Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings

London Agreement
Article 3 of the 1945 London Agreement provides with regard to the International Military Tribunal for Germany:
Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International Military Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war criminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories. 
Agreement between the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, London, 8 August 1945, Article 3.
ICC Statute
Articles 86–101 of the 1998 ICC Statute deal with “International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance”. Article 86 provides: “States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” Article 88 provides: “States Parties shall ensure that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperation which are specified under this Part.” 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Articles 86 and 88.
ICC Statute
Article 93 of the 1998 ICC Statute provides:
1.States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Part and under procedures of national law, comply with requests by the Court to provide the following assistance in relation to investigations or prosecutions:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons or the location of items;
(b) The taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
(c) The questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) The service of documents, including judicial documents;
(e) Facilitating the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the Court;
(f) The temporary transfer of persons as provided in paragraph 7;
(g) The examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
(h) The execution of searches and seizures;
(i) The provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
(j) The protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(k) The identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties; and
(l) Any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by the law of the requested State, with a view to facilitating the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
4. In accordance with article 72, a State Party may deny a request for assistance, in whole or in part, only if the request concerns the production of any documents or disclosure of evidence which relates to its national security.
5. Before denying a request for assistance under paragraph 1(l), the requested State shall consider whether the assistance can be provided subject to specified conditions, or whether the assistance can be provided at a later date or in an alternative manner, provided that if the Court or the Prosecutor accepts the assistance subject to conditions, the Court or the Prosecutor shall abide by them. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 93.
Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Article 17 of the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, entitled “Cooperation with the Special Court”, provides:
1. The Government shall cooperate with all organs of the Special Court at all stages of the proceedings. It shall, in particular, facilitate access to the Prosecutor to sites, persons and relevant documents required for the investigation.
2. The Government shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance by the Special Court or an order issued by the Chambers, including, but not limited to:
(a) Identification and location of persons;
(b) Service of documents;
(c) Arrest or detention of persons;
(d) Transfer of an indictee to the Court. 
Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 17, Article 17.
UN-Lebanon Agreement on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Article 15 of the UN-Lebanon Agreement on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon provides:
1. The Government shall cooperate with all organs of the Special Tribunal, in particular with the Prosecutor and defence counsel, at all stages of the proceedings.
It shall facilitate access of the Prosecutor and defence counsel to sites, persons and relevant documents required for the investigation.
2. The Government shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance by the Special Tribunal or an order issued by the Chambers, including, but not limited to:
(a) Identification and location of persons;
(b) Service of documents;
(c) Arrest or detention of persons;
(d) Transfer of an indictee to the Tribunal. 
Agreement between the UN and the Lebanese Republic on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon, annexed to UN Security Council Resolution 1757 of 30 May 2007, Article 15.
ICTY Statute
Article 29 of the 1993 ICTY Statute, entitled “Cooperation and judicial assistance”, provides:
1. States shall cooperate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including, but not limited to:
(a) the identification and location of persons;
(b) the taking of testimony and the production of evidence;
(c) the service of documents;
(d) the arrest or detention of persons;
(e) the surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 29.
ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal
Article 54 of the 1994 ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal, entitled “Obligation to extradite or prosecute”, provides:
In a case of a crime referred to in article 20 (e) [“crimes, established under or pursuant to the treaty provisions listed in the Annex, which, having regard to the conduct of the alleged, constitute exceptionally serious crimes of international concern”], a custodial State party to this Statute which is a party to the treaty in question but which has not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the crime for the purposes of article 21 (1) (b) (i) … shall either take all necessary steps to extradite the suspect to a requesting State for the purpose of prosecution or refer the case to its competent authorities for that purpose. 
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May–22 July 1994, UN Doc. A/49/10, 1994, Article 54.
ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal
The Annex to the 1994 ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal, entitled “Crimes pursuant to Treaties (see art. 20 (e))”, refers, inter alia, to grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions; grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I; crimes defined by Article 2 of the 1973 Convention on Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons; and the crime of torture made punishable by Article 4 of the 1984 Convention against Torture. 
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May–22 July 1994, UN Doc. A/49/10, 1994, Annex.
ICTR Statute
Article 28 of the 1994 ICTR Statute provides:
1. States shall cooperate with the International Tribunal for Rwanda in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including, but not limited to:
(a) The identification and location of persons;
(b) The taking of testimony and the production of evidence;
(c) The service of documents;
(d) The arrest or detention of persons;
(e) The surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 28.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 4 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law states:
Violations of international … humanitarian law norms that constitute crimes under international law carry the duty to … cooperate with and assist … appropriate international judicial organs in the investigation and prosecution of these violations. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 4.
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire
The 2003 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire provides:
1) At the invitation of the President of the French Republic, a Round Table of the Ivorian political forces met in Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003. It brought together the following parties FPI, MFA, MJP, MPCI, MPIGO, PDCI-RDA, PIT, RDR, UDCY, UDPCI … The delegations have shown high-mindedness to allow the Round Table to bring the positions closer together and to arrive at the following consensus, all elements of which – principles and annexes – have equal value:
Annex
VI-Rights and liberties of the human person
2) The government of national reconciliation shall demand the creation of an international commission which shall initiate enquiries and establish the facts all over the national territory in order to take inventory of the cases of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law since 19 September 2002.
3) Upon the report of the international commission of inquiry, the government of national reconciliation shall determine who must be brought before the courts in order to end impunity. Condemning in particular the actions of death squadrons and their commanders as well as the perpetrators of summary executions on the entirety of the territory, the Round Table considers that the perpetrators and accomplices of these activities will have to be brought before international criminal justice. 
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire, Round table of the Ivorian political forces, meeting at Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003 and bringing together the following parties: FPI (Front Populaire Ivoirien), MFA (Mouvement des Forces d’Avenir), MJP (Mouvement pour la Justice et la Paix), MPCI (Mouvement Patriotique de Côte d’Ivoire), MPIGO (Mouvement Populaire Ivoirien du Grand Ouest), PDCI-RDA (Parti Démocratique de la Côte d’Ivoire-Rassemblement Démocratique Africain), PIT (Parti Ivoirien des Travailleurs), RDR (Rassemblement des Républicains), UDCY (Union Démocratique et Citoyenne), UDPCI (Union pour la Démocratie et la Paix en Côte d’Ivoire), Linas-Marcoussis, 24 January 2003, Text of the agreement, paragraph 1 and Annex, paragraphs VI(2–3).
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraph 4 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provides:
In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, § 4.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states:
In the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and [1977 Additional] Protocol I, it is provided that the governments shall take such legislative measures as may be necessary to determine adequate penal sanctions to be applied to persons committing or ordering any of the grave breaches; the persons accused of having committed, or of having ordered to commit, those breaches … shall be searched for.
… It is also possible to hand the author of the violations over to an international tribunal, in case such a tribunal has been established. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.02.
The manual also states: “In the event of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I, the contracting parties shall cooperate, jointly or individually, with the United Nations and in accordance with the UN Charter.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.09.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Where there is widespread evidence of war crimes having been committed, the international community may elect to establish a world forum or war crimes tribunal to conduct trials. The Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals conducted after [World War II] are examples of this approach. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1308.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
Lesson 4. Breaches and repression of violations of IHL
The texts on the Law of War distinguish two categories of breaches in the case of violations of the rules of IHL:
- Grave violations or grave breaches, called war crimes;
- Other violations.
I. Grave violations
I.2 Sanctions
The State is under the obligation to search for and to try the perpetrators of these grave violations. To do this, it can act in two ways:
- bring the perpetrator before its own courts,
- bring the perpetrator before an international jurisdiction.  
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 29–30.
In Book II (Instruction of non-commissioned officers and officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.1. Repression of grave violations
The grave violations of IHL can be repressed on the national level as well as on the international level.
On the national level, these grave breaches of IHL are judged by:
- the military tribunal,
- the civilian jurisdictions.
On the international level, repression is ensured by:
- ad hoc tribunals (1993 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1994 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, etc.),
- the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted by the 1998 Rome Statute. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 30–31.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), in a part dealing with “Grave breaches of the rules of the law of armed conflict”, states:
On the criminal level, persons charged with [grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] may be prosecuted before … international criminal courts having jurisdiction over war crimes: today this means the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for the crimes committed solely on the occasion of these two conflicts; tomorrow, this will mean … the International Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction over all war crimes and crimes against humanity in case of the failure of national tribunals. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 7.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, “having concurrent jurisdiction with national tribunals of each State, have, however, primary jurisdiction and may request national tribunals to hand over cases to [them]”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 77–78.
Regarding the International Criminal Court, the manual also states:
The Court has jurisdiction as soon as the national State of the alleged perpetrator(s), or the State on the territory of which the crime occurred, is party to the [1998 ICC Statute] or gives its express consent. This Court is additional to national jurisdiction. It intervenes only if national jurisdictions are incapable, or refuse to, try the perpetrators. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 76–77.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) recalls the experiences of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, stating: “The central importance of the Nuremberg Trials … is in creating a precedent for the execution of judgment against war criminals by the whole of humanity, without leaving the work to prejudiced internal courts.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 66–67.
The manual also mentions the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Referring to the International Criminal Court, it states:
One of the biggest difficulties faced by the Hague court for judging Yugoslavia’s war criminals is the extradition of war criminals. The permanent court has been empowered to demand extradition of war criminals into its hands, so that such criminals will not find a haven …
Israel is in a dilemma regarding the Rome Constitution. On the one hand, in light of the Holocaust experience, Israel has a special interest in seeing war criminals brought to justice. On the other hand, there is a fear that the court will serve as a lever for demanding the extradition and trial of IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 68–69.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992), regarding the prosecution of alleged war criminals, states:
By Art. 89 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] they [States parties] are obliged to act jointly or individually in cooperation with the United Nations in regard to serious “violations” of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1711.4, footnote 76.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
The implementation of the [R]ome [S]tatute of the [I]nternational [C]riminal [C]ourt [A]ct (act no 27 of 2002)
The act places a duty on the rsa [Republic of South Africa] to co-operate with the icc [International Criminal Court] and provides for procedures for arresting accused persons, extradition proceedings and enforcement of penalties, compensatory and confiscation orders of the icc. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 5, pp. 260–261.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
Historically … International Tribunals established to judge alleged war criminals have existed (such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals), and this possibility remains nowadays and seems to be a developing trend for the action of the International Community, an example of which is the creation by the Security Council of … [the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]. To cooperate with [this Tribunal], Spain has adopted Organic Law No. 15/94 of 1 June. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 7.6.b.(2).
The manual further states:
The obligation devolving on the States to cooperate in the penal repression of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions is not limited to cooperation with other States but also comprises cooperation with the United Nations, in conformity with the United Nations Charter. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(5).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Spain is party to the Rome Statute and has enacted organic law 18/2003 governing cooperation with the International Criminal Court.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 7.6.b.(2).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958), in a footnote related to the provision on extradition of war criminals, states that the handing over of a person suspected of war crimes “can be made with the consent of the States concerned to an international court if one should be established”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 639, footnote 5.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) provides: “The perpetrators of such criminal acts [war crimes or serious violations of the laws and customs of war] may also be brought to justice before an international court if such court is established.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 20.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute (2006) states:
Article 40. The competent law enforcement authorities will comply with the requests for cooperation formulated by the [International Criminal] Court as provided for by the [1998 ICC] Statute.
Article 42. The Argentine Republic will deny a request for assistance, in whole or in part, in accordance with article 93(4) of the Statute, only if the request concerns the production of any documents or disclosure of evidence which relates to its national security as defined by law adopted by Congress.
Article 43. The executive power will communicate to the Court or its Prosecutor without delay the reasons for the denial of the request for assistance.
Article 44. The Prosecutor of the Court may execute directly on Argentine territory a request for assistance that does not require compulsory measures in accordance with article 99(4) of the Statute. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Articles 40 and 42–44.
Regarding the referral of situations to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Law provides:
The executive power may decide to refer a situation to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute and if appropriate may request the Pre-Trial Chamber to review a decision of the Prosecutor not to proceed pursuant to article 53(3)(a) of the Rome Statute. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 24.
Concerning complementary jurisdiction and the admissibility of cases before the International Criminal Court, the Law states:
1. Once a notification from the Prosecutor of the Court or from the Court itself concerning facts that may fall within the jurisdiction of Argentina is received pursuant to article 18(1) of the Rome Statute, the executive power will request to be informed by the Office of the National Attorney General, the Federal Chambers with criminal jurisdiction and any other authority considered appropriate in each specific case, within a period no longer than ten days, about the existence of any ongoing or past criminal proceedings related to the facts under investigation [by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court].
2. When the information provided indicates that Argentina has exercised or is exercising jurisdiction [over the above-mentioned facts], or that Argentina has initiated an investigation due to the notification received, the executive power will decide whether to maintain the jurisdiction of Argentine judicial authorities. If appropriate, the executive power, within a period no longer than 30 days after the notification pursuant to article 18(1) of the Statute was received, will request the Prosecutor of the Court to defer to Argentina’s investigation pursuant to article 18(2) of the Statute.
3. The executive power shall reply without delay to any request for information submitted by the Prosecutor of the Court regarding the progress of the ongoing investigations and subsequent prosecutions in Argentina that motivated the [above-mentioned] request [to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court].
4. When the information provided by the National Attorney General, the Federal Chambers with criminal jurisdiction or any other consulted body indicates that Argentina has not exercised, is not exercising and will not exercise its jurisdiction [over the above-mentioned facts], the executive power will communicate this without delay to the Prosecutor of the Court or to the Court itself. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 25.
The Law further provides:
Article 27. If despite a request to the Prosecutor of the Court to defer to Argentina’s investigation under article 25 of this law, or a challenge to the jurisdiction [of the International Criminal Court] or to the admissibility of the case … , the competent chamber of the Court authorizes the Prosecutor to proceed with the investigation or retains its jurisdiction, the Argentine judicial body will decline jurisdiction in favour of the Court and, under the request of the latter, shall refer to it the file of the proceedings.
Article 35. In the situation referred to in article 89(2) of the Statute [concerning a challenge brought before a national court by the person sought for surrender on the basis of the principle of non bis in idem], if the Court declares the case admissible, the competent tribunal will reject the challenge based on the principle of non bis in idem. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Articles 27 and 35.
Concerning the surrender of persons to the International Criminal Court, the Law provides:
Article 31. When complying with a request for arrest and surrender or for provisional arrest, the executive power will refer it to the competent judicial authority pursuant to article 5 of this law [establishing the competence of Federal Tribunals], which will issue the pertinent warrant in case the person sought is not yet detained. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 31.
Australia
Australia’s ICC Act (2002) states:
Principal object of Act
(1) The principal object of this Act is to facilitate compliance with Australia’s obligations under the Statute.
(2) Accordingly, this Act does not affect the primacy of Australia’s right to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. 
Australia, ICC Act, 2002, Article 3.
Australia
Australia’s International War Crimes Tribunal Act (1995) states:
The objects of this Act are to enable the Commonwealth to co-operate with a Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing Tribunal offences, and, in particular:
(a) to enable the Tribunal to make requests for assistance (see Part 2); and
(b) to provide for persons accused of Tribunal offences to be surrendered to the Tribunal (see Part 3); and
(c) to provide the Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of Tribunal offences (see Part 4); and
(d) to enable the Tribunal to sit in Australia (see Part 5); and
(e) to enable forfeiture orders of the Tribunal to be enforced (see Part 6). 
Australia, International War Crimes Tribunal Act, 1995, Article 3.
Australia
Australia’s International War Crimes Tribunals Act (1995), as amended to 2006, which was adopted “to provide for the Commonwealth [of Australia] to help International War Crimes Tribunals [specifically, the ICTY and ICTR] to perform their functions”, 
Australia, International War Crimes Tribunals Act, 1995, as amended to 2006, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 9 of 2006, Full Title, p. 1.
has as its objects:
… to enable the Commonwealth to cooperate with a Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing Tribunal offences, and, in particular:
(a) to enable the Tribunal to make requests for assistance (see Part 2); and
(b) to provide for persons accused of Tribunal offences to be surrendered to the Tribunal (see Part 3); and
(c) to provide the Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of Tribunal offences (see Part 4); and
(d) to enable the Tribunal to sit in Australia (see Part 5); and
(e) to enable forfeiture orders of the Tribunal to be enforced (see Part 6). 
Australia, International War Crimes Tribunals Act, 1995, as amended to 2006, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 9 of 2006, Part 1, § 3, p. 1.
Australia
Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners Act (1997), as amended in 2004, has as its objects:
(a) to facilitate the transfer of prisoners between Australia and certain countries with which Australia has entered agreements for the transfer of prisoners so that the prisoners may serve their sentences of imprisonment in their countries of nationality or in countries with which they have community ties; and
(b) to facilitate the transfer of prisoners to Australia from countries in which prisoners are serving sentences of imprisonment imposed by certain war crimes tribunals. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 3, p. 1.
The Act defines “tribunal” as “(a) the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal; or (b) the Rwanda Tribunal”. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 4, p. 6.
Regarding a transfer request from a tribunal, the Act states:
The Attorney-General may consent to a request from a Tribunal for the transfer of a Tribunal prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Tribunal in a Tribunal country to Australia to complete serving the sentence of imprisonment on terms agreed under this Act if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the transfer can be made in compliance with section 11. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 33, p. 29.
Austria
Austria’s Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (1996) states:
The Austrian authorities, in particular the courts, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the penal authorities and the security services obliged to cooperate extensively with the International Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Federal Law and within the framework of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the International Tribunal. In particular, this obligation to cooperate entails providing the International Tribunal with information and documents available in Austria relating to the suspicion of violations which fall within its jurisdiction, affording it judicial assistance, committing accused persons and accepting convicted persons for the execution of a sentence. 
Austria, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1996, § 2(1).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on Recognition of and Cooperation (1996) with the International Tribunals states:
According to Article 86 of the Statute, Belgium fully cooperates with the Court’s investigations and proceedings relating to the crimes under its jurisdiction. 
Belgium, Law on Recognition of and Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1996.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law Containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1878), as amended, provides:
Seized with a complaint pursuant to the paragraphs above [including for serious violations of international humanitarian law] the Federal Prosecutor requires the investigating magistrate to conduct an enquiry into the complaint unless … on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case it is clear that, in the interest of the proper administration of justice and in compliance with Belgium’s international obligations, the matter should be brought … before an international court. 
Belgium, Law Containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1878, as amended, Article 10 § 1bis, indent 3(4).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
Seized with a claim pursuant to paragraph 2, the Federal Prosecutor shall request the investigating judge to conduct an investigation into the claim, except if … it results from the specific circumstances of the case that, in the interest of the good administration of justice and in compliance with Belgium’s international obligations, this case should be brought before … international jurisdictions. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 7, § 1(3, 4 indent).
The Law further states:
In application of Article 14 of the [1998 ICC Statute], the Minister of Justice may inform the International Criminal Court of facts that have been referred to the judicial authorities, by means of a decision of the Council of Ministers. Such information cannot concern acts committed on the Belgian territory, acts committed by a Belgian citizen, nor acts committed against a Belgian citizen, except if these acts are connected or identical to acts which have already been referred to the Court, and for which a decision of admissibility has already been rendered pursuant to Article 18 of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Once the Prosecutor of the Court has made the notification provided under Article 18(1) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, regarding the acts that the Minister of Justice has brought to the attention of the Court, the Court of Cassation shall, at the request of the General Prosecutor, order the removal of the case from the Belgian court to which those same acts were referred.
When the International Criminal Court, at the Minister of Justice’s request, informs the Minister of Justice, following the removal of the case from the Belgian court, that the Prosecutor of the Court has decided not to draw up an indictment, that the Court did not confirm an indictment, that the Court has declared itself to lack jurisdiction, or has declared the case to be inadmissible, the Belgian courts shall once again have jurisdiction. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 7, § 1(2).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunals (2004), as amended, provides:
3. In accordance with Article 86 of the Statute [of the International Criminal Court], Belgium fully cooperates with the Court in investigating and prosecuting the crimes falling within the Court’s jurisdiction.
7. Belgian judicial authorities may seek the Court’s cooperation. …
8.1 Pursuant to Article 14 of the Statute, the Minister of Justice may, upon decision of the Council of Ministers, refer to the Court a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed, requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes. 
Belgium, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals, 2004, as amended in 2006, Articles 3, 7 and 8.1.
The Law further provides:
44. Under the provisions of the present law, Belgium will comply with the duties of cooperation arising from Resolutions 808 (1993), 827 (1993) and 955 (1994) adopted by the [UN] Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
45. The competent authorities will grant the Tribunal their full judicial cooperation with regard to any procedure relating to the breaches set out in Articles 1–8 of the Statute of the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and in Articles 2–4 of the Statute of the Tribunal for Rwanda, in accordance with the provisions of the resolutions mentioned in Article 44 of the present law, as well as with the provisions set forth in the Statute[s], the Rules [of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and of the Tribunal for Rwanda] and the present law.
59. In accordance with the provisions of the present law, Belgium may follow up on requests for judicial cooperation issued by the [Special] Tribunal [for Sierra Leone].
61. The competent authorities will grant the Tribunal their full judicial cooperation with regard to any procedure resulting from a request for cooperation from the [Special] Tribunal [for Sierra Leone] which the central authority has decided to follow up on.
65. In accordance with the provisions of the present law, Belgium may follow up on requests for judicial cooperation issued by the Extraordinary Chambers [for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea].
67. The competent authorities will grant the Extraordinary Chambers [for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea] their full judicial cooperation with regard to any procedure resulting from a request for cooperation from the Extraordinary Chambers which the central authority has decided to follow up on. 
Belgium, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals, 2004, as amended in 2006, Articles 44, 45, 59, 61, 65 and 67.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Decree on Deferral upon Request by the ICTY (1995) states:
This Decree regulates the procedure for the extradition of accused persons against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted by or are being conducted before the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia from 1 January 1991 (hereafter: the International Tribunal) for the crimes specified by the Statute of the International Tribunal. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Decree on Deferral upon Request by the ICTY, 1995.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In October 2001, the Republika Srpska adopted the Law on Cooperation with the ICTY which provides that both the ICTY and the national courts are competent for the criminal prosecution of persons responsible for violations of IHL in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY, however, being given precedence (Article 1). Article 2 provides:
Cooperation with the Tribunal is related to prosecution of persons only for crimes referred to in Article 2, namely grave violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, article 3, pertaining to the violations of laws and customs of war, article 4, pertaining to genocide, and article 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal, pertaining to the crimes against humanity committed in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991.
Cooperation shall be conducted in the manner stipulated in this Law, Statute of the Tribunal and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 2001, Articles 1 and 2.
The other provisions of the law namely deal with the “Procedure for gathering evidence upon request of the tribunal” (Part II); the “Transfer of responsibility for leading the criminal proceedings” (Part III); the “Pre-trial detention of the defendant and hand over to the tribunal” (Part IV); the “Legal Assistance to the Tribunal” (Part V); and the “Execution of verdicts of the tribunal” (Part VI). 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 2001, Parts II–VI.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:
An official person in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, entity institutions and the institution of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina who refuses to act upon the order of the international criminal tribunal to arrest or detain or extradite to the international criminal tribunal a person against whom the proceedings have been initiated before the international criminal tribunal or if he in any other way prevents enforcement of that order or who refuses enforcement of a legally valid and final sentence of the international criminal tribunal or if in any other way he prevents enforcement of such sentence. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 203.
The Criminal Code also states:
Whoever, having knowledge of the whereabouts of a person indicted by the international criminal tribunal, and having knowledge of the fact of such indictment, fails to report such whereabouts, although the timely discovery of the wanted person depends on such report,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 231.
Brazil
Brazil’s Constitutional Amendment No. 45 (2004) states: “Article 5 … of the Federal Constitution shall come into force with the following wording: ‘ … § 4º Brazil is subject to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court to whose creation it has adhered.’” 
Brazil, Constitutional Amendment No. 45, 2004, Article 1.
Canada
In 2000, Canada enacted the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, criminalizing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and making consequential amendments to other Canadian laws to implement the 1998 ICC Statute in domestic law. In particular, the Act contains sections codifying offences against the administration of justice of the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000.
Canada
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
44. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.
(2) The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the prosecution of a person is barred by prescription or limitation under the law that applies to the extradition partner;
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.
47. The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the person would be entitled, if that person were tried in Canada, to be discharged under the laws of Canada because of a previous acquittal or conviction;
(b) the person was convicted in their absence and could not, on surrender, have the case reviewed;
(c) the person was less than eighteen years old at the time of the offence and the law that applies to them in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction is not consistent with the fundamental principles governing the Youth Criminal Justice Act;
(d) the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person; or
(e) none of the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction.
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in sections 44, 46 and 47 do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 44, 46(1) and 47–47.1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Penal Procedure Code (2010) states:
Art. 344: In enforcing the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [ICC] ratified on 3 October 2001, the Central African Republic participates in the repression of offences and cooperates with the [International Criminal] Court according to the conditions of this section [on cooperation with the ICC].
The provisions that follow are applicable to any person prosecuted or sentenced by the International Criminal Court for acts constituting, in the meaning of articles 6 to 8 and 25 of the Rome Statute, genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
Art. 345: Cooperation requests issued by the International Criminal Court shall be addressed to the competent authorities in accordance with the present code and with the [ICC] Statute …
Art. 346: Cooperation requests are executed, depending on the case, by the Public Prosecutor or by the investigating judges of the high court of Bangui who perform their duties in the entire national territory …
Art. 347: The carrying-out of [the other forms of cooperation] mentioned in paragraph 1 section k of article 93 of the Rome Statute is ordered … by the Public Prosecutor before the high court of Bangui. The maximum duration of these measures is limited to two years.
Art. 348: Requests for arrest to hand over [an individual] to the International Criminal Court are addressed … to the competent authorities under article 87 of the [ICC] Statute that must, after ensuring the formal validity [of the request], transmit them to the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals and must, at the same time, enforce [the request] in the entire territory of the Republic.
Art. 349: Any person apprehended with the aim of being handed over [to the ICC] must be referred to the Public Prosecutor with jurisdiction [over the matter] within twenty four hours. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Articles 344–349.
The Code also states:
Art. 357: A person subject to a provisional arrest under article 92 of the [ICC] Statute can, if he or she consents to it, be handed over to the International Criminal Court before the competent authorities under article 87 of the Statute have received a formal request for surrender from the international court.
Art. 358: Any person detained on the territory of the Central African Republic can, if he or she consents to it, be transferred to the International Criminal Court for purposes of identification or for a hearing or indictment.
Art. 359: When requested by the International Criminal Court, the enforcement of fines and forfeitures and of decisions concerning reparations are authorized by the criminal court in Bangui, seized by the Public Prosecutor.
Art. 360: The authorization by the criminal court under the preceding article results in the transfer of the property or of the proceeds of the sale of property or confiscated goods to the International Criminal Court, or to funds benefitting victims by decision of the Court.
Art. 361: When, in the application of this code and of the Statute, the Government has accepted to receive persons sentenced by the International Criminal Court to serve the terms of imprisonment on the territory of the Republic, the pronounced sentence is directly and immediately executable once the person has been transferred to the national territory for the remaining amount of the sentence.
Subject to the provisions in the Statute and this section [of the code], the enforcement and the implementation of the death penalty are governed by the provisions of this code. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Articles 357–361.
Croatia
Croatia’s Cooperation with the ICTY Act (1996) states:
This Constitutional Act regulates the co-operation of the Republic of Croatia which the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, hereinafter, the Tribunal, and the fulfilment of the commitments of the Republic of Croatia pursuant to Security Council resolutions 827 (1993), the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. 
Croatia, Cooperation with the ICTY Act, 1996, Article 1.
Croatia
Croatia’s ICC Statute Adoption Act (2003) states with regard to the jurisdiction of Croatian courts and the ICC:
(1) The perpetrators of the criminal offences referred to in Article 1 of Act committed in the Republic of Croatia, the perpetrators who are the nationals of the Republic of Croatia and the perpetrators whose victims are the nationals of the Republic of Croatia shall be prosecuted in the Republic of Croatia and tried before the Croatian court which has jurisdiction with respect to the committed criminal offences.
(4) To the exclusion of paragraph 1 of this Article, prosecution shall not take place in the Republic of Croatia when the proceedings have already commenced before the International Criminal Court. In such a case, the Republic of Croatia shall defer the prosecution to the International Criminal Court in accordance with the Statute and this Act. 
Croatia, ICC Statute Adoption Act, 2003, Article 10(1) and (4).
The Law further states: “After the International Criminal Court has initiated proceedings against an accused person, no proceedings shall be initiated for the same criminal offence in the Republic of Croatia.” 
Croatia, ICC Statute Adoption Act, 2003, Article 21(3).
Denmark
Denmark’s International Tribunals Act (1994) states:
1. Any offence covered by the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for War Crimes Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia, cf. Annex 1 and Annex 2 hereof, may be prosecuted in Denmark in accordance with the provisions laid down in the legislation, and the said Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
3. No person against whom the Tribunal has instituted criminal proceedings may at the same time be subject to prosecution in this country for the same act. 
Denmark, International Tribunals Act, 1994, Articles 1 and 3.
Denmark
Denmark’s ICC Act (2001) states:
1. The Statute of the International Criminal Court, cf. the annex to this law, shall apply in this country.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs may decide that the following provisions shall apply in this country:
1) The Rules of procedure and amendments thereto, cf. article 51 of the Statute.
2) The recommended descriptions of the content of crimes and amendments thereto, cf. article 9 of the Statute.
3) Amendments to the Statute provided they are adopted in accordance with articles 121–123 of the Statute. 
Denmark, ICC Act, 2001, Article 1.
Finland
Finland’s ICTY Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance Act (1994) states:
For the purpose of implementing the obligations based on resolution No 827 (1993) of the United Nations’ Security Council, relating to the creation of an International Tribunal (Tribunal) for the prosecution of persons responsible for crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and on the Statute of the Tribunal adopted by the resolution, this Act shall govern:
1) the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal and by Finnish courts;
2) the recognition and enforcement in Finland of decisions made by the Tribunal;
3) the surrender of offenders in a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal; as well as
4) other international legal assistance to the Tribunal and cooperation between the Tribunal and Finnish courts and other competent authorities. 
Finland, ICTY Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance Act, 1994, Section 1.
Finland
Finland’s ICC Act (2000) states:
The provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on 17 July 1998, insofar as they are of a legislative nature, shall be in force as applicable law in accordance with the commitments of Finland. 
Finland, ICC Act, 2000, Article 1.
France
France’s Constitution (1958), as amended in 1999, provides: “The Republic may recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as provided for by the Treaty signed on 18 July 1998.” 
France, Constitution, 1958, as amended in 1999, Article 53-2.
France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995) states:
For the implementation of resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council of 25 May 1993 establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, France takes part in the repression of crimes and cooperates with this Tribunal under the conditions laid down by this Act.
The following provisions shall apply to any person prosecuted for acts which constitute, within the meaning of Articles 2 to 5 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide or crimes against humanity. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1995, Article 1.
France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (1996) states:
For the implementation of resolution 955 of the United Nations Security Council of November 8, 1994 instituting an International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, France takes part in the repression of crimes and cooperates with this Tribunal under conditions established by this Act.
The following provisions shall apply to any person prosecuted for acts which constitute, within the meaning of Articles 2 to 4 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocol II Additional to those Conventions, dated June 8, 1977, genocide or crimes against humanity. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 1996, Article 1.
France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2002) states:
For the implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court signed on July 18, 1998, France takes part in the repression of crimes and cooperates with the court under the conditions specified under this title.
The following provisions shall apply to any accused person before the International Criminal Court or convicted by it in respect of acts which, under Articles 6 to 8 and 25 of the Statute, constitute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2002, Article 627.
Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (2003) states:
Article 31. Basic principle of cooperation.
1. Georgia shall cooperate with the International [Criminal] Court pursuant to Article 32 of this Law if it derives from the Court’s request and materials accompanying it that the act is within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Article 32. Forms of cooperation.
In accordance with this Chapter, cooperation with the International Court may include any procedural measure under the [1998 ICC] Statute and Georgian legislation that facilitates the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Court as well as the seizure of the proceeds of crime. Such measures may include:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons;
(b) The taking of evidence, including witness testimony under oath, and the production and service of evidence necessary to the Court, including expert opinions and reports;
(c) The questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) The service of documents, including judgments;
(e) The temporary transfer of arrested persons;
(f) The identification of location of places or objects;
(g) Searches, seizures, and confiscations;
(h) The provision of records and documents, including judicial (courtroom) records and documents;
(i) The protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(j) The identification or seizure of proceeds, property and assets of material value and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of forfeiture;
(k) The facilitation of voluntary appearances before the Court by persons, witnesses and experts;
(l) The execution of exhumations, the examination of places and objects, including the uncovering and examination of graves;
(m) Any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by the legislation of Georgia and which will facilitate the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Court. 
Georgia, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2003, Articles 31(1) and 32.
The Law also states:
Article 5. Consultation with the International Court.
The Responsible Agency [Agency for Cooperation with the ICC within the Ministry of Justice] shall have the authority to consult with the International Court on matters related to the request as prescribed by the [1998 ICC] Statute. Consultation with the International Court shall be obligatory if the execution of the request:
a) contradicts fundamental legal principles of the State [of Georgia], as indicated in Article 93(3) of the Statute;
b) affects interests of national security;
c) jeopardizes the on-going investigation or prosecution of another criminal case;
d) violates domestic or diplomatic immunity.
Article 9. Form of a request from the International Court and conditions of its reception.
5. If the Responsible Agency considers that a request of the International Court is not acceptable or refuses to execute the request, it shall immediately inform the International Court that it considers the request unacceptable or that it refuses to execute the request, providing reasoning for either decision. Before a final refusal to execute the request, the Responsible Agency shall consult with the International Court.
Article 12. Protection of national security.
3. The Responsible Agency, on the motion of the National Security Council of Georgia, may refuse to execute the request of the International Court for cooperation if the cooperation sought may threaten national security. 
Georgia, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2003, Articles 5, 9(5) and 12(3).
Georgia
Georgia’s Code of Criminal Procedure (1998), as amended in 2003, states:
Article 247 …
3. The questions of cooperation of Georgia with the ICC are regulated by the [1998 ICC Statute] and the [Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2003)] …
Article 252. Submitting Materials on Offences Committed on the Territory of Georgia by Foreign National or Stateless Persons.
If a foreign national or a stateless person who has committed an offence on the territory of Georgia has left the territory of Georgia, all the investigation material [gathered] in the initiated case shall be delivered to the Prosecutor-General of Georgia and/or to the national State agency responsible for matters concerning cooperation with the ICC in accordance with the legislation, who shall forward them … to the ICC for further criminal prosecution, or shall … [submit] a request for surrender of the accused to Georgian authorities. 
Georgia, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, as amended in 2003, Articles 247(3) and 252.
The Code also states: “For the purpose of international cooperation in legal matters … ‘[s]urrender’ means the handing over of a person by a State to the International Criminal Court, pursuant to its [1998 ICC] Statute.” 
Georgia, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, as amended in 2003, Article 46(a).
Chapter III -Extradition
Article 32 - Competing requests
Germany
Germany’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995) states:
§ 1. Obligation to Cooperate
(1) Pursuant to this Law, the Federal Republic of Germany shall fulfil its obligations to cooperate as stated in Resolutions 808 (1993) and 827 (1993) adopted by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
(2) For the purposes of this Law, the term “Tribunal” shall refer to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 established by Resolution 827 (1993), and shall include its Trial and Appeal Chambers and prosecuting authorities and the members of that Tribunal and the prosecuting authorities. 
Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1995.
Germany
Germany’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (1998) states:
§ 1. Obligation to Cooperate
(1) Pursuant to this Law, the Federal Republic of Germany shall fulfil its obligations to cooperate as stated in Resolution 955 (1994) adopted by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
(2) For the purposes of this Law, the term “Tribunal shall refer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 and for the Prosecution of Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States during the same period, established by Resolution 955 (1994), and shall include its Chambers, its prosecuting authorities and the members of that Tribunal and the prosecuting authorities. 
Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 1998.
Germany
Germany’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2002):
The International Criminal Court supplements German criminal law jurisdiction. Based upon this law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“Rome Statute”) of 17. July 1998 (Federal Law Gazette 2000 II p. 1393) the Federal Republic of Germany shall work together with the International Criminal Court. 
Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2002.
Greece
In 1998, Greece adopted Law No. 2665 on cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda which regulates cooperation between the Greek State and these international tribunals. 
Greece, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1998.
Hungary
Hungary’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1996) reads:
The Parliament creates the following Act on the fulfilment of obligations deriving from the Statute of the International Tribunal established by Resolution 827 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the International Tribunal”). 
Hungary, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1996, preamble.
Iceland
In 1994, Iceland adopted Law No. 49 on Legal Aid to the ICTY. 
Iceland, Law on Legal Aid to the ICTY, 1994.
Ireland
In 1998, Ireland adopted the War Crimes Tribunal Act, to enable cooperation with international tribunals in the performance of their functions relating to the prosecution and punishment of international war crimes. 
Ireland, War Crimes Tribunal Act, 1998.
Ireland
Ireland’s International Criminal Court Act (2006), Parts 3, 4 and 5 of which refer to the processing of requests for assistance from the International Criminal Court, states:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the provision to the International Criminal Court of assistance (other than assistance provided for under this Act) which is not prohibited by any other enactment or any rule of law. 
Ireland, International Criminal Court Act, 2006, § 57.
Italy
Italy’s Decree-Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1993) states:
1. Italy shall co-operate with the International Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the resolution, the statute and this decree.
2. The Minister of Justice shall be the authority competent to receive from the International Tribunal the requests for co-operation mentioned in the following articles and to give effect to such requests. 
Italy, Decree-Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1993, Article 2.
Italy
Italy’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (2002) states:
1. The Italian state shall cooperate with the International Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the resolution, the statute and this law.
2. The authority which has the power to receive requests for cooperation from the International Tribunal specified by this law and act upon these shall be the Ministry of Justice. 
Italy, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 2002, Article 2.
Kenya
Kenya’s International Crimes Act (2008) was enacted to incorporate the 1998 ICC Statute into domestic law and “to enable Kenya to co-operate with the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute in the performance of its functions”. 
Kenya, International Crimes Act, 2008, preamble.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (1999) states:
For the implementation of resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council of 25 May 1993 establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 and a date to be determined by the Security Council after the restoration of peace, and for the implementation of resolution 955 of the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 1994 establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg participates in the repression of crimes and cooperates with these courts under the conditions laid down by this Act. 
Luxembourg, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1999, Article 1.
Netherlands
The Act on the Establishment of the ICTY (1994) of the Netherlands states:
At the request of the Tribunal, persons may be surrendered to the Tribunal for prosecution and trial on account of criminal offences in respect of which the Tribunal has competence pursuant to the Statute. 
Netherlands, Act on the Establishment of the ICTY, 1994, Article 2.
Netherlands
In 2002, the Netherlands adopted the ICC Implementation Act in order to implement the 1998 ICC Statute in relation to cooperation with and the provision of assistance to the International Criminal Court and the enforcement of its decisions. 
Netherlands, ICC Implementation Act, 2002.
New Zealand
In 1995, New Zealand adopted the International War Crimes Act, which enables it to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and any other Tribunal that the Governor-General of New Zealand declares to be a Tribunal for the purposes of the Act. 
New Zealand, International War Crimes Act, 1995.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000) states:
The purpose of this Act is
(b) to enable New Zealand to co-operate with the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute in the performance of its functions. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Article 3b.
Norway
Norway’s Law on the Incorporation of UN Resolutions on International Tribunals (1994) states:
Requests for extradition, other forms of legal aid and the like from the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act apply correspondingly to the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international law committed in Rwanda. 
Norway, Law on the Incorporation of UN Resolutions on International Tribunals, 1994, Section 1.
Norway
Norway’s ICC Act (2001) states:
Any request for the surrender of a person sought and other forms of assistance submitted by the International Criminal Court (the Court) in accordance with the Court’s Statute of 17 July 1998 (the Rome Statute) shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Such requests shall be submitted to the Ministry.
Requests from the Court shall be complied with in so far as the Rome Statute so provides. 
Norway, ICC Act, 2001, Article 1.
Peru
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states:
1. Acts of international judicial cooperation, without prejudice to what is stipulated in international treaties, are the following:
a) Extradition;
b) Notifications regarding decisions and judgments, as well as notifying witnesses and experts when required to render their testimony;
c) Receiving testimonies and statements;
d) Showing and forwarding of judicial documents or their copies;
e) Forwarding of documents and reports;
f) Conducting inspections or investigations;
g) Examining objects and places;
h) Blocking of accounts, distraints, seizures or freezing of assets, house searches, control of communication, identification or locating of assets or of the instruments used for the commission of a crime, and any other measure limiting the exercise of rights;
i) Forwarding information and any elements of proof;
j) Temporary transfer of detainees during their criminal trial or after their conviction, whenever their appearance as witnesses be required, and of persons who are not detained;
k) Transfer of convicted persons;
l) Judicial proceedings abroad; and,
m) Supervised surrender of criminal goods. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article 511(1).
The Code also states:
1. Acts of cooperation between Peru and the International Criminal Court are:
a) Arrest and surrender of persons
b) Provisional arrest;
c) The forms of cooperation stipulated in Article 93 of the [1998] Statute of the International Criminal Court.
2. Further, if they are not specifically included in the aforementioned international treaty, it will be possible to grant assistance in the circumstances covered by Article 511, paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs b) to m) and with regard to the execution of penalties imposed on Peruvian nationals by the International Criminal Court. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article 554(1)–(2).
Poland
Poland’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2004) states:
§ 1. A request for co-operation of the International Criminal Court, hereinafter referred to as “the Court”, depending on the stage of the proceedings, is executed by a competent court or prosecutor through the Minister of Justice.
§ 2. The provision of § 1 shall apply, respectively, to a request for judicial assistance addressed to the Court by a court or a prosecutor. 
Poland, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2004, Article 611g.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides:
Article 20 (Applicability of the Act on the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters)
(1) The provisions of the Act on the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters shall apply mutatis mutandis to the international cooperation executed pursuant to the request from the ICC or request to the ICC in connection with the investigation, prosecution, or trial conducted by the ICC. Where there is conflict between the applicable provisions of the Act on the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and the ICC Statute, the latter shall prevail. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 20(1).
Romania
Romania’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1998) states:
Romania shall cooperate, through its competent authorities and under the present law, with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, established by UN Security Council resolution 827/1993. 
Romania, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1998, Article 1.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Organic Law concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States (2007) provides:
Chapter 1. General provisions
Article: 1 Scope of application
This Organic Law shall regulate the transfer of cases and other related matters, from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States to the Republic of Rwanda.
This Organic Law shall also determine the procedures of admissibility of evidence in Rwanda collected by the ICTR in proceedings before a competent court.
Article: 2 The Court with competent jurisdiction to try the cases
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the High Court of the Republic shall be the competent court to conduct on the first instance the trial of cases transferred to Rwanda as provided by this organic law.
At the first instance, the case shall be tried by a single Judge.
Article: 3 Crimes triable in Rwanda
Notwithstanding the provisions of other laws applicable in Rwanda, a person whose case transferred by the ICTR to Rwanda shall be liable to be prosecuted only for crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICTR.
Article: 4 Indictment
The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic shall adapt the ICTR indictment in order to make them compliant with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rwanda, and it shall be forwarded to the President of the High Court of the Republic.
The High Court of the Republic shall accept the indictments after verifying they fulfill the formal requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rwanda.
Article: 5 Arrest and detention of the accused person
Except as otherwise provided in this Organic Law, the arrest and detention of the accused persons shall be regulated in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rwanda.
Article: 6 Right to information
Within a period of ten (10) days, from the time when the High Court of the Republic makes a decision, the Registrar of the High Court shall notify the Prosecutor of the ICTR of the decision made in accordance with this Organic Law.
Chapter 5. Collaboration between the Government of Rwanda and the ICTR subsequent to transfer of cases
Article: 18 Technical Assistance from the ICTR
The Government of Rwanda may benefit from technical assistance from the ICTR to meet the needs arising from the transfer of cases to Rwanda.
Article: 19 Monitoring of Proceedings
The ICTR Prosecutor shall have the right to designate individuals to observe the progress of cases transferred to Rwanda in accordance with article 11bis D) iv) of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Observers appointed by the ICTR Prosecutor shall have access to court proceedings, documents and records relating to the case as well as access to all places of detention.
The Vienna Convention of 13th February, 1946 on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations shall apply to the observers so appointed by the ICTR Prosecutor in accordance with Article 29 of the ICTR statute.
Article: 20 Referral of cases to ICTR
In the event that the ICTR revokes an Order of referral of cases it had transferred to Rwanda pursuant to Rule 11bis of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the accused shall be promptly surrendered to the ICTR together with any files, documents, exhibits and all other additional materials as stipulated in the order. 
Rwanda, Organic Law concerning Transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States, 2007, Articles 1–6 and 18–20.
Article One: Definitions of terms
For the purpose of this Law, the following terms shall mean as follows:
This Law shall also determine the procedures of admissibility of evidence collected by the ICTR, the Mechanism and other States in proceedings before competent Rwandan courts.
Article 3: Scope of this Law
This Law applies in matters concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the Mechanism and from other States, relating to crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity.
Article 20: Technical assistance from the Mechanism
The Government of Rwanda may benefit from technical assistance from the Mechanism to meet the needs arising from the transfer of cases to Rwanda. 
Rwanda, Law relating to the transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda, 2013, Articles 1(2)–3, and 20.
Senegal
Senegal’s Criminal Procedure Code (1965), as amended in 2007 by the National Assembly in order to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, states:
The judicial assistance between Senegal and the International Criminal Court aims at:
1- the reception of testimonies or evidence;
2- the identification of a person, their whereabouts or the tracing of items;
3- placing an assistant at the disposal of judicial authorities [if] required by detained persons or other persons for the purpose of giving testimony or conducting an inquiry;
4- the taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the judicial authorities;
5- the questioning of any person who is the subject of an investigation or procedure;
6- the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
7- the execution of searches and seizures;
8- the providing and transferring of original documents and files or of identical certified copies;
9- the protection of victims and the presentation of evidence;
10- the identification, tracing, freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties;
11- and any other form of assistance which would not be incompatible with national public order. 
Senegal, Criminal Procedure Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 677-1.
Serbia
Serbia’s Law on Organization and Competence of Government Authorities in War Crimes Proceedings (2003) states:
Article 2
This Law shall apply in detecting, prosecuting and trying:
(2) serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991, stipulated in the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Article 14a
In cases when the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in accordance with its Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence cedes a case to the Republic of Serbia, the Prosecutor shall undertake criminal prosecution based on the facts on which the indictment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was founded.
The Prosecutor may undertake criminal prosecution based on the data and evidence collected by the OTP [the Office of the Prosecutor] of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
In the criminal proceedings conducted in the Republic of Serbia after the case has been ceded domestic law shall be applied.
The evidence collected and presented by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia may upon its transfer be used as evidence in the criminal proceedings before the local court, provided that it was collected and presented in a manner envisaged by the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The existence or nonexistence of the facts that this evidence seeks to prove the court shall judge in accordance with Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The measures for the protection of witnesses or injured persons which were ordered when the case was ceded to a local court by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia shall remain in force.
A person residing abroad may not be arrested, detained or criminally prosecuted for a crime committed earlier while in the territory of the Republic of Serbia for the purposes of testifying in the capacity of an injured person, witness or expert witness in cases of the crimes set out in Article 2 hereof. The summons shall explicitly state that the injured person, witness or expert witness has the rights under this paragraph.
Representatives of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia shall have the right to attend all stages of criminal proceedings before a local court and to be informed of the development of the proceedings. 
Serbia, Law on Organization and Competence of Government Authorities in War Crimes Proceedings , 2003, Articles 2(2) and 14a.
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) provides:
The relevant competent authorities in the Republic must, subject to the domestic law of the Republic and the Statute, cooperate with, and render assistance to, the [International Criminal] Court in relation to investigations and prosecutions in the following areas:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons or the location of items;
(b) the taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
(c) the questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) the service of documents, including judicial documents;
(e) facilitating the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the Court;
(f) the temporary transfer of persons in custody for purposes of identification or for obtaining testimony or other assistance;
(g) the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
(h) the execution of searches and seizures;
(i) the provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
(j) the protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(k) the identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bone fide third parties; and
(l) any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by law, with the view to facilitating the investigation. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, § 14.
Spain
Spain’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1994) states:
Spain will provide full cooperation to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia (hereinafter “International Tribunal”) established by Resolution 827 (1993) of the Security Council of the United Nations. 
Spain, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1994, Article 1.
Sweden
Sweden’s Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act (1995), as amended, states:
This Act applies in relation to
- the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia established by the United Nations Security Council on 25 May 1993, and
- the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 1994.
Should either of the Tribunals request legal assistance of Sweden, the requested measure shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 
Sweden, Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act, 1995, as amended, Section 1.
Sweden
In 2002, Sweden enacted the Cooperation with the International Criminal Court Act (2002), which provides for cooperation with the ICC in “the investigation or prosecution [related] to genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes”, “the investigation or prosecution [related] to an offence against the administration of justice by the International Criminal Court”, and “on enforcement of the rulings of the International Criminal Court and on the transit through Sweden of persons deprived of their liberty”. 
Sweden, Cooperation with the International Criminal Court Act, 2002, § 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Decree on Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act (1995) states:
This Decree governs:
a. cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, established by resolution 827 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that Resolution;
b. cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, established by resolution 955 (1994) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that resolution.
The Federal Council may extend the scope of this order in cooperation with other international tribunals established by the Security Council of the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, whether those courts have the status and powers similar to those enjoyed by the courts established by Resolutions 827 and 955. 
Switzerland, Decree on Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act, 1995, Article 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (1995), as amended in 2009, states:
1. This … [law] governs:
a. cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, established by resolution 827 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that Resolution;
b. cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, established by resolution 955 (1994) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that resolution.
2. The Federal Council may extend the scope of this … [law] to the cooperation with other international tribunals established by the Security Council of the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law if those courts have the status and competences similar to those enjoyed by the tribunals established by Resolutions 827 and 955. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1995, as amended in 2009, Article 1.
The Law also states:
Scope of the cooperation
The present … [law] governs all modes of cooperation with the international tribunals, in particular:
a. the spontaneous provision of information and evidence … ;
b. the cessation of Swiss jurisdiction … ;
c. the transfer of prosecuted persons … ;
d. procedural acts and other official acts demanded by the international tribunals (other acts of assistance) … ;
e. the execution of punishments of deprivation of liberty pronounced by the international tribunals. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1995, as amended in 2009, Article 3(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2001) states:
1. This law shall govern cooperation with the International Criminal Court (Court), established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 (Statute).
2. It shall regulate in particular:
a. the surrender of persons being prosecuted and of persons convicted by the Court (Chapter 3);
b. other forms of cooperation (Chapter 4);
c. the enforcement of penalties of the Court (Chapter 5). 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2001, Article 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (2001), as amended in 2007, states:
1. This law shall govern cooperation with the International Criminal Court (Court) created by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 (Statute).
2. It shall regulate in particular:
a. the surrender of persons being prosecuted and of persons convicted by the Court …;
b. other forms of cooperation … ;
c. the enforcement of penalties of the Court. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2001, as amended in 2007, Article 1.
The Law also states:
Forms of cooperation
Cooperation … may include any procedural act not prohibited by Swiss law that facilitates the investigation and criminal prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court or that serves to produce the proceeds of such crimes, in particular:
a. the identification and determination of the whereabouts of persons not being prosecuted by the Court or the locating of objects;
b. the taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
c. the questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
d. the service of documents, including judicial documents;
e. the temporary transfer of persons in detention as provided in article 39;
f. the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of bodies buried in collective graves;
g. the execution of searches and seizures;
h. the provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
i. the protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
j. the identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2001, as amended in 2007, Article 30; see also Articles 39–41.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Ordinance on Cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone (2003) states:
The field of application of the order of 21 December 1995 on the cooperation with international tribunals tasked with prosecuting serious violations of international humanitarian law is extended to the cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone. 
Switzerland, Ordinance on Cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone, 2003, Article 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, which also contains a chapter on war crimes, states in the part on general provisions:
Art. 10
1 If the personal conditions are fulfilled, the present code is applicable both to offences committed in Switzerland and to those committed abroad.
1bis The present code applies to persons mentioned in art. 5 [paragraph 1], number 1, letter d and number 5, who have committed abroad one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors] if they are present in Switzerland, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland.
1ter Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there;
c. the necessary evidence cannot be obtained.
1quater The present code applies to persons who have committed abroad, against a Swiss military person, one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors], if they are present in Switzerland or have been extradited there because of this act, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 10(1)–(1quater). The German language version of Article 10(1ter)(b) notes: “the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there; or”.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in the common provisions under the titles on genocide and crimes against humanity and on war crimes:
Art. 264m
1 A person who carries out an act under Title 12bis and 12ter [on war crimes] or Art. 264k [on the criminal liability of superiors] while abroad is guilty of an offence if he is in Switzerland and is not extradited to another State or delivered to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland.
2 Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 264m (1)–(2). The German, Italian and Romansh language versions of Article 264m (2)(a) note: “a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court; or”.
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago’s ICC Act (2006) states:
General provisions relating to requests for assistance
24. Requests for assistance
25. Requests to be made through authorized channel
26. Urgent requests
27. Execution of requests
28. Consultation
29. Confidentiality of request
30. Response to be sent to ICC
31. Official capacity of person no bar to request. 
Trinidad and Tobago, ICC Act, 2006, Part III.
Uganda
Uganda’s ICC Act (2010) states:
21. Making of requests.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a request [by the ICC] for assistance shall be made in writing, directly to the Minister.
(2) A request for provisional arrest (article 92) or for other forms of co-operation (article 93) or an urgent request for arrest and surrender (article 89) may be made using any medium capable of delivering a written record including facsimile or electronic mail.
22. Consultation.
The Minister shall consult with the ICC, without delay, if, for any reason there is or may be a problem with the execution of a request for assistance.
24. Response to be sent to ICC.
(1) The Minister shall notify the ICC, without delay, of his or her response to a request for assistance and of the outcome of any action that has been taken in relation to it.
(2) If the Minister decides, in accordance with the Statute and this Act, to refuse or postpone the assistance requested, in whole or in part, the notification to the ICC shall set out the reasons for the decision.
(3) If the request for assistance cannot be executed for any other reason, the notification to the ICC shall set out the reasons for the inability or failure to execute the request.
67. Uganda may act as State of enforcement
(1) The minister may notify the ICC that Uganda is willing to allow persons who are ICC prisoners as a result of being sentenced to imprisonment by the ICC to serve these sentences in Uganda, subject to any conditions consistent with the State and Rules, specified in the notification.
101. Legal personality and privileges and immunities.
(1) The ICC shall have legal personality in Uganda with such legal capacity as may be necessary for the performance of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. 
Uganda, ICC Act, 2010, § 21(1) and (2), 22, 24(1)–(3), 67(1) and 101(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICTY Order (1996) states:
(1) This Order has effect for the purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing International Tribunal crimes and the punishment of persons convicted of such crimes.
(2) In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), this Order has effect –
(a) to provide for the arrest and delivery to the International Tribunal of persons accused or convicted of an International Tribunal crime and for the arrest in cases of urgency of persons suspected of having committed an International Tribunal crime,
(b) to secure the attendance before the International Tribunal of persons as witnesses or to assist in investigations,
(c) to give effect to requests by the International Tribunal for the discontinuance of certain proceedings in courts constituted under United Kingdom law,
(d) to provide the International Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of International Tribunal crimes,
(e) to enforce orders of the International Tribunal for the preservation or restitution of property and to give effect to requests to determine the ownership of property,
(f) to make provision for the immunities and privileges of the International Tribunal and persons connected therewith.
(3) Nothing in this Order shall be construed as preventing the provision of assistance to the International Tribunal otherwise than under this Order. 
United Kingdom, ICTY Order, 1996, Article 3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICTR Order (1996) states:
(1) This Order has effect for the purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing International Tribunal crimes and the punishment of persons convicted of such crimes.
(2) In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), this Order has effect –
(a) to provide for the arrest and delivery to the International Tribunal of persons accused or convicted of an International Tribunal crime and for the arrest in cases of urgency of persons suspected of having committed an International Tribunal crime,
(b) to secure the attendance before the International Tribunal of persons as witnesses or to assist in investigations,
(c) to give effect to requests by the International Tribunal for the discontinuance of certain proceedings in courts constituted under United Kingdom law,
(d) to provide the International Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of International Tribunal crimes,
(e) to enforce orders of the International Tribunal for the preservation or restitution of property and to give effect to requests to determine the ownership of property,
(f) to make provision for the immunities and privileges of the International Tribunal and persons connected therewith.
(3) Nothing in this Order shall be construed as preventing the provision of assistance to the International Tribunal otherwise than under this Order. 
United Kingdom, ICTR Order, 1996, Article 3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICC Act (2001), as amended in 2009, addresses the cooperation of the UK with the ICC in areas such as “Arrest and Delivery of Persons” (Part 2) and “Other Forms of Assistance” (Part 3) including “Questioning” (Section 28), “Taking or production of evidence” (Section 29), “Service of process” (Section 31), “Transfer of prisoner to give evidence or assist in investigation” (Section 32), “Entry, search and seizure” (Section 33), “Taking of fingerprints or non-intimate sample” (Section 34), “Orders for exhumation” (Section 35), “Provision of records and documents” (Section 36), “Investigation of proceeds of ICC crime” (Section 37), and “Freezing orders in respect of property liable to forfeiture” (Section 38). The Act also addresses “Enforcement of [ICC] Sentences and Orders” (Part 4).
The Act further states:
Production or disclosure prejudicial to national security
(1) Nothing in any of the provisions of this Part, or any corresponding provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, requires or authorises the production of documents, or the disclosure of information, which would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of any such provision a certificate signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State to the effect that it would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom for specified documents to be produced, or for specified information to be disclosed, is conclusive evidence of that fact. 
UK, ICC Act, 2001, as amended on 1 September 2009, Section 39.
The Act further states:
Offences in relation to the ICC
(1) A person intentionally committing any of the acts mentioned in article 70.1 [of the 1998 ICC Statute] (offences against the administration of justice in relation to the ICC) may be dealt with as for the corresponding domestic offence committed in relation to a superior court in England and Wales.
(2) In interpreting and applying the provisions of article 70.1 the court shall take into account any relevant judgment or decision of the ICC.
Account may also be taken of any other relevant international jurisprudence.
(3) The corresponding domestic offences are—
(a) in relation to article 70.1(a) (giving false testimony when under an obligation to tell the truth), an offence against section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911 (c. 6);
(b) in relation to article 70.1(c) (interference with witness or evidence), an offence against section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) or at common law;
(c) in relation to article 70.1(b) or (d) to (f) (other offences), an offence at common law. 
UK, ICC Act, 2001, as amended on 1 September 2009, Section 54(1)–(2); see also Section 61 (Northern Ireland).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, the United Kingdom enacted legislation to allow for the enforcement of sentences of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the United Kingdom. 
United Kingdom, International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act, 2007.
United States of America
The US Law on Judicial Assistance to the ICTY and ICTR (1996) states:
(a) Surrender of Persons. –
(1) Application of United States extradition laws. –
Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the provisions of chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, relating to the extradition of persons to a foreign country pursuant to a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and a foreign government, shall apply in the same manner and extent to the surrender of persons, including United States citizens, to –
(A) the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia, pursuant to the Agreement Between the United States and the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia; and
(B) the International Tribunal for Rwanda, pursuant to the Agreement Between the United States and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. 
United States, Law on Judicial Assistance to the ICTY and ICTR, 1996.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
31.1. The Oriental Republic of Uruguay must fully cooperate with the International Criminal Court and comply with requests for cooperation and assistance that may arise in accordance with the Rome Statute …
31.2. The inexistence of procedures in the internal order may not be invoked to justify non-compliance with cooperation requests from the International Criminal Court.
31.3. The existence of facts which the International Criminal Court imputes to a person or the culpability of the requested person may not be discussed. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 31.
Cameroon
In 1996, in its judgment in the Ruzindana case, Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request entered by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda against the aforementioned Augustin Rusindena, Jean Baptiste Butera and others, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrants issued against the persons concerned on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeals of Kigali;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon;
Whereas by a request dated 18 March 1996 the Rwandan government seized the Cameroonian government for the purpose of the extradition of the aforementioned RUSINDENA Augustin, BUTERA Jean Baptiste, MUGENZI Justin, MUTABAMKLA Sylvain, NTAGERURA André, SEMANZIA Laurent, MPIRANYER Protais, MUBERUKA Félicien, BARIHENDA Augustin, SEKAKO Ephrein, NKUNDIYE Léon, NSENGIYUMBA Anatole, MUSABE Pasteur, NZIRORERA Joseph, NAHIMANA Ferdinand, BIZIMUNGU Télésphore, BAKUZAKUNDI Michel, BARAYAGWIZA Jean Bosco;
Rwandan citizens currently living in Cameroon;
Whereas it follows both from the request and from the aforementioned international arrest warrants, enforced on 29 March 1996, that the aforementioned persons, between 1 October 1990 and 31 July 1994, committed genocide, massacre of civilian populations on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds, in Kigali or in other localities in Rwanda;
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and from the discussions that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is already operational; that the Tribunal’s Prosecutor, on 15 April 1996, asked the Cameroonian judicial authorities for assistance by proceeding to the preliminary arrest of the aforementioned Rwandans on the basis of counts of serious violations of international humanitarian law and of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the said International Tribunal;
Whereas Article 13 of the internal Rules [of Procedure and Evidence] of the aforementioned International Tribunal prohibits national courts from exercising jurisdiction in a matter as soon as the said Tribunal is seized of them;
Whereas, according to Article 8 of [the ICTR Statute, annexed to] UN Security Council Resolution 955 of 9 November 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is a supranational court and has primacy over the national courts of the country concerned;
Whereas its decisions are applicable immediately and are not subject to the extradition régime;
Whereas it follows from the above that at the current stage of the proceedings the extradition request by the Rwandan Government can no longer be examined since the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is operational;
Whereas it is necessary to stay adjudication until the completion of the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region], on the application of the Public Prosecutor, stays adjudication regarding the extradition request presented by Maître Paul Nhanag on behalf of the Rwandan Government until the completion of the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Ruzindana case, Judgment, 31 May 1996.
Cameroon
In 1997, in its judgment in the Ruzindana case (No. 2), Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request entered by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda against the aforementioned Augustin Ruzindana and others, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrants issued against the aforementioned persons on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeals of Kigali;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon, modified by Law No. 97/010 of 10 January 1997;
Having regard to Judgement No. 615/ADD of 31 May [1996] of this Court ordering a stay of adjudication;
Whereas by a request dated 18 March 1996, the Rwandan Government, acting by and through its counsel in Cameroon, Maître Paul Nhanag, seized the Minister of Justice of Cameroon for the purpose of the extradition of 19 Rwandans said to be residing within the borders of the Republic of Cameroon;
Whereas in support of that request the Rwandan Government annexed 19 international arrest warrants signed on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General of Kigali and containing an identical accusation: genocide and grave violations of international humanitarian law;
Whereas the international arrest warrants issued against 11 of these Rwandans were enforced on 29 March 1996, and thus joined the first, colonel Bagosora, who already was the object of an international arrest warrant by the Kingdom of Belgium, enforced since 9 March 1996;
Whereas it follows both from the request submitted and from the international arrest warrants attached that the aforementioned Rwandans, between 1 October 1990 and 31 July [1994], committed, in Kigali or in other localities in Rwanda, genocide and other crimes against humanity by launching widespread and systematic attacks against civilian populations on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds;
Whereas, by doing this, the Rwanda Government seeks their extradition in order that they answer for their crimes before the Rwandan courts;
Whereas the aforementioned Théoneste Bagasora, André Ntageura, Ferdinand Nahimana and Anatole Nsengiyumva, charged for the same acts by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, have been transferred to the seat of that Tribunal in Arusha, at the request of that court and in application of Decrees No. 97/005, 97/006, 97/007 and 97/008 by the President of the Republic of Cameroon, authorizing that transfer;
Whereas the present request currently only concerns eight Rwandans, for whom the arrest warrant had been enforced, namely:
1. RUZINDANA AUGUSTIN
2. BUTERA JEAN BAPTISTE
3. SEMANZA LAURENT
4. MUBERUKA FELICIEN
5. MUSABE PASTEUR
6. RIZIMUNGU TELESPHORE
7. BAKUZAKUNDI MICHEL
8. BARAYAG[W]IZA JEAN BOSCO.
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and from the discussions that the request by the Rwandan Government was not made through diplomatic channels, as it is required by Article 15 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964, as modified;
Whereas, in fact, that law requires imperatively that every extradition request must pass through diplomatic channels in order to allow the Minister of External Relations to make sure of the authenticity of the documents annexed to the request, before any seizing of the judicial authorities;
Whereas the documents provided by the Rwandan Government were produced in photocopy and not in the original, as the legislation on the matter demands it; that request is irregular;
Whereas, furthermore, the new Article 29 of the Law laying down the extradition regime provides that no person can be extradited to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture;
Whereas, finally, the Office of the Prosecution of the International Criminal Tribunal [for Rwanda], after investigation, has dropped the case against the 8 Rwandans currently detained;
Whereas, according to UN Security Council Resolution 955, which created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and according to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, that tribunal has primacy over the national courts;
Whereas it would be inappropriate to allow the national Rwandan courts to exercise jurisdiction over the same facts regarding the eight Rwandans;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to issue an unfavourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of that extradition request;
Whereas Article 25 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964, as modified, provides that when the Court issues an unfavourable decision, the foreigner must be released immediately; whereas it is necessary to order the immediate release of the eight Rwandans;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region] issues an unfavourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of the extradition request by the Rwandan Government;
Orders the immediate release of the eight Rwandans concerned, if they are not detained in relation to another matter. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Ruzindana case (No. 2), Judgment, 21 February 1997.
Central African Republic
On 16 September 2004, in the Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, the presiding investigating judge at the Bangui Regional Court, inter alia, referred the case of Patassé and others to the Criminal Court of the Central African Republic for the trial of allegations of, inter alia, murder, deadly blows, removal of bodies, arbitrary arrests and detentions, rape, theft, torture, and destruction of third party property. 
Central African Republic, Court of Cassation, Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, Judgment, 11 April 2006, pp. 1–2.
On 16 December 2004, the Bangui Court of Appeals overruled that decision, holding, inter alia, that the crimes in question came under the competence of the International Criminal Court. 
Central African Republic, Court of Cassation, Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, Judgment, 11 April 2006, p. 2.
On 11 April 2006, the Court of Cassation, the highest criminal court of the Central African Republic, confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in this respect, stating:
searching for perpetrators of crimes and bringing them before penal courts to make them answer for their crimes is a duty of which no State can divest itself;
…this must take place by way of genuine proceedings;
… in the proceedings against Ange Félix PATASSE, Jean Pierre BEMBA and his men, Martin KOUMTAMADJI alias Abdoulaye MISKINE, Victor NDOUBABE, Paul BARRIL and Lionel GANE-BEFIO, the presiding investigating judge has charged the concerned persons for the facts they are accused of and has issued arrest warrants against them, … but these remain the only concrete actions, the latter having neither been heard nor been made the object of serious searches;
… the incapability of the judicial services of the Central African Republic genuinely to carry out an effective investigation or prosecution concerning them is clear;
… furthermore, the fact that the presiding investigating judge referred to the Criminal Court of the Central African Republic persons who are all outside the national territory shows that incapacity and establishes their impunity;
… recourse to international cooperation remains the only means to prevent that impunity in this case;
… the Central African Republic has ratified the Rome treaty establishing the International Criminal Court which offers the possibility to search and punish the perpetrators of the most serious crimes which affect the international community as a whole, in the place of States which are unable genuinely to carry out an effective investigation or prosecution;
… the presiding investigating judge was wrong not to decide to make use of that possibility. 
Central African Republic, Court of Cassation, Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, Judgment, 11 April 2006, pp. 2–3.
France
In 2008, in the Ntawukuriryayo case, the Criminal Chamber of France’s Court of Cassation was called upon to decide about the transfer of the appellant to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The appellant claimed that his transfer to that tribunal would be merely a prelude to his extradition to Rwanda, where he would not receive a fair trial. The Court stated:
[The investigating chamber issued a] decision ordering the transfer of Dominique X … to the authorities of the ICTR, [which is] contested [by the appellant] …
… [W]hen a French … authority … transfers a person to a foreign authority due to an international warrant in order for the person to be tried [abroad], the French authority has the obligation to ensure that, as a result of the transfer, the person’s fundamental rights and judicial guarantees, as established by France’s Constitution and international obligations, will not be violated. This absolute obligation implies necessarily that the judge … must receive guarantees that the requesting authority will not subsequently transfer the … person to a third authority which does not guarantee the respect for such rights. The investigating chamber, … [which found that Dominique X could be transferred because there was] not enough evidence that he would certainly be extradited to Rwanda … , … should … rather have obtained certainty that he would not be extradited … [Thus, t]he investigating chamber reversed the burden of proof, misread the extent of its own powers and violated the abovementioned texts and principles.
… [T]he ICTR is a temporary tribunal whose international mandate expires in 2010 and whose first instance proceedings shall be concluded by December 2008 … [P]ursuant to article 11bis of its rules of procedure [the 2001 ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, as amended to 2008], it has the power to immediately transfer certain indicted persons to domestic courts … , in particular Rwandese [courts] … According to the last ICTR report on its completion strategy, … the tribunal … intends to make use of article 11bis and establish a policy for returning persons to various countries, in particular Rwanda, in order to be tried by domestic courts. Although article 11bis provides … that the [ICTR] can only … [transfer] an accused to a State whose courts ensure a fair trial and do neither impose nor carry out the death penalty, this assurance alone … falls short of the control that a French court must have and of the type of guarantees that France should obtain, whether from the ICTR, from the State involved, or from both. [Accepting article 11bis as sufficient guarantee would mean] transferring to the ICTR the control over ensuring [respect for] fundamental rights when such control must be exercised by the French court itself. By finding that article 11bis was sufficient guarantee and not obtaining further reassurances, the investigating chamber misread the extent of its powers… and violated the abovementioned texts and principles.
… Dominique X … [argued] … that the prosecutor of the ICTR had requested the application of article 11bis, in particular the … [transfer] of several indicted persons to Rwanda’s national courts; that, considering the calendar of the ICTR and its completion strategy, he … would not be tried in time before the Tribunal closes its activities and would surely be transferred to another court, very probably in Rwanda which had already requested his extradition; [and] that numerous independent observers had expressly criticized the conditions of justice and detention in Rwanda. The investigating chamber refrained from addressing these matters and from demonstrating that Dominque X … had no serious guarantees that the transfer to the ICTR in Arusha was merely a prelude to his … [transfer] to Rwanda where he would not have access to a judicial system in accordance with his fundamental rights. [Thus, the investigating chamber] did not sufficiently justify its decision … [therefore it] lacked legal basis.
… [B]y … refraining from investigating whether the judicial system in Rwanda has the necessary qualities in order to guarantee that the detainees and accused persons have their fundamental rights respected, … the investigating chamber’s decision lacked legal grounds and violated the abovementioned texts and principles. 
France, Court of Cassation (Criminal Chamber), Ntawukuriryayo case, Judgement, 7 May 2008, pp. 2–3.
Netherlands
In its judgment in the Joseph case in 2007, the Hague District Court of the Netherlands stated:
51. During the entering into force of the Act of 21 April 1994 containing provisions concerning the institution of the International Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, Official Journal 308, effective 4 May 1994 (hereinafter: Yugoslavia Tribunal Assistance Act) the legislature realised that the existing regulations about co-operation between States then in force, were not adapted to co-operation with international tribunals and that, therefore, this legislation should be amended. In the explanatory memorandum with the bill resulting to this Act, it is noted, among others:
“In addition to this, the Statute of the Tribunal obliges States to co-operate with the Tribunal on judicial and police matters in the area of (…) the gathering of evidence (…) and the handing over of suspects to the Tribunal (Article 29 Statute). (…) Special legislation is required in order to fully meet these obligations. For example, the existing statutory provisions concerning international co-operation in criminal matters are tailored to co-operation between States and not to co-operation with an international tribunal. This concerns both the transfer as well as the so-called limited judicial assistance, and the execution of sentences pronounced by non-Dutch courts. The bill at hand aims at supplementing the existing legislation on these points.”
(Parliamentary Documents II 1993–1994, 23 542, no 3, page 2.)
52. With regard to the handing over to the Rwanda Tribunal, in the explanatory memorandum with the bill which led to the Act containing provisions relating to the establishment of the International Tribunal for Rwanda (hereinafter: Rwanda Tribunal Assistance Act) it was noted that it was necessary, with a view to this variant of international legal assistance, to introduce new regulations:
“In this respect it goes without saying that the option of international legal assistance as provided for in Article 2, subsection 1, of the bill at hand, different from the classic extradition, provides for the surrendering of a person claimed by a international body , instituted on the basis of a Resolution of the Security Council and not, such as usual, a sovereign State. This justifies its own regulation, which is provided for in this bill.”
(Parliamentary Documents II, 1995–1996, 24 818, no 3, page 2)
53. An example of supplementary regulation, as meant above, is the provision of Article 9, subsection 1, Yugoslavia Tribunal Assistance Act which also applies to the Rwanda Tribunal as pursuant to Article 2, subsection 2, Rwanda Tribunal Assistance Act. Article 9, subsection 1, Yugoslavia Tribunal Assistance Act reads as follows:
Requests by the Tribunal concerning any form of legal assistance, addressed to any organ of the judiciary or the police in the Netherlands, whether or not addressed by name, must be complied with as far as possible.
54. From the quotations in paragraphs 51, 52 and 53 follows – as is also brought forward by the Public Prosecution Service – that already in 1993 the legislature in principle did not foresee any problem in providing (compulsory) international legal co-operation to international tribunals instead of providing it to States only. On the contrary, as the Public Prosecutor chose to characterise it during the hearing: the readiness to co-operate in criminal matters with both the Tribunals really splashed from the parliamentary documents.
55. The two Assistance Acts contain provisions concerning the handing over, the so-called limited legal assistance and the execution in the Netherlands of the Tribunal’s sentences. However, these two Acts do not contain any specific regulation on the transfer of criminal prosecution from these international tribunals by the Netherlands. Its absence can be explained by the circumstance that at the outset emphasis was put on the adjudication of the Accused by the Rwanda Tribunal and the Yugoslavia Tribunal themselves. This appears from the primacy of jurisdiction by the Tribunals as laid down in Article 8 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal and Article 9 of the Statute of the Yugoslavia Tribunal respectively.
56. The primary of jurisdiction by the Rwanda Tribunal now carries less weight as a consequence of Resolutions 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004). In these Resolutions the Rwanda Tribunal (among others) is instructed to complete its activities in 2010 at the utmost and to hand over certain categories of cases to States which have the jurisdiction and are prepared to bring this criminal cases to court. As a result of these Resolutions, the Prosecutor and the President of the Rwanda Tribunal together drafted a so-called “Completion Strategy”, in which they indicated the way in which the tribunal can implement the instruction to complete its activities. The Resolutions and the Completion Strategy did not lead, however, to amend of legislation in the Netherlands.
57. The Court notes that the Council of State [in the Netherlands] in its opinion with the bill of adaptation of the Penal Code, the Code on Criminal Procedure and a number of other Acts to the Implementation Act International Criminal Court (Parliamentary Documents II, 2001–2002, 28 099A), raised the question of whether Article 4a, subsection 1, Penal Code should be supplemented by the concept of “an international court”. This bill provides for an adaptation of Article 5 Penal Code in the view of the obligation for the Netherlands laid down in the Statute of the International Criminal Court to extend the effect of criminal legislation to criminal offences against the International Criminal Court’s administration of justice (Article 70, subsection 4 Statute). In its advice the Council of State proposed the extension of jurisdiction by way of Article 4a Penal Code and, by doing so, establishing indirect jurisdiction for the cases in which the International Criminal Court does not want to adjudicate the crimes itself, but prefers to leave the Dutch authorities with this task. Apparently, the Council of State took in account the fact that Article 4a concerns the take over of criminal proceedings from States and not from international tribunals. The legislature, however, chose for the establishment of direct jurisdiction with respect to the nature of the criminal acts mentioned above, as a consequence of which, in the subject of supplementation of Article 4a Penal Code in the sense as suggested by the Council of State, did not surface in the process of drafting. However, there are no indications suggesting serious opposition against such a supplement.
58. In this connection the Court also notes the view put forward by the Dutch government with regard to the explanation of the concept of a foreign State in the proceedings of the Rwanda Tribunal concerning the transfer of the Accused Michael [B.] to the Netherlands (Case no ICTR-2005-86-11bis). The Dutch government herein put forward its opinion that the interpretation of the concept of a “foreign State” incorporated in Article 4a Penal Code can also be interpreted as Rwanda Tribunal. In paragraph 19 of the ‘Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of the Indictment to the Kingdom of the Netherlands’, dated 13 April 2007 the Rwanda Tribunal’s Trial Chamber quoted the view of the Dutch government herein as follows:
The Netherlands acknowledges that the issue of accepting transfer of criminal cases from international tribunals is a recent phenomenon and is therefore unsettled in its law.
Nonetheless, it emphasises the importance placed on co-operation with the ICTR and ICTY under Dutch law, and argues that “an interpretation which would exclude the ICTR from the definition of foreign state would run contrary to past and current views on the importance of co-operation with the ICTR”. As support for its position, it points to Article 2, paragraph 2 of the ICTR Implementation Law which incorporates by reference Articles 3 to 18 of the ICTY Implementation Law. (…) The Netherlands submits that it “believes it important to help to extend international case law on grave breaches of the most fundamental norms of international humanitarian law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”.
59. The foregoing brings the Court to the following. Granting of jurisdiction to international tribunals is a recent development of law in which – except for the period directly following World War II – the exclusive right to adjudicate these crimes by States has given way to concurrent jurisdiction has given way to concurrent jurisdiction, where the primacy on prosecution, dependent of the characteristics of the international tribunals, lies within either the state or the international tribunal. The Dutch authorities co-operate with these international tribunals and provide for various forms of co-operation in criminal matters. At the beginning the Rwanda Tribunal led emphasis on the adjudication of cases by the Tribunal itself, this is not longer the case however as a consequence of the decision taken by the Security Council to complete the Rwanda Tribunal’s activities within a relative short period of time. The UN Member-States are now called upon to take over the trial of the Accused from the Tribunal. The fact that Article 4a Penal Code only mentions foreign States from which prosecution can be taken over does not prevent, according to the Court, that the Netherlands agrees to such requests from the Tribunal. For several years the Netherlands has been co-operating with the Tribunals as if they were foreign States. A reasonable explanation of the law brings with it that the Rwanda Tribunal for the application of the issue stated in Article 4a Penal Code can be equated with a ‘foreign State’. This follows logically from the legislature’s continuous line and does not require a further political choice of legal schemes.
70. The Public Prosecutor also noted the judgments of this Court of 16 October 2001 (Dutch Case Law 2002, 20) and 14 February 2002. She attached the conclusion to these judgments, that co-operation with the request of the Rwanda Tribunal to the Dutch authorities to take over the prosecution of an Accused is a legal obligation for the Netherlands, which, following the provisions contained in Article 25 and 103 of the Charter, takes precedence over other national and international obligations and regulations.
71. In the first place, the Court notes that unlike the International Criminal Court (set up by the Statute of Rome concerning the International Criminal Court dated 17 July 1998, Bulletin of Treaties 2000, 120 and effective for the Netherlands on 1July 2002), both Tribunals are not set up by multilateral treaties but by Resolutions of the Security Council, attached as Appendix the Statute of the Tribunal concerned (see in paragraph 47 above). The Member-States of the United Nations, on the basis of Article 25 Charter, must accept and execute the decisions of the Security Council based on the Charter and, therefore, are bound to these Resolutions adopted by the Security Council. The Security Council in these Resolutions stated that all Member States, as provided for in both Statutes, must co-operate with both Tribunals and their bodies and adapt their national legislation to this effect. The various forms of legal assistance which are in the competence of Member States or to which they are obliged can be read in the Statute.
72. On these grounds the Court concludes that the Charter in connection with the Statute [of the Rwanda Tribunal] can be considered as a treaty under which international legal assistance can be provided.
73. However, the Court continues – as the Public Prosecutor has done – that there is no explicit arrangement in the Statute creating an obligation or a power for the Netherlands to take over – on the request of the Rwanda Tribunal – criminal proceedings of the Tribunal.
74. In support of her arguments, the Public Prosecutor brought forward, such as mentioned above, Article 28 of the Statute. This Article reads as follows:
Co-operation and Judicial Assistance
1. States shall co-operate with the International Tribunal for Rwanda in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including but not limited to:
(a) The identification and location of persons;
(b) The taking of testimony and the production of evidence;
(c) The service of documents;
(d) The arrest or detention of persons;
(e) The surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal for Rwanda.
75. According to the Court, this article [of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal] provides for a general obligation to co-operate (“shall co-operate”) by the Member States with the Rwanda Tribunal (subsection 1) and a specific obligation to co-operate (“shall comply”) in a number of areas described in further detail (sub section 2) in order to allow investigation and adjudication by the Rwanda Tribunal. The Court as well as the Public Prosecutor concludes that this article does not contain an obligation to transfer criminal proceedings. The Court, contrary to the Public Prosecutor’s view, does not understand from this article that the Member States have the competence to take over criminal proceedings of the Rwanda Tribunal. The article’s object and choice of words are contrary to this interpretation. As considered above, the Rwanda Tribunal has the primacy to adjudicate international criminal offences committed in the period from 1 January 1994 up to and including 31 December 1994 in Rwanda (and neighbouring countries). The Resolution by which the Tribunal was established, obliges the Member States, where possible, to assist the Tribunal in the execution of its charge. Article 28 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal is an elaboration of this. This article concerns the legal assistance rendered by States to the Rwanda Tribunal with a view to adjudication by the Rwanda Tribunal, not with a view to the competence of the Member State to take over trial from the Rwanda Tribunal. The Court dismisses the plea of the Public Prosecutor concerning this article.
77. The Court determines that the handing over to the Tribunals is explicitly arranged as a compulsory form of co-operation between the Tribunals and the Member States. Therefore it is understandable that the legislature determined that Chapter VII of the Charter – as read in conjunction with (these stipulations of) the Statutes, as is understood by the Court – may serve as the authority required. As mentioned above, on the transfer of criminal prosecution, however, there is absolutely no arrangement in the Statute of both Tribunals. The Public Prosecutor’s plea on what the legislature considered with respect to the authority concerning handing over, therefore, cannot support the argument defended by her that the Charter and the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal offer a legal basis for the take over of prosecution, which is not a compulsory form of co-operation.
78. Even more so, from the parliamentary history of the Implementation Act Yugoslavia Tribunal, it can be deduced that the legislature does not consider the Charter and the Statute as a legal basis for non-compulsory co-operation between the Tribunals and the Netherlands in cases where Dutch law requires a treaty. In Article 26 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal and Article 27 of the Statute of the Yugoslavia Tribunal there are regulations regarding the execution by the Member States of the sentences pronounced by the Tribunals, which is a not-compulsory form of co-operation between the Tribunals and the Member States. Execution in the Netherlands of foreign criminal judgments is regulated in the Act on the transfer of enforcement of criminal judgments of 10 September 1986, Official Journal 1986, 464, effective in phases (hereinafter Act on the transfer of enforcement of judgments). Article 2 of this Act reads as follows:
Enforcement in the Netherlands of foreign judgments shall only take place pursuant to a treaty.
Therefore the legislature here stated as a condition that enforcement can only take place pursuant to a treaty as is the case in the transfer of prosecution (Article 4a Penal Code). The legislature realised this in the conclusion of the Implementation Act of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. This act contains an arrangement with respect to the enforcement by the Netherlands of the sentences by this tribunal (Articles 11 up to and including 14). Under the stipulations of the Act of enforcement of judgments, which are declared to be equally applicable, does not belong the provision contained in Article 2 quoted above. In other words, the authority on the basis of a treaty is explicitly declared non-applicable by the legislature. Enforcement of foreign sentences by the Netherlands therefore is only possible pursuant to a treaty or a stipulation in a special Act, such as the Implement Act Yugoslavia Tribunal. The same goes for the take over of prosecution by the Netherlands. Indeed, the transfer of prosecution and the execution of foreign sentences are not compulsory methods of co-operation and concerning both methods of co-operation, Dutch legislation sets as a condition that there must be a treaty governing this co-operation. 
Netherlands, Hague District Court, Joseph case, Judgment, 24 July 2007, §§ 51–59, 70–75 and 77–78.
Switzerland
In the Musema case in 1997, Switzerland agreed to surrender to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda an accused of Rwandan nationality arrested in Switzerland in 1995 for violations of the laws of war in Rwanda, pursuant to Article 109 of the Swiss Military Criminal Code as amended and provisions of the Decree on Cooperation with the International Tribunals. 
Switzerland, Federal Court, Musema case, Judgment, 28 April 1997.
Australia
In 1994, in its comments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, Australia stated with regard to the provision on surrender of an accused person to the international tribunal (draft Article 63, now Article 89, of the 1998 ICC Statute):
[The draft provision] obliges States parties which have accepted the court’s jurisdiction to surrender the accused person to the tribunal. This may be seen as cutting across generally accepted rules of extradition law where States retain the discretion not to extradite the person subject to the request. However, as regards the tribunal it may be argued that, by specifically consenting to jurisdiction, States have already agreed to the tribunal hearing the case and have given up the right not to hand over the accused person. The situation may therefore be distinguished from mere requests for extradition where no prior consent has been given to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of a foreign country and where, accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that the requested State retains the discretion not to extradite.  
Australia, Comments of 16 February 1994 on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, UN Doc. A/CN.4/458, 18 February 1994, p. 16.
Argentina
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Argentina declared:
With regard to article 87, paragraph 2, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Argentine Republic hereby declares that requests for cooperation coming from the Court, and any accompanying documentation, shall be in Spanish or shall be accompanied by a translation into Spanish. 
Argentina, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 8 February 2001.
Australia
The Declaration included in Australia’s Instrument of Ratification to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court deposited with the UN Secretary-General in July 2002 states:
The Government of Australia, having considered the Statute, now hereby ratifies the same, for and on behalf of Australia, with the following declaration, the terms of which have full effect in Australian law, and which is not a reservation:
Australia notes that a case will be inadmissible before the International Criminal Court (the Court) where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a State. Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. To enable Australia to exercise its jurisdiction effectively, and fully adhering to its obligations under the Statute of the Court, no person will be surrendered to the Court by Australia until it has had the full opportunity to investigate or prosecute any alleged crimes. For this purpose, the procedure under Australian law implementing the Statute of the Court provides that no person can be surrendered to the Court unless the Australian Attorney-General issues a certificate allowing surrender. Australian law also provides that no person can be arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court without a certificate from the Attorney-General.
Australia further declares its understanding that the offences in Article 6, 7 and 8 [related to Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, respectively] will be interpreted and applied in a way that accords with the way they are implemented in Australian domestic law. 
Australia, Declaration included in Australia’s Instrument of Ratification to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1 July 2002, available at http://www.help.cicr.org/IHL.nsf/NORM/A255319F58A44982412566E100540E5E?OpenDocument (last accessed on 17 February 2010).
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Australia, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Austria
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Austria declared:
Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2 of the [1998 ICC] Statute the Republic of Austria declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into the German language. 
Austria, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 28 December 2000.
Belarus
In 1994, in its comments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, Belarus stated with regard to the provision on surrender of an accused person to the international tribunal (draft Article 63, now Article 89, of the 1998 ICC Statute):
In any case, the rule regarding priority should be applied unconditionally in cases involving the surrender of persons accused of crimes within the sphere of exclusive jurisdiction of the court.
It would be desirable to resolve in article 63 the question of the failure to surrender an accused person to the court, in violation of the provisions of the statute. In such situations, the court should be granted the right to request the United Nations Security Council to obtain the surrender of the accused person. 
Belarus, Comments of 18 February 1994 on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, UN Doc. A/CN.4/458, 18 February 1994, p. 20, § 10.
Belgium
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Belgium stated:
With reference to article 87, paragraph 1, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Kingdom of Belgium declares that the Ministry of Justice is the authority competent to receive requests for cooperation.
With reference to article 87, paragraph 2 [of the 1998 ICC Statute], the Kingdom of Belgium declares that requests by the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be in an official language of the Kingdom. 
Belgium, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 28 June 2000.
Belgium
In 2005, in a statement before the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
In order to [rebuild peace after conflict], it is essential to render justice and fight against impunity. With the establishment of the International Criminal Court, we have today at our disposal an adequate judicial tool in order to adjudicate and punish the most serious crimes. Now let us not allow it to be ignored, or alternative solutions to be favoured which do not offer the same guarantees. 
Belgium, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 14 March 2005.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa, the representative of Belgium stated, with reference to Uganda:
If any form of justice other than the International Criminal Court were to be pursued, it would have to satisfy minimum conditions and respect the principle of complementarity, in accordance with the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. 
Belgium, Statement by the Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on the “Humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa”, 21 May 2007, p. 19.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on peace and security in Africa, the Prime Minister of Belgium stated, with regard to the use of child soldiers:
… [Joseph] Kony, the so-called leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda … alone has been responsible for the abuse of almost 70,000 child soldiers on the African continent. An international arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We know where he is, but nobody arrests him … We know what Kony has done; we know what he is doing and we know where he is, and there is not any possible pretext for him not to be arrested. I therefore ask individually, the members of the Security Council to do just that. … Let us arrest him and put him on trial. 
Belgium, Statement by the Prime Minister of Belgium before the United Nations Security Council on “Peace and security in Africa”, 25 September 2007, p. 12.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Belgium, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Belize
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Belize declared: “Pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Belize declares that all requests made to it in accordance with Chapter 9 be sent through diplomatic channels.” 
Belize, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 5 April 2000.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Bosnia and Herzegovina thanked the Netherlands for its financial and other contributions to the ICTY and stated that it hoped that “others will follow its example and heed the call for material, political, legal and legislative support for the Tribunal”.  
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 8.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2005, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was not successful in the past period and did not [provide the] expected results. … More than one year [after the] General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH [(1995)] and the end of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the indicted war criminals has not been arrested. [Particular] responsibility [for this] was with the authorities of The Republika Srpska, who were willing to cooperate with the ICTY, but without results. Until only recently this entity had arrested and transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague only a few of the indicted war criminals. Because of their unfulfilled obligations and without concrete cooperation with the ICTY, various Republika Srpska authorities were dismissed from their positions during the year 2004.
In order to establish constructive cooperation with the ICTY, the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina are obliged to provide full access to the archives, witness protection and the arrest of indicted war criminals. It should be emphasised that the authorities and people in Bosnia and Herzegovina realised that a persistent and constructive cooperation with the ICTY is one of the conditions for total European integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The activities directed toward the starting of a wider information … campaign, aimed at depolarising the issue of cooperation with the ICTY and other courts that will deal with trials of indicted war criminals, [includes] the demystification of indicted war criminals who are consider[ed] heroes by the local population. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 24 November 2005, UN Doc. CCPR/C/BIH/1, § 150; see also § 177.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Apprehending and dealing appropriately with persons who have allegedly committed or are complicit in crimes against humanity or war crimes requires a great deal of international effort and cooperation. To that end, Canada supports the work of many international bodies including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) and the hybrid Special Court for Sierra Leone. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 2.
On the support provided by Canada’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) to international criminal tribunals, the annual report stated:
CIC’s extensive experience in screening for modern war crimes makes the department a valuable partner to the International Tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). CIC is a participant in the Government of Canada’s activities to support international tribunal prosecutions and investigations. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 6.
With regard to the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the annual report stated:
International criminal investigations are a two-way street; the RCMP War Crimes Section also provides assistance to foreign police and international law enforcement authorities such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 9.
The annual report further stated:
DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the Tribunals and European governments. DOJ began working with European governments and police officials on a response to the issue of the movement of war criminals across borders and the sharing of best practices. The section is also actively involved in providing support to the RCMP in several on-going investigations in Europe and Africa.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service assists the RCMP and the Department of National Defence in their support to the investigations and prosecutions of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. Additionally, IAG reviews requests for mutual legal assistance under Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act from foreign governments in the investigation and prosecution of modern day war crimes. Such assistance is also available to the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 11.
Canada
In 2003, in a submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the case of The Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović and Dragoljub Ojdanić (Case No. IT-99-37-PT), Canada stated:
The Government of Canada has been and remains a strong supporter of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“The Tribunal”). Canada has cooperated consistently with the Tribunal and fully accepts the need for a robust, independent Tribunal with the power necessary to fulfill the mandate accorded to it. In furtherance of this mandate, Canada recognizes and supports the power of the Tribunal to issue orders to States for the production of evidence. 
Canada, Submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, February 2003, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2003, volume XLI, p. 451.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of three government departments involved in the Program:
1. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA):
CBSA’s extensive experience in screening for modern war crimes makes the agency a valuable partner to the International Tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. CBSA continues to participate in the Government of Canada’s activities to support international tribunal prosecutions and investigations. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 4.
2. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
International criminal investigations are a two-way street. The RCMP War Crimes Section provides assistance to foreign police and international law enforcement authorities such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 8.
3. Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the International Tribunals and European governments by meeting frequently with their representatives.
DOJ’s War Crimes Section is also actively involved in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Working Group which examines the tribunal’s requests for information or access to witnesses located in Canada.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service works with the RCMP and the Department of National Defence to support the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. IAG also reviews war crimes related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, and from the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 10.
Canada
In 2005, in a statement before the UN Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, made on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the representative of Canada stated:
Australia, Canada and New Zealand condemn the ongoing grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur, Sudan which are having a huge impact on the civilian population in that part of the country.
The international community is acting upon its responsibility to protect, as witnessed by the recent decisions of the United Nations Security Council. We are particularly pleased that the UN Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court in accordance with the recommendation of the International Commission of Inquiry. As we have said many times, this referral represents the best option for ensuring timely accountability for these serious international crimes and for deterring further atrocities not only in Darfur. The International Criminal Court was established precisely to fulfill these dual roles – to ensure accountability for, as well as to deter, the commission of the most serious international crimes.
These promising initial actions will need support if they are to succeed. We encourage all members of the international community to offer all the necessary support to the peace process, human rights missions, international agencies and humanitarian organizations as well as to the International Criminal Court.
We call on the Government of Sudan, all parties to the conflict and the international community to cooperate fully with the Mission of the African Union, the United Nations Mission in Sudan, the United Nations and all its agencies, humanitarian organizations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and all its special procedures, as well as the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Statement by the representative of Canada before the UN Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, made on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 2005, pp. 1–2.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Canada’s War Crimes Program partners provide assistance and information to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the ICTY and ICTR, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada.
They work with the International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The IAG also reviews war crimes-related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, the international tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The partners have established long-standing reciprocal relationships with the international tribunals, which provide logistical support and enable the sharing of resources and information. During the past year, the ICTY provided much needed assistance to RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigative teams who travelled to the former Yugoslavia and other locations to conduct their work. An RCMP team visited Rwanda to provide training on forensic interviewing to members of the ICTR investigative staff and prosecutors from the Rwandan government. In addition, an RCMP war crimes investigator met with representatives of the ICC in The Hague for an exchange of information on investigations in Africa.
In 2004–2005, DOJ [Department of Justice] officials visited the ICTY, the ICTR, and the ICC to conduct research and to discuss information sharing, access to witnesses and general cooperation. The DOJ also received members of the ICTR, the ICC and the Sierra Leone Special Court to further these discussions.
Within the limits of the law, the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] shares intelligence and research material with the international criminal tribunals and like-minded countries, particularly the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other European countries. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, p. 5.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The chief objective of the program is denial of safe haven in Canada to persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. At the same time, Canada contributes to the global fight against impunity for war criminals through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals …
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals …
Canada’s War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential component of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the International Assistance Group of the DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court.
DOJ officials and RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigators visited several foreign countries during the period covered by this report, including Honduras, Colombia, Croatia and Serbia, to discuss access for investigators and researchers and to develop Memoranda of Understanding on international cooperation. The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies.
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the various international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international conferences and meetings of international organizations discuss issues related to migration and human rights. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following: criminal proceedings jointly administered by the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and deportation; citizenship revocation led by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] and the DOJ [Department of Justice]; and extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act, led by the DOJ.
On the international stage, Canada plays a leadership role in global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals. Because of its coordinated approach and its capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies, the War Crimes Program has become a model for other countries.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals …
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition to foreign states, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and the revocation of citizenship …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed.
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential part of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries enable the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
The partners provide assistance, information and legal and investigative support to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the ICC. All of the partners are represented in the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the DOJ’s International Assistance Group and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
The RCMP has a close reciprocal relationship with the international criminal tribunals sharing information and resources. During the reporting period, ICTR justice officials visited Canada and the ICTY assisted RCMP investigators working in the former Yugoslavia. DOJ counsel provided important legal support to the international criminal tribunals in Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Rwanda. Canada is the fourth largest contributor to the SCSL.
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international meetings are held to discuss issues related to migration and human rights.
Program partners recognize the benefits of international cooperation and outreach in the maintenance of its objective to fight impunity and the importance of spreading this message on a global scale. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
Canada’s global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals have made Canada a leader on the international stage …
War Crimes Program Activities from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008
Canada uses a holistic approach in its domestic and international fight against impunity of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Program has a broad arsenal of nine legislative remedies at its disposal, including the ability to prevent war criminals from entering Canada through the Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry; and methods to deal with war criminals already in Canada, using Exclusion; Admissibility Hearings; Removals; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution. …
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
The War Crimes Program may proceed with any of the seven remaining remedies to deal with war criminals who have entered Canada: Exclusion of refugee status in the context of a refugee claim; Admissibility Hearings; Removal; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution.
Extradition and Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements with other countries for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender of Canadians to international tribunals …
International Cooperation and Outreach
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Strong relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of research, logistics and investigative support.
The War Crimes Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. The International Assistance Group of the DOJ [Department of Justice] reviews requests related to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] War Crimes Section has a close reciprocal relationship with the international criminal tribunals, sharing information and resources. During the reporting period, ICTR justice officials visited Canada and the ICTY assisted RCMP investigators working in the former Yugoslavia.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals. During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers at national headquarters responded to 3,239 requests for information (RFIs) on cases of alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity, an increase of 134 percent from 1,386 RFIs in 2006–2007 …
International conferences not only promote the exchange of information, but also improve the overall level of cooperation between countries. The RCMP (investigators) and the DOJ (counsel and analysts) attended an ICC conference in December 2007 in the Hague focusing on war crimes investigation tools and methods …
Conclusion
Canada’s War Crimes Program has evolved since its inception. Its collaborative inter-departmental approach, international cooperation and outreach initiatives have earned acclaim in the global community. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp 1–8.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
On February 26, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1970 [2011], on the situation in Libya.
Canada welcomes this landmark decision and strongly supports the key provisions of that resolution.
Canada was among the first to call for the referral of the situation in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to help ensure that those responsible for ordering and carrying out those atrocities are held accountable. We are pleased that the Security Council has taken action on this.
My government demands that the Libyan regime comply with all aspects of this resolution immediately …
We call all states to join us in rendering full cooperation to the Court. 
Canada, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the UN Human Rights Council, 28 February 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
[A]ccountability for those who violate international law by targeting civilian populations is fundamental. Accountability not only ensures that perpetrators are punished for their crimes, but it can also serve as an effective deterrent against future crimes. Canada has been a consistent supporter of the international courts and tribunals that strive to hold individuals to account and contribute to the prevention of such crimes. The recent decision by the Security Council to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court has sent a clear message that there will be consequences for committing serious international crimes – including for those who have ordered and incited illegal attacks on civilian populations. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 10 May 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in an address to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
Canada has been vocal in condemning the targeting of civilians by the Qadhafi regime, and the impact of that regime’s actions on the hundreds of thousands of people who have been trapped in Libya or forced to flee its borders … In the face of this blatant disregard for both human rights and international law, Canada has demanded that the regime halt its attacks against its own people and that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice. We have been particularly disgusted by abhorrent reports [of] torture and sexual violence as weapons against the Libyan population. Such actions are international crimes and may be war crimes or crimes against humanity. Canada calls for a full and impartial investigation of these allegations so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.
Canada was among the first to call for the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, House of Commons, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, 14 June 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
It is the primary responsibility of every state to investigate and prosecute those suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The recent conviction of four former military officers for their role in a massacre of civilians during the armed conflict in Guatemala – the first such conviction against military officers in that country – is an example of national accountability mechanisms at work. This underlines the need for states to fulfill their obligations to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of serious international crimes, and where appropriate, cooperate with international institutions to ensure that those responsible face justice. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011.
Canada
In 2012, during the presentation of Canada’s sixth report to the Committee against Torture, the legal advisor of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada stated:
With respect to the obligation to prosecute crimes of torture and to assist other States in this regard, Canada is committed to the principle that it will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as to making an effective contribution to the global effort to strengthen accountability for such crimes … Canada also believes that wherever possible, people accused of such terrible crimes should face justice in the countries in which the crimes occurred. In cases where this is not possible, international courts and tribunals and other efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for serious international crimes may be used. 
Canada, Statement by the legal advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled “Presentation of Canada’s Sixth Report to the Committee against Torture”, 21 May 2012, p. 3.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare as indicated by the Secretary-General in his annual report, and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights. The Friends encourage Member States to strengthen national accountability mechanisms and judicial capacities, including by developing child protection legislations that criminalize all grave violations against children. In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ambassador of Canada stated:
We believe that those responsible for serious international crimes must be held to account, for which national and, as a last resort, international mechanisms could potentially play a role.
It is disturbing that some arrest warrants are not being executed. Canada encourages all states to abide by their international commitments. 
Canada, Statement by the ambassador of Canada during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 21 November 2013, p. 2.
Central African Republic
In 2004, the Government of the Central African Republic referred the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court committed anywhere on the territory of the Central African Republic since 1 July 2002 to the International Criminal Court. 
Central African Republic, Government, Referral of situation to the International Criminal Court, Letter received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on 21 December 2004, as reported in International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Press release of 7 January 2005, ICC-OTP-20050107-86, and International Criminal Court, Presidency, Situation in the Central African Republic, Decision assigning the situation in the Central African Republic to Pre-Trial Chamber III, No.: ICC-01/05, Decision of 19 January 2005.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role.  
Chile, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
China
In 2007, in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a representative of China stated regarding the second report of the Special Rapporteur on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare):
on the scope of application of the obligation to extradite or prosecute, draft article one stipulates that the present draft articles shall apply to the establishment, content, operation and effects of the alternative obligation of States to extradite or prosecute persons under their jurisdiction. The Chinese delegation supports in principle the alternative nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute as contained in the draft article, namely, States have the alternative to extradite or prosecute. As for the so-called third alternative related to the jurisdiction of other international judicial organs, we take a cautious approach, but we believe that it is necessary to set necessary limits to the alternative obligations of States. We suggest that the draft articles stipulate that in opting for extradition or prosecution, States should abide by the relevant rules on jurisdiction priorities. For example, it is necessary to ensure the priority of the State where the crime occurred and the State of nationality of the suspect in exercising jurisdiction. 
China, Statement by the Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, at the Sixth Committee of the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, on Item 82 “Report of the International Law Commission” (Reservations to Treaties, Shared Natural Resources, Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute), 1 November 2007.
Colombia
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Colombia stated: “We encourage the international community to cooperate more actively with the [ICTY] so that it can accomplish its task of bringing to justice those who committed atrocities during the war in the former Yugoslavia.” 
Colombia, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 10.
Costa Rica
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Costa Rica stated:
The lack of cooperation [with the ICTY] on the part of some Governments and local authorities, in violation of their international obligations, is scandalous. The authorities of the Republika Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must comply with their international obligations. The authorities of these entities must arrest and transfer to the custody of the Tribunal the accused who are in their territories. These authorities must also cooperate in the gathering of evidence and facilitate the participation of witnesses. 
Costa Rica, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 17.
Côte d’Ivoire
In 2013, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Côte d’Ivoire stated:
4. Prosecutions
233. The arrest of the former President of Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo, and his wife was the first in a wave of arrests among political and military leaders from the former regime. Military and civilian prosecutors had brought charges against at least 118 of these, including Charles Blé Goudé, General Guiai Bi Poin and General Bruno Dogbo Blé.
237. Internationally, collaboration with the International Criminal Court has resulted in the former President of Côte d’Ivoire being transferred to The Hague. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 21 May 2013, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CIV/1, submitted 19 March 2013, §§ 233 and 237.
Côte d’Ivoire also stated:
The Ivorian Government, committed as it is to fundamental values that include the right to life, has deplored such violations and taken action to punish the perpetrators and make redress for the harm done. To this end, the Government has lodged with the United Nations Treaty Section in New York the instruments of ratification of the statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), which lays down the operating rules of the ICC. In April 2003, in the wake of the violence that followed the contested presidential and legislative elections, Côte d’Ivoire accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC by virtue of article 12, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 21 May 2013, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CIV/1, submitted 19 March 2013, § 287.
Croatia
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Croatia stated:
Croatia was among the first countries to enact implementing legislation so as to institutionalize its cooperation with the [ICTY]. The Tribunal opened its Liaison Office in Zagreb, and the Croatian Government established its own office for Cooperation with the Tribunal …
Croatia does not condition its cooperation with the Tribunal upon the reciprocal cooperation of any other country. Croatia considers cooperation to be a legal, political and moral duty …
It should be duly noted that the Republic of Croatia recently used its good offices in the transfer of 10 additional Bosnian Croat indictees into the custody of the Tribunal.
… The work of the Tribunal, just like that of the future international criminal court and the international protection of justice in general, depends upon the cooperation of individual countries. It is the duty of the United Nations to encourage such cooperation or to take appropriate steps if needed. 
Croatia, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, pp. 11–12.
Croatia
According to the Report on the Practice of Croatia, a suspect of Croatian nationality was surrendered to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the basis that such surrender was not to be considered an “extradition” since the suspect was surrendered to an international tribunal rather than to another State. 
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 6.3.
Croatia
In 2001, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Croatia stated: “The Republic of Croatia has, in the last few years, strengthened its cooperation with the Hague Tribunal [International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)] and expressed full cooperation with it”. 
Croatia, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 July 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/54/Add.3, submitted 3 December 2001, § 6.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Croatia, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Czech Republic, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2004, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo referred the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1 July 2002 to the International Criminal Court.  
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Government, Referral of situation to the International Criminal Court, Letter dated 3 March 2004, as reported in International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Press release of 19 April 2004, ICC-OTP-20040419-50, and International Criminal Court, Presidency, Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Decision assigning the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo to Pre-Trial Chamber I, No.: ICC-01/04, Decision of 5 July 2004.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated:
The Government’s commitment to ending conscription of children in armed groups also finds expression in the fact that it has initiated within the country, or in cooperation with the International Criminal Court, judicial proceedings against the perpetrators of those acts, as in the case of Thomas Lubanga, against whom charges were confirmed on January, 2007 in The Hague. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 2008, UN Doc. CRC/C/COD/2, submitted 23 October 2007, § 211.
Denmark
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated:
The International Criminal Court is of paramount importance in the quest for compliance with international humanitarian law and to end impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide … It is … vital that contracting states, as well as other states obligated to do so, support and cooperate with the Court so that it can fulfil its tasks in full. 
Denmark, Statement by the representative of Sweden before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on “Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 23 October 2008.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Denmark, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Finland
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Finland stated:
Pursuant to article 87 (1) (a) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests for cooperation shall be transmitted either through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Ministry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests. The Court may also, if need be, enter into direct contact with other competent authorities of Finland. In matters relating to requests for surrender the Ministry of Justice is the only competent authority.
Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Finnish or Swedish, which are the official languages of Finland, or in English which is one of the working languages of the Court. 
Finland, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 29 December 2000.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Finland, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
France
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, France stated: “Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the French Republic declares that requests for cooperation, and any documents supporting the request, addressed to it by the Court must be in the French language.” 
France, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 9 June 2000, § II.
France
In 2002, in reply to the recommendations on the implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute adopted by the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme, France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote:
I am glad to notice that the recommendations contained in that document correspond to the policy followed by France in relation to the International Criminal Court. This is in particular the case as regards the integrity of the statute, to which France, as well as her European partners, is very much attached. The common European position very much corresponds to your recommendation project. As far as the potential conclusion of bilateral agreements by France with third States is concerned, which would have the purpose of withdrawing nationals of these States from the competence of the Court, I confirm to you that France does not plan to conclude such agreements, which would, as you underline, have the result of attacking the integrity of the Rome Statute. 
France, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Letter to the National Human Rights Consultative Commission, 26 December 2002.
France
In 2008, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France, addressing the issue of child soldiers, stated:
International criminal justice – the International Criminal Court or other special tribunals – has made essential progress this year through remarkable actions, especially against Germain Katanga, Charles Taylor and Colonel Mathieu Ngudjolo, among others, charging them with the use and recruitment of children under the age of 15. The [UN Security Council] Working Group [on Children and Armed Conflict] must follow up those actions by calling for the imposition of sanctions against uncooperative parties. 
France, Statement by the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs on “Children and Armed Conflict” before the UN Security Council, 12 February 2008, p. 23.
France
In 2008, the Prime Minister of France stated:
The fight against impunity constitutes an indispensable complement to the respect for IHL. Keeping international peace supposes that the core principles of IHL are guaranteed by a dissuasive and respected international justice system. The latter is also an essential component of the work for restabilizing the memory, which allows the affected population to find a way towards reconciliation. France’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the ad hoc international tribunals is therefore very important. France plays also an active role in the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the special Senegalese court that will be in charge of trying former president Hissène Habré.
The French government gives special importance to the draft law that will constitute the second part of the adaptation of our domestic law to the statute of the ICC, after Law No. 2002-268 of 26 February 2002. This law allowed France to comply with its obligation of cooperation with the ICC even before the entry into force of the Rome Statute. The draft law aims at modifying the criminal code, the code of military justice as well as the law dated 29 July 1881 on the freedom of press by incorporating into domestic law certain crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC. 
France, Response by the Prime Minister to the National Consultative Commission for Human Rights’ opinion on the Respect and Protection of Humanitarian Relief Personnel adopted on 17 January 2008, 27 May 2008, p. 2.
France
In a white paper on “Defence and National Security” published in 2008, France’s Ministry of Defence stated: “France will support the efforts undertaken by the International Criminal Court and will seek to strengthen its universality and means of action.” 
France, Ministry of Defence, Defence and National Security: The White Paper, 17 June 2008, p. 123.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
Violations of humanitarian law are ever increasing, as the current crises are unfortunately there to remind us, whether we are looking at Darfur, Somalia, Gaza, Sri Lanka or the Kivus. …
We must react! …
… [T]he more States that join forces, united by a single purpose, the more effective will be their efforts to ensure respect for the law. …
The mechanisms put in place by the [UN] Security Council are indispensable, from the simple call for respect for international humanitarian law, to the creation of international criminal tribunals and referrals to the International Criminal Court. And I am convinced that the growing credibility of these bodies plays an invaluable dissuasive role. We must develop, strengthen, enrich, [and] perpetually renew these means, because the problems we have to tackle are as constant as human nature. 
France, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, “International Humanitarian Law, an Imperative”, La Croix, 12 February 2009, p. 1.
France
In 2009, the President of the French Republic stated:
The respect for international humanitarian law is not negotiable … It implies a resolute fight against the culture of impunity, which nowadays still characterizes most conflicts. The perpetrators and the instigators of crimes committed against the civilian population shall be punished, wherever they are. This is why … we need the International Criminal Court, which France fully supports. 
France, Address by the President of the French Republic on the 9th Anniversary of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 4 May 2009, p. 3.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
The convention signed in Rome on 17 July 1998 adopting the statute of the ICC, ratified by France on 9 June 2000, creates an obligation for all States parties to adapt their domestic legislation in order to “fully cooperate” with the Court. Law No. 2002-268 of 26 February 2002 concerning the cooperation with the Court allowed France to comply with this obligation of cooperation even before the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 59178, Journal officiel de la République française, 27 October 2009, p. 10166.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
Concerning the warrant of arrest for the Sudanese president Omar al Bashir issued by the ICC, France reaffirms its support for international criminal justice and urges Sudan to fully cooperate with the ICC for the implementation of the decisions issued by the judges, in conformity with its obligation pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1593. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to a written question from the Senate, 5 November 2009.
Germany
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Germany stated that it wished to “underline again the obligation of States to cooperate with the [ICTY] under Security Council resolution 827 (1993)”. It further stated:
[Germany] has made every effort to contribute to the prosecution of violations of humanitarian law in the Balkans and will continue to do so. Germany was one of those actively supporting the establishment of the [ICTY] right from the beginning. We have continued vigorously to support its work in the political and legal fields. We have also assisted with personnel and financial contributions … The cooperation of German authorities with the Tribunal is regulated in a statute passed by the German parliament in April 1995 [i.e. the Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995)]. [The German] Government extradited two men charged with war crimes to the Tribunal. The extradition of Duško Tadić by Germany to The Hague was the very first extradition to the Tribunal by a Member State. Germany has also declared its readiness to execute sentences handed down by the Tribunal. German law enforcement authorities cooperate closely with the Tribunal in order to ensure an effective and transnational prosecution of violations of humanitarian law. The efforts include special protection for those of the many refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina on German territory who are required by the Tribunal as witnesses. 
Germany, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, pp. 17–18.
Germany
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Germany stated:
The Federal Republic of Germany declares, pursuant to article 87 (1) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, that requests from the Court can also be transmitted directly to the Federal Ministry of Justice or an agency designated by the Federal Ministry of Justice in an individual case. Requests to the Court can be transmitted directly from the Federal Ministry of Justice or, with the Ministry’s agreement, from another competent agency to the Court.
The Federal Republic of Germany further declares, pursuant to article 87 (2) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, that requests for cooperation to Germany and any documents supporting the request must be accompanied by a translation into German. 
Germany, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 11 December 2000.
Germany
In 2003, in a speech at the UN Commission on Human Rights, Germany’s Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
A few days ago the 18 judges of the International Criminal Court were sworn in. The establishment of this Court is a milestone in the history of international law and the international protection of human rights. For the first time ever a permanent tribunal has been created to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. We must now do our utmost to enhance the operability and effectiveness of the Court. We therefore call on all states who have been hesitant or critical of this project, to ratify or accede to the Statute. Only with the universal support of the community of states can the ICC do full justice to its duties. 
Germany, Speech by Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs at the UN Commission on Human Rights, 25 March 2003.
Germany
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
Germany supports the position of the European Union as expressed in the statement made by the Greek presidency earlier this morning. We agree, in particular, with the remarks pertaining to article 16 of the Rome Statute. We also share the views of the Secretary-General and the concerns expressed by all the delegations in the open debate. We therefore could not vote in favour of the draft resolution.
Germany was and remains a major driving force in the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As a State party, Germany is deeply committed to the mission of the ICC: to fight impunity by prosecuting those responsible for the most serious crimes that are of concern to the international community in situations where national jurisdictions do not prosecute those crimes. The International Criminal Court project has been consistently and actively supported by the present and earlier Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Parliament has repeatedly expressed its support for the ICC across party lines.
We feel that a treaty already ratified by 90 States and signed or ratified by 12 of the 15 Security Council members should not be amended by a Security Council resolution.
Justice is, and must remain, indivisible. At the beginning of the new millennium, the International Criminal Court will serve as an efficient and indispensable instrument to further international security, peace and justice.
We do not share the view that the ICC is an impediment to peacekeeping. On the contrary, the ICC is a safeguard. As an institution designed to prevent impunity, the ICC can play an important role in protecting peacekeepers in the execution of their missions.
Meanwhile, the Judges and the Prosecutor of the ICC have been elected. Germany is confident that experience will show that the Court is going to work impartially, justly and without politically motivated misuse. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4772, 12 June 2003, pp. 24–25.
Germany
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
We would like first of all to thank you, Mr. President, for having convened this very important meeting. The issues dealt with by the Security Council – peacekeeping, crisis prevention and conflict management – are inseparably linked to the rule of law. The creation or restoration of rule-of-law structures in post-conflict situations may be very difficult, but they are vital. Multilateral engagement in a crisis area can generate a better and more peaceful order in the long term only if this order is based on rule-of-law principles.
The rule of law can be destroyed by conflict very quickly. But it takes great effort, time and resources to rebuild a State based on the rule of law. We Germans know from our own experience that external assistance is essential in building a State based on the rule of law in post-conflict situations. The restoration of peace and justice in El Salvador, Timor-Leste and Kosovo would not have been possible without the commitment of the United Nations. The two ad hoc Tribunals created by the Security Council have played a valuable role in dealing with the serious crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is a successful example of cooperation between national and international justice systems.
In this context I would like to single out the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court is an important step towards global civilization. It serves the same principles that are upheld and the same purposes that are pursued by the Security Council. It serves international justice, the rule of law and the fight against impunity. It can take on those very serious crimes which a State believes cannot be handled by its own courts at present. It should thus also be seen as an offer to countries weakened by crisis.
I should like quickly to outline six proposals on the rule of law in post-conflict situations. First, the Council knows that greater efforts to create rule-of-law structures in conflict areas can help ensure the sustainability of a peaceful order. It should go without saying that mission mandates also provide for the protection and restoration of the rule of law. But we do not have to reinvent the wheel in every post-conflict situation. Therefore, the development of standard or model procedures would be desirable. They should apply to the secondment of judicial commissions of inquiry, the integration of rule-of-law components into peacekeeping missions and the establishment of provisional judicial authorities. I suggest that the Secretary-General include proposals on this in his report. He might also consider establishing a task force in the Secretariat to tackle these issues.
Secondly, the complementarity between national and international efforts should be kept under constant review. The main pillar of justice continues to be the national judicial system, for which every country bears its own responsibility. However, in post-conflict situations in particular, the judicial sector is often crippled. I propose that, in his report, the Secretary- General also identify the weaknesses of national judicial systems in such situations and how they can be redressed. The personnel, financial and intellectual resources of States, international organizations, including non-governmental organizations, should be made available and included in these deliberations.
Thirdly, we feel that complementarity also means the institutional division of labour between national and international justice systems. In Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the international community has had good experience with various forms of division of labour. With regard to the prosecution of the most serious crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it appears that the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the International Criminal Court may work together. This cooperation between national and international bodies should be further developed.
Fourthly, some instruments aimed at fostering justice and the rule of law were created by the Security Council – for example, the ad hoc tribunals. Others, such as the International Court of Justice, emerged outside of that framework. However, its Statute contains cross-references to the Security Council. In order to use the various judicial systems efficiently, it could be worthwhile for the Security Council to observe their work more closely. I therefore propose that the Security Council set up a monitoring group for that purpose. It would be especially welcome if those Council members who are critical of or sceptical about some tribunals would participate in this group. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4833, 12 June 2003, pp. 15–16.
Germany
In 2004, in a speech at the UN Commission on Human Rights, Germany’s Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
The establishment of the International Criminal Court is without a doubt one of the positive developments in recent years. We cannot assess highly enough its long-term significance for the international protection of human rights. For Germany, it therefore remains a priority to defend to the best of our ability the enforcement of the Rome Statute. 
Germany, Speech by Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs at the UN Commission on Human Rights, 15 March 2004.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
Let me take this opportunity to express our hope that the forthcoming report of the Secretary-General on justice and the rule of law will reiterate that achieving the purposes of the United Nations – notably, peace, security and development – requires an increase in the level of guarantees and protection afforded to civilians. That is also the vision of the European Security Strategy, adopted by European Union member States as recently as 12 December 2003: to develop a rules-based international order.
In that context, the International Criminal Court deserves particular mention as an institution that has the potential to address one of the worst root causes of violating the integrity of civilians: impunity.
Combatants violating the principles of humanitarian law – be it by acts directed against civilians or by acts against humanitarian personnel – need to know that they are acting against fundamental principles of humanity and that their acts will eventually come under the judicial scrutiny of the International Criminal Court or of a regional tribunal. What is needed is to move even further towards universal acceptance of its jurisdiction, not to create new pockets of impunity, like those proposed by Security Council resolutions 1422 (2002) and 1487 (2003). 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4990, 14 June 2004, p. 24.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
First, let us put an end to impunity. Impunity is one of the worst root causes of the violation of the integrity of civilians. Parties to armed conflict need to comply with international humanitarian law, in particular the four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols. If we do not end impunity for violations of international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights law, there will be no deterrent for the perpetrators of such acts of violence and aggression. Combatants who violate the principles of humanitarian law – be it by committing acts against civilians or acts against humanitarian personnel – need to know that they are acting against fundamental principles of humanity and that their acts will eventually come under the close scrutiny of the International Criminal Court or of a regional tribunal.
In that regard, we fully concur with the High-level Panel in its calls on combatants to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and on all Member States to sign, ratify and act upon all treaties relating to the protection of civilians, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and all refugee conventions. I would like to emphasize the role that the International Criminal Court might have in addressing the issue of impunity. We regret that there is serious disagreement about the role of the Court. We believe that we should consider options and possibilities aimed at bridging those differences, because we need to advance further towards universal acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.5100, 14 December 2004, pp. 18–19.
Germany
In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Both on the international and the domestic level the Federal Government has taken numerous measures to fight impunity. Apart from supporting international criminal jurisdiction, Germany together with its EU partners also in the reporting period has supported a resolution against impunity sponsored by Canada in the UN Commission on Human Rights and has co-sponsored it annually. The resolution recognizes the fundamental role of the International Criminal Court as well as of the ad hoc tribunals in the fight against impunity and appeals to States to continue supporting the work of the tribunals, as well as to consider acceding to or ratifying the Rome Statute.
Germany remains one of the strongest supporters of the Rome Statute and a supporter – politically, financially and as regards human resources – of a speedy establishment and development of the International Criminal Court (ICC), considering the important contribution this makes to preventing impunity for international crimes and to resolving conflict situations permanently.
Many States party [to the 1998 ICC Statute] still need to adapt their domestic criminal law and criminal procedure law. Germany has done this with the adoption of a specific International Crimes Code (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – VStGB) and a detailed law on cooperation with the ICC; both laws are used as models by the legislators of many other States. With the VStGB it has been avoided to have to split, adapt or amend the existing criminal law norms in many places; it is thereby achieved that, e.g., the behaviour of German soldiers in deployments abroad is measured against a uniform body of law.
It is the task of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR), which are emphatically supported by Germany, to prosecute genocide and other grave crimes against humanity. Tribunals, interpreting and concretizing international criminal norms and developing new procedural provisions, have set standards which will influence also the future work of the International Criminal Court and domestic legal orders.
Finally, Germany gives assistance in the enforcement [of judgments of international tribunals]: in October 2000, for the first time, a person convicted by the ICTY (Dusko Tadic) was transferred to Bavaria for the enforcement of his sentence, a second convicted person (Dragoljub Kunarac) has been serving his sentence in North Rhine-Westphalia since December 2002.
3. Priorities of the German human rights policy 20052006
3.13. Prosecuting grave violations of human rights
The Federal Government commits itself to preventing perpetrators of grave and gravest violations of human rights from going unpunished. It will therefore
- also in the future emphatically support the work of the International Criminal Court and the International ad hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as regards human resources, financially and politically;
- commit itself to ensuring the independence of the International Criminal Court and its staff;
- defend, together with the EU partners, the unlimited applicability of the Rome Statute and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. 
Germany, Federal Government, Seventh Human Rights Policy Report, 17 June 2005, pp. 91–94 and 204.
Germany
In 2006, in its Report on the Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations in the Years 2004 and 2005, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
From the beginning, Germany was among the strongest supporters of the ICC and with its partners in the EU advocates the strengthening of the integrity of the Court and the accession of further States …
Due to the crimes committed by national socialism, Germany has a special responsibility for the prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Federal Government therefore still regards it as an important task, also in the future, actively to support and further the ICC, as the only world court permanently dedicated to this mission. Also after the completion of the set-up phase, the Courts needs the further support of the State community, the more so as the Court has no executive power and cannot simply resort to the United Nations. Support to States willing to ratify therefore is a special interest of Germany and will continue.
The Federal Government unreservedly supports the work of the two International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) … By interpreting and concretizing international criminal law norms as well as by developing new procedural provisions they have set standards which will also have effects on the future work of the International Criminal Court and on national legal orders …
The Federal Government supports the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in various forms: The German criminal prosecution authorities exchange information with the Tribunal and coordinate own proceedings with it. At the request of the Tribunal, Germany to a considerable extent gives international legal assistance. A great number of persons needed as witnesses by the Criminal Tribunal are present in Germany. They can be exempt from repatriation procedures for the time being and are entitled to social benefits in Germany. For the enforcement of their sentence, Germany has accepted two persons convicted to multi-year prison sentences by the Criminal Tribunal. 
Germany, Federal Government, Report on the Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations in the Years 2004 and 2005, 7 December 2006, pp. 50–51.
Germany
In 2009, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Germany stated:
4. Germany actively supports the International Criminal Court (ICC). Legislative measures concerning the implementation of the Rome Statute were incorporated into German domestic law in June 2002. Amendments to domestic criminal law concerning vertical cooperation between Germany and [the] ICC are contained in a separate code in order to achieve transparent and coherent regulation of the cooperation with [the] ICC (Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof) [Law on the Cooperation with the International Criminal Court], conceding to [the] ICC, to the extent possible, all measures of judicial cooperation available between States.
7. Germany also continues to cooperate with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and supports the Special Court for Sierra Leone as well as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court System of Cambodia.
8. Germany supports the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established in accordance with Resolution 1757 (2007) of the Security Council. As one of the major donors to the budget of the tribunal [it] is an active participant of its Management Committee. 
Germany, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 9 January 2009, §§ 4 and 7–8.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German cooperation with the UN and other international organizations and institutions within the UN system in 2008 and 2009 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Apart from the mandatory contribution to the budgets of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) totalling 26.01 million US Dollars (2008) and 29.20 [million] US Dollars (2009), the Federal Government also provided other support to the tribunals. German criminal prosecution authorities exchanged information and coordinated proceedings with the ICTY. Based on a request of the ICTY, Germany provided considerable legal assistance and in three cases took over the execution of the sentence. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations and Individual, Globally Acting International Organizations and Institutions within the UN-System in the Years 2008 and 2009, 5 August 2010, p. 48.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German human rights policy in the context of foreign relations and other policy areas between 1 March 2008 and 28 February 2010, which was submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
The office of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecution of crimes under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] is the Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice. Together with the Central Unit for the Fight against War Crimes of the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Federal Prosecutor General keeps an eye on the human rights situations in the hotspots and crises around the world. To this end, the Federal Prosecutor General established various observation procedures which make it possible to initiate targeted investigation proceedings on short notice if information on international crimes that can be used for judicial purposes is received. Moreover, he stays in touch with the office of the prosecutor at the ICC [International Criminal Court] in The Hague … in order to ensure information exchange. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on its Human Rights Policy in the Context of Foreign Relations and in Other Policy Areas, 26 August 2010, p. 46.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security” between July 2007 and July 2010 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
On the basis of international treaties and domestic law, Germany is … providing legal assistance to … international courts carrying out criminal proceedings against those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Since May 2007, members of staff of the focal points with jurisdiction over persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have been meeting annually. … The Federal Government supports the work of the international criminal courts both in individual cases and more generally in achieving the goals for which they were established. The international courts prosecute particular crimes against women and girls, for example mass rapes and forced marriages. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on Measures to Implement Security Council Resolution 1325 “Women, Peace and Security”, 3 December 2010, p. 9.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Germany, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Greece
In 2006, during a debate in the UN Security Council on protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Greece stated:
Respect for the principles of the rule of law and international humanitarian law and the need to fight impunity are essential for civilian protection. States and non-state actors have the obligation to respect international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law and perpetrators should be brought to justice. In this respect the role of the ICC and its impact on those committing such atrocities could be crucial and the international community as well as the States concerned should fully cooperate with it and support its difficult task. 
Greece, Statement by the Permanent Representative, Security Council Meeting on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 5 December 2006.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Guatemala, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Hungary
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Hungary deplored “the absence of cooperation with the [ICTY] by certain countries and entities” and called upon all members of the international community and all international forums “to continue to support the Tribunal’s work and to facilitate the fulfilment of its mandate”. 
Hungary, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 19.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Hungary, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
India
In 2003, in answer to a written question in the Upper House of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) regarding the Bilateral Immunity Agreement signed between India and the United States, India’s Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs stated:
(a) The Agreement between the Governments of India and the United States regarding the surrender of persons to international tribunals was signed on December 26, 2002 in New Delhi. The two Governments have agreed not to surrender or transfer each other’s citizens to an international tribunal, unless otherwise obligated to do so by an international agreement to which both India and the United States are parties, and without the express consent of the other Government.
(b) India believes in the primacy of national judicial processes, and has for this reason, not signed for example, the Statutes relating to the International Criminal Court. Entering into this Agreement with the United States furthers the Government’s objective of retaining the primacy of national judicial processes for its citizens. 
India, Answer by the Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs to written question 990 in the Upper House of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) regarding the Bilateral Immunity Agreement signed between India and the United States, 27 February 2003.
Ireland
In 2009, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a written response to a question on human rights issues, stated: “Together with our EU partners, Ireland has been a consistent and strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, recognising it as an essential means of combating impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.” 
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Human Rights Issues (2), Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 698 No. 3, 15 December 2009.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
Since the inception of the [ICTY], the Islamic Republic of Iran has strongly supported its various activities aimed at terminating the culture of impunity. Accordingly, [the Islamic Republic of Iran], as have done many other States, has already expressed its readiness to accept the convicted persons so that they can serve their sentences in Iranian prisons. However, the report [of the ICTY] indicates that some of the States or entities of the former Yugoslavia, in particular the so-called Republika Srpska, still resist full cooperation with the Tribunal and refuse to arrest and transfer the main indictees to face justice. Such intractable recalcitrance cannot and should not be tolerated by the international community and thus deserves to be condemned. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 11.
Israel
Upon signature of the 1998 ICC Statute, Israel stated:
Being an active consistent supporter of the concept of an International Criminal Court, and its realization in the form of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Government of the State of Israel is proud to thus express its acknowledgment of the importance, and indeed indispensability, of an effective court for the enforcement of the rule of law and the prevention of impunity. 
Israel, Declaration made upon signature of the ICC Statute, 31 December 2000, § 1.
Italy
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Italy stated:
The greatest obstacle [to combat impunity of persons indicted by the ICTY] remains the failure by some States and entities in the former Yugoslavia to comply with their obligation to fully cooperate with the Tribunal, in particular with the Tribunal’s orders to arrest and deliver indicted persons to The Hague. This obligation was confirmed and reinforced by the 1995 Dayton Agreement. Italy is of the view that it must be met in the most complete and effective way. Respect for State authority cannot be adduced as a pretext for not cooperating with the Tribunal.
… Italy has consistently supported the activity of the Tribunal and will continue to do so in order to ensure its complete success. 
Italy, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 8.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Italy, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Japan, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Jordan, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Kenya
In 2010, in its national report to the Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Kenya stated:
At the time of writing the report, the Government has agreed in principle to cooperate with [t]he International Criminal Court as efforts to establish a local mechanism to try perpetrators continue. The International Crimes Act [2008], which also domesticates the Rome Statute, will largely facilitate this process. 
Kenya, National Report to the Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Eighth Session, Geneva, 3–14 May 2010, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/8/KEN/1, 22 February 2010, § 81.
Malaysia
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Malaysia stated:
The Dayton Peace Agreement, signed in December 1995 obliges its signatories to cooperate fully with the [ICTY] by executing the arrest warrants and delivering the indicted criminals to the Tribunal for trial in The Hague. However, to our utter dismay, the parties to the Agreement, notably the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Serb entity, have persistently refused to meet their obligations, and seem to be getting away with it. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not only defied the orders of the Tribunal, but has failed to ensure the Republika Srpska’s compliance with the Dayton Agreement by the execution of arrest warrants issued for more than 40 indictees in its territory. We strongly deplore their failure, which constitutes a blatant violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and their commitment to the Dayton Agreement and shows a gross disrespect for international law.
Full cooperation with the Tribunal by all parties in bringing the war criminals to justice is a fundamental obligation which must be honoured if genuine stability and lasting peace are to be consolidated in Bosnia and Herzegovina …
[Malaysia] also wishes to emphasize the need for the parties involved in the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement to extend their full cooperation to the Tribunal. In this regard, we commend the recent efforts by the Stabilization Force (SFOR) in arresting an indicted criminal in Serb territory. 
Malaysia, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 14.
Mexico
In 2009, during the assembly of the States Parties to the 1998 ICC Statute, the representative of Mexico stated:
There is still much to do in order to ensure that the [International Criminal] Court is the efficient and effective tool for the fight against impunity that we envisaged in Rome in 1998. In the views of my delegation, the Court cannot be fully successful unless it can count on States’ commitments and support. Therefore, Mexico wishes to emphasize the urgent need for States to cooperate with the Court in accordance with their international obligations, including by fully complying with and carrying out all of the Court’s orders so that this judicial institution can comply efficiently and effectively with the mandate that it was given.  
Mexico, Statement during the 8th session of the Assembly of the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, The Hague, 19 November 2009.
Mexico
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the Sudan, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
The international community and the Security Council cannot remain passive in the face of situations such as that in Darfur, which to date has led up to 300,000 deaths and at least 2.5 million displaced people. Mexico therefore reiterates its call to the Security Council to demand … that it cooperate without delay with the International Criminal Court, that it undertake concrete actions to put an end to the escalation of violence and impunity in Darfur. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6130th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6130, 4 December 2009, pp. 7–8.
Mexico
In 2010, during the general debate of the Review Conference of the 1998 ICC Statute, the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico stated:
At the internal level, we have fully assumed our obligation to cooperate with the [International Criminal] Court, responding in a timely and concise manner to all of its cooperation requests.
In this sense, it is my pleasure to announce that, last December, the Mexican Senate approved the draft Law for Cooperation with the International Criminal Court. Once approved by the Chamber of Deputies, such law will grant the national authorities the necessary faculties to attend all types of cooperation requests foreseen in the [1998] Rome Statute. 
Mexico, Statement by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs during the general debate of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May 2010, pp. 1–2.
Mexico
In 2010, during a debate in the UN General Assembly on the Report of the International Criminal Court, the legal adviser of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
[I]t is important to stress that refusal to cooperate with the [International Criminal] Court amounts to a clear violation of international obligations under the [1998] Rome Statute and, in certain circumstances, the [1945 UN] Charter itself. Non-cooperation thus requires that tough measures be taken by the Assembly of States Parties [to the Rome Statute] and, in some cases, by the Security Council. In that regard, Mexico considers it urgent to develop mechanisms that can effectively implement the provisions set out in article 87, paragraph 7, of the Statute. 
Mexico, Statement by the legal adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the 65th session of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc A/65/PV.39, 28 October 2010, p. 24.
Mexico
In 2010, during the assembly of the States Parties to the 1998 ICC Statute, the representative of Mexico stated:
Among the events with most impact on the work of the [International Criminal] Court, there are those related to lack of cooperation. In May [2010], the Court issued for the first time a formal decision informing the UN Security Council about the lack of cooperation of one State. It was followed, in August, by two notifications to such organ and to this Assembly regarding similar conducts by two States Parties.
Mexico reiterates its deep concern regarding the refusal of some States to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, in clear violation of the international obligations derived from the [1998] Rome Statute and, in certain cases, from the UN Charter. The international community cannot and should not remain oblivious to these manifest breaches, the sole purpose of which is to prolong impunity of the authors of the most serious crimes of international concern.
My delegation considers that these recent events evidence the urgent need for the Assembly to initiate, as soon as possible, a reflection on the tools or mechanisms that it requires in order to adopt measures in response of States’ lack of cooperation, so that its faculties set forth in articles 87.7 and 112.2 of the Rome Statute become fully effective. 
Mexico, Statement during the 9th session of the Assembly of the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, New York, 6 December 2010.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Netherlands
In 1994, during a debate in the Dutch Parliament concerning the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the point was made that a State, as regards its cooperation with the Tribunal, may not raise the objection of statutes of limitation arising from its national legal system in order to refuse such cooperation. It was further stated that violations of the laws and customs of war as mentioned in Article 8 of the Criminal Law in Wartime Act as amended of the Netherlands were not subject to statutes of limitation. 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Debates on the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1993–1994 Session, Doc. 23 542, No. 6, p. 3.
Netherlands
In 1997, when a question was raised by a member of the Dutch Parliament concerning the measures taken in order to arrest suspected war criminals, the Government of the Netherlands replied that it was in favour of issuing a list of information and photographs of persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to the soldiers of the SFOR mission to ensure that persons suspected of war crimes were brought to trial before the Tribunal. It also stated that the Government of the Netherlands had proposed this course of action to NATO on several occasions. 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Reply by the Minister of Defence to a question, 1996–1997 Session, 27 January 1997, Doc. 581, p. 1193.
Netherlands
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Netherlands stated:
The [ICTY] is justified in asking Member States to put more of an effort into arresting indicted war criminals and bringing them before the Tribunal … We urge all those involved, directly or indirectly, to live up to their obligations and cooperate in advancing the course of justice.
We also appeal to all Member States to seek ways and means in the realm of their domestic jurisdiction of assisting the Tribunal in every way possible … This can be done, for instance, by actively tracing and handing over indicted persons to the Tribunal, by instituting proceedings against alleged war criminals in their domestic courts, and by allowing war criminals convicted by the Tribunal to be imprisoned within their borders.
… We wish to remind all States of their obligations, political and legal, under international law and of their duty to cooperate with the Tribunal under the terms of its Statute. We commend the Tribunal for drawing up model arrangements to this particular end and again urge Member States to seek early the conclusion and implementation of such arrangements. 
Netherlands, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 6.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Netherlands, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role.  
New Zealand, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Norway
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Norway stated:
1. With reference to Article 87, paragraph 1 (a) [of the 1998 ICC Statute], the Kingdom of Norway hereby declares that the Royal Ministry of Justice is designated as the channel for the transmission of requests from the Court.
2. With reference to Article 87, paragraph 2 [of the 1998 ICC Statute], the Kingdom of Norway hereby declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting the request shall be submitted in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court. 
Norway, Declarations made upon ratification of the ICC Statute, 16 February 2000, §§ 1 and 2.
Norway
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated:
The International Criminal Court is of paramount importance in the quest for compliance with international humanitarian law and to end impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide … It is … vital that contracting states, as well as other states obligated to do so, support and cooperate with the Court so that it can fulfil its tasks in full. 
Norway, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly by the representative of Sweden made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden on “Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”, 23 October 2008.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Security Council on the promotion and strengthening of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security, the permanent representative of Norway stated:
[W]e would like to acknowledge the crucial contributions of the international criminal tribunals and courts, in upholding justice and the rule of law. Through these institutions, both the UN and the international community have proven their ability to rise to the occasion and prevent impunity in the face of mass atrocities. 
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Norway before the UN Security Council on the promotion and strengthening of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security, 29 June 2010.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Pakistan
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Pakistan stated:
Security Council resolution 827 (1993) called upon “all States” to cooperate with the [ICTY] in order to ensure its effective functioning. In this regard, we appreciate the cooperation extended by Croatia and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, cooperation from the other parties is not satisfactory. Despite repeated appeals from the international community, one of the parties has not yet taken measures to enact legislation enabling it to cooperate with the Tribunal.
[Pakistan] would like to welcome the cooperation extended to the Tribunal by the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) and the Stabilization Force (SFOR). 
Pakistan, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 15.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Peru, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Poland
In 2008, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the 1998 ICC Statute, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland stated:
Poland is one of the strongest supporters of the International Criminal Court. We hope that its jurisdiction will be universally accepted … Violence and crime at international level are no longer phenomena with a limited impact, or the responsibility of others. We are all jointly responsible for supporting the rule of law throughout the world …
Poland is convinced that the International Criminal Court makes an important contribution in that regard. 
Poland, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 2008.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Republic of Korea, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Russian Federation
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Russian Federation stated:
We continue to attach great importance to the work of the [ICTY] … However, we absolutely cannot agree with the attempts to describe as “cooperation” with the Tribunal or as “support” for its work pre-planned actions for the armed seizure of suspects, in particular under the aegis of the current peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina … The problem of extradition to The Hague of persons indicted of war crimes should be resolved only through cooperation among the parties themselves with the International Tribunal, as was stated in the international documents on the Bosnian settlement, in particular in the decisions of the London Conference of 1996. 
Germany, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 19.
Russian Federation
In 2010, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the Russian Federation stated:
The Russian Federation cooperates with the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda by complying with requests by the tribunals to provide or verify information on the possible whereabouts of persons accused by the tribunals of committing the most serious crimes under international law, which may be connected, inter alia, with the involvement of children in armed conflict.  
Russian Federation, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 4 September 2012, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/RUS/1, submitted 20 October 2010, § 26.
Russian Federation
In 2011, during the UN Security Council’s consideration of the report by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on the situation in Libya, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We support the efforts of the ICC to conduct fair and impartial investigation of actions of all parties in the Libyan conflict and to bring to justice those involved in possible … serious violations of international humanitarian law in Libya.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during the consideration of the report by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on the situation in Libya, 4 May 2011, p. 9.
Serbia
In 2006, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Serbia stated:
S&M [Serbia and Montenegro] is ready to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Important steps have been taken to that end so far. The adoption of the Law on Cooperation between the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 is of particular relevance (Official Gazette of the FRY, Nos. 18/2002 and 16/2003). On the basis of this Law a number of persons have been handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including the former President of the FRY, Slobodan Milosevic. 
Serbia, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 8 February 2007, UN Doc. CAT/C/SRB/1, submitted 3 May 2006, as amended by CAT/C/SRB/2/Corr.1, 23 September 2008, § 17.
South Africa
In 2009, the Director-General of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation stated:
South Africa is [a] State Party of the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and is therefore obliged to cooperate with the court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court (Article 86) and hence also in the execution of arrest warrants. It is worth noting that Article 87(7) of the Statute provides that, when a state party fails to comply with a request to cooperate, the court may make a finding to that effect and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties, or in the case of a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referral to the UNSC.
Article 27 of the Rome Statute provides that the official capacity as head of state or government of an accused provides no exemption from criminal responsibility. Furthermore, Section 4(1) of the South African implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act also ousts the applicability of other domestic laws in respect of an accused, with the result that the immunity from prosecution that President El Bashir would normally have enjoyed in terms of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, 2001 (Act No. 37 of 2001), is not [to] be applicable.
An international arrest warrant for President El Bashir has been received and endorsed by a magistrate. This means that if President El Bashir arrives on South African territory, he will be liable for arrest.
The AU [African Union] decision aims to obligate AU Member States not to cooperate with the ICC with regard to the arrest and surrender of African indicted personalities. In this respect, the decision aims to cover persons indicted with regard to all the situations in Africa, namely Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo[,] Northern Uganda and the Central African Republic.
Article 98, which is referred to in the decision, creates two situations which aims to stop the court from proceeding with a request for surrender and reads as follows:
The court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the state of diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third state, unless the court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.
The court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that state to the court, unless the court can first obtain the cooperation of a sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.
The situation foreseen in Article 98(1) will not be applicable in South Africa as Section 4(1) of the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act, ousts the applicability of immunities conferred by the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, 2001 (Act No. 37 of 2001) and President El Bashir (or any other “African indicted personality”) will not be able to enjoy immunity against the provisions in the Act on South African territory.
It appears that the AU decision is based on a decision by the International Court of Justice that held that the indictment of a Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo by Belgium in terms of its domestic law, was in violation of Belgium’s obligations in terms of the international law applicable to immunities (DRC v Belgium (Yerodia Case), ICJ, 2006. It is submitted that due to the position in South African domestic law as set out above, the finding in this case will not be applicable. In any case, it was also held in the Yerodia case that an incumbent or former Minister of Foreign Affairs may be subject to criminal proceedings before certain international criminal courts, when such courts have jurisdiction.
Article 98(2) aims to prevent a conflict between an international agreement[] to which a State was party to before acceding to the Rome Statute or before a request for arrest was made, which provided for a situation where the consent of another state is required before a person of that state can be surrendered to the court and the provisions of the Rome Statute. It appears, also from paragraph ten of the decision, not to be applicable to South Africa because South Africa has not concluded an agreement of that nature with the Sudan or any state. 
South Africa, Statement by the Director-General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, 31 July 2009.
South Africa
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, including South Africa, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare as indicated by the Secretary-General in his annual report, and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights. The Friends encourage Member States to strengthen national accountability mechanisms and judicial capacities, including by developing child protection legislations that criminalize all grave violations against children. In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
South Africa, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, pp. 1–2.
Spain
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Spain stated:
In relation to article 87, paragraph 1, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Kingdom of Spain declares that, without prejudice to the fields of competence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice shall be the competent authority to transmit requests for cooperation made by the Court or addressed to the Court.
In relation to article 87, paragraph 2, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Kingdom of Spain declares that requests for cooperation addressed to it by the Court and any supporting documents must be in Spanish or accompanied by a translation into Spanish. 
Spain, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 24 October 2000.
The obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have been implemented in Swedish law. The Act on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (2002:329) covers all forms of cooperation set forth in part 9 of the Rome Statute as well as enforcement of sentences, fines, forfeiture and reparation orders in accordance with part 10 of the Statute. The necessary legislation with respect to the privileges and immunities of the Court in accordance with the Statute and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, which Sweden ratified on 13 January 2005, is provided in the Act on Immunity and Privileges in Certain Cases (1976:661). In order to fully meet the obligations regarding offences against the administration of justice by the Court (art. 70 of the Statute), necessary amendments have been made in the Penal Code and in the Act on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court. 
Sweden, Combined sixth and seventh periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 4 October 2013, UN Doc. CAT/C/SWE/6-7, submitted 11 March 2013, § 218.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Sweden, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
A substantial achievement for the cause of justice during the reporting period was that Congolese war crimes suspect Bosco Ntaganda was the first person subject to an arrest warrant of the ICC to surrender himself to the Court. It was also positive to see that the USA and Rwanda – two non-States Parties – cooperated with the Court on this matter. Despite successes as this one, it is a cause for concern that the number of outstanding arrest warrants remains high. … States’ cooperation with the Court, including the Office of the Prosecutor must be better. States Parties have a legal obligation under the Rome Statute to co-operate fully with the Court. Therefore, we urge all States Parties to strengthen their efforts to execute the orders of the Court and to abstain from inviting and receiving suspects which are under an arrest warrant by the ICC [International Criminal Court]. All States must also fully comply with their obligations under the UN charter and with resolutions 1593 and 1970 of the Security Council concerning the situations in Darfur and Libya [and the referral of these situations to the Prosecutor of the ICC]. The government of Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur, as well as the Libyan authorities respectively, must cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor.
… [T]he International Criminal Court was created to take up the cases when States were not able or willing to do so. I am sure that we all aim for a world where the ICC has become obsolete, but in today’s reality, an effective and independent ICC is needed and should be fully supported by all States.
Let me conclude by renewing our pledge that the Nordic countries will remain principal supporters of the International Criminal Court. We are committed to continue working for the Court’s effectiveness, professionalism, independence and integrity. 
Sweden, Statement by the Director General for Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN General Assembly on Agenda Item 75: Report of the International Criminal Court made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 31 October 2013.
Switzerland
In 1994, in its comments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, Switzerland stated:
Indeed, the cooperation thus contemplated between the national administrative and judicial authorities on the one hand and the court on the other seems to be essential in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Court. In this connection, however, the draft fails to pronounce on the surrender of nationals … this silence no doubt means that such surrender may be demanded by the court. However, certain countries refuse to extradite their nationals. Would it therefore not be preferable to determine the fate of the nationals of the State concerned by applying to it the principle of aut dedere aut judicare? 
Switzerland, Comments of 8 February 1994 on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, UN Doc. A/CN.4/458, 18 February 1994, p. 37.
Switzerland
In 2008, in its sixth periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, Switzerland stated in the section on universal jurisdiction:
The military justice system has had occasion, on the basis of article 3 (1), sect. 9, and articles 108 to 114 of the Military Criminal Code, to prosecute and try alleged war criminals (violation of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949). During the reporting period, the military courts handled 25 such cases. … Of the six cases concerning Rwanda, … two were transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Switzerland, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 18 March 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/CHE/6, submitted 2 July 2008, § 110.
Switzerland
In 2008, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the ICC Report, the permanent representative of Switzerland stated:
While the [1998 ICC] Statute provides the Court with the legal means to fulfil its tasks, it does not grant it the competence to implement its decisions. The Court therefore heavily relies on the cooperation of States to accomplish its tasks. In this context, we welcome the cooperation of certain States, which made possible in particular the transfer of three defendants in the course of the year under review, in connection with the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. However, we are concerned that at the moment no less than seven arrest warrants are still pending execution. My delegation would like to stress that it is the responsibility of States, in accordance with the Rome Statute and the obligations under the United Nations Charter, to support the Court and to cooperate fully with it. Without the cooperation of States, the Court will simply not be able to fulfil the mandate that has been entrusted to it.
As underlined in the report presented by President Kirsch, the cooperation of States is not limited to the execution of arrest warrants but also covers other activities such as the protection of witnesses. This cooperation concerns in particular those States affected by situations being examined by the Court, as well as their neighbouring States. Switzerland considers the protection of witnesses to be a central element in the good governance of international criminal justice. It commends the measures that have been taken and the new methods of protection that have been put in place in cooperation with national and local authorities to strengthen witness protection.
Still in the area of cooperation, my delegation welcomes the continuing collaboration between the United Nations and the Court. This cooperation is essential at several levels, particularly for the facilitation of the Court’s operations on the ground. It is imperative that it should continue in future. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Switzerland before the UN General Assembly on the Report of the International Criminal Court, 30 October 2008, pp. 2–3.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Introduction
… States are obliged to … either themselves prosecute persons responsible for grave breaches, in particular of war crimes, or extradite such persons. If a State is either unwilling or unable to undertake prosecutions then, as appropriate, the responsibility passes to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Furthermore, the international community has set up international ad hoc tribunals for the prosecution of crimes committed in the context of specific conflicts (e.g. the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda).
International Criminal Court (ICC)
The International Criminal Court in The Hague prosecutes individuals for the most serious crimes of international concern: Genocide, Crimes against humanity and War crimes. … The ICC plays a complementary role, i.e. it only steps in once it becomes clear that the national authorities primarily responsible for prosecution are either unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the necessary investigation and prosecution. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 4 and 26.
Switzerland
In 2009, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Switzerland has also shown its continued support to the [International Criminal] Court financially through regular and spontaneous contributions, in particular to the Trust Fund for Victims, as well as through cooperation with the Court. In this context, Switzerland will examine during the next two years the possibility of ratifying the Agreement on privileges and immunities of the ICC that it signed in September 2002. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, Section 3.3.7.4, p. 5814.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2012, in a statement at the 19th Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Switzerland’s representative stated:
Switzerland calls on the [UN] Security Council to immediately refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. Given the absence of willingness on the side of the Syrian authorities to genuinely investigate or prosecute, the Court is the international body best suited to prosecute and try alleged perpetrators … of war crimes. 
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland at the 19th Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council during the debate on the deteriorating human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and the recent killings in El-Houleh, 1 June 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on the promotion and strengthening of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security, the permanent representative of Switzerland stated:
When a State fails to assume its primary responsibility to protect its population and to investigate and prosecute mass atrocities, the International Criminal Court must be tasked to step in as a measure of last resort. …
In this vein, the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic − where heinous crimes are committed on a daily basis − is of particular concern. We deplore that the Syrian Arab Republic has, so far, not reacted to repeated calls from the international community to ensure accountability through a national procedure that is credible, fair and independent. Therefore, Switzerland calls on the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the Court in order to address all allegations of grave crimes irrespective of who committed them. …
At the very least, the Security Council should send out an unequivocal warning urging all parties to the conflict to fully respect international human rights and humanitarian law in the ongoing conflict and announce that it intends to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court unless a credible, fair and independent accountability process is being established in a timely manner. We note that a growing number of Member States shares our plea and we encourage all other States to join our initiative for a letter to the Security Council on Syria.
… [R]eferrals should contain no exemptions for nationals from non[-]States Parties. Furthermore, it is necessary that the Security Council determinedly follows up on referral resolutions. As shown by the high number of outstanding arrest warrants, cooperation from States is one of the most significant challenges faced by the Court, particularly in referred situations. Referrals should not be the end of the Security Council’s commitment to end impunity. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Switzerland before the UN Security Council during a debate on the promotion and strengthening of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security, UN Doc. S/PV.6849, 17 October 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, on the occasion of Public International Law Day, the head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated:
… Switzerland is strongly committed to the fight against impunity. It supports the work of the International Criminal Court.
In the case of Syria, a Swiss initiative, which today has the support of 35 countries, intends to call on the [UN] Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. 
Switzerland, Speech by the head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of Public International Law Day, 19 October 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on “Item 74: Report of the International Criminal Court”, the permanent representative of Switzerland stated:
Peace should not and cannot be obtained at the expense of justice. Therefore, Switzerland continues to believe that the situation in the Syrian Arabic Republic should be brought under the jurisdiction of the [International Criminal] Court. Crimes committed in Syria, irrespective of who committed them, must not go unpunished. We note that a growing number of Member States support our initiative for a letter to the [UN] Security Council on Syria and we encourage others to join us.
A referral is necessary not only because of the grave crimes committed in Syria; it would also demonstrate the commitment of the Security Council to the fight against impunity. In order to enhance the deterrent effect of international criminal justice, the Council should adopt a consistent referral policy and determinedly follow up on referrals. A decision to refer a situation should not be the end of the commitment of the Security Council to the fight against impunity. It should be the beginning. Two additional points in this context: The United Nations should consider funding to the Court for referrals, as provided for in the Relationship Agreement. And it should be noted that the [1998] Rome Statute does not provide for the possibility to make exceptions in the referrals for nationals from non[]States Parties.
With respect to the relationship between the United Nations and the Court, my delegation also wishes to welcome the reporting of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Article 3 of the Relationship Agreement where he expresses his determination to limit the contact of UN officials with persons who are the subject of arrest warrants to absolutely essential contacts. This policy is important for the credibility of the United Nations and the Court in the fight against impunity.
The Court not only needs our full support here at the United Nations. It also needs it at home. Cooperation by States is fundamental but regrettably, the high number of outstanding arrest warrants over-shadows the many positive examples of cooperation. We urge all States to increase their efforts to bring suspects to justice. The International Criminal Court also depends on effective implementation legislation in all States Parties. The complementarity provided for in the Rome Statute can only come into play if States bolster their capacity to prosecute perpetrators of ICC crimes before their national authorities. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Switzerland before the UN General Assembly on “Item 74: Report of the International Criminal Court”, 6 November 2012.
Switzerland
In 2013, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued the “Strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts”, which states:
Switzerland is … committed to the fight against impunity. It supports the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international criminal tribunals. The action of these judicial institutions must be complemented by measures designed to satisfy the rights of victims to the truth, to reparation and to the non-recurrence of violations. Only in this manner can people truly come to terms with the past.
… In situations where states are unwilling or unable to prosecute the perpetrators of serious violations of international law, Switzerland will support recourse to international criminal bodies such as the International Criminal Court. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, 2013, pp. 14–15.
Switzerland
In 2013, in its Report on Foreign Policy 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
In 2012, Switzerland resolutely campaigned for international criminal justice, in particular through its support for the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) … We would like to use the opportunity of our ambassador in The Hague being the Vice-President of the Assembly of the States Parties … to double our efforts and to allow this institution to fulfill its mission: to fight against impunity. More concretely, we strive to improve the cooperation between States and between States and the ICC, as well as to increase the number of State parties. Furthermore, in 2012 we have started to work on the ratification of the amendments adopted at the Kampala Review Conference, which add … new forms of war crimes under the ICC jurisdiction … Regarding the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in order to be able to cooperate with the international mechanism tasked to exercise the residual functions for the two tribunals, in July 2012 Switzerland amended its legislation. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2012, 9 January 2013, pp. 950-951.
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement at the 23rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Switzerland’s representative stated:
Violations of international humanitarian law continue to be committed by all parties to the conflict … Switzerland reiterates its call on the [UN] Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. The fight against impunity is an essential prerequisite for establishing lasting peace in Syria. 
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland at the 23rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council during the debate on the deteriorating situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the recent killings in Al-Qusayr, 29 May 2013.
Switzerland
In 2013 in a statement during an interactive dialogue with the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria at the 23rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, the representative of Switzerland stated:
Violations … of international humanitarian law continue to be perpetrated by all parties to the conflict … Switzerland reiterates its call on the [UN] Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. The fight against impunity is a key prerequisite for the establishment of lasting peace in Syria and must be duly taken into account during the political negotiations. 
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland during an interactive dialogue with the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria at the 23rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 4 June 2013.
Switzerland
In 2013, in answer to a written question in Parliament, the head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated: “On 14 January 2013, at the initiative of Switzerland, 58 States have addressed a letter to the UN Security Council calling for the referral of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.” 
Switzerland, Answer by the head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs to written questions 13.5206 and 13.5207 in Parliament regarding the chemical weapons in Syria and the referral to the International Criminal Court, 10 June 2013.
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, including Switzerland, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights. … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Switzerland
In 2013 in a statement during an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria and the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons at the 24th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, the representative of Switzerland stated:
My delegation condemns in the strongest terms the ongoing violations … of international humanitarian law that are being perpetrated in Syria with absolute impunity.
Switzerland reiterates its call on the [UN] Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. 
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland during an interactive dialogue with the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons at the 24th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 16 September 2013.
Turkey
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Turkey stated:
[Turkey welcomes] the continuing cooperative approach [with regard to the ICTY] demonstrated by two States, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia … On the other hand, it is regrettable that this cooperative attitude was not displayed by the other parties.
… Refusal to comply with [the commitments made in the 1995 Dayton Accords], after formal recognition of the Tribunal and the undertaking to cooperate with it, constitutes a violation of the Agreement. 
Turkey, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 13.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We are strong supporters of the International Criminal Court and, of course, we will do nothing that conflicts with the statute. We understand US objections to the court, but we simply do not share them. Of course article 98.2 provides a procedure, and therefore acting within that article would comply with the statute. However, we will act on the basis of the guiding principles agreed by European Union Ministers on 30 September: no immunity for US citizens, no exemption for UK citizens and exemptions only for US citizens sent by their Government. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 February 2003, Vol. 400, Debates, col. 118.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to questions in the House of Commons, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
Officials met at US request on 17 October 2002 for preliminary discussions. We await a further approach from the US side. The statute of the ICC provides for Article 98.2 agreements in specific circumstances. We will not enter into any agreement with the US unless it is in strict conformity with the statute and the guiding principles agreed with EU partners.
Article 98.2 of the ICC statute provides that the court may not ask a state for surrender of a suspected person if the request would require that state to act inconsistently with its obligations under a relevant international agreement. If the prosecutor nevertheless made such a request, Article 97 would require the state concerned to consult with the court in order to resolve the matter. The statute also makes provision for a case where a state fails to comply with a request from the court, contrary to its obligations under the statute: in such a case the court may refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council has referred the case, to the Council. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answers by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 26 February 2003, Vol. 400, Written Answers, col. 587W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The British Government strongly supports the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its efforts to bring all indictees to the War Crimes Tribunal. We work closely with our international partners and in Stabilisation Force (SFOR) and Kosovo Force (KFOR) to trace and detain indicted war crime suspects in Bosnia and Kosovo. In March 2003, the Office of the High Representative, in co-operation with SFOR, froze the assets of two individuals suspected of being part of Radovan Karadzic’s support network. The UK supports this action.
It is entirely the responsibility of the Serbian and Montenegran (SaM) authorities to transfer any indictees on their territory to the ICTY. We urge the new SaM government to fulfil their obligations in this respect and will support them in doing so. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 March 2003, Vol. 402, Written Answers, cols. 124W–125W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for the Home Office stated regarding a new bilateral extradition treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America:
The treaty also provides the standard speciality protection against onward extradition or surrender, and we have confirmed our understanding that this covers surrender to the International Criminal Court. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Hansard, 31 March 2003, Vol. 402, Written Ministerial Statements, cols. 41WS–42WS.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of the United Kingdom stated:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland associates itself fully with the declaration made earlier on behalf of the European Union by the Greek presidency.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has long been, and remains, a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We note with satisfaction that the number of States Parties continues to grow, and we encourage others to ratify, or accede to, the Statute.
While we understand United States concerns about the International Criminal Court, we do not share them. But those concerns, articulated forcefully in 2002, are still firmly held, and the implications for Security Council-mandated and -authorized operations remain the same as they were last year.
We regard Security Council resolution 1422 (2002) as an exceptional measure. It is not permanent; nor is it automatically renewable. It is subject to scrutiny in the Council, at least annually. We look forward to the day when it or its successor will no longer be required. But resolution 1422 (2002), and now resolution 1487 (2003), are, in our view, consistent with article 16 of the ICC Statute. The Security Council accepted that unanimously on 12 July 2002. It does not undermine the Court; nor does it infringe upon the integrity of the Rome Statute.
The same is true of the resolution we have just voted on. The rollover it envisages will sustain the ability of the United States to contribute to international peacekeeping and other missions. The provisions of the resolution remain deliberately narrow, and there is no blanket immunity. Under the circumstances, we regard the adoption of this resolution as an acceptable outcome in what is for the Council a difficult situation. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4772, 12 June 2003, pp. 22–23.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Lords, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
UK peacekeepers are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the ICC since the UK is a state party to the ICC Statute. Security Council Resolution 1422 allowed a 12-months exemption from ICC investigation only for UN peacekeepers who are citizens of states which are not states parties to the ICC Statute. Resolution 1422 was renewed on 12 June 2003 for a period of 12 months as Resolution 1487. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 30 June 2003, Vol. 650, Written Answers, col. WA55.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of the United Kingdom stated:
Let us be clear that the attack on terrorism and extremism is without favour. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has always emphasized that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) must prosecute those responsible for serious crimes, without discrimination, and must bring to justice all those involved.
I share with Mr. Covic the wish that we should all bring perpetrators of war crimes indicted by ICTY and ensure their extradition to The Hague. That applies equally to those indicted who may happen to be living in Serbia today. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4809, 18 August 2003, p. 8.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of the United Kingdom stated:
Bringing war criminals to confront justice is an essential element of post-conflict situations and a basic element of establishing the rule of law – a precondition of creating peaceful, stable, democratic States. But there is, too, a balance with reconciliation, with the development of a community within the emerging country. That, too, has to be put into the equation.
The obligation on us, as the international community’s representatives, and on our institutions is evident. We all need to do everything we can to deliver the indictees to the Tribunals and to give every possible support to the two Prosecutors. In the former Yugoslavia, I am conscious that British troops have been involved in the arrest of more than one third of those indictees who have been transferred to The Hague. And in the former Yugoslavia, in the annals of a very sad history, three individuals stand out even among the most serious of criminals. Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina deserve to be brought to The Hague as soon as possible. In the past, these individuals have enjoyed protection from some – I am not quite sure whom, but they certainly include some of the State organs of the countries concerned. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland very much hopes that that is no longer the case.
Quite apart from the legal and moral obligations, the international community and organizations like the European Union have policies that will hold directly accountable those countries and authorities that fail to take any action which is possible and, still worse, that afford protection to those individuals. We will all have noted very carefully the words of Ms. Del Ponte in her report when she described the degree of cooperation which she is receiving and has received from the authorities in Croatia, Republika Srpska and Serbia and Montenegro. Essentially, those involved in the region have to understand and accept that the fugitive status of these individuals remains a major obstacle to the final stage of reform and reconciliation across the region.
Indictments and the conduct of cases are properly for the courts and for the prosecutors. Having said that, I think I would welcome clarification of Judge Meron’s remarks that it is between the Council and the prosecutor as to whether the subject of an indictment meets the standards set by the Council. I think I have quoted his remarks more or less verbatim. But the Security Council clearly has a duty to encourage the support of nations for the work of the courts and to ensure that the means are found for the necessary work to be carried out and that indictees with the gravest charges against them are tried before the Tribunal.
So the Security Council legitimately comments on the strategic framework for the International Tribunals, the balance between reconciliation and justice, and the evolving role of national courts as they gradually take over the responsibility of the Tribunals. It may set a completion strategy for the Tribunals and, indeed, comment upon the efficiency of the delivery of justice.
I think we have all noted Ms. Del Ponte’s continuing commitment to completing the investigations and to ceasing the issuance of indictments beyond 2004, focusing on the most serious offenders. But we also heard Judge Meron’s clear – and, I thought, very fair – statement on the implication for the calendar of 14 or so extra indictments. I welcome also the assurance that, in both Tribunals, the need for reform must be addressed, but clearly balanced out against the essential dimension of a due and fair legal process.
My conclusion is that we should pursue justice with renewed vigour. We should aim to complete the work at the same time within the proposed timetable. The role of the domestic war crimes chambers will be vital, and we should give them every support, not just because they will contribute to the completion strategies, but because justice delivered by such courts will be a sign of a maturing political process, both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Rwanda, and as such may be more acceptable locally.
I do not think that what we have heard will require a change of strategy so much as an intensification of effort and the fullest cooperation in practice between the Tribunals themselves and between the Tribunals and the States. As the Security Council keeps the issue under review, we will need to weigh and remember Judge Meron’s wise words about the need to complete the process with regard to the most serious crimes, and to do so in a way that is consistent with due process. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4838, 9 October 2003, pp. 19–20.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the International Criminal Court. He said that the UK Government were assisting bilateral immunity agreements in contravention of the ICC statute and that that was splitting from the EU position. That accusation is completely without foundation. We have made it clear that we believe that bilateral non-surrender agreements are allowed under the existing ICC statutes, provided that they follow the framework set out in the EU guiding principles and are consistent with the language of article 16 of the Rome statute. We have done nothing to contradict that position and we have made it clear that we will not sign a bilateral non-surrender agreement that does not conform with those principles. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that shows that we are acting otherwise, I would welcome it if he put it forward. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 11 November 2003, Vol. 413, Debates, col. 251.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a reply to a written question in the House of Lords, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The Government deplore the war crimes committed during the Balkans conflict in the early 1990s, including the rape of women and girls in Bosnia.
We are sympathetic to any proposal to improve the situation of the victims of these crimes, but it is not clear that awarding civilian war victim status would be the most effective means of ensuring support for these women. What is required is recognition of their suffering as victims of rape, conviction of the perpetrators and provision of appropriate support for these women and their children.
Through the work of the Department for International Development, and support for UNICEF and local NGOs, the Government support projects to raise awareness of rape as a war crime. We strongly support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, which is tasked with bringing to trial those suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Balkans conflict, including rape. It has convicted a number of individuals of this crime. With our partners in the EU, we apply concerted pressure to all governments in the region for greater co-operation with ICTY, particularly in the handover and prosecution of indictees.
The best way to secure financial support for these women and their children is through successful convictions in the Bosnian courts, which can award compensation to the victims of rape. Together with our EU partners, we are working hard to strengthen the capacity of the Bosnian judicial system, so that it can prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes more effectively and efficiently, and provide sustainable support to the victims. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 10 December 2003, Vol. 655, Written Answers, col. WA64.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, efforts to secure the capture of indictees in the former Yugoslavia, the UK Minister of State for Europe stated:
The UK continues to urge all relevant authorities in Serbia and Montenegro (SaM), BiH [Bosnia and Herzegovina] and Croatia, including the Government of SaM and the relevant authorities in Belgrade and Podgorica, to fulfil their international obligation to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia by taking all necessary steps to apprehend and transfer to The Hague all fugitive indictees, in particular Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Europe, Hansard, 13 December 2004, Vol. 428, Written Answers, col. 891W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning fugitive indictees, the UK Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
As we regularly make clear to the countries of the region, full co-operation with the ICTY remains a fundamental requirement for progress towards the EU and NATO. We supported the decision in May of EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn to disrupt Serbia’s Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations because of Belgrade’s failure to co-operate fully with the ICTY. The Commission has made clear however, that they stand ready to resume the talks as soon as full co-operation is achieved. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 26 June 2006, Vol. 448, Written Answers, col. 178W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “the effectiveness of the steps taken by the International Criminal Court to try to arrest the leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army”, the UK Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The UK is a strong supporter, in principle and in practice, of the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its efforts to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. We will continue to maintain political pressure on all parties to provide full co-operation to the ICC. We have called on all those involved to facilitate the arrest of the individuals subject to ICC warrants. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 10 July 2006, Vol. 448, Written Answers, col. 1524W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning, inter alia, whether the United Kingdom would suspend its financial contributions to the Council of Europe pending review of the appropriateness of Serbia taking the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers, the UK Minister of State for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
Serbia still has much work to do to meet its Council of Europe accession commitments, as well as other international obligations, in particular full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). However, we hope that their Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers will provide encouragement for Serbia to demonstrate its commitment to Council of Europe core objectives of human rights, democracy and the rule of law as well as other international obligations, in particular full co-operation with the ICTY.
The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and regularly makes clear to countries of the region their obligation to co-operate fully with the Tribunal, as set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1534. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 14 May 2007, Vol. 460, Written Answers, col. 501W.
United States of America
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the United States stated:
We reaffirm [the ICTY] President Cassese’s request that all States and entities cooperate fully with the [ICTY]. There is no justification for the near-total non-cooperation of Republika Srpska and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the order of the Tribunal, particularly in the apprehension of indictees in areas under their control. The recent cooperation of the Government of Croatia in facilitating the surrender of indictees is commendable, but more cooperation from Croatia is required. The United States will continue to use every tool at its disposal to compel cooperation and to strengthen the capabilities of the [ICTY].
The United States joins with other Member States in continuing to support the work of the war crimes tribunals. 
United States, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 16.
United States of America
In 1998, in response to the situation in Kosovo, but also referring to the other conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the US Congress adopted a resolution by unanimous consent stating:
The United States should engage with other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other interested states in a discussion of measures to be taken to apprehend indicted war criminals and persons indicted for crimes against humanity with the objective of concluding a plan of action that will result in these indictees’ prompt delivery into the custody of the Tribunal. 
United States, Congress, S. Con. Resolution 105 on the Sense of Congress Regarding the Culpability of Slobodan Miloševic, 17 July 1998, Congressional Record (Senate), pp. S8456-S8458.
United States of America
On 8 May 2006, the US Delegation to the UN Committee against Torture, responded orally to questions regarding US obligations under the 1985 Convention against Torture. On a question concerning the International Criminal Court, the US Department of State Legal Advisor responded:
[I]n response to your question regarding the International Criminal Court, which I will refer to by its acronym the “ICC,” the United States strongly supports accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and is steadfast in its promotion of international justice worldwide. The U.S. position on the ICC is wellknown, and is not relevant here; however, the United States does respect the right of other nations to be party to the ICC. The United States played a key role in drafting the substantive elements of the crimes in the Rome Statute. Furthermore, the United States continues to lead the way in promoting accountability for these atrocities by being the largest financial contributor to both international and domestic war crimes tribunals, by finding that genocide has occurred in Darfur, and by supporting countries in their apprehension of fugitives such as Mladic, Karadic, and Taylor. We do agree that international and domestic mechanisms for accountability are an important method of eradicating torture, among other crimes, and in promoting accountability and the rule of law. 
United States, Department of State, Oral Statements by the United States Delegation to the Committee against Torture, Geneva, Switzerland, 8 May 2006.
United States of America
In March 2010, in a speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, the US State Department’s Legal Adviser stated:
With respect to the U.S. relationship to the ICC [International Criminal Court], let me report on my recent participation in the Resumed 8th Session of ICC Assembly of States Parties in New York, from which I have just returned. Last November, [the US] Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes and I led an interagency delegation that resumed engagement with the Court by attending a meeting of the ICC Assembly of States Parties (ASP). This was the first time that the United States had attended such a meeting, and this week’s New York meeting continued that November session. As you know, the United States is not party to the Rome Statute, but we have attended these meetings as an observer. Our goal in November was to listen and learn, and by listening to gain a better understanding of the issues being considered by the ASP and of the workings of the International Criminal Court.
Significantly, although during the last decade the U.S. was largely absent from the ICC, our historic commitment to the cause of international justice has remained strong. As you all know, we have not been silent in the face of war crimes and crimes against humanity. As one of the vigorous supporters of the work of the ad hoc tribunals regarding the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and Lebanon, the United States has worked for decades, and we will continue to work, with other States to ensure accountability on behalf of victims of such crimes. But as some of those ad hoc war crimes tribunals enter their final years, the eyes of the world are increasingly turned toward the ICC. At the end of May, the United States will attend the ASP’s Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda. There are two key items on the agenda: stock-taking and aggression.
In the current situation where the Court has open investigations and prosecutions in relation to four situations, but has not yet concluded any trials, the stock-taking exercise is designed to address ways to strengthen the Court, and includes issues such as state cooperation; complementarity; effect on victims; peace and justice; and universality of membership. Even as a non-State party, the United States believes that it can be a valuable partner and ally in the cause of advancing international justice. Th[is] Administration has been actively looking at ways that the U.S. can, consistent with U.S. law, assist the ICC in fulfilling its historic charge of providing justice to those who have endured crimes of epic savagery and scope. And as [the US] Ambassador [-at-Large for War Crimes] announced in New York, we would like to meet with the Prosecutor at the ICC to examine whether there are specific ways that the United States might be able to support the particular prosecutions that already underway in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Central African Republic, and Uganda. 
United States, “The Obama Administration and International Law”, speech given by the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington DC, 25 March 2010.
United States of America
In May 2010, the US President issued the 2010 National Security Strategy, which stated:
International Justice: From Nuremberg to Yugoslavia to Liberia, the United States has seen that the end of impunity and the promotion of justice are not just moral imperatives; they are stabilizing forces in international affairs. The United States is thus working to strengthen national justice systems and is maintaining our support for ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts. Those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable, and we will continue to support institutions and prosecutions that advance this important interest. Although the United States is not at present a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will always protect U.S. personnel, we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are supporting the ICC’s prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interests and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law. 
United States, Report by the President of the United States, “2010 National Security Strategy”, The White House, Washington DC, 26 May 2010, p. 48.
United States of America
In June 2010, the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court (ICC) at Kampala, Uganda, provided a teleconference briefing for US-based journalists. In his introduction, the US Department of State Legal Adviser stated:
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives … [which includes being] here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal. 
United States, Briefing by the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda, 2 June 2010, p. 2.
The US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues then stated:
[O]ur presentation at all of those sessions [introductory meetings and at an intervention during the previous day of the conference] emphasized … our [US] strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bi-partisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of … the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring … the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere. 
United States, Briefing by the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda, 2 June 2010, p. 2.
In response to a question, the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues further stated that “we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, [assist the ICC in] support [of] these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.” 
United States, Briefing by the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda, 2 June 2010, p. 4.
In response to a further question, the US Department of State’s Legal Adviser stated: “What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court [the ICC] constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.” 
United States, Briefing by the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda, 2 June 2010, p. 4.
United States of America
In June 2010, at a press briefing following the return of the US government delegation from the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court (ICC) held in Kampala, Uganda, the US Department of State’s Legal Adviser stated:
So to paraphrase Churchill, this is not the end, it was not the beginning of the end, but it did feel like the end of the beginning of the U.S’s 12-year relationship with this court. After 12 years, I think we have reset the default on the U.S. relationship with the court from hostility to positive engagement. In this case, principled engagement worked to protect our interest, to improve the outcome, and to bring us renewed international goodwill. As one delegate put it to me, the U.S. was once again seen, with respect to the ICC, as part of the solution and not the problem. The outcome in Kampala demonstrates again principled engagement can protect and advance our interests, it can help the states parties to find better solutions, and make for a better court, better protection of our interests, and a better relationship going forward between the U.S. and the ICC. 
United States, Remarks by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, at a press briefing on US Engagement with the ICC and the Outcome of the Recently Concluded [Kampala] Review Conference, Washington DC, 15 June 2010, p. 2.
United States of America
In October 2010, at a panel discussion on the Challenges and Future of International Justice, the US Department of State’s Legal Adviser stated:
[T]he United States has an historic commitment to the cause of international justice that dates back to the Nuremburg and Tokyo Tribunals, and which has continued with strong commitment to the ad hoc tribunals regarding the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and Lebanon. Our country has never been silent in the face of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide –crimes against the basic code of humanity that call for condemnation in the strongest possible way.
What has this meant in concrete terms? Funding the ad hoc tribunals. Supporting their work, politically and diplomatically. Providing evidence and concrete support to the prosecutors. …
At the same time, however, we should frankly acknowledge that the United States has at times not extended to the International Criminal Court the same support we have provided to the ad hoc tribunals, even as our commitment to international justice in other areas remained strong. …
We supported the ad hoc tribunals, whose days were numbered, but we remained equivocal toward the court that no doubt will become the standing institution for international criminal justice. Our approach to the ICC was incongruent not just with our support for the ad hoc tribunals, but in many ways with respect to some of the work being done by the ICC itself. …
[W]hat has this] Administration done thus far to make our approach to the ICC more congruent with our broader approach to international criminal justice. Three things:
First, in the time we have been in office we have ended the hostility and the harsh rhetoric. …
Second, we began to engage the Assembly of States Parties. …
A third and final area in which we sought to realign our approach was to state our support for all of the court’s prosecutions that are currently underway. We made that announcement in March of this year, at the same time that we announced our desire to meet with the ICC Prosecutor and court officials to find ways we may be able to support the ICC’s current prosecutions.
Since then, we have held a number of these meetings and have found them mutually productive. And although for obvious reasons I am not at liberty to discuss the details, we help where we can, consistent with our laws. One way we have particularly sought to help is through our public diplomacy. You have seen this administration be both quite vocal in its support for bringing persons accused of atrocities by the ICC to justice, and be critical of those who try to thwart that justice. This public diplomacy will continue.
What you quite explicitly do not see from this Administration is U.S. hostility towards the Court. You do not see what international lawyers might call a concerted effort to frustrate the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. That is explicitly not the policy of this administration. Because although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, we share with the States parties a deep and abiding interest in seeing the Court successfully complete the important prosecutions it has already begun. 
United States, Remarks by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, at a panel discussion on the Challenges and Future of International Justice, New York University Centre for Global Affairs, New York, 27 October 2010, pp. 2–3.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Uruguay, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
The Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) notes:
In fact, the refusal to amend Article 17 of the FRY Constitution prohibiting extradition of own nationals, or to apply somewhat broader interpretation of its provisions, is an expression of the lack of political will to accept jurisdiction of the [ICTY] and, therefore, a sign of rejection of the obligation to recognise universal jurisdiction based on the Tribunal Statute. This position is clear from numerous statements regarding the calls to the FRY to extradite its nationals indicted by the Prosecutor of the Tribunal for war crimes. 
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 6.4.
Zimbabwe
In 2012, in a reply to a Member of Parliament regarding the handover of a member of the Rwandan Army to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the policy of Zimbabwe on genocide perpetrators, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
Anyone accused of having committed this heinous crime [genocide] must be brought to book under international law.
An international Warrant of Arrest of Mr. Mpiranya has been issued under international law; and as an active member of the United Nations … Zimbabwe is duty bound to honour and respect the International Warrant of Arrest issued by an International Tribunal established by the United Nations Security Council Resolution. In this regard, Zimbabwe will effect Mr Mpiranya’s arrest, should he be found to be on Zimbabwean territory. 
Zimbabwe, Parliament of Zimbabwe, Oral answers by the Government to questions by Members of Parliament, 14 March 2012.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council:
Calls upon States and, as appropriate, international humanitarian organizations to collate substantiated information in their possession or submitted to them relating to the violations of humanitarian law, including grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, being committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and to make this information available to the Council. 
UN Security Council, Res. 771, 13 August 1992, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In its resolution adopted in 1992 on the establishment of the UN Commission of Experts to examine and analyse violations of IHL committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Reaffirms its call … upon States and, as appropriate, international humanitarian organizations to collate substantiated information in their possession or submitted to them relating to the violations of humanitarian law, including grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 being committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and requests States, relevant United Nations bodies, and relevant organizations to make this information available within thirty days of the adoption of the present resolution and as appropriate thereafter, and to provide other appropriate assistance to the Commission of Experts. 
UN Security Council, Res. 780, 6 October 1992, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution on the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), adopted in 1993 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council:
Decides that all States shall cooperate fully with the International Tribunal and its organs in accordance with the present resolution and the Statute of the International Tribunal and that consequently all States shall take any measures necessary under their domestic law to implement the provisions of the present resolution and the Statute, including the obligation of States to comply with requests for assistance or orders issued by a Trial Chamber under Article 29 of the Statute. 
UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution on Rwanda adopted in 1994, the UN Security Council called upon States and international humanitarian organizations “to collate substantiated information in their possession or submitted to them relating to grave violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda during the conflict”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 935, 1 July 1994, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in its resolution on the establishment of an International Tribunal for Rwanda, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council:
Decides that all States shall cooperate fully with the International Tribunal and its organs in accordance with the present resolution and the Statute of the International Tribunal and that consequently all States shall take any measures necessary under their domestic law to implement the provisions of the present resolution and the Statute, including the obligation of States to comply with requests for assistance or orders issued by a Trial Chamber under Article 28 of the Statute, and requests States to keep the Secretary-General informed of such measures. 
UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, § 2, voting record: 13-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on Rwanda, the UN Security Council:
1.Urges States to arrest and detain, in accordance with their national law and relevant standards of international law, pending prosecution by the International Tribunal for Rwanda or by the appropriate national authorities, persons found within their territory against whom there is sufficient evidence that they were responsible for acts within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for Rwanda;
2.Urges States who detain persons referred to in paragraph 1 above to inform the Secretary-General and the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for Rwanda of the identity of the persons detained, the nature of the crimes believed to have been committed, the evidence providing probable cause for the detentions, the date when the persons were detained and the place of detention. 
UN Security Council, Res. 978, 27 February 1995, §§ 1–2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In its resolution adopted in 1995 authorizing the establishment of IFOR, the UN Security Council:
reaffirms also that all States shall cooperate fully with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and its organs in accordance with the provisions of resolution 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993 and the Statute of the International Tribunal, and shall comply with requests for assistance or orders issued by a Trial Chamber under article 29 of the Statute, and calls upon them to allow the establishment of offices of the Tribunal. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1031, 15 December 1995, § 4, voting record: 15-0-0; see also Res. 1034, 21 December 1995, § 12, voting record: 15-0-0 and Res. 1037, 15 January 1995, § 20, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1997, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates its previous call to all the States in the region [Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Sirmium of the Republic of Croatia], including the Government of Croatia, to cooperate fully with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and recalls its encouragement by the increased cooperation of the Government of the Republic of Croatia with the Tribunal. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1145, 19 December 1997, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Kosovo, the UN Security Council called upon the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the leaders of the Kosovo Albanian community and all others concerned “to cooperate fully with the Prosecutor of the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] in the investigation of possible violations within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1199, 23 September 1998, § 13, voting record: 14-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council reiterated “its strong support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone” and urged “all States to cooperate fully with the Court”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1470, 28 March 2003, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Reminds the parties once again that, in accordance with the Peace Agreement [the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Annexes thereto (collectively the Peace Agreement, S/1995/999, annex)], they have committed themselves to cooperate fully with all entities involved in the implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Peace Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the Security Council, including the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as it carries out its responsibilities for dispensing justice impartially, and underlines that full cooperation by States and entities with the International Tribunal includes, inter alia, the surrender for trial of all persons indicted by the Tribunal and provision of information to assist in Tribunal investigations. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1491, 11 July 2003, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the UN Security Council:
Noting that an essential prerequisite to achieving the objectives of the ICTY and ICTR Completion Strategies is full cooperation by all States, especially in apprehending all remaining at-large persons indicted by the ICTY and the ICTR,
Welcoming steps taken by States in the Balkans and the Great Lakes region of Africa to improve cooperation and apprehend at-large persons indicted by the ICTY and ICTR, but noting with concern that certain States are still not offering full cooperation,
Urging Member States to consider imposing measures against individuals and groups or organizations assisting indictees at large to continue to evade justice, including measures designed to restrict the travel and freeze the assets of such individuals, groups, or organizations,
Recalling and reaffirming in the strongest terms the statement of 23 July 2002 made by the President of the Security Council (S/PRST/2002/21), which endorsed the ICTY’s strategy for completing investigations by the end of 2004, all trial activities at first instance by the end of 2008, and all of its work in 2010 (ICTY Completion Strategy) (S/2002/678), by concentrating on the prosecution and trial of the most senior leaders suspected of being most responsible for crimes within the ICTY’s jurisdiction and transferring cases involving those who may not bear this level of responsibility to competent national jurisdictions, as appropriate, as well as the strengthening of the capacity of such jurisdictions,
Urging the ICTR to formalize a detailed strategy, modelled on the ICTY Completion Strategy, to transfer cases involving intermediate- and lower-rank accused to competent national jurisdictions, as appropriate, including Rwanda, in order to allow the ICTR to achieve its objective of completing investigations by the end of 2004, all trial activities at first instance by the end of 2008, and all of its work in 2010 (ICTR Completion Strategy),
Noting that the above-mentioned Completion Strategies in no way alter the obligation of Rwanda and the countries of the former Yugoslavia to investigate those accused whose cases would not be tried by the ICTR or ICTY and take appropriate action with respect to indictment and prosecution, while bearing in mind the primacy of the ICTY and ICTR over national courts,
Noting that the strengthening of national judicial systems is crucially important to the rule of law in general and to the implementation of the ICTY and ICTR Completion Strategies in particular,
Noting that an essential prerequisite to achieving the objectives of the ICTY Completion Strategy is the expeditious establishment under the auspices of the High Representative and early functioning of a special chamber within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the “War Crimes Chamber”) and the subsequent referral by the ICTY of cases of lower- or intermediate-rank accused to the Chamber,
1. Calls on the international community to assist national jurisdictions, as part of the completion strategy, in improving their capacity to prosecute cases transferred from the ICTY and the ICTR and encourages the ICTY and ICTR Presidents, Prosecutors, and Registrars to develop and improve their outreach programmes;
2. Calls on all States, especially Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina, to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the ICTY, particularly to bring Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, as well as Ante Gotovina and all other indictees to the ICTY and calls on these and all other at-large indictees of the ICTY to surrender to the ICTY;
3. Calls on all States, especially Rwanda, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of the Congo, to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the ICTR, including on investigations of the Rwandan Patriotic Army and efforts to bring Felicien Kabuga and all other such indictees to the ICTR and calls on this and all other at-large indictees of the ICTR to surrender to the ICTR;
4. Calls on all States to cooperate with the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO-Interpol) in apprehending and transferring persons indicted by the ICTY and the ICTR;
5. Calls on the donor community to support the work of the High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina in creating a special chamber, within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to adjudicate allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1503, 28 August 2003, preamble and §§ 1–5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the UN Security Council:
1. Reaffirms the necessity of trial of persons indicted by the ICTY and reiterates its call on all States, especially Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina, to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the ICTY, particularly to bring Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, as well as Ante Gotovina and all other indictees to the ICTY and calls on all at-large indictees of the ICTY to surrender to the ICTY.
2. Reaffirms the necessity of trial of persons indicted by the ICTR and reiterates its call on all States, especially Rwanda, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the ICTR, including on investigations of the Rwandan Patriotic Army and efforts to bring Felicien Kabuga and all other such indictees to the ICTR and calls on all at-large indictees of the ICTR to surrender to the ICTR. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1534, 26 March 2004, §§ 1–2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council underlined that “full cooperation by States and entities with the International Tribunal includes, inter alia, the surrender for trial of all persons indicted by the Tribunal and provision of information to assist in Tribunal investigation”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1551, 9 July 2004, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council expressed it appreciation for “the essential work of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, noting its vital contribution to the establishment of the rule of law in Sierra Leone” and encouraged “all States to cooperate fully with the Court”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1562, 17 September 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
1. Decides to refer the situation in Darfur since 1 July 2002 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;
2. Decides that the Government of Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur, shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution and, while recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under the Statute, urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully;
3. Invites the Court and the African Union to discuss practical arrangements that will facilitate the work of the Prosecutor and of the Court, including the possibility of conducting proceedings in the region, which would contribute to regional efforts in the fight against impunity;
4. Also encourages the Court, as appropriate and in accordance with the Rome Statute, to support international cooperation with domestic efforts to promote the rule of law, protect human rights and combat impunity in Darfur.  
UN Security Council, Res. 1593, 31 March 2005, §§ 1–4, voting record: 11-0-4.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council:
Expressing its appreciation for the essential work of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, noting its vital contribution to the establishment of the rule of law in Sierra Leone, and in this regard underlines the importance of ensuring that all those indicted by the Court appear before it, in order to strengthen the stability of Sierra Leone and the subregion and to bring an end to impunity, and encourages all States to cooperate fully with the Court. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1610, 30 June 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Sierra Leone, the United Nations Security Council:
Reiterating its appreciation for the essential work of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its vital contribution to the establishment of rule of law in Sierra Leone and the subregion, underlining its expectation that the Court will finish its work in accordance with its Completion Strategy, and in this regard encouraging all States to cooperate fully with the Court and to provide it with the necessary financial resources. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1620, 31 August 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council encouraged “all States to cooperate fully with the [Special Court for Sierra Leone] as it implements its completion strategy”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1626, 19 September 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Reminds the parties once again that, in accordance with the Peace Agreement, they have committed themselves to cooperate fully with all entities involved in the implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Peace Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the Security Council, including the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as it carries out its responsibilities for dispensing justice impartially, and underlines that full cooperation by States and entities with the International Tribunal includes, inter alia, the surrender for trial or apprehension of all persons indicted by the Tribunal and provision of information to assist in Tribunal investigations. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1635, 21 November 2005, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council demanded “that all parties cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, particularly with regard to the arrest and transfer of indictees who remain at large”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1649, 21 December 2005, § 19, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council:
3. Takes note of the willingness of the International Criminal Court, as requested by the Special Court and as expressed in the Memorandum dated 13 April 2006 to allow the use of its premises for the detention and trial of former President Taylor by the Special Court, including any appeal;
4. Requests all States to cooperate to this end, in particular to ensure the appearance of former President Taylor in the Netherlands for purposes of his trial by the Special Court, and encourages all States as well to ensure that any evidence or witnesses are, upon the request of the Special Court, promptly made available to the Special Court for this purpose. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1688, 16 June 2006, §§ 3–4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Reminds the parties once again that, in accordance with the Peace Agreement, they have committed themselves to cooperate fully with all entities involved in the implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Peace Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the Security Council, including the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as it carries out its responsibilities for dispensing justice impartially, and underlines that full cooperation by States and entities with the International Tribunal includes, inter alia, the surrender for trial or apprehension of all persons indicted by the Tribunal and provision of information to assist in Tribunal investigations. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1722, 21 November 2006, § 3,
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Reminds the parties once again that, in accordance with the Peace Agreement, they have committed themselves to cooperate fully with all entities involved in the implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Peace Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the Security Council, including the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as it carries out its responsibilities for dispensing justice impartially, and underlines that full cooperation by States and entities with the International Tribunal includes, inter alia, the surrender for trial or apprehension of all persons indicted by the Tribunal and provision of information to assist in Tribunal investigations. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1785, 21 November 2007, § 17, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1995, in a statement by its President on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council reiterated that “all States shall cooperate fully with the International Tribunal established pursuant to its resolution 827 (1993) and its organs”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/44, 7 September 1995, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 1995, in a statement by its President on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council recalled “the establishment of the International Tribunal pursuant to its resolution 827 (1993)” and reiterated that “all States shall cooperate fully with the Tribunal and its organs”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/52, 12 October 1995, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council stresses that the full cooperation of all States with the Tribunals is not only a mandatory obligation of all States under its resolutions 827 (1993) and 955 (1994) and the Statutes of the Tribunals, but also is an essential element in realizing the Completion Strategies. In this regard the Council takes careful note of the assessments presented with respect to the level of cooperation by the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro and the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina with the ICTY. We welcome as well the commitments made by the new government in Serbia regarding cooperation with the ICTY. The Council takes note of developments in Croatian and Rwandan cooperation with the ICTY and ICTR respectively.
The Security Council reiterates its call on all States, especially Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina, to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the ICTY, particularly to bring Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, as well as Ante Gotovina and all other such indictees to the ICTY.
The Security Council reiterates its call on all States, especially Rwanda, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of the Congo, to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the ICTR, including on investigations of the Rwandan Patriotic Army and efforts to bring Felicien Kabuga and all other such indictees to the ICTR.
The Security Council emphasizes the importance of the referral of cases involving lower and intermediate rank accused to competent national jurisdictions in achieving the Completion Strategies, and recalls the provisions of its resolutions 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004), including the call for assistance to ensure the success of this effort. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/28, 4 August 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council reiterates its appreciation for the work of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its vital contribution to reconciliation and the rule of law in the country and the subregion, and encourages all states, particularly states in the subregion, to cooperate fully with the Court and to provide it with the necessary financial resources. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/63, 20 December 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council urged the international community “to continue to support the Special Court as it moves into its final stage of work, including by ensuring that the remaining fugitive indictee appears before the Court”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/23, 28 June 2007, p. 1.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly:
9. Requests States, as a matter of urgency, to make available to the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] expert personnel, resources and services to aid in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of having committed serious violations of international humanitarian law;
10. Requests all States, in particular the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), to cooperate, as required under Security Council resolution 827 (1993), with the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] in providing evidence for investigations and trials and in surrendering persons accused of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/196, 23 December 1994, §§ 9–10, voting record: 150-0-14-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the rape and abuse of women in the areas of armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly called upon all States “to cooperate with the International Tribunal and the Office of the Prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of using rape as a weapon of war and in the provision of protection, counselling and support to victims and witnesses”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/205, 23 December 1994, § 13, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, the UN General Assembly urged States “to cooperate fully” with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/206, 23 December 1994, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, the UN General Assembly:
Urges all States, pursuant to Security Council resolution 978 (1995), to exert, without delay, every effort, including arrest and detention, in order to bring those responsible to justice in accordance with international principles of due process, and also urges States to honour their obligations under international law in this regard, particularly under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/200, 22 December 1995, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the rape and abuse of women in the areas of armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly
Reminds all States of their obligation to cooperate with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 and also with the Office of the Prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of using rape as a weapon of war. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/192, 22 December 1995, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly:
Reminds all States of their obligation under Security Council resolution 827 (1993) to cooperate with the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], including through compliance with requests for assistance and orders issued by a trial chamber of the Tribunal, and, in this regard, urges the parties to allow the establishment of offices of the Tribunal in their territories and draws the attention of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to their obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal, in particular to arrest, detain and facilitate the transfer to the custody of the Tribunal any and all indicted war criminals who reside in or transit through or are otherwise present in their respective territories. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, § 10, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, the UN General Assembly:
Urges all States to cooperate fully, without delay, with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994, taking into account the obligations contained in Security Council resolutions 955 (1994) of 8 November 1994 and 978 (1995) of 27 February 1995. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/114, 12 December 1996, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on rape and abuse of women in the areas of armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly:
Reminds all States of their obligation to cooperate with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of using rape as a weapon of war. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/115, 12 December 1996, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly called upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to “cooperate with the International Criminal Court and to continue to cooperate with the International Tribunal for Rwanda”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/196, 22 December 2003, § 6(g), voting record: 81-2-91-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the maintenance of international security – good-neighbourliness, stability and development in South-Eastern Europe, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 to bring all at-large indictees to surrender to the Tribunal in line with Security Council resolutions 1503 (2003) of 28 August 2003 and 1534 (2004) of 26 March 2004. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/59, 3 December 2004, § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly called upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to take specific measures to “continue to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/207, 20 December 2004, § 6(f), voting record: 76-2-100-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly:
6. Calls upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to take specific measures:
(f) To continue to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court and with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, by ensuring that they have all necessary means with which to accomplish their tasks;
7. Calls upon the Governments of countries in the region, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
(e) To continue to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and, specifically in the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to make swift progress towards passing legislation necessary for the International Criminal Court’s investigations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to proceed smoothly. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/170, 16 December 2005, §§ 6(f) and 7(e), voting record: 102-3-67-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the report of the International Criminal Court, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling that effective cooperation and assistance by States, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations remains essential for the International Criminal Court to carry out its activities,
5. Welcomes the effective cooperation and assistance provided to the International Criminal Court by States, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, and calls upon them to continue providing such cooperation and assistance in the future. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/15, 20 November 2006, preamble and § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on maintenance of international security – goodneighbourliness, stability and development in South-Eastern Europe, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States to intensify cooperation with and render all necessary assistance to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 to bring all at-large indictees to surrender to the Tribunal in line with Security Council resolutions 1503 (2003) of 28 August 2003 and 1534 (2004) of 26 March 2004. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/53, 6 December 2006, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon States:
To protect children affected by armed conflict, in particular from violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law and to ensure that they receive timely, effective humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and calls upon the international community to hold those responsible for violations accountable, inter alia, through the International Criminal Court. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/146, 19 December 2006, § 36(e), voting record: 185-1-0-6.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the report of the International Criminal Court, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling that effective and comprehensive cooperation and assistance in all aspects of its mandate by States, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations remains essential for the International Criminal Court to carry out its activities,
4. Calls upon States parties to the Rome Statute that have not yet done so to adopt national legislation to implement obligations emanating from the Rome Statute and to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the exercise of it s functions, and recalls the provision of technical assistance by States parties in this respect;
5. Welcomes the cooperation and assistance provided thus far to the International Criminal Court by States parties as well as States not parties, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, and calls upon those States that are under an obligation to cooperate to provide such cooperation and assistance in the future, in particular with regard to arrest and surrender, the provision of evidence, the protection and relocation of victims and witnesses and the enforcement of sentences;
6. Invites regional organizations to consider concluding cooperation agreements with the International Criminal Court. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/12, 26 November 2007, preamble and §§ 4–6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly:
41. Calls upon States:
(e) To protect children affected by armed conflict, in particular from violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and to ensure that they receive timely, effective humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and calls upon the international community to hold those responsible for violations accountable, inter alia, through the International Criminal Court;
54. Urges all States to strengthen international cooperation and mutual assistance to prevent and protect children from all forms of violence and to end impunity for crimes against children. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/141, 18 December 2007, §§ 41(e) and 54, voting record: 183-1-0-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
16. Also welcomes the establishment of the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] and urges that all States provide all necessary and appropriate support to the Tribunal;
19. Urges all States and responsible authorities to cooperate with the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], including the provision of substantiated information and the apprehension of persons accused of violations of international humanitarian law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/72, 9 March 1994, §§ 16 and 19, adopted without a vote.
It reiterated this appeal in 1995. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/89, 8 March 1995, § 23, voting record: 44-0-7.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the rape and abuse of women in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all States that hosted refugees “to provide the necessary assistance to the Commission of Experts in its efforts to interview or otherwise collect evidence for its investigation of the systematic practice of rape of women”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/77, 9 March 1994, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In resolutions adopted in 1995 and 1996 on Rwanda, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all States concerned to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, taking into account the obligations contained in Security Council Resolutions 955 (1994) and 978 (1995). 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/91, 8 March 1995, § 5, adopted without a vote; Res. 1996/76, 23 April 1996, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
5. Demands that all States and parties to the 1995 Dayton Accords meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], as required by Security Council resolution 827 of 25 May 1993, including with respect to surrendering persons sought by the Tribunal;
6. … demands that all States arrest, detain and facilitate the transfer of … persons [indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] to the custody of the Tribunal and ensure adequate protection of witnesses who have appeared before the Tribunal. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/71, 23 April 1996, §§ 5–6, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the situation of human rights in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
3. Stresses the continuing problems of varying degrees of seriousness throughout the region:
(e) Continuing obstruction of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;
16. Notes with grave concern that Slobodan Miloševic and other senior leaders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) continue to maintain positions of power despite their indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity, that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has repeatedly ignored the orders of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia to transfer indicted war criminals to The Hague for trial and has not transferred even one indictee to The Hague since the inception of the Tribunal;
17. Stresses the evidence that the most senior leaders of the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) are responsible for the continuing refusal of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to meet its obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal;
18. Demands, in accordance with Security Council resolution 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993 and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cooperate fully with the Tribunal and, in particular, permit immediate access to all parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), firstly through prompt issuance of requested visas to officials of the Tribunal to conduct investigations;
20. Calls upon authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to:
(a) Comply fully with the obligation to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;
36. Welcomes the transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia by the Government of Croatia of indicted war criminals, including Mladen Naletilic (“Tuta”);
45. Calls upon all parties to the Peace Agreement, especially the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, noting that there is no valid constitutional or statutory reason for failure to cooperate, and urges all parties to respect the “rules of the road” for the submission of cases to the Tribunal;
46. Urges all States and the Secretary-General to support the Tribunal to the fullest extent possible, in particular by helping to ensure that persons indicted by the Tribunal stand trial before it, by ensuring that victims and witnesses are given adequate protection and by continuing to make available to the Tribunal adequate resources to aid in the fulfilment of its mandate;
47. Welcomes the close cooperation between the Stabilization Force and the Tribunal that has led to a substantial number of arrests of persons indicted for war crimes, the most recent example of which is the arrest of Momcilo Krajisnik;
48. Calls upon all indicted persons to surrender voluntarily to the custody of the Tribunal, as required by the Peace Agreement;
49. Urgently calls once again upon authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those of the Federation and in particular in the Republika Srpska, to apprehend and surrender for prosecution all persons indicted by the Tribunal, as required by Security Council resolution 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993 and the statement by the President of the Security Council of 8 May 1996, and calls upon all parties to cooperate in the apprehension and surrender of indictees who may be in their territory. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2000/26, 18 April 2000, §§ 3(e), 16–18, 20(a), 36 and 45–49, voting record: 44-1-18.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2001 on the situation of human rights in south-eastern Europe, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
10. Urges all States and parties to the Peace Agreement [1995 Dayton Accords] to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as required by Security Council resolution 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993 and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and in particular to comply with their obligations to arrest and transfer to the custody of the Tribunal all those indicted persons present in their territories or under their control;
19. Calls upon the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina … to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in particular for the apprehension of former Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić and former Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladić, …;
25. Welcomes the commitment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, notes the first steps it has undertaken in this regard and urges all authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to comply fully with their obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal, in particular concerning the apprehension and extradition of persons indicted for war crimes;
40. Requests the Chairperson of the Commission to appoint for one year a special representative of the Commission with a mandate to examine the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; in reporting on the human rights situation in Kosovo, the Special Representative should:
(b) Closely monitor the situation, paying particular attention to those areas that remain a source of concern, including cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/12, 18 April 2001, §§ 10, 19, 25 and 40(b), voting record: 41-0-11.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2002 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls upon States to continue to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda and consider ways of supporting the initiatives to establish judicial mechanisms currently under consideration in a few countries in cooperation with the United Nations, and in this regard encourages the continuation or resumption, where needed, of discussions regarding the establishment of appropriate legal frameworks in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness and due process of law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2002/79, 25 April 2002, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
3. Condemns:
(h) The impunity of those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and points out in this connection that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
5. Calls upon the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to take specific measures:
(d) To continue to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/15, 17 April 2003, §§ 3(h) and 5(d), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Acknowledging the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda,
Recognizing the establishment of the International Criminal Court as an important contribution to ending impunity,
Recognizing also, as measures in the fight against impunity and in promoting accountability, the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the issuance of its first indictments, the establishment of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the establishment of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste and the Special Panel for Serious Crimes in the Dili District Court,
Taking note of the efforts by the Secretary-General and the Government of Cambodia to establish extraordinary chambers in the national courts of Cambodia for the prosecution of crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge,
3. Acknowledges the historic significance of the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 1 July 2002 and calls upon all States to consider ratifying or acceding to it;
4. Recognizes that as of the inaugural ceremony of the International Criminal Court on 11 March 2003, 89 States had ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, stresses the importance of the implementation by States parties of their obligations under the Statute and calls upon States which are eligible to do so to continue to participate actively in the Assembly of States Parties;
6. Calls upon States to continue to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda, and to consider supporting other initiatives to establish judicial mechanisms in cooperation with the United Nations, in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness and due process of law, including at the regional and national levels;
7. Encourages States to provide financial and other support to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, commends those States which have provided such support and expresses its satisfaction that the Court is operational. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/72, 25 April 2003, preamble and §§ 3–4 and 6–7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Sierra Leone, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
3. Urges:
(a) All relevant parties in Sierra Leone, including civil society, to continue to cooperate with the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission;
(c) All States in the Mano River subregion to cooperate with the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to work constructively for the consolidation of peace and security in Sierra Leone;
(d) The international community, including relevant United Nations agencies, to make available the necessary resources to ensure that there is no shortfall in the budget of the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including for the conduct of investigations;
5. Decides:
(a) To renew its request that the High Commissioner and the international community continue to assist the Government of Sierra Leone to maintain an effectively functioning Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and to cooperate with the Special Court;
(c) To urge the international community to respond to the respective appeals made by the Secretary-General and the Office of the High Commissioner and make available the necessary funds to ensure that the budgets of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court are fully covered, and requests the Government of Sierra Leone actively to seek the urgently needed funds;
(e) To request the High Commissioner and the international community to make further relevant technical assistance available to the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/80, 25 April 2003, §§ 3(a),(c) and (d) and 5(a), (c) and (e), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Acknowledging the importance of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda in combating impunity,
Recognizing the establishment of the International Criminal Court as an important contribution to ending impunity, and noting the first referral by a State of a situation to the Court,
Recognizing also, as measures to combat impunity, the establishment of special regional and national tribunals, and judicial proceedings, often with international support, which are bringing to justice the perpetrators of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that constitute crimes,
Welcoming cooperation between international criminal tribunals, including sharing lessons learned and devising effective approaches to meet challenges faced, to advance the common goal of strengthening the international criminal justice system,
10. Calls upon States to continue to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda, and to consider supporting other initiatives to establish judicial mechanisms in cooperation with the United Nations, in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness and due process of law, including at the regional and national levels. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/72, 21 April 2004, preamble and § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on technical cooperation and advisory services in Cambodia, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Welcomes the Agreement reached on 6 June 2003 between the United Nations and the Government of Cambodia to set up Extraordinary Chambers exercising their jurisdiction in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness and due process as set out in article 12 of the Agreement, urges the SecretaryGeneral and the Government of Cambodia to take all necessary measures for the early establishment of these Chambers, and appeals to the international community to provide assistance, including financial and personnel support, to the Extraordinary Chambers, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 57/228 B of 13 May 2003. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/79, 21 April 2004, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to take specific measures to “cooperate with the International Criminal Court and to continue to cooperate with the International Tribunal for Rwanda”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/84, 21 April 2004, § 5(e), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Welcoming also the essential work being carried out by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in addressing justice and impunity …
1. Welcomes:
(b) The indictments by the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its ongoing work to bring to justice those persons who bear the greatest responsibility for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, as well as crimes under relevant Sierra Leonean law committed within the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996;
3. Decides:
(e) To urge all States to submit their outstanding pledged funds to meet the budget of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and to support the SecretaryGeneral’s request to the General Assembly to consider a further financial contribution to the functioning of the Special Court from the regular budget of the United Nations, and urges all States to cooperate fully with the Special Court. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/86, 21 April 2004, preamble and §§ 1(b) and 3(e), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Welcoming the essential work being carried out by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, including the establishment of a second trial chamber, to address justice and impunity …
1. Welcomes:
(b) The ongoing work of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to bring to justice those persons who bear the greatest responsibility for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, as well as crimes under relevant Sierra Leonean law committed within the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996;
3. Decides:
(e) To urge all States to consider making pledges and/or to submit their outstanding pledged funds to meet the budget of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and to support requests by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly to consider further subvention for the functioning of the Special Court from the regular budget of the United Nations, and urges all States to cooperate fully with the Special Court.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/76, 20 April 2005, preamble and §§ 1(b) and 3(e), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Acknowledging the importance of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in combating impunity,
Recognizing the important contribution of the International Criminal Court to ending impunity, and noting the first referrals by States and the Security Council of situations to the Court and the ongoing investigations by the Prosecutor,
Recognizing also, as measures to combat impunity, the establishment of special, regional and national tribunals and judicial proceedings, often with international support, which are bringing to justice the perpetrators of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that constitute crimes,
Welcoming cooperation between international criminal tribunals, including sharing lessons learned and devising effective approaches to meet challenges faced, to advance the common goal of strengthening the international criminal justice system,
11. Calls upon States to continue to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and to consider supporting other initiatives to establish judicial mechanisms, as well as truth and reconciliation commissions and other commissions of inquiry that can contribute to ending impunity, in cooperation with the United Nations, in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness and due process of law, including at the international, regional and national levels. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/81, 21 April 2005, preamble and § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights requested the Transitional Government to take specific measures to “continue to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court and the International Tribunal for Rwanda, by ensuring that they have all necessary means with which to accomplish the task”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/85, 21 April 2005, § 6(f), adopted without a vote.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights:
Welcoming the recent decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia to implement its first indictments,
8. Welcomes the progress made by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal and calls on all States, as required under Security Council resolution 827 (1993) of 23 May 1993, to cooperate with the International Tribunal in providing information and evidence for investigations and trials and in the apprehension and surrender of persons accused of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/8, 18 August 1995, preamble and § 8.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on Rwanda, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights:
4. Appeals to the international community to provide the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 and the Government of Rwanda with the necessary means to enable them to prosecute and try those guilty of … genocide and massacres;
6. Urges all States in whose territory there are persons allegedly responsible for acts of genocide to arrest those persons so that they can be … extradited at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal or the Rwandan authorities. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/3, 19 August 1996, §§ 4 and 6
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a recommendation adopted in 1993 on establishing an international court to try serious violations of international humanitarian law, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated:
It believes that the decision to establish [the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia] shows that there would not be any major obstacle to setting up a permanent universal court to try serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as it advocated in Recommendation 1189; it takes the view that it is essential that such a court be established under United Nations auspices. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1218, 27 September 1993, § 4.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution on the situation in some parts of the former Yugoslavia adopted in 1995, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated:
It strongly condemns all human rights violations committed since the beginning of the tragic events which devastated the area and cost the civilian population so dearly. It is insists that the perpetrators of such offences be brought to justice with the fullest possible co-operation of those representing the sides concerned. Member States of the Council of Europe should co-operate in exchanging information to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in carrying out its task in an efficient manner. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1066, 27 September 1995, § 7.
European Union
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the EU as well as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Cyprus, stated:
We would like to stress the need for unstinting cooperation by all States and all parties with the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], to enable it to perform its duties satisfactorily.
… The legal obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal is mentioned in article 29 of its statute. The handing over or transfer of indictees for whom arrest warrants have been issued is essential in order to assure the Tribunal’s proper functioning and credibility. The European Union believes that the international community must see to it that article 29 of the statute is fully implemented …
… Whereas Croatia and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina have complied, to varying degrees, with the Tribunal’s orders, the two entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina? the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not, thus defying the authority of the United Nations …
Nothing can justify the non-execution of arrest warrants. It is essential that States adopt the necessary legislative, administrative and judicial measures to ensure the speedy execution of the orders issued by the Tribunal. Although many States have promulgated enforcement legislation to discharge their responsibilities, the European Union continues to be concerned that, generally speaking, the situation is unsatisfactory.
Moreover, the European Union reaffirms that it is imperative to give proper financial support and to ensure effective personnel management in the Tribunal …
The European Union and its member States will continue to make voluntary contributions to help the Tribunal’s work; it will provide full support for its smooth functioning. To that end, a cooperative relationship with the various republics is contingent upon their compliance with the peace accords and their cooperation with the International Tribunal. 
EU, Statement by Luxembourg on behalf of the EU and associated States before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 5.
No data.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Several indictments by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have recalled the obligation upon States to cooperate with the Tribunal. For instance, in the Karadžić and Mladić case (Review of the Indictments) in 1996, the ICTY Trial Chamber, acting pursuant to Rule 61 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, stated:
The failure to effect personal service of the indictments and to execute the warrants of arrest issued against Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić may be ascribed to the refusal of Republika Srpska and to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to cooperate with the Tribunal. 
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Review of the Indictments, 11 July 1996, § 101.
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the initial report of Serbia and Montenegro in 2004, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee notes the State party’s public statements emphasizing its commitment to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in order to ensure that all persons suspected of grave human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, are brought to trial. However, it remains concerned at the State party’s repeated failure to fully cooperate with ICTY, including with regard to the arrest of indictees (art. 2 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
The State party should extend to ICTY its full cooperation in all areas, including the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of having committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, and by apprehending and transferring those persons who have been indicted and remain at large, as well as granting ICTY full access to requested documents and potential witnesses. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Serbia and Montenegro, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/SEMO, 12 August 2004, § 11.
[emphasis in original]
Human Rights Committee
In 2006, in its concluding observations on the report submitted by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) on the human rights situation in Kosovo since June 1999, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee is concerned about the continuing impunity enjoyed by some perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed prior to the UNMIK mandate and about ethnically motivated crimes perpetrated since June 1999 … as well as the failure to effectively investigate many of these crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. The Committee regrets the failure of UNMIK to fully cooperate with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (arts. 2 (3), 6 and 7 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
UNMIK, in cooperation with PISG [Provisional Institutions of Self-Government], should investigate all outstanding cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnically motivated crimes committed before and after 1999, including where the perpetrators may have been Kosovo Albanians, ensure that the perpetrators of such crimes are brought to justice and that victims are adequately compensated. It should provide effective witness protection programmes, including by means of witness relocation, and extend full cooperation to International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia prosecutors. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the report submitted by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo on the human rights situation in Kosovo since June 1999, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UNK/CO/1, 14 August 2006, § 12.
[emphasis in original]
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Sudan in 2007, the Human Rights Committee stated:
Despite the information provided by the State party about prosecutions of a number of perpetrators of human rights violations, the Committee notes with concern, particularly in the context of armed conflict, that widespread and systematic serious human rights violations, including murder, rape, forced displacement and attacks against the civil population, have been and continue to be committed with total impunity throughout the Sudan and particularly in Darfur … (art. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 12 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
The State party should:
(c) Take all appropriate steps, including cooperation with the International Criminal Court, to ensure that all human rights violations brought to its attention are investigated, and that those responsible for such violations, including State agents and militia members, are prosecuted at national or international level.  
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, 29 August 2007, § 9.
[emphasis in original]
No data.
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
In its report to the OSCE on a fact-finding mission to Chechnya in 1996, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights recommended that “the OSCE openly and vigorously support in principle the establishment of an appropriate international judicial process for investigating and prosecuting allegations of violations of humanitarian law committed by both parties to the conflict in Chechnya”. 
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Report to the OSCE: Fact-Finding Mission to Chechnya, 1–11 October 1996, Vienna, 16 October 1996, pp. 8–9.