UNSC ICTR/ICTY WORKING GROUP DISCUSSES EXTENSIONS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000567 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL UNSC SUBJECT: UNSC ICTR/ICTY WORKING GROUP DISCUSSES EXTENSIONS OF JUDGE'S TERMS AND RESIDUAL ISSUES REF: SECSTATE 65279 ¶1. (U) Summary: The UN Security Council Working Group (WG) on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) met June 25 to discuss draft elements of a UNSC resolution on residual issues and the extensions for several judges requested by both presidents for their respective tribunals. Most delegations supported the idea of extending the terms of some of the judges from both tribunals, although Russia said that no action needed to be taken by the Council until the fall as there is not urgency. China, Russia and South Africa lined up together and stated that the residual mechanism should be efficient and cost effective and that many of the functions listed in the draft needed to be eliminated. USUN delivered points contained in reftel. No decisions were made during the meeting and Belgium, the Chair, indicated that the next meeting will be held during the week of July 14 to discuss next steps on the issue of judges. He urged members to communicate to their capitals, positions posed on the draft elements of a UNSC resolution on residual issues and to be prepared to discuss at the next meeting on this matter which will be held during the last week of August. End Summary. Draft Elements of a UNSC Resolution ¶2. (U) Russia opened the discussion on the draft UNSC resolution by stating that any residual mechanism had to be compact, economically efficent, and had to include narrow, clearly defined competencies. He also said that the WG needed to think about making sure that the residual mechanism exists for an established period of time so as not to exist indefinetly into the future after it is created. To facilitate economic efficiency, Russia suggested establishing one mechanism with two segments (one focused on the ICTY the other on the ICTR). He acknowledged that each tribunal has considerable differences and that there is a need to have specialists with the required experience assigned to each tribunal. In regard to trial capacity, Russia indicated that option C was preferred. This option would permit the residual mechanism to prosecute a specific list of fugitives. Russia pointed out that the list should include only three people, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, and Felicien Kabuga and that the Court (in the future form of the residual mechanism) should report to the Council twice per year on its accomplishments/status. In closing, Russia said that at the next meeting, he would propose deleting the majority of the functions included in the draft elements as they are superfluous and would not add any value to a future residual mechanism. ¶3. (U) Croatia said that it would like to see a specific date on which the tribunals would finish their work and pass responsibility over to a residual mechanism. The Croatian rep also said that, regarding trial capacity, Croatia supported option A. This option would permit the residual mechanism to issue indictments for all remaining fugitives. Croatia said that the decision to refer cases to a national jurisdiction had to be a judicial function and that the UNSC had no business making such decisions in a resolution. China and South Africa said they favored option C and that the list of functions would have to be significantly reduced. The UK, Italy and Belgium leaned towards option B, which would permit the residual mechanism to revoke a case that had already been transferred to a national jurisdiction under Rule 11 bis of the tribunals' rules of procedure and evidence. Extension of terms of judges ¶4. (U) The UK and Russia commented that the request by the ICTR was reasonable and that the WG should support the request. All other delegations supported the ICTR request as well. Russia pointed out, however, that the request is not urgent and that the WG should wait to act on it until the fall. The Russian rep qualified his comment by adding that if the UNSC needed to extend the terms of the judges in the ICTR now, Russia would not oppose such an action. ¶5. (U) In regard to the ICTY request for extension of some of its judges, the UN Office of Legal Affairs said that the request does not have any financial implications. Russia responded by saying that it is not convinced there is a need for such extensions. Italy disagreed and suggested that the WG ask the ICTY for more detailed information to help the WG better understand the necessity of the request. The UK said that it fully supported the request and that if the WG did not support the request, it could end up costing more in the long run. OLA provided a copy of UNSCR 1581 which included extensions of the terms of the ad-litem judges assigned to the ICTY in 2005 and explained that the current situation is quite similar. Belgium, in conclusion, asked delegations to focus on the ICTY request for the extension of two judges that needs to be addressed in July so that the WG could take a decision on this part of the request at the WG's next meeting during the week of July 14. Khalilzad