Work continues on International Criminal Court.

A further step towards the creation of a new global judicial body - an International Criminal Court - was taken on 25 August, as the General Assembly was asked to work towards the early completion of a draft convention for the Court's establishment.

The Court - a non-standing permanent institution to be set up by treaty - is to provide a complementary international criminal justice mechanism to enhance the effective prosecution and suppression of crimes of international concern by national criminal justice systems.

It would have jurisdiction over four crimes under general international law - genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression - and over exceptionally serious crimes of international concern, such as apartheid, systematic or massive violations of human rights, torture, hostage taking, hijacking and illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs.

During its two-part session (3-13 April and 14-25 August, New York), the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court also recommended that the draft convention be considered by a conference of plenipotentiaries.

Chairman Adriaan Bos of the Netherlands said that during deliberations a "substantial workload" had been handled, including such topics as the Court's composition, jurisdiction, applicable laws and methods of proceedings, as well as the relationship between the new institution and States parties.

Set up by General Assembly resolution 49/53 of 9 December 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee reviews issues arising from a 60-article draft statute for the Court, adopted by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 1994.

Many delegates wanted a clearer definition of the principle of complementarity of the International Court to national criminal jurisdiction in cases where, according to the draft statute, "trial procedures may not be available or may be ineffective".

Some said that competent national courts should have priority over the International Court, while others urged that the primacy of national jurisdictions should not be invoked to shield criminals.

There was widespread agreement that the statute should precisely define, rather than simply enumerate, crimes to be dealt with by the Court. Incorporation of definitions from the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter and the statutes of the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda was suggested. Speakers also urged completion by the ILC of the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind.

Since only the Security Council, according to the UN Charter, may determine the commission of an act of aggression, several delegates expressed doubts on the list of crimes and cautioned that the proposed Court should be an apolitical body.

Many believed that the inclusion of terrorism, drug trafficking, torture, apartheid or other crimes prohibited pursuant to international treaties in the statute would overburden the Court, and that those crimes should be dealt with by national courts.

A more focused list of crimes for the International Criminal Court would probably increase the number of national legislatures likely to accede to its statute, it was suggested. Participants generally agreed that the list of crimes, to be considered by the Court, should be subject to periodic review by States parties to the statute.

They were divided, however, on whether the future Criminal Court should enjoy "inherent jurisdiction" over serious international crimes, which would allow it to proceed with the prosecution of crimes even without being requested to do so by States parties.

Some felt that inherent jurisdiction was incompatible with the UN Charter principles relating to national sovereignty. Others argued that, given the magnitude of the core crimes included in its statute, the Court should not be unduly restricted in its freedom to prosecute.

On the issue of State consent requirements, several speakers believed that only the consent of the State in whose territory the crime was committed or of the custodial State was necessary. Others felt that consent of the State of nationality of the accused should also be required.

Delegations agreed that general rules of criminal law should be included in the statute or in an annex, with questions of lesser importance to be determined by the Court in particular cases. That approach, it was believed, would provide clear guidance to the Court and to counsel, secure predictability and protect the accused.