A political, and a moral, responsibility.

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court was held in Rome from 15 June to 17 July. The Conference set a goal that was both focussed and ambitious: to open for signature a Convention to establish a permanent criminal court with world-wide jurisdiction.

After sudden shifts between moments of optimism and pessimism, trapped in the undertow of conflicting rumors, in an atmosphere of constant tension whetted by premature criticism, hasty judgments and often inopportune comments, the goal was achieved on the final day, just a few minutes before the clock struck midnight. Thunderous applause greeted the approval of the Rome Statute, with 120 votes in favour, 7 against, and 21 abstentions. A few minutes later, the new day began with the first inscriptions in the large tome that will be used to gather signatures for the final act.

This moment had been awaited since long before 15 June. Let us think only as far back as the fall of the Berlin Wall, when many Status embraced democracy and respect for basic human rights. The flowering of so many new democracies renewed hopes that humanity was on the threshold of a new era of lasting peace on the foundations of security and cooperation among peoples.

Sadly, these great hopes soon gave way to disappointment. We became the conscience-stricken, powerless witnesses to the explosion of armed conflicts throughout the world, in which people were the victims of atrocious shocking proportions.

After the tragedies of the Second World War, who could have imagined that we would ever again witness such horrors? More than 2 million people murdered in Cambodia; a half-million victims of the infamous policy of "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia; 800,000 victims of genocide in Rwanda, including women and children killed in cold blood. The misdeeds do not end here. At this very moment, atrocious acts of violence continue to be perpetrated against innocent civilians throughout the world.

The Rome Conference, which has been years in the making, proves that the world cannot and will not stand by and witness such heinous acts. Decided or rather decisive steps must be taken to stop the violence. This is why there has been such a huge increase in support for the creation of an International Criminal Court, an institution that people have been demanding for more than 50 years, ever since the Nuremberg trials.

The announcement that such a Court is being created already sends a strong message: perpetrators of crimes against humanity can no longer act with impunity; they will have to respond for their actions before international justice and face their accusers in court. The birth of the Court means that no one is above the law, and that anyone found guilty of perpetrating such atrocities will be punished.

This is hardly the first such attempt to marshall a bring together such a broad coalition of countries for the purpose of creating an International Criminal Court. In fact, several attempts have been made since the end of the last world war. Unfortunately, we did not even come close to achieving the goal because of the political climate that developed between the victors of the Second World War once the war was over. Fortunately, the dream was kept alive by many people of good will, and particularly by many truly worthy inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations. This is why it would have been a source of bitter disappointment if the Rome Conference had missed this opportunity to achieve such a long hoped-for goal.

Expectations deeply rooted in the conscience of humanity are what drove resolutely towards the birth of the Court, which must be universal and independent to prosecute the most serious crimes against humanity, impartially and effectively, paying witness and at the same time serving as a warning that the days of smug impunity are over.

The need to make the establishing act of the International Court operative as soon as possible entails a political responsibility, in addition to a moral one, until both become inescapable.

The two ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established by the UN Security Council, show that where there is a political will, valid international mechanisms can be set in motion. The new permanent mechanism is even more valid, equitable and just, because it is preconstituted. It can and indeed must guarantee that there will not be selective justice. Even the few States which opposed the Rome Statute at the end of the Conference will have to reconsider their resistance because of the sheer number of States that signed. Not to accede would weaken their image in the eyes of a world that cares deeply about this sensitive issue.

Dr. Giovanni Conso was President of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries, in Rome, which decided to establish the permanent International Criminal Court.