Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  310 / 464 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 310 / 464 Next Page
Page Background

296

PAVEL CABAN

CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ

Parties to the Rome Statute of the Internationbal Criminal Court” and “would most

appropriately be discussed in the universal forum of the United Nations”; however

“the possibility of organizing a diplomatic conference to finalize the negotiations

of the proposed instrument could also be considered … with the aim of universal

adoption” (the launching of the negotiations should be decided by the supporting

countries in the course of 2015).

21

Thus, the rejection within the CCPCJ does not

mean that this initiative will not prove viable within a different framework (and it is

clear that at least the States Parties to the Rome Statute should share the same view

on the basic principles of the initiative).

4. The work of the International Law Commission on this topic

In 2014, the International Law Commission included in its agenda the new

topic “Crimes against Humanity”

and appointed Mr. Sean D. Murphy as Special

Rapporteur. In the words of a Special Rapporteur, “a global convention on prevention,

punishment and interstate cooperation with respect to crimes against humanity appears

to be a key missing piece in the current framework of … international humanitarian

law, international criminal law and international human rights law.”

22

According to

the syllabus of the topic, prepared by the Special Rapporteur and annexed to the

2013 report of the Commission, the outcome of discussions on this topic should

be: the preparation of draft articles that might serve as the basis for an international

convention on crimes against humanity and enhancing the complementarity system of

the Rome Statute. Furthermore, it should promote the adoption and harmonization

of national laws defining the crimes against humanity, provide the basis for more

effective interstate cooperation (not addressed by the Rome Statute) on prevention,

investigation, prosecution, punishment and extradition (on the basis of the principle

aut dedere aut iudicare

when the alleged offender is present on the territory of the State

Party) and could also contain provisions obligating States to prevent crimes against

humanity.

23

What are other suggested main features of the draft articles, as envisaged

in this year‘s First report by the Special Rapporteur? First of all, the proposed draft

articles should use the exact same definition of crimes against humanity as appears

in Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the main aim being to complement (and to avoid

any conflicts with) the Rome Statute and other existing international regimes. The

Special Rapporteur is aware of the initiatives, such as the one of Argentina, Belgium,

The Netherlands, Slovenia and Senegal, to create not only a legal framework for

cooperation in the prosecution of crimes against humanity, but also to update and

supplement the existing treaties defining the crime of genocide and war crimes. In

this regard, the Special Rapporteur suggests, however, that, “bearing in mind that

21

Ibid

., p. 4.

22

First report on crimes against humanity,

op. cit.

sub 9, p. 6.

23

International Law Commission, Report on the work of its sixty-fifth session (6 May to 7 June and

8 July to 9 August 2013), doc. A/68/10, Annex B, p. 140

et seq.