ICC Conversations With Indian Parliamentarians With Cover Page PDF

|NIFkNAI|ONA|
Ck|M|NA|
CO0kI:
CONFk8AI|ON8
W|IP |ND|AN
PAk||AMFNIAk|AN8
THE INDIAN CAMPAIGN ON

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Conversations with Indian Parliamentarians 1
INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL
COURT :
CONVERSATIONS
WITH
INDIAN PARLIAMENTARIANS
ICC-INDIA
THE INDIAN CAMPAIGN ON
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
2 International Criminal Court
Published in December 2005 by
WOMENS RESEARCH & ACTION GROUP
101, Zaithun villa, Behind Airview Building
Near Vakola Market, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400055
Ph: +91-22-26672015 / 26673799
Email: iccindiacampaign@gmail.com
in association with
PEOPLES WATCH TAMIL NADU
No. 6, Vallabai Road, Chokkikulam
Madurai 625 002, India
Phone: +91 452 253 9520
Fax: +91 452 253 1874 E-Mail: info@pwtn.org
This initiative was made possible by a grant from Friedrich
Naumann Stiftung, New Delhi.
Report:
Saumya Uma
Editor:
Vahida Nainar
Photographs:
Dr. Mohanlal Panda & Saumya Uma
Printed by:
Sudhir Joglekar
Belgaum
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND 4
INTRODUCTIONS & OPENING REMARKS 6
SPEECH OF JUDGE PHILIPPE KIRSCH 8
INTERACTIONS WITH THE PARLIAMENTARIANS 15
VOTE OF THANKS 31
ANNEXURES
Annex A: A biography of Judge Philippe Kirsch 32
Annex B: Photographs 34
Annex C: List of Participants 38
Annex D: List of Observers 42
Annex E: Office-Bearers of Parliamentary Forum 45
on Human Rights
Annex F: Acknowledgments 46
BACKGROUND
On 8 December 2005, Judge Philippe Kirsch President of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) situated in The Hague, The
Netherlands - addressed Indian Parliamentarians on the issue of
International Criminal Court and India, at the Parliament House in New
Delhi. This event was made possible through the joint efforts of the
Parliamentarian Forum on Human Rights, ICC-India: the Indian campaign
on International Criminal Court as well as several individuals and partner
organizations of the campaign.
To any constituency in India, the ICC is conceptually and
geographically distant; geographically because it is situated in The Hague;
conceptually because it is born out of the legacy of the Nuremberg and
Tokyo tribunals and the consequent struggle to end impunity for crimes
of the highest order. The Convenor of a recently-formed Parliamentarian
Forum on Human Rights, Mr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan (Rajya
Sabha), invited the ICC-India campaign to address MPs on the issue as
they were curious and sought more information. The two hour meeting
was held in August 2005 which was attended by more than 45 MPs from
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, representing various political parties. The
endless stream of questions from the parliamentarians were responded
to in writing and has been published as a booklet, released at the second
consultative meeting held on 8 December 2005 at the Parliament House,
New Delhi. The present report documents the proceedings of this second
meeting with Parliamentarians.
The second consultative meeting brought together about 50
Parliamentarians from both the Houses (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha),
representing various political parties, hailing from varied states and
constituencies. These Parliamentarians were able to receive information,
seek clarifications and freely discuss apprehensions and concerns on the
issue of the ICC with the President of the court, Judge Philippe Kirsch.
The objective of Judge Kirschs visit to India was to dispel apprehensions
and misconceptions about the ICC, to discuss frankly the achievements
and limitations of the court, and to generate an informed discussion on
the issue. It is in this context that Judge Kirschs interaction with the
Indian Parliamentarians stands as an important event.
The experience of organizing this event has led to ICC-India
campaigns engagement with the law-makers and the possibility of
working in close association with the MPs on human rights issues,
including those pertaining to international law and geo-politics such as
the ICC. It is hoped that the experiences of the campaign would contribute
to a sustained dialogue on human rights issues with this important
constituency.
ICC-India campaign ICC-India campaign ICC-India campaign ICC-India campaign ICC-India campaign
December 2005
INTRODUCTIONS &
OPENING REMARKS
Shri. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, M.P. (Rajya Sabha) and
President of the Parliamentary Forum on Human Rights, welcomed
Judge Philippe Kirsch the President of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) and the participants to the third meeting of the
Parliamentary Forum on Human rights. He apologized to the
Honble Judge as two members who accompanied him were not
permitted into the Parliament House. He promised to try and
facilitate their entry during the course of these proceedings.
Shri. Natchiappan introduced the subject of ICC as an
international judicial institution that deals with prosecution of
individuals for most serious crimes under international law. He
stated that this institution now has the support of a hundred
countries, and the recognition of the United Nations. He
highlighted that however, India is not a signatory of the Rome
Statute that created this court. He said that a consultative meeting
on the ICC was being convened for the second time, with the intent
to discuss the issue more and understand the details of its
functioning, its implications and relevance for India, and the
potential for Indias engagement with the issue in future. He
emphasized that when efforts to draft the statute creating the ICC
were commenced, India had participated in the process, but
subsequently abstained from voting on the same in 1998 at the
Rome Conference. He suggested that the members of Parliament
could also discuss ways of facilitating India's participation in the
Review Conference on the ICC Statute, scheduled for 2009.
Introduction of the participants and the office-bearers of
Parliamentarian Forum on Human Rights followed. For details
please see Annex C and E respectively.
Shri. Natchiappan then invited Judge Kirsch to release a
booklet authored by Saumya Uma and co-published by Womens
Research & Action Group and Peoples Watch Tamil Nadu,
responding to queries raised by the parliamentarians in the previous
meeting on 3
rd
August 2005. After the book release, Smt.
Purandeswari, M.P. (Lok Sabha) and General Secretary of the
Parliamentarian Forum on Human Rights, thanked the
Parliamentarians for taking time off their busy schedule to
participate in the discussion on this issue, and introduced Judge
Kirsch and invited him to address the parliamentarians. For a
biographical note of Judge Kirsch, please see Annex A of this
publication.
SPEECH OF
JUDGE PHILIPPE KIRSCH
PRESIDENT OF
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Thank you very much for your welcome. Thank you Mr.
Chairman for your introductory remarks. Thank you General
Secretary for that introduction. I was also about to thank you sir
for the comments you made earlier about the absence of my
colleagues but as I was about to say this, I realize that my colleague
has in fact been admitted. So I would like to introduce Mr. Valentin
Zellweger who is my Chef de Cabinet. So no harm done, and I
think I can make my comments and remarks brief so that we have
as much time as possible for questions that might interest you.
It is important for the court to come to India. India is well-
known for its role in development of law and the development of
international law and it is important for us to be able to speak to
parliamentarians. We find it more and more useful and important
that parliamentarians are well-acquainted with the court and
understand it well, both because of their role in their own countries
and because they have external relations that are absolutely unique
to members of the Parliament.
I would like essentially to deal with two issues this afternoon.
One is the role of ICC and the second is what the ICC has done so
far and where is it going. The first basic point I would like to make
is why an ICC at all? Why was an ICC created? The idea is not
new. The idea goes way back and certainly gained momentum
right after World War II after the trials took place at Nuremberg
and Tokyo. It was seen at that time already that it was not possible
to create ad hoc or special tribunals every time massive crimes
were committed and national systems could not function. We had
to have a permanent institution that would simplify this process
considerably. But of course then, the Cold War took place. The
Cold War paralyzed cooperation among major powers in many
areas, let alone the area of justice and international justice. When
massive crimes are committed such as those within the jurisdiction
of the ICC, that is, genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity, it does remain the responsibility of states primarily to
deal with those crimes. In an ideal world, the ICC should not
exist, or if it exists it would have no business. Because that would
mean that either crimes of that kind are no longer committed or
that the national systems deal effectively with those crimes. The
problem is that it is precisely when crimes are committed on a
massive scale that the national systems have the most difficulties
dealing with them, either because they are unable to deal with
them or because they are unwilling to deal with them.
This is why ad hoc tribunals were created in the early 1990s
in the wake of the conflict in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia,
particularly in the wake of crimes of a very serious nature that
were committed in those conflicts. The merit of the ad hoc tribunals
was to demonstrate that international justice could function. But
ad hoc tribunals face necessarily several limitations. They are
temporary, they respond to events committed in the past, they are
limited geographically, and every time an ad hoc tribunal is
established, it is established if the political will of the international
community exists at the time. Every time its establishment entails
substantial costs and delay. Eventually with that experience, the
international community decided that it was time to create a
permanent court, which is the ICC. It is a permanent institution,
which deals with the most serious crimes only, which has no
retroactive jurisdiction its jurisdiction begins on 1
st
of July 2002
when the Statute was adopted but is now available to try the present
and future perpetrators of those crimes.
I should add perhaps, relating to one of the questions that
you were voicing in your initial remarks as to why do particular
states wish to be involved in this? It is not only for the punishment
of perpetrators in specific situations. It is because the establishment
of the ICC is also aimed at deterring the commission of massive
crimes in the future. This is in its preamble that one of the
purposes of the creation of ICC is to prevent crimes. What does
that mean? That means that the ICC was created, over time, to
create a culture of accountability to replace the traditional culture
of impunity for the commission of massive crimes, where a leader
is inclined or is thinking of ordering the commission of such crimes,
there is a signal that there is no guarantee that the leader will not
face one day a court. Because of course, when massive crimes are
committed, they are not committed in isolation. You have a number
of consequences that go with the commission of massive crimes,
affecting very seriously regional stability, international peace and
security, starting with massive flows of refugees, which are of
course very de-stabilizing for regions. I just wanted to put this in
context, as it is not only a tribunal that would punish certain people
of certain crimes but also one that would create an atmosphere
that is conducive for better peace and security.
A fundamental difference between the ICC and any ad hoc
tribunals is that the ICC is the first and only international court to
have been created by treaty. All other international tribunals were
created by a few states the victors in World War II created those
in Nuremberg and Tokyo, and the Security Council created the
tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. On the contrary, the
treaty creating the ICC took a number of years to develop, and
was eventually adopted in July 1998. The Rome Conference
achieved a large degree of support 120 states voted for the Statute
at that time but it did not reach unanimity. In my view then, as a
former diplomat, and in my view now, as the President of the court,
it is essential that one day, the ICC does reach universal support.
It is essential that all states from all regions recognize themselves
in the ICC and take ownership of the ICC. The General Secretary
mentioned that I had chaired the Preparatory Commission for 3
years. At that time, one of my main goals was to do something
that would facilitate that universal acceptance, and for the 3
years that the Commission sat, all decisions of the Commission
were taken by general agreement involving all states that
participated in the Preparatory Commission. And the result, I
thought, was positive, because by the end of by 2001, 139 states
had signed the statute as opposed to 120 states that voted in favour
of the ICC three years before. Now we have a 100 states that are
full parties to the statute, the last one being Mexico which ratified
in October, a couple of months ago. So a major difference between
other tribunals and the ICC was the mode of creation.
Another very fundamental difference is whats called the
principle of complementarity. The tribunals created by the Security
Council have the right to summon a state to bring an offender to
them, by virtue of the authority that the Security Council enjoys
under the Charter. This is not the case with the ICC. The ICC is
truly a court of last resort. The ICC will intervene in very rare
occasions. It remains the responsibility of states to investigate and
prosecute all offences. The Court can only act if a state is unable
or unwilling to carry out genuine proceedings. Of course, I can
address this issue further, if it is of interest to the Honble members.
One of the things that was very important to state when they
created the court in 1998 was to ensure that this court was acting
purely judicially, not politically, and that the ICC would respect
fundamental standards of justice as recognized in all national
systems, starting for example, with the presumption of innocence.
You will appreciate that when the court was created in 1998, it
had, for states, absolutely unpredictable jurisdiction. It was
impossible for states to know what the court would deal with,
nationals of which states would be tried or brought before the court.
It is impossible for states to know what situations the court will
deal with. Therefore states took every precaution to circumscribe
the scope of functioning of the ICC in a way that would guarantee
that it would be an absolutely judicial process and not at all a
political process, and that the rights, not only of persons appearing
before the court but of the states whose nationals that might come
before the court, would be absolutely guaranteed.
I think I am going to stop here with respect to the basic
features related to the court. One last point which is that contrary
to what is often assumed, the ICC does not exercise universal
jurisdiction. That proposal was made at the Rome Conference but
it was decided ultimately as the ICC was created, it was wiser to
limit its jurisdiction to the two grounds that were universally
recognized in international criminal law - the state of the nationality
of the accused and the state of the territory where the crime was
committed. So under normal circumstances, the ICC must receive
the consent from one of those two states before doing anything.
The only exception to that is if the Security Council refers a
situation to the court, then this requirement does not exist - which
is, of course, another argument in favour of the proposition that
the ICC must ultimately reach universality. It is not only a question
of principle. It is a question of practice, because as long as not
many states have ratified the statute, you will always find situations
where neither the state of the nationality of the accused nor the
state of the territory on which the crime was committed has ratified
the statute, and therefore the ICC should not and cannot intervene.
So where are we today? I think it is fair to say that the
development of the ICC has gone much more quickly than had
been anticipated. At the time of the Rome Conference, it was widely
expected that the earliest the ICC statute might enter into force
was fifteen years later. Four years after the Rome Conference, the
Statute entered into force, which I think is an indication of the
importance that the states at that time attached to having this
instrument available in case of need. Two years afterwards,
Prosecutors and judges took office and the court is now in its
judicial phase of its operation. 3 states parties Uganda,
Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic
- have referred situations of commission of crimes on their own
territory and the Security Council has brought the situation of
Darfur, Sudan to the court. The prosecutors have commenced, out
of the four situations, three investigations, and the prosecutor is
also monitoring eight other situations that are unknown and are
not public, by virtue of his power to receive communications
containing allegations of crimes under the statute from other
sources than referrals. As I said, 4 entities have referred situations
to the court - 3 states and the Security Council - but the prosecutor
can also independently look at other information that is given to
him to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to undertake
an investigation in such cases. The pre-trial chambers, which are
mechanisms preceding the trial, have heard the first hearings and
issued decisions though the decisions that are not confidential are
on the website and are open for all to see.
In July, the court issued its first arrest warrants in Uganda
against 5 leaders of an organization called the Lords Resistance
Army, who are accused of having committed crimes against
humanity and war crimes, including sexual enslavement, rape,
intentionally attacking civilians, forced enlistment of child soldiers
and those crimes were allegedly committed mostly against children.
It is alleged that 25000 children were kidnapped by this
organization and that crimes were committed against them, and
they were also forced to commit crimes against one another. Those
arrest warrants were issued under seal for security reasons and
only in October were the warrants unsealed. The reason for this is
that the ICC operates under very different circumstances from the
ad hoc tribunals I mentioned earlier. In all other cases, ad hoc
tribunals were dealing with crimes that had been committed in the
past in the course of conflicts that were over. In the case of the
ICC, crimes continue to be committed in the course of conflicts
that are ongoing, and that creates an extremely dangerous situation
for the witnesses, victims and for ICC staff themselves. That
explains the higher degree of confidentiality currently maintained
over certain elements while normally, the ICC proceedings are all
public and ultimately I think they will all be accessible.
I said earlier that states continue to have primary
responsibility for punishment of crimes within their jurisdiction
and even when the ICC is obliged to assume jurisdiction, states
continue to have a very important role. The way states conceived
the ICC when it was created was not to create a complete judicial
apparatus as existing states including not only judicial systems
but also police and other elements of enforcing decisions. States
wanted a court that would be strong judicially, as I explained earlier,
but left the other elements of any justice system, including arrest
of people, providing information and the like, to states. And so,
now that the court exists and operates, it is absolutely essential
that the cooperation that has been provided for under the statute
indeed does come in practice. This is clearly the case of states
executing arrest warrants, providing evidence, and in enforcing
sentences, and it is also the case of international organizations
starting with the United Nations with which the ICC concluded
last year a relationship agreement, which is now being
supplemented by other agreements such as the agreement with
peacekeeping operations in Congo, because again, without that
kind of support, the court would simply be unable to operate in
fields as dangerous as that of Congo.
Civil society, which of course includes parliamentarians, is
extremely important, first of all in developing a good understanding
of the court and having contacts with parliamentarians all over the
world is in fact very useful. As I said at the beginning, this is why
I thought that this opportunity to meet with you today was very
important and I am really happy to see that so many of you have
decided to come to this meeting. I think by way of conclusion, I
would simply say that the creation of the ICC is only the beginning.
To be fully effective, the ICC will need the support I have been
referring to. I spoke about universality. The ICC is now strong in
several continents in Western and Eastern Europe, in Africa, in
Latin America, in North America to an extent but is weak in Asia.
To me it is extremely important that the ICC also receives
acceptance in Asia and ratifications and support in Asia. The first
step to that is a better understanding of the ICC on the part of
states and parliamentarians, and that is why I am extremely grateful
for you to receive me today.
This technically concludes my presentation Mr. Chairman,
but I of course would be open to questions. I would like to mention
that in addition to being the President of the court, I am also a
judge and therefore I have to say that I do not comment on policies
of states, I do not comment on specific situations, I do not speculate
on what the court could do and I do not infringe on the prosecutors
territory. But having said that, if you are interested in asking
questions, I am all yours. Thank you very much.
INTERACTIONS WITH
PARLIAMENTARIANS
The following is a transcript of Judge Kirschs interactions with
Parliamentarians that followed. Judge Kirschs responses are in italics.
Shri R. Shunmugasundaram: Sir, you mentioned about case
selection how the ICC takes over a particular case. Its very
rarely that a case is taken over from the state, primarily the state
wont conceive their power to prosecute a particular case. But
how is this selection made? Particularly in India, we have a very
strong judicial system, very well-organized. When we have a
system like this, we wont easily concede our case to be taken up
by any other forum.
Well, indeed, there is no reason for a state that has a strong national
judicial system to ever defer anything to the ICC. The ICC has been
created to deal with the most massive crimes possible in situations where
national systems are unable or unwilling to carry out genuine proceedings.
First of all, I should perhaps make a distinction between situations and
cases. What comes before the ICC initially are situations. The Security
Council or a state or the prosecutor will bring before the court a situation
in which the prosecutor believes that crimes have been committed. Once
the situation is before the court, then the prosecutor investigates, and on
that basis, he then will identify cases of individuals, who then are
specifically mentioned as allegedly having committed crimes. That is the
process. It is interesting to note that in the first years of its existence, the
ICC has not taken up itself any situation. All the four situations that are
now before the ICC have come from the outside, including from three
states which are not as fortunate as India and felt themselves that their
national systems were not adequate to deal with crimes of the massive
scale as have been committed on their territory. So you are absolutely
right. I might put it differently, especially to you who is a lawyer. The
ICC is not a court of appeal. The ICC is not there to second-guess what
the national judicial system that functions does. If the national system
functions, thats it. The ICC does not intervene. It is not relevant to the
ICC if a person is acquitted or convicted or even prosecuted. As long as
a system functions normally, the state is absolutely outside the jurisdiction
of the ICC. My point in coming to a state like India is not to say that the
ICC could deal with an Indian issue, but to seek India as a partner.
Shri S.K. Kharventhan: Suppose in the trial chamber of the
ICC, a person is convicted. And in appeal, due to error of law or
error of fact, the person gets an acquittal. Is that person entitled
to claim any compensation? Or will the court itself award any
compensation? What is the maximum compensation that will be
paid to the affected person?
I think that question will have to be addressed through jurisprudence.
Obviously you have informed yourself before and you know that there is
a principle of compensation for those cases. But I think that will have to
be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is extremely difficult to define a
figure in advance. The same way in another area which is comparable,
the system provides for reparation for victims, which can take the form
of rehabilitation, compensation and restitution, and in fact a Trust Fund
has been created for victims, which now has about a million Euros in it.
Again, one of the major discussions that is taking place now is what kind
or form of compensation will actually be done. And although you can
devise certain principles in the beginning, it is clear that this will have to
be done on a case-by-case basis. I think the system is moving to a
conclusion in the case of victims that it probably will be collective rather
than individual. But again, we are all subject to judicial decisions to
really have a final answer. Thank you.
(Speaker unknown): If I may just mention. Of course, you have
the omnibus, non-interference kind of statement. But when a
country demolishes the entire judicial system of another country,
and then there is no system to respond to, doesnt the ICC find
itself a place to respond to that special scenario?
Well actually yes. I mentioned earlier that there are essentially two
situations where the ICC may be called upon to intervene. One is if the
state is unwilling to act and the other is when a state is unable to act. And
this is defined in the statute as a situation where a judicial system has
collapsed, or wholly or partially unavailable, which sometimes happens,
for example, after an internal conflict. So this is the kind of situation that
was considered when the system was created.
(Speaker unknown): I was referring to a very specific situation,
where, in the garb of weapons of mass destruction, another
international community demolishes another nation. Where does
the ICC fit in there?
Well, if you look at the list of crimes, and war crimes in particular I think
you are talking about the situation of armed conflict - you will see that this
kind of situation is specifically provided indiscriminate attacks against
civilian population and so on are in a detailed list of crimes under the statute.
And then of course, the ICC would have jurisdiction provided the states
concerned one of the two states that I mentioned earlier the state of the
nationality of the accused or the state of the territory where the crime was
committed which is your hypothesis has ratified the statute. If of course,
neither state has ratified the statute, then the ICC is prohibited by its statute
from intervening and it is precisely to correct this kind of situation that I hope
the ratification will be as wide as possible.
Shri E.M.S. Natchiappan: They are not signatories of the
statute, thats why the ICC has no jurisdiction. As you said, it is
not universal jurisdiction but only jurisdiction according to the
consent of the nation state.
Shri M.M. Pallam Raju: Judge Kirsch, I am trying to get an
understanding of what is the current recognition of the ICC. Has
it been recognized by the United Nations? Has it been formed by
the European Union? Thats my first question. The other question
I would like to ask is if we are to strengthen the ICC, is there
anything specific that legislatures of nations can do to get a
greater recognition for the functioning and the working of the
ICC?
Thank you. These are two very pertinent questions also. The ICC was
created by a UN Diplomatic Conference the United Nations (UN)
organized the conference. But the ICC is not a part of the UN. And that
was a deliberate decision on the part of states because there was a
perception that total dominance of the Security Council over the court
was not necessarily the best possible way of proceeding in the long term.
States wanted a court that was truly independent. So the court has a
relationship with the UN only to the extent that the statute provides, which
is in two ways. One is the Security Council which can refer cases to the
court as it did in Darfur. The other is through a relationship agreement
that I signed with Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, a
little more than a year ago, which provides for cooperation between the
two institutions, recognizing the judicial character of the court. This
agreement for example, aims at exchanging information. If the UN has
information that could be relevant to a case, then the UN should provide
it. Or as I said earlier, in the context of the peacekeeping operations in
Congo, if the UN can provide security or logistics or communications,
then there is an arrangement for the UN to do this on a reimbursable
basis. So the ICC is independent, but the ICC has this kind of a co-
operation with the UN.
Shri M.M. Pallam Raju: This agreement that you have signed
with the Secretary General, is this what you do with every
succeeding Secretary General of the United Nations? Do you
have to sign an agreement each time there is a new Secretary
General to the United Nations?
No. One day I will not be President of the court anymore and this
agreement will still be valid. And similarly when the Secretary General
changes, the agreement will still be valid. This is not a person to person
agreement. It is two institutions concluding an agreement.
I have not forgotten your second question. The role of the legislators
can take multiple forms. One is as I said earlier. Once the exchange of
views, for example, with legislators of countries, is often from what I am
told I am not a legislator very useful and productive, by way of
understanding, dispelling apprehensions about the ICC and disseminating
more accurate information. But more technically, legislators in various
countries have looked at their internal legislations in different ways. The
states parties have looked at their legislations with a view to ensuring,
for example, that all the crimes listed in the statute are reflected in their
national legislations. Because of course no state will want to be caught in
a situation where unwittingly it is deemed to be unwilling to cooperate
with the court while its intention is to cooperate with the court. So the
states parties review their legislations to ensure that those crimes are
included. And also in their case, to ensure that they have given themselves
the means to provide the cooperation that the court may be seeking for
example, by providing evidence, by surrendering individuals to the court
and things like that so as to be in accordance with their obligations. Non-
states parties have often looked at their own legislations, simply because
the ICC statute is the most recent update of customary international law
with respect to the commission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity. So it is interesting for states to look at this simply by way of
updating legislations, whether their legislations is current.
Shri E. M. S. Natchiappan: In addition if you see the brochures
that have been already circulated, this will show that 100
countries have already become members. It is not restricted to
Europe alone. Other continents have accepted the statute and
ratified it. But Asia Pacific is very low. That is a fact that the
Honble members have to recognize.
Shri Nikhil Kumar: I have two questions. I would like to know
what arrangement does the ICC have to screen out frivolous
complaints. I agree that this is not an assault on national
sovereignty and all that. But there would be a possibility of
frivolous complaints and the ICC could prosecute those cases in
court. Except to cause annoyance and a certain degree of affront
to national honour, it would achieve nothing. So how does one
screen those? My second question is why beat around the bush?
Why not directly say that use of weapons of mass destruction is
actionable? Instead of explaining in a round about manner, that
the consequences of use of weapons of mass destruction will be
actionable?
On the question of frivolous complaints, of course your concern is
absolutely right. And the ICC is well aware of it. There is something I
have not mentioned which might be interesting in that regard. I had
mentioned earlier that there are three ways of triggering the jurisdiction
of the court the states, the Security Council or the prosecutor himself,
although in that case, the prosecutor is subjected to more stringent
requirements which I can get into later. But the prosecutor, as a matter of
fact, has received, since July 2002, more than 1600 communications from
organizations of which I am not aware because there is separation of
powers, and the prosecutor decided to dismiss more than 80% of those
communications on the grounds that they were not meeting the
requirements of the ICC statute. The prosecutor is monitoring eight
situations that are separate from the four situations that have been referred
to the court. The prosecutor, if he decided one day, to take up one of
those situations, would then have to go to the pre-trial chamber. The pre-
trial chamber would receive the submission of the prosecutor as to whether
a situation unknown should be the subject of an investigation.
Shri Nikhil Kumar: Forgive me for the interruption, but will
this pre-trial chamber include someone representing the state?
I was coming to that actually. What would happen then is that the
prosecutor would first go to the pre-trial chamber and would say that he
intends to undertake an investigation over a particular situation. If the
pre-trial chamber is of the view that the court has jurisdiction over the
case, then the prosecutor is obliged to notify all states parties and all
states including non-states parties that have jurisdiction potentially over
that situation, of his intention. At that time, if a state does not agree that
the ICC should have jurisdiction, then the state will make representation
to the pre-trial chamber and the pre-trial chamber will have to make a
second decision as to whether the ICC should take up the case or not. If
the pre-trial chamber decides a second time that the court should have
jurisdiction, then the whole matter goes before an appeals chamber of
five judges having no connection with any of the previous proceedings,
who will then make a determination of the matter. So the participation of
states is guaranteed throughout the process if there is a challenge.
Your second question. You understand that what is in the ICC
statute is not what the ICC put into it but what states put into it. The issue
of weapons of mass destruction was a very contentious issue at the Rome
Conference. And indeed there were various proposals to prohibit the
threat or use of these weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear
weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. This issue came to
a crunch very late in the conference and the solution, if that is a solution,
was not to include any but to maintain a number of results of the use of
such weapons that are well-known. There will be a review conference in
2009 of the statute and it is clear to me that one of the main points of
discussion that will come up first is exactly the list of crimes, including
the list of weapons that should be included in the statute. So it was not
done in 1998 but it is quite clear that the issue will be re-visited in 2009.
Shri Nikhil Kumar: See if we had that, if the United States had
agreed to this provision, perhaps the US invasion of Iraq wouldnt
have taken place. And I think that is one reason why it opposed
this. So we need to pay special attention to the fact that weapons
of mass destruction, call them in whatever manner, need to be
put in the list of actionable crimes. And if it can be updated
rather than pre-dated, from 2009 to somewhere earlier, that would
be even better for the ICC, and would be in the interests of world
peace. Because we dont know when the United States would
decide to launch another action somewhere.
I said in the beginning that I would not comment on state-specific
situations, but I would make an additional general comment which maybe
of relevance. One of the reasons why I find it important in the very early
years of the court to go to countries that have not yet ratified the statute,
is that only a country that has ratified the statute will be in a position to
influence the development of the statute in the future. A country that has
not ratified the statute will have opportunity to speak at the conference
but it will not have a vote. And I think it is fair to say that if a country has
ratified the statute, the impact of that country, especially an extremely
important country like this one, would be much greater.
Shri Manvendra Singh: I have two questions. Has there been
any complaints brought to the ICC about the treatment of
minorities in Kosovo as of now, not what was perceived to be
minorities earlier? And my second question is what is said in the
ICC charter is to prosecute individuals involved in crimes against
humanity. Thats essentially the purpose of the ICC charter.
Crimes against humanity, as I know it from the global information
regime, the global multi-lateral and the global power regime, is
basically actions taken by individuals or organizations in a civil
strife. And a civil strife involves two sides. To put it in crude
English, it takes two to tango. But in the global power regime
and the multi-lateral regime, what has been acted upon is that
there is one side which is guilty. I am not going into any specific
countries or zones of conflict. But the global information regime
has always assumed that one side is guilty. When you are working
under that presumption that one side is guilty, how can you
prosecute or seek to prevent crimes against humanity?
Thank you. On the first point, the Kosovo situation may or may not have
been communicated to the prosecutor. If it has been communicated to
the prosecutor, it is in one of those communications sent by private sources
about which the judiciary of the court is not aware. Thats a question that
belongs to the prosecutor.
With respect to crimes against humanity, they are based on the
combined jurisprudence of the tribunals of Nuremberg, Tokyo, Rwanda
and the former Yugoslavia. It starts with murder, continues with
persecution, extermination, torture and a variety of different crimes. To
constitute a crime against humanity, any of those crimes must meet a
certain threshold which is that it has to be committed in a widespread or
systematic attack against a civilian population, and that attack has to be
conducted pursuant to the policy of a state or an organization. So this is
a very high threshold. With respect to conflicts, civil disturbances are
specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the ICC because the level
is not sufficiently high. The tenor of your comment seems to be
establishing a link between a political dimension which is international
organizations generally and the ICC which is a court. That is why it is not
possible to make a link like that. Whatever comments you may make on
how international organizations or global systems behave is one thing,
but the ICC is a court of law that has to conduct itself in accordance with
judicial principles and therefore, as in fact happened in one situation,
when the prosecutor was asked if he would deal with both sides of that
situation if crimes were committed on the other side, he said that he would.
Shri Manvendra Singh: Subsequent to what you answered in
the question, it means that hypothetically, since Britain and
Germany are both signatories to the ICC, hypothetically a
German citizen can take Britain to court for the bombing of
Dresden.
No, because as I said in my presentation, the jurisdiction of the ICC
begins on 1
st
of July 2002. No crimes committed before 1
st
of July 2002
can come within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thats the principle of non-
retroactivity that states decided to apply to the ICC when they created it.
Smt. Tejashwini Seeramesh: I have three questions. One is
related to Iraq. Though the majority of the world opposed, the
US started an inhuman war against Iraq in the name of weapons
of mass destruction. It is a known factor that America will not
support anything that is against their interest. So how far are
all of us, including the ICC, able to do justice in such situations
because today even Saddam Hussein is questioning or refusing
trial in that court. Second question is that in Myanmar, in spite
of her tremendous victory, Madam Aung San Suu Kyi has been
illegally confined for the past so many decades. The world is
really helpless to do justice to that situation. Third is that in
India, the whole world knows how Indian democracy has been
attacked by terrorism. Until the so-called superpowers were
attacked by terrorism, they never agreed that Indias case is right.
And even though the world knows where the terrorism camps
were located, which are the countries that are training, in spite
of our protests and objection, those countries were extending all
sorts of help to our neighbouring countries. So in this situation,
can we do something materially?
As I said earlier, I will not make comments on specific situations. But I
can make two general comments in the context of your question. I will
refer to one situation as it is factual. The ICC could not deal with the
Iraqi situation in any event because the crimes invoked were committed
before 1
st
July 2002. That is a constraint in the statute.
Shri Nikhil Kumar: The prosecution of Saddam began only last
year well after the ICC was in position
Shri E.M.S. Natchiappan: Just a minute. Let me clarify one
aspect, that is the ICC can interfere only on three grounds. One
is if the state concerned has already been a signatory, number
two is if the prosecutor has initiated the case, and number three
is when the Security Council has directed the court to do it. If
we take the example of Iraq-USA, both are not signatories of the
Rome statute so ICC can no jurisdiction. In the case of India
and Pakistan, about the issue of helping terrorists, both are not
signatories to the ICC therefore ICC cannot interfere.
Yes, I do apologize. I did misunderstand your question. But the
chairman is right. In a case like this, the ICC has no jurisdiction because
neither of the two states involved are parties to the statute. And this
really addresses, madam, the question you were asking earlier. The ICC
will be able to do something if states ratify its statute. If states do not
bother to ratify the statute, of course the ICC cannot do anything. And
that is a clear message I can convey in this room.
With respect to terrorism as a crime, terrorism could not be included
in the statute, although there were efforts to include it on the part of states
such as India, as terrorism could never be defined historically in the UN
system. And because some states thought that terrorism lent itself more
as a crime to classical methods of international cooperation such as
bilateral agreements or specialized organizations such as Interpol.
However, if you look at the definition of crimes against humanity, and I
will repeat, if I may, the terms, because I think they are important to
register. Lets take the crime of murder. Murder will be a crime against
humanity if it is part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian
population pursuant to the policy of a state or an organization. As a
matter of law, it is therefore highly likely that certain acts of terrorism
could in fact come before the ICC not as crimes of terrorism, as your eye
would see them, but as crimes against humanity.
Its the same problem here again with the Myanmar situation. If a
state does not ratify the ICC, what can the ICC do?
Shri E.M.S. Natchiappan: As the judge mentioned, Myanmar
has also not ratified the statute. Please refer to the list of
countries that have ratified the ICC. Only for those countries,
the ICC will be generally applicable. We want to explain to the
Honble members that if India is not a signatory to the ICC, we
are losing the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Shri R. Chandra Sekar Reddy: I have a small question. As I
understand from the literature circulated to the members, that
the ICC deals with individuals who are committing crimes against
the society or violating international law. And at the same time,
you say that it will interfere only when national courts are unable
or unwilling to act. Can you elaborate on this? If some
organization commits an offence, not an individual if few
individuals form an organization and commit a crime - and the
national courts have taken up the matter for namesake and
protract the litigation, what happens in that case?
The concept of unable or unwilling applies to a judicial system, which
necessarily is the judicial system of a state, irrespective of whether the
objects or subjects are agents of the state or members of an organization.
What does it mean? Unable is a situation where, as I have referred to
earlier, where a civil / internal conflict has led to the collapse of the
system in whole or in part, and when nothing else works, the ICC can
take over. Unwilling comes from the experience of all other situations of
massive commission of crimes Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia,
Cambodia, Nazi Germany and all those situations. In all those cases, the
state had a hand in the crimes that had been committed. It was proposed
originally that the ICC should not exercise its jurisdiction if a state
exercised its jurisdiction. Period. But then, it became clear that states
could then very easily purport to exercise their jurisdiction but in a way
that was not consistent with a real intention to administer justice but with
an intention to shield the perpetrators. In all the cases I have mentioned,
you can see that the states have done nothing to punish the perpetrators.
That is why it was felt necessary by states that created the ICC to allow
the ICC to be a mechanism that could at least look at whether national
systems and procedures were genuine or not. Again, as I mentioned
earlier, in a situation where a state that has a strong judicial system that
works, the question does not arise. But in some cases, it is not as clear
cut. So that was the intent behind that provision.
(speaker unknown): I just wanted to know whether this chart
on page 23 of this booklet that you have given us International
Criminal Court & India it does not mention terrorism as far
as India is concerned. Is it because terrorism hasnt been
defined? It says impunity for communal violence, atrocities
against dalits and civilians in troubled areas but there is no
mention of terrorism, and we are the greatest sufferers of
terrorism.
Shri E.M.S. Natchiappan: It is one of the reasons for which
India has not become a party to ICC.
(speaker unknown): True true, but that is a different thing. The
fact is that we are one of the sufferers.
Shri E.M.S. Natchiappan: Yes, that we have to discuss and we
have to recommend to the government.
(speaker unknown): Yes, this has to be done.
Shri Deepender Singh: What are the processes or steps in place
to assure or guarantee the ratifying states that no governments,
states or individuals would be dragged into ICC based on political
motivations? Second question that I have is in response to the
answer you gave to Nikhil Kumarjis question, about the pre-
trial chamber. I would like to ask as to what would be the
composition of the pre-trial chamber and who would have the
authority to constitute it?
I have given some examples of ways that were designed to prevent
politically motivated prosecutions the prosecutor having to submit his
own intention to prosecute to a pre-trial chamber, to have the states
intervene, to go back to the pre-trial chamber, to go to the appeals chamber
if there is still a contest. I would invite you to really look at the statute if
you are interested, because the statute is full of safeguards to ensure that
the proceedings have to be judicial and can be only judicial. The only
thing which is an observation that I have made since my arrival in the
court is that I have met no one in the court who is not purely interested in
the administration of justice. I have met no one who has made any
comment of a political nature with respect to the activity of the court.
This is not only an empirical observation. It seems to me that the process
of the selection of judges, the prosecutor and staff has in fact worked.
With respect to the Pre-trial Chamber there are now four pre-trial
chambers that have been created. Seven judges in total compose the Pre-
Trial Division. The first pre-trial chamber is on Congo, the second is on
Uganda, the third on Central African Republic and the fourth on Darfur.
That is the way situations have been allocated.
Dr. R. Senthil: I am a medical doctor, and I dont understand
these legal technicalities. I understand that this is not an appeal
court and that the court deals with massive crimes rather than
smaller crimes. Imagining a situation where there had been a
conflict between the government and a mass of citizens, there
had been an enquiry later and the community is not happy with
that, is there a scope where they can appeal to the ICC in such a
situation? In other words, will the ICC oversee the judicial
function of a country?
To have a case like that, you would have to have a system that is not
conducting the proceedings genuinely. This is the only way the ICC
could be involved. The ICC has enough situations right now to keep
itself absolutely busy all the time. It is not after business. In an ideal
world, the ICC would be never used because no such crimes have been
committed or because national systems are performing well. In a national
situation where the judicial system performs just normally and not
perfectly, the ICC will look the other way.
Smt. Vanga Geetha: All of us know that crimes against women
and children are increasing day by day all over the world. Every
country has its own code, just as we have our Indian Penal Code.
Comprehensively they cover all the crimes. What is the difference
between international law and the ICC on one hand and the
Indian Penal Code on the other? Are there any other crimes
related to women and children that the Indian Penal Code does
not cover, that the ICC statute covers?
All the crimes that are listed in the statute of the ICC are crimes under
international customary law, either because they have been found in a
variety of treaties, which is mostly in the case of war crimes, or because
they have been found in the jurisprudence of tribunals. The ICC statute
has not invented any new crimes. The way it is linked to your question is
that although the ICC statute has not invented any new crimes, it has
spelt out a number of crimes particularly committed against women, which
existed before but were subsumed under much more general definitions.
For example, rape, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, enforced
prostitution. All these crimes are specifically spelt out in the ICC statute
as specific crimes as opposed to being identified in much more generic
terms as was the case, for example, with the Geneva Conventions. That
is on the substantive side. With respect to children, we have the prohibition
of enlisting children under the age of fifteen in armed forces. We also
have a number of generic crimes that also apply to women and children.
So there has been a significant evolution in the ICC in the definitions of
crimes compared with the definition of relevant crimes in other
instruments.
Another aspect of the ICC statute, which is very novel, is that the
ICC is obliged to take particular care of women and children in practice.
The court is obliged to have experts on women and children. The court
has to ensure their physical and psychological safety, to provide them
guidance, to ensure, in other words, that a woman or a child who already
has been traumatized by a crime will not be traumatized a second time by
appearing in court. I think the little booklet that has just been distributed
contains quite a bit on this and you will find it interesting to have a look
at it.
Shri K. S. Rao: It was written here that the USA is not a state
party under this treaty, and the eighteen judges who are elected
by the ICC felt that they should not take any economic support
from the USA. And it is also written that the United States has
opposed the ICC through various means basically to keep itself
above international justice. They dont want to be subjected to
international justice. Do you think that when ICC felt that USA
need not be a member of the treaty and when ICC felt it should
not take financial help from it, should the United Nations also
think in terms of not taking financial help from the United States?
When the USA thinks that it doesnt want to come in the purview
of the ICC or international justice, does the USA has any authority
or moral right to question about the human rights situation in
other countries?
Your two questions, I must say, are eminently political. I would still
make one comment, which is that I am not sure where the question of
money not coming from the USA comes from. The budget of the ICC is
very simple, it is like the United Nations based on assessed contributions
by states parties on the basis of their economy. Same as the UN but the
pot is smaller. And so that is the way the ICC is financed. The ICC could
also receive voluntary contributions although I think the ICC would be
very careful in deciding what voluntary contributions are received. I
have never seen anywhere that someone in particular could not make a
voluntary contribution. But the more important point I wanted to make
on this is that the ICC is only 2 years old. And in 2 years, having got
a membership of 100 states is not such a bad start. And for those who are
not convinced on the basis of the legal solidity and foundation of the
instrument that founded the ICC the statute and all that, which obviously
have convinced a lot of states - what the ICC can do is to behave in such
a way to dispel any apprehensions about the way it conducts itself. So
the arguments that are now sometimes used against the ICC will
necessarily collapse by themselves for a lack of support. And that, in
turn, should, in my view, encourage states to provide support and
encourage states who are now sitting on the fence, as it were, to become
parties, once they are convinced that the ICC is what it is which is a
purely judicial institution without political overtones.
VOTE OF THANKS
Shri Robert Kharshiing Shri Robert Kharshiing Shri Robert Kharshiing Shri Robert Kharshiing Shri Robert Kharshiing
Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha &
Treasurer, Parliamentary Forum on Human Rights.
I thank the Honble chairman Mr. Natchiappan, for having so
wonderfully arranged, not just this meeting but the earlier meeting also
of the Parliamentarians Forum. May I thank the President of the
International Criminal Court, Judge Philippe Kirsch from Canada, who
has spared his valuable time to come all the way here and into our
Parliament, his esteemed colleague to whom we apologize for the
inconvenience when you came in. I also thank all the members of
Parliament, the office-bearers and there are MPs here from various parties.
We operate in this Forum by consensus and on an all-party basis. And
most of all, may I thank all the NGOs. They do all the work behind the
scenes and do not get enough thanks. So I will quickly read the names of
NGOs, if you can kindly stand up, so that we can thank you. Indian
Social Institute, Partners for Law in Development, Justice and Peace
Commission, Peoples Watch Tamil Nadu, PWESCR, CISRS, Amnesty
International - India, ICC-India and Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative. These are the organizing NGOs. The participating NGOs
RARE from Orissa, BUILD from Mumbai, Lawyers for Human Rights
International from Punjab, Martin Luther King Centre for Democracy &
Human Rights from Orissa and SAFAR from Gujarat. Thank you
everybody. Hope to see you next time.
ANNEX A
A BIOGRAPHY OF
JUDGE PHILIPPE KIRSCH
Judge Philippe Kirsch is the President of the International Criminal Court.
He has been elected for a 6 year period from the Western European and
others Group of States (WEOG, assigned to the Appeals Division.
Judge Kirsch is member of the Bar of the Province of Quebec and
was appointed Queens Counsel in 1988. He has extensive experience
in the establishment of the International Criminal Court, international
humanitarian law, international criminal law and public international law.
In 1998, Judge Kirsch served as Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries
on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (the Rome
Conference). He was also Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for
the International Criminal Court (1999 2002).
Judge Kirschs experience in international humanitarian law
includes serving as Chairman of: the Drafting Committee of the
International Conference on the Protection of War Victims (1993), the
Drafting Committee at the 26
th
and 27
th
International Conferences of the
Red Cross and the Red Crescent (1995, 1999) and related meetings. He
also chaired the Canadian National Committee on Humanitarian Law
(1998 1999) and was a member of the Group of International Advisers
to the International Committee of the Red Cross (2000 2003).
Judge Kirsch has extensive experience in the development of
international criminal law, with particular regard to issues related to
terrorism. He served as Chairman of the United Nations Ad Hoc
Committee for the Suppression of Acts of Terrorism (1997-1999) and as
Chairman or President of international conferences addressing terrorism-
related issues such as the suppression of unlawful acts in the contexts of
international civil aviation and maritime navigation. He was also
Chairman of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee that elaborated the
International Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated
Personnel (1993-1994).
Judge Kirsch appeared twice as an Agent before the International
Court of Justice. He has also participated in international arbitrations
and was a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1995-1999).
He has written extensively on the International Criminal Court and
other international legal issues.
ANNEX E
LIST OF OBSERVERS
(Name, Designation, Organization)
1. Amita Punj*
Program Officer,
Partners for Law in Development, New Delhi
2. Anthony Arulraj*
Advocacy Officer, Hotline Asia
3. A.K.Singh
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
4. Ashok Agarwal
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
5. Asad Bin Saif
Coordinator
Campaign, communication and Advocacy,
BUILD, Mumbai
6. Ayesha Choudhury*
Advocate, Delhi High Court
7. B.S.Sodhi
Senior Vice President
Lawyers for Human Rights International, Punjab
8. Ghasiram Panda
Joint Secretary
Research Academy for Rural Enrichment (RARE)
Sonepur, Orissa
9. Henri Tiphagne
Executive Director, Peoples Watch Tamil Nadu
Advisor, ICC-India
10. Kamal Bir Kaur
Lecturer in Law,
Lovel's Institute, Ludhiana Punjab
11. Madhuri Xalxo*
Student, NALSAR School of Law, Hyderabad
12. Dr. Mohanlal Panda
Executive Programmes
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, New Delhi
13. Monika Saroha*
Project Assistant
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi
14. Pouruchisti Wadia*
Asst. Coordinator,
ICC-India, Mumbai
15. Pragya Vats*
Campaigns Coordinator
The Other Media, New Delhi
16. Preeti Darooka
Coordinator,
PWESCR, New Delhi
17. Sangeeta B. Das
Advocate
18. Saumya Uma*
Coordinator, ICC-India &
Co-Director, Womens Research & Action Group (WRAG),
Mumbai
19. Shanti Ranjan Behera
Director
Martin Luther King Centre for Democracy &
Human Rights, Bhubaneswar
20. Shewli Kumar*
Project Officer
PWESCR, New Delhi
21. Sophia Khan
Director
SAFAR, Ahmedabad
21. Soumya Bhaumik*
Consultant Human Rights Education
Amnesty International India, New Delhi
22. Supriya Aery
Advocate, Punjab High Court -
23. Dr. Subhram Rajkhowa
Reader in Law
Gauhati University, Gauhati
24. Dr. Usha Ramanathan
Law researcher &
Advisor, ICC-India
25. Vahida Nainar
Founding trustee - WRAG &
Advisor, ICC-India
26. Valentin Zellweger
Chef-de-Cabinet, Office of the President,
International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands
27. Vindhyachal
Coordinator
Sahyog Trust, Pune
* Members of the NGO Organizing Committee formed for the
event.
ANNEX F
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Judge Philippe Kirsch,
President of International Criminal Court
Honble M.P. E.M.Sudarsana Natchiappan,
Convenor of Parliamentary Forum on Human Rights
All the office-bearers of
Parliamentary Forum on Human Rights
All Honble MPs
who participated in the meeting
Mr. Valentin Zellweger,
Chef de Cabinet, International Criminal Court,
for his logistical support
Ms. Lori Galway,
External Relations Adviser,
Office of the President, International Criminal Court,
for her logistical support
Ms. Saroj, personal secretary of
Shri. Natchiappan for her logistical support
Ms. Sangeeta B. Das and Ms. Madhuri Xalxo
for minuting the event
All the members of the NGO Organizing Committee for
their logistical support
The human rights activists
who participated in this event as observers
Report of the 1st National Consultation on
International Criminal Court & India
by !CC-!ndia
published by Women's Research 8 Action Group and
People's Watch - Tamil Nadu, 200S
International Criminal Court & India:
Responses to Queries Raised by Parliamentarians
by Saumya Uma
published by Women's Research 8 Action Group and
People's Watch - Tamil Nadu, 200S
International Criminal Court & India: Some
Questions and Answers
by Saumya Uma
published by Women's Research 8 Action Group, 200+
Combating Impunity - A compilation of
articles on International Criminal Court and its
relevance to India
compiled by vahida Nainar 8 Saumya Uma,
published by Women's Research 8 Action Group, 2003
OTHER RELATED PUBLICATIONS:
iccindiacampaign@gmail.com
For copies please write to -

ICC Conversations With Indian Parliamentarians With Cover Page PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ICC Conversations With Indian Parliamentarians With Cover Page PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

|NIFkNAI|ONA|

THE INDIAN CAMPAIGN ON

Potrebbero piacerti anche