ASP18 Side Event: Draft Convention on Crimes Against Humanity

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 2 (3 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Draft Convention on Crimes Against Humanity (Side Event hosted by Germany)

Overview by: Emma Bakkum, Senior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Summary of the Event:

Unlike genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity were never codified in a specific convention. The International Law Commission (ILC) is working towards exactly this: a convention on crimes against humanity. Alongside the ASP, representatives of States Parties and other interested came together to discuss the status of the draft convention on crimes against humanity.

 Sean D. Murphy (President of the American Society of International Law, US Member of the International Law Commission and Special Rapporteur for Crimes against Humanity) discussed the progress and next steps of the draft convention on crimes against humanity. He mentioned that of the States Parties to the Rome Statute 40% has no national law in place regarding crimes against humanity. While this is partly explained by the fact that the Rome Statute does not in an operative provision oblige states to adopt national law, the ILC felt that states could do more to accurately criminalize crimes against humanity in their domestic systems.

The ILC started working on the project in 2014, with the clear aim to develop a draft treaty on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. In August of this year, the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of the seventy-first session (Chapter IV), presented the draft text of 15 articles, which includes a definition of crimes against humanity and an obligation on states to refrain from committing and to prevent crimes against humanity. The draft convention further includes provisions on jurisdiction, rights of victims, extradition procedures, and interstate dispute settlements. 

When the Sixth Committee of the UN (legal) debated the ILC’s report in October, many states strongly supported moving forward with a convention. However, some states expressed concern about timing. Nonetheless, Mr. Murphy expressed hope towards the adoption of a convention on crimes against humanity for several reasons. For instance, developing an international treaty would encourage and assist states in adopting national legislation, in a harmonizing way. This would furthermore alleviate the strong focus on international criminal courts to prosecute crimes against humanity in line with the complementarity principle. Mr. Murphy also noted that adopting a convention would take to a further level the issues of stigmatizing crimes against humanity. Moreover, the convention could pose a solution to some of the problems faced with inter-state cooperation, both with regard to states that are a party to the Rome Statute and those that are not. Mr. Murphy finally added that the draft convention is not so unusual or different from other treaties as the ILC replicated the type of languages found in existing treaties. 

Larissa van den Herik (Vice-dean Leiden Law School and professor of public international law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies at Leiden University) spoke about the relation between this initiative and the initiative for a Multilateral Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition for Domestic Prosecution of the Most Serious International Crimes (MLA-treaty), as concerns about overlap between the initiatives had arisen. Ms. van den Herik stated that these two initiatives do not have to be mutually exclusive - they are not only compatible but even mutually reinforcing.

During the discussion, the best way forward with the draft convention was discussed and Joachim Bertele (Director of International Law, Federal Foreign Office Germany) left the participants of the side event with the question of what could be achieved from today until next year. 

ASP18 Side Event: Raising the Bar- Improving the Nomination and Election of Judges to the ICC

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 2 (3 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Raising the Bar – improving the nomination and election of judges to the international criminal court (Side Event co-hosted by South Africa, Uruguay, and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI)). 

Overview by: Hester Dek, Intern PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

  • James Goldston emphasized that qualifications should be more important than the campaign during the election process. 

  • Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova underlined the importance of judicial education: “if cases are in the hands of judges who do not know how to handle evidence, the outcome will never work”. 

  • Alejandra Vicente noted that the ICC is doing better at gender parity than most UN bodies, the ICJ, and some regional human rights courts, however progress is not always sustained.

Summary of the Event:

“This debate is quite belated, it was due a long time ago” 

This side event was organized in the wake of the latest report by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) “Raising the Bar: Improving the Nomination and Selection of Judges at the International Criminal Court”. The panel consisted of James Goldston (Executive Director OSJI), Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova (President, Kosovo Specialist Chambers), Niels Blokker (Professor of International Institutional Law, Leiden University), and Alejandra Vicente (GQual Secretariat member and Head of Law, REDRESS). The event was chaired by Angela Mudukuti (Senior International Criminal Justice Lawyer, Wayamo Foundation).

James Goldston commenced by discussing the report and emphasizing that until now candidates with the strongest campaigns, rather than the strongest qualifications, have proven most likely to win.

Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova continued the discussion by stressing the importance of judicial education, questioning how one could handle difficult legal matters without sufficient knowledge of the law, as parties are always testing the competence of the judges. “Unless we turn ourselves inside to see what we can do to improve the way judges do their job, we are not going to improve the perception of an outsider of the ICC”. She stressed that “this debate is very much belated, it was due a long time ago”. She highlighted the importance of judges being educated consistently: “if cases are in the hands of judges who do not know how to handle evidence, the outcome will never work”.  

Thereafter, Niels Blokker reflected on the question “how typical is the ICC in how the judges are nominated and elected based on your research?”. According to Blokker, there is no prototype, each tribunal is unique. He emphasized the strong presence of civil society at the ICC. According to him, there isn’t enough research on the governance of international tribunals.

Next, Alejandra Vicente discussed the importance of gender parity in tribunals, treaty bodies, and special procedures. She explained that this aim is recognized in treaties, yet it is hardly realised in tribunals. She noted that many countries have only nominated men, using otherwise opaque nomination procedures. On this point of gender parity, Judge Trendafilova pointed out, however, that while gender parity is very important, eventually “you want to be chosen based on your qualifications, not your gender.” 

In assessing gender parity at the ICC, Ms. Vicente responded that the ICC is doing better than most UN bodies such as the ICJ, and some regional human rights courts. If a state wants a chance, they need to nominate women: “it does not allow states to get away with the argument ‘there are no qualified women available in my country’”. She stressed that progress should be more sustained.

Mr. Goldston then referred to the recommendation of the report that states ensure transparent, merit-based nomination processes. Besides that, he highlighted the equitable gender representation, the importance of asking nominees to demonstrate evidence of their legal knowledge, and the need to check fact-check their credentials. 

Lastly, the floor was opened for questions and comments. Questions were raised regarding remuneration for judges, employment security for judges, the requirement of high moral character, and judicial collegiality. On the first question, Mr. Goldstone answered that the issue of remuneration is not a priority at this point. On the question of high moral character, Ms. Vicente responded that previous cases of harassment should be taken into account in the nomination process. Finally, collegiality was said to be important, but with full respect for the independence of the judge. 

ASP18 Sixth Plenary Meeting: Review of the Court

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 3 (4 December 2019)

Name of Event: Sixth Plenary Meeting: Review of the Court

Overview by: Rachel Grand, Sindija Beta, and Kelly van Eeten, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

  • 17 States Parties and four CSOs provided statements on the Review of the Court. Many of them emphasized the need for the review to be independent, transparent, and inclusive. 

  • Several States Parties referred to the upcoming judicial and prosecutorial elections in their statements. 

  • Some States Parties mentioned the importance of geographical representation and gender balance at the Court. 

Summary of the Event:

The sixth plenary meeting was dedicated to the Review of the Court. First, ASP President O-Gon Kwon introduced the topic. He referred to three documents relevant for the Review of the Court: The Matrix, the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Independent Expert Review, and the Draft Resolution for the Review of the Court and the Rome Statute System, to be introduced later this week. He noted the timeline for the Independent Expert Review would start in January 2020, with stakeholder consultations between February and March, and a final report in September 2020. Therefore “time is of the essence,” the ASP president concluded. 

The Principals of the Court first provided statements on the topic of review. The ICC President, Chile Eboe-Osuji, voiced the Court’s support for the review and said that it was long overdue. Additionally, he noted that the funding of the Court needed specific attention. He put figures into perspective by referring to the resources of some major domestic investigations. He furthermore touched upon the current circumstances of the conditions of service of judges (expressing regret to be in disagreeance with Mr. Blok, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands). The ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, voiced her support for the independent expert review, as well as the steps her office has already taken for reform. She stressed the need for the review process to respect and preserve the Prosecutorial and Judicial independence, examine all parts of the system, and build on the steps the Court has already taken. The Registrar, Peter Lewis, warmly welcomed the review and voiced his interest in the review paying particular attention to cooperation, as well as geographical representation and gender balance.

17 States Parties and four CSOs provided statements, addressing the work on the review process. Many of them emphasized the need for the review to be independent, transparent, and inclusive. Many also urged for the cooperation of States Parties in the expert review, acknowledging States Parties’ responsibility. Finland, speaking on behalf of the EU, emphasized the need for state cooperation in implementing the objectives of the review.

Several States Parties urged for concrete action points to be implemented and to focus on the outcomes, including The UK, stating “reform is a process, not an event”. Other States Parties such as The Netherlands, New Zealand, and Brazil, also emphasized the need for action once the independent expert review is complete. 

Several States Parties focused on the upcoming elections of six judges and the Prosecutor in 2020. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) cited the elections as an opportunity for change in the Court. Canada for instance emphasized the role of the ACN in the selection of candidates. Human Rights Watch (HRW) discussed the importance of electing both the Prosecutor and judges based on their merit, noting concern with regard to the politicization of the elections.

The geographical representation and gender balance remained a topic during the sixth plenary meeting. Both the Registrar and several states referred to it. Finland on behalf of the EU, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina, Uganda, and the African Network for International Criminal Justice mentioned gender balance, geographical representation, or both. Japan stated that underrepresentation and no representation at all of the states for the ICC has been a problem for years and urged that steps are taken towards the universality of the Rome Statute.

Throughout the discussion on the Review process, several States Parties, including Finland on behalf of the EU, Costa Rica, and the Netherlands, as well as HRW, underlined the importance of the fight against impunity. The Prosecutor stated that no state should be able to abuse human rights with impunity. Sierra Leone mentioned that the review of the Court could help close the impunity gap. France noted that the ICC is a major innovation and yet a young institution with high expectations. 



ASP18 Fifth Plenary Meeting: Budget

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 3 (4 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Fifth Plenary Meeting: Budget

Overview by: Keri van Douwen, Francisca de Castro, Sindija Beta, Junior Research Associates PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

  • The ICC Registrar and the Chair of Budget and Finance provided statements and the audit reports were presented for consideration. 

  • The proposed budget was subject to stringent measures taken by the court and it represents the lowest percentage increase since the ICC was established. 

Summary of the Event:

The third day of the ASP continued with a plenary meeting on the ICC’s 2020 budget. The ICC Registrar, Peter Lewis and the Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance, Mr. Hitoshi Kozaki presented. The external auditor finally presented the audit reports for consideration.

The Registrar of the Court, Peter Lewis, opened the fifth plenary meeting by acknowledging the investment of States Parties to the ICC even through financial challenges. He stressed the importance of the Court showing results from these investments, as well as showing stringency and precise budgeting by the Court. He touched upon the new strategic planning process that has been made recently compared to the first-year budget process and how the registrar’s office’s strategic plan, mixed with the other organs of the court’s plans created a complete set for strategic plans for the Court. These strategic plans provide a clear roadmap for how they can improve the core functions of the court through a more efficient administration of key duties and thus resulting in a reduction of costs.

The proposed budget for 2020 amounts to 146.94 million euros, which signifies an increase of 2.39 million, or 1.7% increase from the approved budget of 2019. Mr. Lewis emphasized that this budget was taken as a result of stringent measures taken within the court, and highlighted that this represents the lowest percentage increase since the ICC was established. Furthermore, he talked about how they found an additional 1.3 million euros of savings within the capital replacements of the court premises, which is why they did not see the necessity to put forward a proposal that would ask for the full costs of changes to the common system.

One of the concrete proposals made by the registrar was to continue the discussion as to find sustainable financial solutions which would be in line with the Committee of Budget and Finance’s (CBF) recommendations. Furthermore, he emphasized that they had requested an addendum to increase the budget by 230.000€ to cover the legal aid for Mr. Al Hassan’s defense team, as his confirmation of charges was posterior to the submission of the proposed budget.  However, he acknowledged that if the CBF’s proposed budget proposal were to be voted by the ASP, it would be a 0.7% increase over the 2019 budget. 

He stressed that there has been one notable unforeseen development since the session with the CBF which has been the augmentation of the living costs in The Hague, which significantly impacts the living allowance of the staff compared to 2011, the year the last assessment was conducted. The increase of living costs placed more pressure on the court’s budget, needing an augmentation of around 2 million euros.

The Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF), Mr. Hitoshi Kozaki, noted that the forecast implementation rate is expected to be 99.4% against the 2019 approved budget and that the CBF has received 3 contingency funds of 2.25 million. The CBF has scrutinized the proposed budget, which represents an increase of 2.4 million euro or 1.7% against the 2019 budget.  Hitoshi Kozaki also emphasized that the court review process should include the committee and should keep them informed of all changes.

The chair of the audit committee, Samir Abu Lughod, outlined that in the summer of 2019 the audit committee received an interim report by the court on courts values and effects framework with representatives of all organs on their current efforts in the area. He emphasized the importance of creating an institutional culture founded on values and effects and encouraged the development of a wide ethics charter for the court. He also asked the States Parties to approve extension of the mandate of auditors which cover the financial statements of the Court and Trust Fund for Victim’s (TFV) in the year 2020, as well as to undertake at least one performance audit.

Mr. Didier Migaud the First President of the Cour des Comptes in France was to present the external auditors report from 2019. His remarks were delivered by a colleague as Mr. Migaud could not make it. There were three reports of the audit which included the financial status of the ICC, the TFV, and the budgetary procedure of the ICC. 

The first report, relating to the financial status of the ICC showed that 2018 ended on an accounting deficit of 7.1 million euros, which is a decrease compared to the 2017 deficit of 13.8 million euros. The 2018 deficit represents 4.8% of the Court’s budget. The external audit did not reiterate last year’s remarks on a risk of a cash crisis which could threaten the courts activities because the collections received during the second semester of 2019 allowed the risks to be managed. The report warns the States Parties about the impact the delay in payment could have on the ICC’s workings. 

The second report, relating to the audit of the TFV, found that the budget for the TFV was of 2.5 million euros, which was complemented by 3.6 million euros of voluntary contributions. The TVF shows an accounting deficit of 1.1 million euros. 2018 showed an increase in voluntary contributions compared to 2017. 

The third report discussed the efficiency of the budgetary procedure of the ICC.  It was found that the current structure of the ICC budget poses a problem on budgetary coordination. The current structure makes it impossible to determine a result-based budget. Second, there is a problem of budgetary coordination. It is recommended to have a less strict interpretation of Art. 42.2 of the Rome Statute which would allow the creation of communal administrative services. 

The audit was based on the four phases of the budgetary process: with regards to the preparation, the recommendations are the same as last year, and the creation of a communal administrative service. With regards to the adoption, to simplify the budget document to re-center it on the questions about a budget and for it to be released no later than January. Regarding the execution, they suggested some recommendations on the special funds, and the delegation of some of the responsibilities of the ASP to the bureau so that they can take particular measures in case of a new liquidity crisis. Finally, concerning the execution of the budget, their recommendation is based on the content of the annual report and they suggest removing some unnecessary information in the report’s annex.

In application of article 12 of the financial rules and regulations of the ICC, the external auditor has established three reports throughout the year 2019. These reports are on the financial statements of ICC for the year that ended on 31st December 2018, the TFV, and the ICC’s budget process. 

The external auditor highlighted several points. For instance, he mentioned that the Court’s cash inflow for the second semester of 2019 has brought an end to the cash flow crisis flagged in last year’s audit reports. Nevertheless, the Court is left with some uncertainty vis-a-vis some States Parties outstanding budget payments and the difficulty of knowing when to expect payment. 

He further noted that: 

  • Thirteen out of twenty-four recommendations made by the external auditor in 2018 have been applied. 

  • The voluntary contributions made to the TFV have increased from 2.6 million euros to 2.9 million euros compared to last year. It is recommended to note the voluntary contributions separately in the annual or multi-annual report because they constitute more than half the resource flow for the funds. This will give the ASP a better understanding of where the ICC’s budget sits. 

  • The structure of the budget of the Court is tied to its major programs.  While this structure upholds the legal imperatives of the ICC and the independence of the OTP, it means different budget lines cannot be clustered if they have been listed per major activity.  As a result, result based budgeting cannot be implemented which risks double ups across the different silos. It might be recommendable to take a more flexible interpretation of the way that these services are organized. That is, consider more common sources rather than separate silos. 

  • Regarding the size of the Court, it would be worthwhile to have a more clear description of all mechanical relationships and the way they work together to be able to come up with more realistic figures of what their size means. 

  • The external auditor notes that the budget increase exceeds inflation, meaning that staff and non-staff costs are continuing to rise. 

  • Regarding non-staff costs, it would be worthwhile to implement a zero budget growth scenario and to justify each single expense. 

  • To control staff costs, greater internal mobility has to be ensured. 

  • The presentation and proposal of the budget goes into too much detail rather than focusing on central elements. A simplified document that looks only at the most important budget issues is necessary. This could preferably be disseminated no later than end of January.

Negotiations of the budget will continue in closed meetings where states will vote on the adoption of the proposed budget.


ASP18 Side Event: Technology and 21st Century Fact-Finding: Setting & Standardizing Processes for International Criminal Investigations

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 2 (3 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Technology and 21st Century Fact-Finding: Setting & Standardizing Processes for International Criminal Investigations (Side event co-hosted by Liechtenstein, Berkeley Human Rights Centre, and Global Rights Compliance) 

Overview by: Kelly van Eeten, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

  • The documentation by (civil society) organizations must improve so it can be more often used in court.

  • The Basic Investigative Standards (BIS) APP might contribute to this improvement since it guides users to use more professional documentation methods. 

Summary of the Event:

H.E. Mr. Christian Wenaweser, Ambassador of Liechtenstein and former ASP president, opened the event by stressing the importance of technology in current fact-finding in international criminal proceedings. Former US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Stephen J. Rapp was next to speak. He talked about the ICC and the possibility of UNSC referral of situations. He stressed the need for reinforcement of civil society documentation in that matter.

Ambassador Rapp continued by providing two “exciting” examples of journalist platforms and CSOs on documentation and investigation. The first example was about Bellingcat, an independent international collective of researchers, investigators, and citizen journalists. He mentioned Bellingcat’s investigation with regard to the downing of MH17. Bellingcat’s research had been crucial in finding those responsible. Secondly, he mentioned the investigation into hospitals bombings in Syria by Russia. An analysis of unpublished Russian Air Force radio recordings, plane spotter logs, and witness testimonies enabled The Times in May to trace attacks on four hospitals in just 12 hours and tie Russian pilots to each one. Ambassador Rapp continued with an example related to the Rohingya in Myanmar: Facebook is full of anti-Rohingya material and calls for violence. He stated that on the down side, perpetrators can more easily incite mob violence, on the plus side, however, there is a lot of material to tie perpetrators to acts on the ground. 

After his speech, Ambassador Rapp gave the floor to Ashley Jordana, senior legal consultant at Global Rights Compliance. Jordana started her talk with an explanation on an app GRC developed. The Basic Investigative Standards (BIS) app is developed to assist those working in the field of human rights violations. It is a freely available app, which is also operational in areas with little internet connection. The app enables the user not only to document, but also provides guidance on operations in their mandates and minimum standards for the investigation of international crimes. GRC developed a pilot in July in several countries, including in Bangladesh, Mali, Palestine, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. The pilot phase will end in January 2020 after which the app will be ready for the global market. 

After an explanation of the app, Jordana continued by stressing the need for improvement of documentation by CSO’s and other organizations. She referred to Syria, where a lot of footage on the war is available. However, this footage can’t be used since it isn’t correctly preserved and the chain of custody is incomplete. This led to the question whether CSO’s should engage in documentation at all. Jordana stated that the reality is that they do. Therefore GRC tries to guide and assist CSOs so that evidence documentation improves. 

Alexa Koenig, Executive Director of the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley, continued by stressing the need to “speak on the same level” when it comes to cooperation with several different disciplines. She identified a need for general terminology in the field of collecting evidence to better capture the knowledge available. 

The last person that took the floor was Lindsay Freeman, senior legal researcher for the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley and head of drafting the International Protocol on Open Source Investigations. Lindsay also referred to the downing of MH17. She pointed out the issue of methodology of the Bellingcat investigation. Bellingcat started investigating and piecing together information just hours after the crash. However, they did not have guidance on this, which made their research difficult to apply in a court situation. She recalled that documentation should be operational and practical, but also usable in a court. 

PILPG Junior Research Associate Kelly van Eeten enquired into the outsourcing of open source investigation by organizations like Bellingcat. Ms. Freeman replied, stating that outsourcing can become dangerous quickly. In situations like this, a crowd mentality can turn violent and this violence can turn to the offline world from the online space. This does not mean that crowdsourcing in itself is bad, but the proper way to do it has yet to be developed.