RUSSIAN RESPONSE TO U.S. NONPAPER ON AN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 001599 SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EWWT MARR PGOV PHSA PHUM PREL RS SUBJECT: RUSSIAN RESPONSE TO U.S. NONPAPER ON AN INTERNATIONAL PIRACY COURT REF: STATE 58579 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: On June 16, MFA Legal Department Section Chief Titushkin provided a response to reftel nonpaper laying out U.S. opposition to an international piracy court. He explained that the GOR considered an international tribunal an appropriate forum to prosecute suspected pirates, especially high level pirate leaders and financiers. A tribunal could be established quickly through a UNSC resolution that included a "trigger" for a temporary hiatus if the number of piracy prosecutions declined. A tribunal's jurisdiction should be limited to the region off the Somali coast, and should not preclude a state from trying piracy suspects in its own courts. As the GOR was skeptical that courts in the region could handle many piracy prosecutions, it was delaying an agreement to turn piracy suspects captured by Russian ships over to regional governments. Titushkin stressed that Russia would consider every legal option to fight piracy, and expressed appreciation for the level of detail on the U.S. position provided by the nonpaper. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) On June 16, MFA Legal Department Section Chief Vasily Titushkin provided the following responses to specific points raised in the U.S. nonpaper: -- Propriety of an international tribunal: Titushkin questioned the U.S. argument that an international tribunal was inappropriate for piracy. He conceded that the application of an international tribunal in the case of piracy in no way compared to the use of such a forum to try those accused of genocide, but argued that an international tribunal had certain advantages over national courts that could face difficulty prosecuting high level leaders and financiers of pirates. Titushkin posited that prosecuting piracy should be divided into two categories: the prosecution of persons captured while engaging in individual acts of piracy, and the investigation and prosecution of pirate leaders, which was necessary to eliminate the crime of piracy. The GOR believed that while national courts could handle the former, only an international tribunal could tackle the latter. -- Establishing a tribunal: The GOR thought it possible to rapidly establish a tribunal through a UNSC resolution adopted under Chapter 7. Titushkin argued that previous resolutions regarding piracy had been adopted quickly under �00A;Chapter 7, and could be done so again. -- Cost: Titushkin offered that the international community could "work harder" to raise funds for an international tribunal from the shipping industry, insurers, and businesses impacted by piracy. A method to collect funds from UN member states could also be used if the tribunal was established through the UNSC. Furthermore, a tribunal could be made cost effective if regional capabilities, such as judges and existing court facilities, were adapted for the tribunal's use. -- National prosecutions vs. international tribunal: The GOR was skeptical that national courts in the region affected by Somali piracy could handle a large number of piracy prosecutions. Russia recognized Kenya, Tanzania, and Eritrea as the three states with adequate legislation to prosecute piracy suspects; the Kenyan courts had the greatest capacity, but had already reached their limit to try additional piracy cases. Titushkin explained that the GOR was discussing with Kenya, Tanzania, and Eritrea a formal agreement to turn over to these countries suspected pirates captured by Russian ships, but doubted that they could effectively prosecute large numbers of suspects. He added that these states' demonstrated lack of capacity meant that a national or regional piracy tribunal would require extensive international assistance. -- Switching off a tribunal: The GOR thought that a UNSC resolution, or other agreement, establishing an international tribunal could include language establishing a "trigger" to switch off the tribunal when necessary, such as a numerical drop in the number of piracy cases. This could mean a temporary hiatus for the tribunal, or, if piracy in the region was in serious decline, could become permanent. -- Jurisdiction: An international piracy tribunal's jurisdiction should be limited to the region off the Somali coast, which was where the piracy crisis necessitated such a course of action. Furthermore, China and Southeast Asian countries would be reluctant to have their piracy cases MOSCOW 00001599 002 OF 002 turned over to a tribunal. Titushkin added that the GOR thought that an international tribunal should not limit a state's ability to prosecute suspected pirates in its own courts. Rather, a state would have the option to turn to the international tribunal if it so wished. -- Defendants would mount legal challenges to a tribunal: Titushkin pointed out that this would not be unique to an international tribunal, and reminded us of the case of a suspected pirate challenging the German government's decision to transfer him to Kenya for prosecution, arguing that Kenya would violate his human rights. ¶3. (SBU) Titushkin stressed that the GOR was open to "every effective option" to fight piracy, would consider "any form" of regional or international tribunal, and did not require the creation of the "monster" tribunal established for the former Yugoslavia . He expressed appreciation for the amount of detail included in the U.S. nonpaper, which demonstrated the U.S. commitment to addressing the piracy challenge. BEYRLE