Related Rule
Australia
Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
Section E. Cooperation with international criminal tribunals
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.
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’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’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’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.
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.
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.