YUGOSLAV AND RWANDA WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS PRESENT

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001174 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNSC ICTY ICTR PHUM PREL SUBJECT: YUGOSLAV AND RWANDA WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS PRESENT JOINT PAPER TO SC WORKING GROUP ON AD HOC INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS REF: STINCHCOMB-DONOVAN EMAIL 12/11/07 EMAIL (INSTRUCTIONS) ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) presented their joint paper on residual functions at a December 11 meeting of the Security Council Working Group on Ad Hoc International Tribunals (WG). The main topics discussed were: residual mechanisms and the proposed roster of judges; referral to national jurisdictions; in absentia trials; archives; witness protection; and cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC). USUN drew on the points contained in reftel for its interventions. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) In his brief remarks to the WG, ICTY President Fausto Pocar noted that the joint paper was the third version of its kind and that it reflected WG views in terms of structure and content. He emphasized the need to continue inter-judicial cooperation between the Tribunals and domestic courts once the Tribunals close. As an example of inter-judicial cooperation, he pointed to the recent amendment of Rule 75 of the ICTY rules of procedure, which enables judicial authorities in other jurisdictions to directly petition the Tribunal for access to confidential material. He also discussed the importance of establishing a witness protection mechanism once the Tribunals close. Additionally, he stressed that the remaining fugitives should not be allowed to escape justice because of deadlines established by the Completion Strategies, and that a structure needs to be put in place that would allow prosecution upon closure of the Tribunals. ¶3. (U) ICTR President Dennis Byron focused his remarks on the recent establishment of an Advisory Committee on Archives, which is headed by Justice Goldstone and is expected to provide an independent assessment on issues such as the preferred number, and location, of archives before the next reporting period. According to Judge Byron, the Advisory Committee is already in initial consultations, but he asked for Council authorization to initiate discussion with varied stakeholders in the Great Lakes Region, including non-Council Member States such as Rwanda, regional organizations, and civil society groups. Judge Byron also solicited Council views on archives related issues, and he ;indicated a preference for the ICTR archives to remain in the Great Lakes Region. He said that the UN premises in Nairobi, Kenya might be a viable option because of potential cost-savings. ¶4. (U) ICTY Deputy Prosecutor Tolbert underlined the radically downsized nature of the Tribunal discussed in the joint paper, and said that 40% budget cuts have already been proposed. Furthermore, he echoed Judge Pocar's comments that the remaining fugitives cannot escape justice because of completion timetables, as that would undermine the ICTY's work. He also emphasized that Tribunal cooperation with the region is an important part of the Completion Strategy. Toward that end, he highlighted some of ICTY's inter-judicial cooperation mechanisms. Additionally, he observed that the subject of archives raises a number of complicated issues that apply to a range of stakeholders. ¶5. (U) ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Jallow spoke merely to echo Judge Byron's request for Council guidance. While the ICTY Registrar could not attend the meeting, Tribunal representatives indicated that he is prepared to have bilateral discussions with interested parties at a later date. The ICTR Registrar underlined the advisory nature of the Archives Committee, stressing that the Council will ultimately decide on the structure and location of the archives. He also highlighted the need to address management of sentences given that the issue will have long-term financial implications. ¶6. (U) Following the statements by Principals of the two Tribunals, Council Members joined the discussion. The main topics discussed were: residual mechanisms and the proposed roster of judges; referral to national jurisdictions; in absentia trials; archives; witness protection; and cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC). In response to a question by the United Kingdom, the Principals clarified that in terms of residual mechanisms, the report envisions a phased-out approach based on downsizing. Judge Pocar said that a roster system for judges, prosecutors, and registry staff would avoid the need to maintain an excessive structure in place; instead, only a minimal permanent structure would be required after closure of the Tribunals. ¶7. (U) While the Principals agreed with South Africa on a limited role for the international community vis--vis capable national jurisdictions, they indicated the need for further capacity building in their respective regions. Moreover, they reiterated that high-ranking indictees must be tried at their respective Tribunals based on relevant Council resolutions. In the case of the ICTY, Judge Pocar and Deputy Tolbert stressed that all remaining fugitives were sufficiently high level to require trial at the Tribunal, and that the ICTY had maximized its ability to transfer cases. ¶8. (U) Following a Qatari intervention on the validity of trials in absentia and the related inaccuracy of paragraph 9 of the joint paper (which suggests that trials in absentia are disfavored),the Principals indicated that they are not against such trials as a matter of principle. They clarified that trials in absentia are more common (but not universal) in civil law countries. Regardless, they said that it would not be prudent to allow such trials at this stage because of the message it would send: the international community is looking for an expedient solution and will allow impunity in practice. ¶9. (U) With respect to archives, the discussion reflected the dual purpose of archives: to assist in future criminal proceedings in domestic courts and to aid in the reconciliation process. While several delegations indicated that regional considerations should play a role in determining the location of the respective archives, accessibility to the materials was also highlighted as an important factor in the decision-making process. Deputy Prosecutor Tolbert further recommended digitalization of archives. ¶10. (U) In response to a question Qna, the Principals of the two Tribunals underscored the importance of a witness protection mechanism once the Tribunals close. They explained that the Tribunals are obligated to provide some measure of protection not only because of witness expectations, but also because various agreements guarantee such a service (i.e., in the case of witnesses who have been relocated to third countries). They suggested that residual witness protection could be reduced to one person, and that judges would play a very limited role once a witness protection regime was established. ¶11. (U) With some delegations expressing an interest in exploring potential cooperation with the ICC, the Principals indicated that they would be open to such an arrangement, especially with respect to administrative issues. The Principals clarified that the joint paper's discussion of potential ICC cooperation may have seemed negative because it was based on various assumptions, and that they needed more Council direction on the issue. Judge Byron also suggested possible coordination with the UN facilities in Nairobi, and sought authorization to engage in initial consultations. ¶12. (U) Following the discussion between Council members and the Tribunals' Principals, the WG met on its own to consider some of the issues raised. The majority of Council members indicated that Tribunal Principals should have the ability to consult with varied stakeholders, as necessary, in order to answer questions posed by the Council. Members also agreed that the WG needed a chairman who would assume the role for at least one year. The UK nominated Belgium for the position. Other members endorsed the nomination, although Belgium reacted by saying that instructions from capital were needed before the position could be accepted. Khalilzad