The text of the United Nation's paper in which the UN General-Secretary sets out his reasons for believing the ICTY was set up on a proper legal basis is set out below. As you will see, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was originally in nodoubt that there were only two ways in which an international criminal tribunal could be created by the UN under its Charter - by a decision of the General Assembly or by the creation of an international Treaty. He apparently changed his view, in the light of the claimedhumanitarian emergency in Yugoslavia, on the basis of emergency powers given to the Security Council in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. There are two problems with this: (i) these powers relate exclusively to international conflict, whereas all the conflicts in Yugoslavia were civil wars. The UN has no mandate to involve itself in the internal affairs of a sovereign country; (ii) the only precedent the General-Secretary could offer in support of the use of these powers was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990. This was of course an international conflict. The UN has attempted to argue that the unilateral declarations of independence by Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo had turned the various Yugoslav conflicts into international conflicts, particularly when they had been recognised as new states by other countries. This is nonsense. None of these aspiring states met the essential conditions laid down for the recognition of new countries inthe Helsinki Final Acts, the treaty of Montevideo and otherinternational legislation. And there had been no 'invasions' by Serb forces. The fighting was between Yugoslavs. The UN was in flagrant breach of its own Charter and established international law. A further point is that the powers in Chapter VII only apply when there is a threat to international peace and security. Although the UN has sometimes suggested that there was, it's quite clear that there wasn't. We now know that the claims of humanitarian catastrophe were highly exaggerated. Suggestions that 250,000 Bosnian Muslims had been killed in the first 6 months of fighting have reduced to 100,000 on all sides during the entire Bosnian war. US claims that 500,000 might have died in Kosovo reduced to a figure just under 4,000. Boutros-Ghali rationalised that his Chapter VII solution "would have the advantage of being expeditious" - it certainly wasn't legal.
S/25704 3 May 1993
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 808 (1993)
I. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ............................... II. COMPETENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ............. A. Competence ratione materiae (subject-matter jurisdiction) .................................... B. Competence ratione personae (personal jurisdiction) and individual criminal responsibility ........... C. Competence ratione loci (territorial jurisdiction) and ratione temporis (temporal jurisdiction) ..... D. Concurrent jurisdiction and the principle of non-bis-in-idem .................................. III. THE A. The Chambers .....................................
ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL .......
1. 2. 3. 4.
Composition of the Chambers .................. Qualifications and election of judges ........ Officers and members of the Chambers ......... Rules of procedure and evidence ..............
S/25704 English Page 2 B. The Prosecutor ...................................
C. The Registry .....................................
IV. INVESTIGATION AND PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS .............
V. TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS .................... A. Commencement and conduct of trial proceedings ....
B. Rights of the accused ............................ 106 - 107 27 C. Protection of victims and witnesses .............. 108 - 109 28 D. Judgement and penalties .......................... 110 - 115 28 E. Appellate and review proceedings ................. 116 - 120 29 F. Enforcement of sentences ......................... 121 - 124 30 VI. COOPERATION AND JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE .................. 125 - 127 31 VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................... 128 - 138 32A. The status, privileges and immunities of the International Tribunal ........................... B. Seat of the International Tribunal ............... 131 - 132 33 C. Financial arrangements ........................... 133 - 134 33 D. Working languages ................................ 135 - 136 34 E. Annual report .................................... 137 - 138 34 Annex. Statute of the International Tribunal .............Introduction
1. By paragraph 1 of resolution 808 (1993) of 22 February 1993, the Security Council decided "that an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations international humanitarian law committed in the territory ofthe former Yugoslavia since 1991". 2. By paragraph 2 of the resolution, the Secretary-General was requested "to submit for consideration by the Councilat the earliest possible date, and if possible no later than 60 days after the adoption of the present resolution, a report on all aspects of this matter, including specific proposals and where appropriate options for the effective and expeditious implementation of the decision [to establish an international tribunal], taking into account suggestions put forward in this regard by Member States." 3. The present report is presented pursuant to that request. Resolution 808 (1993) represents a further step taken by the Security Council in a series of resolutions concerning serious violations of international humanitarian law occurring in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. 5. In resolution 764 (1992) of 13 July 1992, the SecurityCouncil reaffirmed that all parties to the conflict are bound to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and in particular the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and that persons who commit or order thecommission of grave breaches of the Conventions are individually responsible in respect of such breaches. 6. In resolution 771 (1992) of 13 August 1992, the Security Council expressed grave alarm at continuing reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia and especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina,including reports of mass forcible expulsion and deportation of civilians, imprisonment and abuse of civilians in detention centres, deliberate attacks on non-combatants, hospitals and ambulances, impeding the delivery of food and medical supplies to the civilian population, and wanton devastation and destruction of property. The Council strongly condemned any violations ofinternational humanitarian law, including those involved inthe practice of "ethnic cleansing", and demanded that all parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia cease and desist from all breaches of international humanitarian law.It called upon States and international humanitarian organizations to collate substantiated information relating to the violations of humanitarian law, including grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, being committed inthe territory of the former Yugoslavia and to make this information available to the Council. Furthermore, the Council decided, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter ofthe United Nations, that all parties and others concerned in the former Yugoslavia, and all military forces in Bosniaand Herzegovina, should comply with the provisions of that resolution, failing which the Council would need to take further measures under the Charter. 7. In resolution 780 (1992) of 6 October 1992, the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to establish an impartial Commission of Experts to examine and analyse the information as requested by resolution 771 (1992), togetherwith such further information as the Commission may obtain through its own investigations or efforts, of other personsor bodies pursuant to resolution 771 (1992), with a view toproviding the Secretary-General with its conclusions on theevidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
8. On 14 October 1992 the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Security Council pursuant to paragraph 3 of resolution 780 (1992) in which he outlined his decision to establish a five-member Commission of Experts (S/24657). On 26 October 1992, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission of Experts.
9. By a letter dated 9 February 1993, the Secretary-General submitted to the President of the Security Council an interim report of the Commission of Experts(S/25274), which concluded that grave breaches and other violations of international humanitarian law had been committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including wilful killing, "ethnic cleansing", mass killings,torture, rape, pillage and destruction of civilianproperty, destruction of cultural and religious property and arbitrary arrests. In its report, the Commission notedthat should the Security Council or another competent organof the United Nations decide to establish an ad hoc international tribunal, such a decision would be consistent with the direction of its work.
10. It was against this background that the Security Council considered and adopted resolution 808 (1993). After recalling the provisions of resolutions 764 (1992), 771 (1992) and 780 (1992) and, taking into consideration the interim report of the Commission of Experts, the Security Council expressed once again its grave alarm at continuing reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including reports of mass killings and the continuation of the practice of "ethnic cleansing". The Council determined that this situation constituted a threat to international peace and security, and stated thatit was determined to put an end to such crimes and to take effective measures to bring to justice the persons who are responsible for them. The Security Council stated its conviction that in the particular circumstances of the former Yugoslavia the establishment of an international tribunal would enable this aim to be achieved and would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace.
11. The Secretary-General wishes to recall that in resolution 820 (1993) of 17 April 1993, the Security Council condemned once again all violations of international humanitarian law, including in particular, the practice of "ethnic cleansing" and the massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, and reaffirmed thatthose who commit or have committed or order or have ordered the commission of such acts will be held individually responsible in respect of such acts.
12. The Security Council’s decision in resolution 808 (1993) to establish an international tribunal is circumscribed in scope and purpose: the prosecutionof persons responsible for serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The decision does not relate to theestablishment of an international criminal jurisdiction in general nor to the creation of an international criminalcourt of a permanent nature, issues which are and remain under active consideration by the International Law Commission and the General Assembly.
13. In accordance with the request of the Security Council, the Secretary-General has taken into account in the preparation of the present report the suggestions put forward by Member States, in particular those reflected in the following Security Council documents submitted by Member States and noted by the Council in its resolution 808 (1993): the report of the committee of jurists submitted by France (S/25266), the report of the commissionof jurists submitted by Italy (S/25300), and the report submitted by the Permanent Representative of Sweden on behalf of the Chairman-in-Office of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (S/25307). The Secretary-General has also sought the views of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780 (1992) and has made use of the information gathered by that Commission. In addition, the Secretary-General has taken into account suggestions or comments put forward formally or informally by the following Member States since the adoption of resolution 808 (1993): Australia, Austria,Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt,* Germany, Iran (Islamic Republic of),* Ireland, Italy, Malaysia,* Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan,* Portugal, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,* Senegal,* Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey,* United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, United States of America and Yugoslavia. He has also received suggestions or comments from a non-member State (Switzerland).
14. The Secretary-General has also received comments from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and from the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats, Ethnic Minorities Barristers’ Association, Fédération internationale des femmes des carrières juridiques, International Criminal Police Organization, Jacob Blaustein Institution for the Advancement of Human Rights, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, National Alliance of Women’s Organisations (NAWO),and Parliamentarians for Global Action. Observations have alsobeen receivedfrom international meetings and individual experts in relevant fields.
* On behalf of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and as members of the Contact Group of OIC on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15. The Secretary-General wishes to place on record his appreciation for the interest shown by all the Governments,organizations and individuals who have offered valuable suggestions and comments.
16. In the main body of the report which follows, the Secretary-General first examines the legal basis for the establishment of the International Tribunal foreseen in resolution 808 (1993). The Secretary-General then sets outin detail the competence of the International Tribunal as regards the law it will apply, the persons to whom the law will be applied, including considerations as to the principle of individual criminal responsibility, its territorial and temporal reach and the relation of its workto that of national courts. In succeeding chapters, the Secretary-General sets out detailed views on the organization of the international tribunal, the investigation and pre-trial proceedings, trial and post-trial proceedings, and cooperation and judicial assistance. A concluding chapter deals with a number of general and organizational issues such as privileges and immunities, the seat of the international tribunal, working languages and financial arrangements.
17. In response to the Security Council’s request to include in the report specific proposals, the Secretary-General has decided to incorporate into the report specific language for inclusion in a statute of the International Tribunal. The formulations are based upon provisions found in existing international instruments, particularly with regard to competence ratione materiae of the International Tribunal. Suggestions and comments, including suggested draft articles, received from States, organizations and individuals as noted in paragraphs 13 and14 above, also formed the basis upon which the Secretary-General prepared the statute. Texts prepared in the past by United Nations or other bodies for the establishment of international criminal courts were consulted by the Secretary-General, including texts prepared by the United Nations Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, the International Law Commission, and the International LawAssociation. Proposals regarding individual articles are, therefore, made throughout the body of the report; the full text of the statute of the International Tribunal is contained in the annex to the present report.
I. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL 18. Security Council resolution 808 (1993) states that an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. It does not, however, indicate how such an international tribunal is to be established or on what legal basis. 19. The approach which, in the normal course of events, would be followed in establishing an international tribunalwould be the conclusion of a treaty by which the States parties would establish a tribunal and approve its statute. This treaty would be drawn up and adopted by an appropriateinternational body (e.g., the General Assembly or a specially convened conference), following which it would beopened for signature and ratification. Such an approach would have the advantage of allowing for a detailed examination and elaboration of all the issues pertaining tothe establishment of the international tribunal. It also would allow the States participating in the negotiation andconclusion of the treaty fully to exercise their sovereign will, in particular whether they wish to become parties to the treaty or not. 20. As has been pointed out in many of the comments received, the treaty approach incurs the disadvantage of requiring considerable time to establish an instrument and then to achieve the required number of ratifications for entry into force. Even then, there could be no guarantee that ratifications will be received from those States whichshould be parties to the treaty if it is to be truly effective. 21. A number of suggestions have been put forward to the effect that the General Assembly, as the most representative organ of the United Nations, should have a role in the establishment of the international tribunal in addition to its role in the administrative and budgetary aspects of the question. The involvement of the General Assembly in the drafting or the review of the statute of the International Tribunal would not be reconcilable with the urgency expressed by the Security Council in resolution 808 (1993). The Secretary-General believes thatthere are other ways of involving the authority and prestige of the General Assembly in the establishment of the International Tribunal. 22. In the light of the disadvantages of the treaty approach in this particular case and of the need indicated in resolution 808 (1993) for an effective and expeditious implementation of the decision to establish an international tribunal, the Secretary-General believes thatthe International Tribunal should be established by a decision of the Security Council on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Such a decision would constitute a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security, following the requisite determination of the existence of a threat to thepeace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. 23. This approach would have the advantage of being expeditious and of being immediately effective as all States would be under a binding obligation to take whatever actionis required to carry out a decision taken as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII. 24. In the particular case of the former Yugoslavia, the Secretary-General believes that the establishment of the International Tribunal by means of a Chapter VII decision would be legally justified, both in terms of the object and purpose of the decision, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and of past Security Council practice. 25. As indicated in paragraph 10 above, the Security Council has already determined that the situation posed by continuing reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law occurring in the former Yugoslavia constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The Council has also decided under Chapter VII of the Charter that all parties and others concerned in the former Yugoslavia, and all military forces in Bosniaand Herzegovina, shall comply with the provisions of resolution 771 (1992), failing which it would need to take further measures under the Charter. Furthermore, the Council has repeatedly reaffirmed that all parties in the former Yugoslavia are bound to comply with the obligations under international humanitarian law and in particular the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and that persons who commit or order the commission of grave breaches of the Conventions are individually responsible in respect of suchbreaches. 26. Finally, the Security Council stated in resolution 808(1993) that it was convinced that in the particular circumstances of the former Yugoslavia, the establishment of an international tribunal would bring about the achievement of the aim of putting an end to such crimes andof taking effective measures to bring to justice the persons responsible for them, and would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace. 27. The Security Council has on various occasions adopted decisions under Chapter VII aimed at restoring and maintaining international peace and security, which have involved the establishment of subsidiary organs for a variety of purposes. Reference may be made in this regard to SecurityCouncil resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions relating to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. 28. In this particular case, the Security Council would beestablishing, as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII, a subsidiary organ within the terms of Article 29 of the Charter, but one of a judicial nature. This organ would, of course, have to perform its functions independently of political considerations; it would not be subject to the authority or control of the Security Council with regard tothe performance of its judicial functions. As an enforcement measure under Chapter VII, however, the life span of the international tribunal would be linked to the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and Security Council decisions related thereto. 29. It should be pointed out that, in assigning to the International Tribunal the task of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, the Security Council would not be creating or purporting to "legislate" that law. Rather, the International Tribunal would have the task of applying existing international humanitarian law. 30. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Secretary-General proposes that the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, establish the International Tribunal. The resolution so adopted would have annexed to it a statute the opening passage of which would read as follows: Having been established by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the International Tribunal") shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.