Mr Chairman,

    Italy's commitment to hosting this Conference gave the idea of an International Criminal Court a concrete reality. We
thank the Italian Government for being a driving force behind the Conference. We also send our best wishes to
Adrian Bos who cannot be with us. His contribution to these negotiations has been widely acknowledged, as has the
generous offer of The Netherlands to host the new Court.

    I would like, Mr Chairman, to reflect on the negotiation that will end here in Rome. People whose societies are
underpinned by justice may take justice for granted. People whose societies lack justice, may find it hard to believe
they will ever experience it. But the demand for justice is real and enduring. Right now, public opinion calls for the
establishment of this Court, not at any other meeting but right here and now in Rome. The demand for justice is loud
and universal. As the enormous banner in front of the Victor Emanuel monument testifies, people are calling for
concrete results from us.

    But making a reality of the hope for justice will be hard work unless we are rigorous. All delegations now accept that
there will be a Court. But there are clearly some who do not expect to respond to this loud and universal call for
justice, by becoming a party to this Statute unconditionally. Any attempt to withhold agreement to the establishment
of a Court which is truly worth having, would indeed be tragic.

    Mr Chairman, it is New Zealand's view that this great legal monument must have automatic jurisdiction over the core
crimes; that its jurisdiction will extend to internal armed conflict; and that it will not fall short of applying existing
widely accepted standards of international humanitarian law, reflected in the Geneva Conventions and the Additional
Protocols. The prohibition, universally accepted as far back as the 1907 Hague rules, on using cruel weapons which
by their very nature cause unnecessary suffering, must also be recognised. Technological inventiveness, or modem convenience, must not render this prohibition obsolete. Attacks on UN and humanitarian personnel must be covered.

    The Statue that we are negotiating must be forward looking. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued
its judgement on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The Court made important findings as regards
nuclear weapons and held, unanimously, that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a
conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international
control. The Statute that we are drawing up should be consistent with and reflect the obligations set out in the
judgement of the International Court.

    Let us also create a Court which is not subordinated to the veto system of the Security Council. If there was any
Security Council power to suspend the Court's action, such a power can only legitimately be exercised after public
debate and by way of a formal and public Security Council decision. reflected in a resolution adopted under Chapter
VII of the United Nations Charter, and which would expire after a limited time.

    New Zealand has had recent experience of Security Council membership. Allowing the Security Council to discuss a
case behind closed doors in "informal consultations" only, or allowing the President of the Security Council merely
to write a letter to the Court asking it to withhold action, would in our view be totally unacceptable. Just as it was
envisaged in the United Nations Charter, any decision affecting peace and security (on which permanent members of
the Security Council base their right to engage in the Court's operation) must be made openly and transparently.
This means a decision made in public with the engagement of the wider membership of the United Nations.

    New Zealand also believes that the prosecutor needs to be able to initiate proceedings based on information from
any source. Procedural safeguards can be put in place to meet concerns about this role.

    In our view the special needs of women, children and victims and witnesses must be recognised. A gender
perspective needs to be incorporated into the Statute and the crimes of rape and sexual violence, enumerated in the
Statute, need to be retained as is. The Court should not have jurisdiction over those under 18 years. Using children
should be an aggravating circumstance for those sentenced for committing a core crime.

    We believe suspects and the accused should be guaranteed the highest international standards of fair trial and due
process. We are totally opposed to the use of the death penalty. A robust approach to extradition and to the
obligation on states to cooperate with the Court is required.

    The Court must be funded by the United Nations, at least initially, and no reservations to its Statute permitted.
Ratification with reservations negates the nature of the commitment.

    Finally, my delegation would like to pay tribute to the very significant contribution made by Non-Governmental
Organisations to the negotiations.

    New Zealand, Mr Chairman, is in Rome to achieve a concrete result which will truly endure as a worthy monument.