Related Rule
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
Section E. Cooperation with international criminal tribunals
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.