Toespraak Herzieningsconferentie Statuut van Rome
1. Introduction
It is an honour for me to speak to you at this meeting. I would first like to thank the Ugandan government for its reception and hospitality. The following two weeks we will stand at a historical crossroad in the development of international criminal justice: the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. We were all led to this point, following the paths set out in the growing field of international criminal justice by previous international tribunals: The decision to establish the ad hoc tribunals led the way to the creation of the International Criminal Court and the closed system of law enforcement for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide it represents. The system relies on States: to have those responsible for the most serious crimes arrested, either to be brought before a national court or before the ICC. This Review Conference is a moment for reflection for the Netherlands as Host State as well. The international system of criminal justice created by the Rome Statute has had consequences that could not have been foreseen in 1998. This requires continuous flexibility and creativity of all States Parties. The Netherlands is proud to be the Host State of the Court. I dare say we have met the expectations that can be set in that respect, within reason and in accordance with international custom. We would like to continue to fulfil our task in the role of host in the years to come. Years that will be of great importance for the development of the Court, among other things in view of the construction and taking into use of the new, permanent premisses. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the full two weeks of the conference. I do, however, want to take this opportunity to highlight three of the issues that are on the agenda of the Review Conference agenda: 1) the stocktaking issues complementarity and cooperation, 2) the execution of Court sentences and 3) the crime of aggression.
2. Taking stock of international criminal justice: complementarity and cooperation
The system created by the International Criminal Court is based on the principle of complementarity. As stated by the Preamble of the Rome Statute, is the “duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.” In article 1, the Statute provides that “the exercice of jurisdiction of the Court shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.” This principle reminds us all that justice begins at home, at the national level. The principle of complementarity is a crucial issue for the effective functioning of the system of international criminal justice we created in Rome. Complementarity cannot, however, function without cooperation. That applies not only to the cooperation with the Court, but also to the cooperation between States. Cooperation with the Court for the arrest and surrender of suspects, as well as cooperation between States in investigations and prosecutions at the national level. We call on all States to commit to these principles. As a State Party, we are not only committed to cooperate with the Court. We are also convinced of the need for States to duly ratify and properly implement the Rome Statute and put the principle of complementarity into practice. The Netherlands is dedicated to the task of bringing suspects of international crimes who are present on Dutch territory to justice. And we give legal assistance to states that are willing and able to prosecute these suspects. The sharing of best practices of cooperation, not only of States with the Court, but also of States amongst themselves, is essential for the functioning of the Rome Statute principle of complementarity. In this respect we deem it worthwhile to assess with States whether the international framework for legal assistance and extradition in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes could be improved. This is necessary, in order to fulfil the principle of complementarity to its fullest extent. This commitment to the system created by the Rome Statute and the importance of enhancing its functioning are also the inspiration behind the pledges the Netherlands makes to support the ICC-Legal Tools Project and the activities of its Outsourcing Partners, as well as the Justice Rapid Response initiative. In the same spirit, the Netherlands further pledges to organise a legal expert meeting in a yet-to-be confirmed State Party in 2011, on the investigation and prosecution of international crimes in national jurisdictions. The meeting could address the issue of sharing best practices on cooperation. Besides our efforts to bring perpetrators to justice, the Netherlands wants to express its commitment toward the victims of the crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Netherlands declares its support for the activities of the Trust Fund for Victims. It addresses the harm resulting from crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court by assisting victims to return to a dignified and contributory life within their communities. In this context, I hereby pledge to make a financial contribution of 40.000 EUR to the Trust Fund for Victims in 2010, and encourage other States Parties to support the Trust Fund as well.
3. Execution of sentences
The second issue I would like to mention concerns the execution of sentences. The Court is undertaking efforts to form a broad coalition of States Parties willing to conclude agreements for the execution of sentences of ICC convicted persons. The Netherlands undertakes its own residual responsibility for the execution of the sentences for which the Court has not found a State of execution. The Netherlands does this in the spirit of the Statute: building an international justice system together, contributing to an effective International Criminal Court together, fighting the culture of impunity together. The Netherlands will not avoid, now or in the future, the challenges linked to its duties as the Host state. We trust that we will continue to build the international system of criminal justice and a strong International Criminal Court, together and in close cooperation with the other 110 States Parties to the Rome Statute. We call on the solidarity of the States Parties of the International Court to share in the burden of the execution of sentences. In this context, I welcome the proposal submitted by Norway, which contains innovative solutions for a way to share this responsibility among the whole of the international community. We trust this proposal will prompt more States to enter into agreements with the Court on the execution of sentences
4. Crime of Aggression
The third issue I would like to mention is the crime of aggression. This Review Conference will give States Parties a historic opportunity to extend the Court’s jurisdiction to this crime. It is now more than 60 years after the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, where reference was made to aggression as “the supreme international crime”. In 1998, the Rome Conference agreed to include the crime of aggression in the list of four crimes over which the Court has jurisdiction. This fundamental decision has already been taken. However, as we all know, it was also agreed that the Court would exercise jurisdiction over this crime only after agreement had been reached on the definition of this crime and the conditions for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over it. It is now twelve years since the Rome Conference was held. It is striking how much consensus has been reached during these twelve years on almost all parts of an overall agreement on aggression, in particular on the definition of this crime. But it is also fair to say that there is not yet consensus on the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction over this crime. The Netherlands is of the view that this Review Conference should leave no stone unturned to reach consensus on these conditions. We must seize this historic opportunity to complete the Rome Statute. With the necessary political will and courage, we can succeed. How to reach consensus on this most difficult issue? The Netherlands holds the view that - in addition to the definition - there is already consensus on important elements of the conditions. There is agreement that it is first of all for the Security Council to determine whether a State act of aggression has been committed. There is agreement that the Court may make its own findings in relation to a determination of a State act of aggression by an organ outside the Court. There is agreement on the list of options for the determination of a State act of aggression. The terms of the debate are therefore well established. The time has now come to take decisions. We all prefer a consensus solution. However, this implies that we must all be willing to compromise these two weeks. Consensus is within reach, but we must realize that the road towards consensus is a two-way traffic road. Concessions must be made by all parties. The Netherlands is ready to assist in this process and therefore appeals to all delegations to be sufficiently open-minded and to offer the necessary flexibility, in our own long-term interest and in the long-term interest of the Court.
5. Conclusion
The Court has established itself as an independent institution and is coming up to speed, as the proceedings before the Court show. The prosecution of suspected criminals of international crimes has had an impact far beyond The Hague. Potential perpetrators of serious international crimes now see the risk of arrest and prosecution by the ICC as a real and immediate prospect. The system of international criminal justice we have created together in Rome is up and running. Together with national States, the Court will continue to make the world community a place where there are no more safe havens for those responsible for the most serious international crimes. With our political will and courage we will make this conference a success. Let me conclude by adding that the members of my delegation are available for exchanges and discussions of views throughout these two weeks and hope to contribute in any way they can to the success of the conference.