18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE
Day 4 (5 December 2019)
Name of the Event: Seventh Plenary Meeting: Cooperation
Overview by: Raghavi Viswanath and Erez Roman, Junior Research Associates PILPG -NL
Main Highlights:
The ICC Prosecutor called on States Parties to undertake more coordinated efforts relating to information sharing and the tracking of suspects.
The Registrar encouraged more states to contribute to the trust fund for family visits. He also stressed on the need for states to voluntarily accept released defendants.
Summary of the Event:
The seventh plenary meeting focused on cooperation, entitled “Inter-State and Inter-Institutional cooperation at the heart of cooperation challenges”. The meeting began with opening statements from the facilitators of the Hague Working Group - France and Senegal. Both states lamented how despite continuous efforts, the Court still faces difficulties in the enforcement of its orders. The facilitators outlined the top priorities for the working group - namely increased cooperation in the enforcement of arrest warrants, financial investigations, and voluntary cooperation agreements under Chapter IX of the Rome Statute. In light of the recent Paris Declaration, the group also seeks to explore mechanisms for the seizing of assets.
Senegalese ambassador Momar Diop then invited the panelists to share information on interstate initiatives for the effective implementation of the ICC’s mandate. Flavien Mbata (Minister of Justice, Central African Republic) spoke about how the CAR requested the Court’s intervention both in 2004 and 2014. On both occasions, CAR was able to engage in a fruitful cooperation efforts with the Court, which culminated in the opening of an investigation and the arrest of two suspects. However, he underscored the need for strengthening national capacity and full cooperation of all stakeholders. The Ambassador of Chad to Benelux spoke of the ICC’s draft plan of action on arrest strategies. The Ambassador advised the States Parties and the Court to refrain from formulations that require the UNSC to provide a mandate to peacekeeping forces to carry out arrests in Africa.
This was followed by presentations from the Genocide Network and the ENM from France, both of which stressed on the need for specialised war crimes units in States Parties. Matevz Pezdirc from the Genocide network particularly stressed the need for assistance in capacity-building and operational information sharing. He pointed out that courts in Finland and the Netherlands had begun relying on open source information in arriving at decisions. The OTP also predominantly relied on information sharing in the indictments issued regarding Libya in 2019. Besides the recommendation for national units, he recommended to set up regional networks.
Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda then spoke of the operational challenges that the OTP faces in the enforcement of arrest warrants. She informed the Assembly of how the OTP is fully dependent on States Parties with respect to arrests since the Court lacks a police force of its own. She noted that the failure to arrest not only has serious financial implications for the Court, it also jeopardizes the collection of evidence and prevents the Court from developing useful jurisprudence. She then offered suggestions on how states can help the OTP. First, states could share information that could assist with the tracking of ICC suspects. Second, states can help the OTP identify investigative partners and create a deterrent environment that facilitates the enforcement of warrants. Third, she encouraged States Parties to proactively contribute to the ASP and UNSC and prevent cases of non-compliance.
The Court’s Registrar Peter Lewis then provided insights on potential practical cooperation opportunities. He spoke of the Court being depended on aircrafts to fly in suspects to the Hague. However, it is enormously expensive to do this commercially. Therefore, he encouraged States Parties that have military and commercial aircrafts at their disposal to enter into voluntary agreements with the Court. Second, he highlighted the need to create a network of countries willing to take in released or acquitted defendants. He commended the efforts of the Netherlands in finding interim solutions for Ble Goude. Nonetheless, in his view, such ad hoc arrangements are often too late to be effective. Therefore, an institutionalised mechanism should be preferred. Finally, he discussed the status of the trust fund for family visits. In its previous session, the ASP had set up a fund to enable relatives of the accused to visit them while they were serving their sentences or while in detention. This year, the Registry ran of funds. Therefore, he encouraged states to generously contribute to the fund.
Following this, the representative from Spain recorded Spain’s contribution to the Court’s efforts. In particular, he mentioned Law 18 of 2003 which operationalizes Spain’s cooperation with ICC. The representative concluded his statement by saying that a two-way cooperation between the ICC and the member states is what embodies complementarity.
That brought the plenary meeting to the second part: statements from States Parties. The representative of Finland on behalf of the EU first stressed the importance of the Security Council’s support to the Court and pushed for a UN Security Council referral of the Rohingya issue to the ICC. Subsequently, he assured the ASP that the EU would continue to offer assistance where required and urges States Parties to enter into voluntary agreements and give effect to those agreements.
Several States Parties contributed to the discussion. Mexico joined the call of the EU communicated by Finland to enhance cooperation with the UN Security Council in areas such as travel bans and seizure of assets as a way to enhance the way the Court acts. Furthermore, he also called for better cooperation between the ICC and national authorities of the member states. Chile, Japan, Belgium, Italy and Gambia also encouraged states parties to sign voluntary cooperation agreements with the Court due to their importance for the effectiveness and efficiency of the Court.
Speaking on behalf of the Netherlands, Ambassador Paul van den Ijssel stressed that the witness protection programme and securing the rights of the accused was equally integral to the Court’s functions. To this end, he urged states to accept released prisoners and help the Court relocate witnesses. He spoke of the Netherlands’ efforts to support Ble Goude. However, he lamented how there was still no long-term solution in sight.
Thereafter, the delegation from the UK listed its contributions to the OTP’s efforts. In particular, the UK made mention of its sentence enforcement agreement with the ICC (2007), its efforts to support ICC witnesses and their families, and its technical assistance to the Secretariat of the Trust Fund for Victims. The delegation also brought the Assembly’s attention to the UK’s recent outreach efforts - in financially supporting victims from the Central African Republic to attend the Bemba hearings.
The session concluded with statements from four CSOs - No Peace Without Justice, Darfur Women Action Group, the International Bar Association, and the Afghanistan Transitional Justice Group. All of them stressed the need to preserve the Court’s independence and strengthen national capacity, particularly in countries like Sudan. The IBA, in particular, noted that only five states parties have contributed to the trust fund for family visits thus far. It called on other states to contribute to the fund, and requested the ASP to consider allocating funds from the regular budget.