by the Security Council and by States. However, we believe that their concerns are adequately addressed by other provisions in the Statute. Firstly, for those states who are worried about their soldiers who are stationed around the world being prosecuted outside their own country, the principle of complementarity provides a full answer to those worries. If a state does not want its citizens to be tried by the future International Criminal Court, it need only fulfil its own responsibilities to investigate reports of crimes on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and if necessary, prosecute the perpetrators. It can no longer turn a blind eye to these crimes.
Additionally, the fear that the ICC will act against the efforts of the Security Council are greatly exaggerated. In our view, the Canadian amendment to the Singapore proposal would allow the Security Council to temporarily suspend the long, arm of the law in those rare cases where it is attempting, to negotiate a peace accord or take other action to resolve a conflict through political means and where judicial action may complicate matters. Therefore, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic development recommends that the ICC must be kept separate from political considerations including those that govern the Security Council. The IC-C should function cooperatively with the Security Council not in subordination to it.
We are particularly troubled by the option proposed by some states whereby the Court would only have jurisdiction over a case if a long list of interested states all consent. This "state-consent" system erects an incredible number of unnecessary roadblocks for the Court. In particular, it will paralyse the Court when it is necessary to obtain the consent from States whose own leaders are implicated in the crimes. Accordingly, we consider that, in order to operate properly, the Court must have automatic jurisdiction over the three core crimes.
We must face the reality that the Security Council is comprised of states with opposing interests. The veto of the permanent five members of the Security Council has prevented the United Nations from living up to its primary mission, according to the Preamble of the UN Charter, to protect future generations from the scourge of war. The participants of the Diplomatic Conference have a duty to the world to not repeat this same mistake with regard to the International Criminal Court. Those States who are truly committed to promoting a rights-based democracy must not let short term political interests dictate their choices in the next five weeks. We need a strong and an effective Court to put an end to impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war Crimes.
