Side Event: “The Future of the ICC: Facing the Challenges & Strengthening its Legitimacy”, organized by the Public International Law and Policy Group, and co-sponsored by The Netherlands

Overview by David Lando, Research Associate PILPG-NL

Panel Members:

1. Paul Williams, Chair Panelist, Director and co-founder of Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG)

2. Marieke de Hoon, Director of PILPG Netherlands, VU Amsterdam

3. Adewale E. Iyanda, African Union Representative

4. Hans Bevers, Office of the Prosecutor ICC

5. Alpha Sesay, Open Society Justice Initiative

6. Mark Kersten, University of Toronto

 
Highlights:

• Hans Bevers assessed that the ICC faces the challenges of a court that “functions in a politically charged environment.” He also echoed the assertion made during this Assembly, that “the Court is not a panacea for ending impunity. But it is open for cooperation with national and regional institutions.”

• Adewale E. Iyanda: “the AU plays a critical role. What the AU does is that it provides a platform for African States to bear on international justice, and the Rome Statute.” Therefore, it is vital to maintain and improve cooperation between the ICC and the AU.

• Marieke de Hoon: “the establishment of the ICC is nothing but revolutionary”. Yet, “the Court cannot be perfect. Addressing mass violence is very complex. The way to do this is inevitably contentious.” She also noted that “the critique from Africa is not only an African critique, but it is the critique of all of us” and that it offers the opportunity for constructive dialogue.

• Alpha Sesay argued that in order to strengthen the legitimacy of the Court there is a need to see things through the eyes of victims, and to strengthen the trust of victims in the Court.

• Judge Ba noted that there is a need to establish whether the targeting of African States by the OTP is merely a matter of perception or “voluntary targeting.”

• In response to Judge Ba, Marieke de Hoon argued that even if we understand these allegations as mere perceptions, it is still vital to address these issues, as they have real consequences.

• Mark Kersten: “if we want to stop the withdrawal of South Africa from the ICC we should not be in dialogue, but in negotiations.” Kersten suggested three potential measures that could improve relations between member states and the Court: (1) “there has to be a clarification from the Court on their position on immunity;” (2) an offer for a conference of the ICC that will be conducted in South Africa should be on the table; (3) “the ASP, in unison, should refer the situation of immunities of heads of State to the ICJ.”

This side event sought to generate knowledge about the underlying causes for some of the critiques of the Court, mainly the so-called African critique. The panel members also discussed ways to strengthen the legitimacy of the Court. That is, how to move forward from said critiques, and to improve the function of the Court. The chair panelist, Paul Williams, co-founder and director of PILPG, started the event by introducing the panel members, and noting the overall structure of the event, and order of speakers.

First to speak was Hans Bevers, from the Office of the Prosecutor. He noted that a “permanent Criminal Court was a huge step forward.” On the working process of the Office of the Prosecutor he argued that “it follows in an impartial way the rules of the law.” However, he did recognize the challenges that the Court is facing. He asserted that the ICC “functions in a politically charged environment” and that the ICC has to maneuver its way within this environment. To counter this, the OTP has to operate in a transparent way. Therefore, “the OTP documents are a practice of transparency and I dare to submit that no other body of the Court has ever been so openly scrutinized more than the OTP.” The reports of the OTP are “a testimony for this statement.” On the future of the ICC, Mr. Bevers asserted that it is important to remember that “the Court is not a panacea for ending impunity. But it is open for cooperation with national and regional institutions.” This is “the way forward for the ICC’s cooperation with international organizations, regional organizations, civil society, and domestic efforts.”

Adewale E. Iyanda (African Union Representative) assessed that we are “at a critical juncture in the relationship between the African Union and the ICC.” The only solution for the current issues is “dialogue and engagement.” Dialogue is especially urgent because of the importance of the African States to the Court. In this context, the African Union has a large part to play: “The AU plays a critical role. What the AU does is that it provides a platform for African States to bear on international justice, and the Rome Statute.” Therefore, it is vital to maintain and improve cooperation between the ICC and the AU.

Next to take the floor was Marieke de Hoon, Director of the PILPG Netherlands office. She started by saying that while as an academic she “writes critical pieces on the Court,” this criticism is not against the Court, but it aims at strengthening the ICC. As such, critique of the Court can, and should be, constructive. Ms. De Hoon continued: “the establishment of the ICC is nothing but revolutionary”. Yet, “the Court cannot be perfect. Addressing mass violence is very complex. The way to do this is inevitably contentious.” The way to move forward is to utilize platforms for dialogue. Therefore, we should not only understand the ASP “as merely a management space. This is a place for engagement.” In order to move forward, it is essential to understand “the African critique.” On this, de Hoon noted that “we call it African critique because it comes from African States. But the critique from Africa is not only an African critique, but it is the critique of all of us.” On this, Amady Ba, an ICC judge, noted with approval: “exactly!”

Alpha Sesay, from the Open Society Justice Initiative, diverted the focus of the debate from the ICC to the victims of international crimes. He recalled that at a previous side-event, the representatives of the ICC were asked: “what do the victims of crimes think about you?” This, he asserted, manifests the future course the ICC should take: “for me when we talk about the future of the ICC, I think I have to bring the views of the victims in front of you. Did the Court lose its credibility before the victims? What victims think about the Court has to be a part of our response to the issues before the Court.” Moreover, there needs to be “serious investment in relationship building,” and “significant investment in building national capacities.” Following Ms. De Hoon’s point, he asserted that it is vital to respond to African States’ critique because similar issues are bound to arise in other regions in the future as well. However, “we should be discussing not only the things we disagree on but also on what we agree on. We all agree that there are victims of atrocities, and that they deserve justice, and that there should be mechanisms to hold those that commit crimes to justice.” These shared notions should be a basis for future discussions about the role of the ICC.

Last to speak was Mark Kersten from the University of Toronto and the author of the book Justice in Conflict: The Effects of the International Criminal Court’s Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace. He noted that he agrees “on the importance of dialogue” and that it is, in fact, “the theme of the ASP.” However, there are cases that are beyond the point of dialogue. According to Mr. Kersten, “if we want to stop the withdrawal of South Africa from the ICC we should not be in dialogue but in negotiations, bargaining, and conflict management.” He further noted that since the withdrawal of South Africa from the Rome Statute did not go through the Parliament, the decision could be reversed. However, it is important to understand that “when you ask South Africa to withdraw its withdrawal it is to ask them to flip-flop. This is something that States never like to do.”

Mark Kersten assessed that “if we want to stop the withdrawal of South Africa from the ICC, we should not be in dialogue, but in negotiations.” Kersten suggested three potential measures that could improve the relationship between state members and the Court: (1) “there has to be a clarification from the Court on their position on immunity;” (2) an offer for a conference of the ICC that will be conducted in South Africa should be on the table; (3) “the ASP, in unison, should refer the situation of immunities of heads of State to the ICJ. That will take six years, but we don’t have time. Therefore, the Court should not refer situations that include heads of State to the UN until then.”

Paul Williams then opened the floor for discussion. The first question was from the ICC Judge, Amady Ba. He raised several issues:

• Is the perception that the Court is targeting Africa a mere perception, or a “voluntary targeting?”
• The self-referral of African States is also a matter of national judicial capacities, as it is largely impossible to prosecute people in power in many African States. On this, he noted, “do you think The Netherlands would refer a case to the ICC? Or will France do so?” He also suggested that “we need to work on African national courts.”
• When talking about an African critique, it is essential to understand that there are differences between various African States. Moreover, there is “an Africa of the victims, and an Africa of the warring people.”
• Judge Ba expressed his dissatisfaction with “European academia” which manifests double-standards in its research by requesting African States to “put justice before peace”, while the same expectation does not extend to States outside Africa like Colombia and Afghanistan.

On the question of peace and justice, Mr Kersten noted that achieving peace and justice together is essential and that in practical terms, “it is difficult to negotiate peace with a rebel group when there are arrest warrants against them.”

Mr. Sesay noted that justice is not always the prerequisite for peace. For instance, in his homeland, Sierra Leone, “we spoke about having truth, justice, and reconciliation committees, but there were pressures to erase the word justice from it. So, what we had were truth and reconciliation committees.” This was successful, and peace was achieved. Therefore, justice and peace, according to Mr. Sesay, should not always be tied together when peace is promoted.

In response to Judge Ba’s, Mr. Sesay noted that the development of domestic legal capacities is an important issue. He argued that NGOs and civil society members should be able to play a larger role in the development of these capacities. The exclusion of NGOs is most observable in the African Union and, “when the AU determines its engagement going forward with the ICC, there has to be a major discussion about NGO engagement with the AU. There should be a room for more actors, there is always an excuse why NGOs can’t attend.”

Marieke de Hoon took on the question of the perception of African States that they are being targeted by the ICC. She argued that it is crucial to “understand the difference between targeting and the perception of targeting.” However, “we need to realize that perceptions are real too, and they lead to real consequences. Reaching a conclusion that they are perceptions doesn’t mean that they are not to be discussed.” Mr. Kersten agreed with Ms. De Hoon, and argued that “perceptions are important. When we have a debate at home and someone says he’s hurt, we don’t say ‘that’s not reality’.”

Other comments were then received by the panel. A member of the audience asked Mr. Iyanda: “how do you want the ICC to engage with the AU?” Another member of the audience asked Mr. Bevers: “You say that the selection of cases is purely legal. But, isn’t it also a budget decision? Because when a State is not cooperating that costs more money, and therefore the OTP may not be able to investigate.”

Mr. Bevers responded to the question of the selectivity of cases by the OTP. He noted that this true, and that the OTP must be selective in its cases. “It would be unreasonable if we would spend our capacity on things that would not lead to results.” Therefore, “you could argue that there are political influences on our decisions. You could say this is inevitable as we engage with political actors. This is simply part of our reality. I don’t think there is necessarily anything bad about it. It is a part of the world.”

On the question regarding the engagement of the ICC with the AU, Mr. Iyanda advocated the establishment of pragmatic framework that will facilitate cooperation. For instance: “every year, we have a management workshop with the AU and the ICC. We need this to come to the political level. We need to engage with politicians. Until we do this we can’t get anywhere.”

In conclusion, the development of pragmatic frameworks that will facilitate cooperation between African States and the ICC were seen as crucial by the panel. Moreover, the need for a complex dialogue regarding the African critique of the Court is essential. In such dialogue, the African critique should be understood as a critique posed by the entirety of the States Parties, as solving the issues involved are important for all member states. Furthermore, understanding the critique through the eyes of the victims, and building trust between the ICC and victims is of utmost importance to be able to move forward and strengthen the legitimacy of the Court.

Side Event: “Through the looking glass – imagining the future of international criminal justice” (hosted by the African Group for Justice and Accountability)

Overview by Jill Baehring, Research Associate PILPG-NL

Highlights:

• Athalia Molokomme, Attorney General of Botswana, said she strongly believes that it is everyone’s duty and responsibility to be present at the Assembly of States Parties and to support both the Rome Statute and the Court itself. She emphasized that it was necessary to focus not only on the issues, but also on the positive aspects of the relationship between the Court and Africa.

• Richard Goldstone, Former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and citizen of South Africa, emphasised that he was saddened by South Africa’s announcement to withdraw, especially because its leading role in promoting the ICC even before its establishment. He highlighted that the notice of withdrawal had raised many unusual legal problems regarding the constitutionality of a withdrawal, and finished saying that he expected an extended period of debate on the issue.

• ICC President Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi said that, despite all difficulties, the Rome Statute had been a valuable point of reference for material law in many countries and was therefore a role model for the progress of international criminal law.

The side event was opened by recalling the foundation of the Africa Group for Justice and Accountability (AGJA) in 2015. Subsequently, ICC President Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi held a speech honoring the AGJA’s efforts to facilitate regional dialogue with the court and its capacity-building initiatives in the continent. She expressed hope that the AGJA would inspire the foundation of many similar groups around the globe. She also addressed the recent announcements of withdrawal of three African States Parties, which had caused concerns about justice in Africa as well as about the future of the Court. She said that, despite all difficulties, the Rome Statute had been a valuable point of reference for material law in many countries and was therefore a role model for the progress of international criminal law.

The Moderator of the panel, Researcher Mark Kersten, held a short introduction on the panel’s art exhibition “through the looking glass” and presented the speakers. He introduced the expectations of justice as the broader question of the side event.

Artist Bradley McCallum presented his work, which is a preview of an exhibition on international justice to be opened in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2017. The exhibition contains 20 large painting of defendants of several trials in the African continent and will be complemented by a series of audio portraits of victims and witnesses.

Mark Kersten asked Athaliah Molokomme, Attorney General of Botswana, if the recent events had made her more or less hopeful in regard to international justice. Athalia Molokomme replied that she strongly believed that it is everyone’s duty and responsibility to be present at the Assembly of States Parties and to support both the Rome Statute and the Court itself. She said that she was happy to hear that many States Parties reinstated their support for the Court, and that the ICC was still the best hope for a future without impunity for the worst crimes. She emphasized that it was necessary to focus not only on the issues, but also on the positive aspects of the relationship between the Court and Africa.

When asked for a need for an improved dialogue, Fatiha Serour, Director of Serour Associates for Inclusion and Equity in Algeria said that justice and accountability were principles that were not negotiable, and that the main principles of dialogue were that it was based on respect, mutual trust and understanding. She highlighted the need to focus on a more practical approach and to continue to address issues which caused division.

Richard Goldstone, Former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and citizen of South Africa, emphasised that he was saddened by South Africa’s announcement to withdraw, especially because its leading role in promoting the ICC even before its establishment. He also highlighted that the notice of withdrawal had raised many unusual legal problems regarding the constitutionality of a withdrawal. He announced a public hearing on the issue in front of the High Court in South Africa, during which he hopes civil society will engage. He finished saying that he expected an extended period of debate on the issue.

Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, said that the project if international justice was long-term, and that the general direction mattered more than difficulties at moments in time. He also emphasized that the questions regarding the implementation of Articles 27 and 98 was not easy, and that the ICC itself had interpreted them differently. He said that, regarding the case of Al-Bashir, these questions should have been raised when the arrest warrant was issued, and not when there was already a time pressure existing. He recognized structural difficulties of the process and advocated for the establishment of a procedure in which concerns from all sides, including the accused, can be heard.

When asked which other mechanisms of justice were functioning well, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, answered that dialogue was the most important mechanisms. Generally, it was true that there was a lack of measures in relation to accountability systems independent from the Rome Statute. The global architecture of justice had several components, of which each of them had advantages and disadvantages. He highlighted that the success of accountability depended on an effective partnership between the ICC and national as well as regional courts.

Bradley McCallum expressed his hope to contribute to such dialogue with his art by reframing the structural challenges of the colonial critique and by opening up new ways of communication by his paintings. Richard Goldstone said he didn’t believe in a mass withdrawal from the ICC. Fatiha Serour agreed and said that civil society had been growing strong in the past years, meaning that citizens were calling for accountability. She saw this as an indicator for a positive development, which had also created more resilience. She advocated for a multi-stakeholder system of justice and accountability. Athaliah Molokomme added that she believed that the issues of justice and accountability will continue to dominate the discourse in Africa, and that civil society will begin to demand these things. Hassan Bubacar Jallow said that at this low point of the relationship between the Court and Africa, he hoped that only an improvement was possible. He said it was still possible that the three States Parties will defy the process of withdrawal. Dapo Akande added that, even though the ICC now faced new challenges with the announcement of Russia to withdraw its signature and the presidential election in the United States of America, these challenges also might mean a shift away from African States – a critique of such countries could make it more difficult for African states to make the claim of a bias of the Court.

During the questions from the audience, the question on how to start a constructive dialogue and a possible tension between due process and impunity at the ICC were mentioned. Akande rejected the latter and said there were many tools for due process build into the Rome Statute, ensuring this value. Bradley McCallum expressed the hope that the visual language of art was also able to create awareness. Fatiha Serour added that a constructive dialogue could only happen if there was an expressed need and desire to engage in such, and that a dialogue could never be forced. The President of the Court, Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi, added that the ICC was only a part in the system of international justice.

Side Event: “The role of the ICC in Promoting Accountability for Crimes Committed in Ukraine” (co-hosted by the International Partnership for Human Rights and International Renaissance Foundation)

Overview by Emma Bakkum, Research Associate PILPG-NL

Speakers:

1. Dariya Svyrydova, Lawyer, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union

2. Sergiy Zayets, Lawyer, Regional Center for Human Rights

3. Pavel Dykan, Advocacy Advisory Panel (Euromaidan victims legal representative)

4. Markiyan Halabala, Advocacy Advisory Panel (Euromaidan victims legal representative)

5. Oleksandra Matviychuk, Center for Civil Liberties (Euromaidan SOS), The Coalition “Justice for Peace in Donbas”

6. Simon Papuashvili, Project Manager at the International Partnership for Human Rights

7. Roman Romanov, Human Rights and Justice Program Initiative Director at the International Renaissance Foundation

 
Highlights:

• Difficulties related to investigating and documenting crimes in Ukraine remain.

• CSOs urge the ICC to act upon the evidence communicated to it and to break the current cycle of impunity in Ukraine.

• Challenges for ICC prosecution include time and resource constraints and issues of transparency. States should provide the ICC with the budget it needs to deal with justice requests and its workload, according to Simon Papuashvili.

Ukrainian and international civil society organizations (CSOs) have been documenting gross human rights violations and international crimes committed in Ukraine since 2014. To end impunity for these crimes, several CSOs have shared their collected evidence with the ICCs OTP under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. CSOs urge the ICC to act upon this evidence and to break the current cycle of impunity in Ukraine.

Different NGO representatives highlighted documentation of crimes committed during the Maidan protest, in Eastern Ukraine, and in Crimea. Pavel Dykan mentioned crimes against humanity committed by Yanukovich and government officials during the Maidan protest. He and a representative of the General Prosecutors Office of Ukraine presented evidence suggesting that counteractions taken against protesters were planned, systematic, and orchestrated by a high-level organization. Oleksandra Matviychuk presented documentation of crimes in Eastern Ukraine, such as widespread and systematic persecution, forced labor, torture and ill-treatment, and illegal detainment. Lastly, several NGOs shared documented crimes committed in Crimea, in particular crimes regarding colonization (displacement or transfer to or from the occupied territory).

Simon Papuashvili then discussed a range of challenges ICC prosecution efforts face, including time and resource constraints and issues of transparency. One of the action points for the ICC following these challenges is that the ICC should act timely, as opposed to the situation in Georgia. The ICC budget also has to be revised in accordance with the ever-increasing workload of the Court. States should provide the ICC with the budget it needs to deal with justice requests and its workload. States should not use budgetary discussion as a political tool, which Russia recently did. Moreover, the OTP should seek a higher level of transparency. Civil society can play a role here, namely by actively seeking communication with the ICC and exchanging information with local representatives.

Several issues were raised by the audience, including difficulties related to investigating crimes committed on territory which is not within the control of the Ukrainian government. Other difficulties are related to gathering evidence of Russia’s involvement in Eastern Ukraine and to the question of ICC’s jurisdiction over Ukrainian territory.

Lastly, a comparison to the situation in Georgia was made. It was suggested that CSOs and member states should consider a regional strategy in order to pursue investigations and arrest warrants, especially because of the recent statements made by Russia. Furthermore, CSOs should think about what can be done locally to keep people from losing their hope for justice. National capacity is available in Ukraine but it is difficult to reach as investigation authorities can barely access certain areas. The representative of the General Prosecutors Office of Ukraine added that Ukraine is not able to implement arrest warrants for those responsible for crimes committed at the Maidan protests that fled to Russia. Regarding Crimea, he stated that investigating is difficult: only open sources or witnesses and victims who left Crimea are available. Therefore, Ukrainian CSOs urge for ICC investigation into Ukraine.

Plenary Session on Budget

Overview by Emma Bakkum and David Lando, Research Associates PILPG-NL

Highlights:

• The Registrar noted that further cuts to the budget “will affect the ability of the Court to conduct its investigations.”

• The Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice’s representative noted that the new budget and ReVision program fails to give enough emphasis to gender equality and geographic distribution of staff members. This was answered by the Registrar that the ReVision program does not deal with these issues. Uganda, in turn, noted that the response by the Registrar was “insensitive” and that the underrepresentation of African nationals in senior staff level will not “be taken laying down.”

Read More

Herman Von Hebel, the Court’s Registrar, pinpointed four strategic priorities that the 2016 budget supported: (1) supporting three trial proceedings; (2) Conducting and supporting six investigations; (3) increase Registry vacancy rate; (4) investment in court-wide information security measures.

The Registrar then presented the 2017 proposed budget to be approved by the Assembly of States Members. While the proposed budget includes an increased budget of the Registry (about nine percent) and the Office of the Prosecutor (about seven percent), the Registrar claimed it to be the “result of a great number of internal cuts”. One such internal cut is the decrease of the premises budget by almost fifty percent. He urged not to impose greater cuts on the 2017 budget. He reminded the “States Parties [about] the consequences of further reductions on the Court’s budget; this will affect the ability of the Court to conduct its investigations.”

Finally, Mr. Von Hebel noted that “we are witnessing challenging times. Including intensifying security challenges and global economic challenges.” Due to these challenges “the role of the ICC is more important than ever, [it] is one of the pillars of international stability… The ICC is an investment in a more stable world for tomorrow.”

Ms. Maria Fernandez Opazo, the Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF) spoke after Mr. Von Hebel. She reminded the States Parties of the importance of “timely contributions” to the budget; otherwise the Court’s ability to function will be jeopardized.

States Parties (France, UK, Spain, Canada, and Kenya) responded to the report about the budget of 2016 and the proposed budget of 2017. All States required an elaboration of the ReVision program that sought to restructure the Registry and decrease expenditure. UK raised the point that “the end of ReVision is only the end of the beginning”, meaning there is need to continue to process of restructure and improve efficiency.

The Registrar concurred with UK’s view. He indicated that ReVision is a process, and that it “is a never-ending exercise”. Some States also raised the importance of geographical distribution of Court staff. To this the Registrar responded that “ReVision was not about geographical distribution.” However, “in the new structure of the HR department we are about to launch more activities to deal with the top five countries that are underrepresented: Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Brazil.” The external auditor agreed with the Registrar that geographical distribution “was not a part of the Audit’s report”.

The debate moved away from the technical sphere when Brigit Inder, the Executive Director of Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice, took the stage. She argued that the proposed budget does not manifest gender equality, and that there are “less women [employees] at the end of the ReVision at the P5 level than before the restructuring,” and there are no women at the P1 level. About geographical distribution Ms. Inder argued that there are “fewer nationals from African States in senior leading positions at the end of the ReVision period.” She concluded that “we are puzzled and concerned about the ongoing ignorance.”

The Registrar responded that the “ReVision was not meant to deal with these issues. But we do address these issues as much as possible.” Uganda, in response, asserted that “the Registrar’s response is insensitive. We would like to see real figures and recruitment of Africans in the real places of management, especially in witness and victim protection. This is not fair, and we shall not keep quiet. We will not take this laying down.” The Registrar did not respond to these comments.

Informal Consultations on the Omnibus Resolution

Overview by Georgios Plevris, Research Associate PILPG-NL

Highlights:

• Draft resolution on African States withdrawal: South Africa wished to add an extension at the end of the sentence, reading “[reconsider their decision] and requests the bureau to remain seized with deliberations on Article 97 and all other matters as reflected to decisions taken in the 15th Assembly of States Parties”.

• No consensus has been reached on extending or reducing the number of days allocated to next year’s ASP.

In its Monday session, the Working Group in the Omnibus Resolution resumed their discussion on the matters of the Draft Resolution. The first delegation to take the floor, South Africa, proposed an addition to OP1bis of Slovenia’s draft proposal with regard to African States withdrawal reference in the Resolution. While noting there are no residual issues with the language, South Africa wished to add an extension at the end of the sentence, reading “ [reconsider their decision] and requests the bureau to remain seized with deliberations on Article 97 and all other matters as reflected to decisions taken in the 15th Assembly of States Parties”.

The Working Group then turned to the debate surrounding the working methods of the ASP, and how to improve its efficiency. The discussion on the number of days the ASP will last was back on the table, and not much progress took place to that end. The Group was still divided between delegations that wanted to extend the ASP by two more days for next year, to cover the election of the judges, delegations that wanted to reduce the ASP by one day, from eight to seven, and delegations that wanted to maintain the format as it is. The two days extension was an issue that confused many representatives, as in the proposal submitted was unclear if that would be just for the election of the judges or in general a two-day extension of the ASP. Costa Rica raised the issue that the NY session had rejected the two-days proposal, as it was too prescriptive, yet it was not clear what the Working group was negotiating; the language was not explicit. Belgium argued that moving forward with the proposals heard at the moment would be troubling, due to the fact that dedicating two days for elections, one for the 20th anniversary that will be an additional agenda item for next year, two days for open debate and working group sessions, will lead to chaos in trying to fit all the rest of the activities in remaining three.

However, many delegations supported the proposal. UK argued that the two days extra are to be dedicated exclusively on judges, to provide the ASP with a heads start, so as not to be overtaken by the election process. It will be an important matter, and the UK delegate expressed its wish to see a consensus on this topic. Netherlands and Australia were also supportive of the proposal on the working methods, and to that end Australia put forth a statement of principle to be included in the proposal, that would read “[..] decides that its annual session shall be limited to the minimum number of days necessary to complete its work”. Mexico and Uruguay also were in line with the proposal, and pointed out that the format should be the ASP to be reduced from eight to seven days, and only add two more days when its election year.

Chile disagreed partially, and underlined the financial and time costs of the matter. Thus they could only support a reduction from eight to seven days, and even proposed to go through the proposal paragraph by paragraph. The facilitator noticed the disagreement and lack of decision in the room and thus suggested that this be re-discussed in the next session and in smaller groups, and encouraged all delegations to provide written statements with their further proposals. The Working Group managed to also reach agreements on further paragraphs and items of the Resolution, including the role and evaluation of the Bureau and Facilitators, the oversight mechanism, and the proposal by Brazil on the time management of the initial debate, that consisted of no more than five minutes per speech, and submitting written instead of oral statements.