Docstoc

The Budget and Finance Team of the

Document Sample
The Budget and Finance Team of the Powered By Docstoc
					                       The Budget and Finance Team of the
            Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC)


    Submission to the Seventh Session of the Committee on Budget and
                     Finance on 9 – 13 October 2006


       Comments on the Proposed Programme Budget for 2007 of the
            International Criminal Court and other matters
                                    6 October, 2006




PREFACE

While the work of the Budget and Finance Team reflects the positions of those Coalition
members most active on particular issues and this paper has been prepared in
consultation with other Coalition teams, this paper cannot be construed to represent the
views of all organizations/members of the CICC. Since the Rome Diplomatic Conference,
Coalition members have organized themselves into teams, one to follow each working
group or theme of the intergovernmental process. Coalition teams now follow issues
addressed by the Assembly of States Parties or its subsidiary mechanisms and by the
International Criminal Court. Teams provide a forum within which interested members
discuss issues, follow developments, elaborate relevant research and positions in
response to developments, and elaborate and implement advocacy strategies in relation
to those positions. All Coalition members are welcome to join any teams and all
Coalition members are regularly apprised of the work of the teams.
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3

II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2007 ...................................... 4

III. SPECIFIC ISSUES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2007 .... 5
      (A) The new budgetary approach of the Court ..................................................... 5
      (B) A fourth investigation ...................................................................................... 6
      (C) Gender and Children Unit ............................................................................... 7
      (D) Victims and Witnesses Unit ............................................................................. 8
      (E) Public Information Unit .................................................................................. 9
      (F) Victims Participation and Reparations Section ............................................ 10
      (G) Legal aid for defence and financial assistance for legal representatives for
          victims ............................................................................................................. 11
      (H) Office of Public Counsel for Victims ............................................................ 12
      (I) Permanent premises ....................................................................................... 13
      (J) In situ hearings .............................................................................................. 13
      (K) Translations.................................................................................................... 14

III. OTHER ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS
SEVENTH SESSION ...................................................................................................... 15
      (L) Status of overdue assessed contributions ...................................................... 15

IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 15




                                                                2
I. INTRODUCTION

1.      The Budget and Finance Team (Team) of the Coalition for the International
Criminal Court (CICC) was established at the sixth session of the Preparatory
Commission and its members have followed and contributed to the drafting of the
Financial Regulations, Financial Rules, the Remuneration of Judges, the Budget for the
First Financial Period and the Programme Budgets for 2004, 2005 and 2006. In
organizing themselves for the Preparatory Commission and now the Assembly of States
Parties (Assembly), CICC members from civil society organizations, with a broad range
of specialization in international justice issues form teams focusing on specific issues
including the annual programme budget. Teams provide a forum within which interested
members discuss issues, follow developments, and consider relevant research and
positions in response to these developments. The Team aims to assist the Committee on
Budget and Finance (Committee) and the Assembly in considering the budget and other
financial matters by submitting detailed commentaries and recommendations
incorporating member groups’ expertise and practical knowledge on international justice
issues.

2.      In this paper, the Team provides comments and makes recommendations on the
Proposed Programme Budget for 2007 of the International Criminal Court1 and other
issues that will be considered by the Committee at its seventh session on 9 to 13 October
2005.

3.      The Team hopes the document will be useful to the Committee in considering the
proposed budget and other items on its agenda. Taking into account requests from the
Committee to issue the Team’s submissions promptly in both English and French, we
have aimed to conduct our analysis and issue our commentary to the Committee as soon
as possible after the release of the proposed 2007 budget by the International Criminal
Court (Court). The Team will be available to discuss any of these issues with the
Committee or states parties in advance of the Committee’s session and can be contacted
via the CICC’s Hague Office (nilsson@iccnow.org, Anna Paulownastraat 103, 2518BC
The Hague, Tel: 0031(0)70-3634484).




1
    ICC-ASP/5/9, 22 August 2006


                                            3
II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2007

4.     The Team welcomes the continued consultation conducted by the Court’s Budget
Steering Committee in the preparation of its budget. In particular, Team members were
pleased to participate in consultation meetings on the budget which took place in May
and June 2006 in The Hague and New York. We understand similar discussions and
presentations have been held with states parties at different stages of the process.

5.       The Team also welcomes the on-going consultation with the Committee. In
particular, we are grateful to the Committee for continuing to allocate time during each of
its sessions to hear the Teams views on a variety of issues. The Team further welcomes
the decision of the Committee to appoint one of its members to liaise with the Team
between sessions.

6.      The Team welcomes many aspects of the proposed budget for 2007. The style of
the budget has once again improved, making it a well structured and easy to understand
document. In particular, the tables of expected results and performance indicators are
clearly set out and the explanation of the need for new resources is in most cases
informative and detailed. In many cases, the Court has stated what would be the
consequences of not approving new resources. The Team believes this is a useful
approach which contributes to greater understanding of the Court’s request and
strengthens the justification process.

7.      The Team notes that the budget is now premised on the objectives of the Strategic
Plan, indicated with Strategic Objectives for each entry. While tying the Strategic
Objectives into the budget is an excellent advancement, the Team notes that some civil
society organizations have concerns about elements of the Strategic Plan of the
International Criminal Court.2 These concerns will not be addressed in this paper.

8.       There remain some areas where the budget style could still be strengthened. In
particular, last year the Team requested that, in addition to providing reasons for
increases, the Court should also provide explanations for significant reductions on
particular budget lines. Unfortunately this recommendation was not implemented in the
preparation of the 2007 budget and we urge the Court to reconsider the recommendation
for its preparation of the 2008 budget as we believe it would provide the reader a broader
understanding of the Court’s budget and decision making.

9.      The proposed budget requests an increase of €13 million of which €3.87 million is
attributable to new resources. As explained below, the budgetary approach this year is
significantly different from previous years with the Court revising its assumptions to
request funds “only where funds are clearly needed.”3 If additional funds are required, the
Court will use the contingency fund. The assumptions for the number of trials in 2007
have, therefore, been reduced from two in 2006 to one in 2007, reflecting the fact that

2
    ICC-ASP/5/6, 4 August 2006.
3
    ICC-ASP/5/9, 22 August 2006, para. 14.


                                             4
only one person has been surrendered to the Court. The system promises to ensure greater
accuracy in preparation of the annual budget. Effective systems to reviewing the amount
of the contingency fund and replenishing it, as needed, will be essential to ensure that the
new approach works.

10.    The Team welcomes important investment in a number of key areas, in particular
outreach, victims and witnesses protection and support and the preparations for the
Permanent Premises. The Team also welcomes the information provided about the
estimated costs of in situ hearing, which could be funded by the contingency fund, if
required in 2007.

11.     The Team continues to be concerned about the budgetary approach to ensuring
expert support to investigation teams interviewing victims and to the lack of clarity about
legal aid for defence counsel and financial assistance to victims’ representatives. It is not
clear whether there is adequate funding for these important aspects of the Court’s work
and there is a lack of clarity about the budgetary requests. The Team therefore reiterates
its previous recommendation that the Committee request the Court to provide public
reports on these issues, which it could consider at its next session, to ensure that the
budgetary approaches are clarified at this important stage of the Court’s first trials.

III. SPECIFIC ISSUES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2007

(A) The new budgetary approach of the Court

12.    In previous years the Court has endeavoured in its proposed budgets to predict the
developments that would take place in the financial year through developing
assumptions. For example, for 2006, it assumed that two trials would begin by mid-2006
and budgeted accordingly. In reality, based on the uncertainties of when persons charged
by the Court will be arrested and surrendered for trial, as of 1 September 2006, only one
person has been surrendered to the Court and proceedings are yet at the pre-trial stage.
This will likely result in an underspend. Similar scenarios have occurred in previous
years based on the difficulty of the Court to accurately predict the developments 12-18
months in advance.

13.     This year, to ensure greater accuracy in its budget preparation, the Court has taken
a significantly different approach. Instead of predicting developments that will take place
in 2007, the Court has budgeted only for those activities that will almost certainly take
place. Therefore, as only one person has been surrendered to the Court, it has only
budgeted for one trial in 2007. In the event that another person or persons charged by the
Court are surrendered, the Court will meet the costs of further trials from the €10 million
contingency fund, which was created in 2004 and has yet to be used by the Court.

14.     The Team welcomes the new approach which is logical and will ensure greater
accuracy in the preparation of the budget, whilst ensuring flexibility to respond to the
arrest and surrender of other persons charged by the Court, the timing of which is




                                              5
difficult to predict. Such use of the contingency fund would clearly fall within the
intended use of the fund to meet:

           “Unavoidable expenses for developments in existing situations that could
           not be foreseen or could not be accurately estimated at the time of
           adoption of the budget.”4

15.     The success of such a system will however, depend on: firstly, whether there are
sufficient resources in the contingency fund; secondly, whether the Assembly will
replenish the contingency fund every year, as needed; and thirdly, whether uses of the
contingency fund are subsequently approved by the Assembly and on-going costs arising
from the activities are incorporated into the budget for the following year.

16.        The Team recommends:

              The Committee endorses this new budgetary approach;
              The Committee reviews the total amount of the contingency fund this year and
               every year, in consultation with the Court, to ensure that the resources in the
               fund are sufficient to respond to the arrest and surrender of persons charged
               by the Court, as well as ensuring that resources are also available for other
               possible uses of the fund, including, responding to unforeseen situations and
               an unforeseen session of the Assembly;
              The Committee considers measures that could be taken to ensure that the
               contingency fund is fully replenished each year as needed and makes
               recommendations to the Assembly;
              The Committee recommends that the Assembly instruct the Court to ensure
               that if the contingency fund is used, the Court will report to the Assembly, in
               accordance with Financial Regulation 6.8, and incorporate all on-going costs
               into the following year’s budget request.5

(B) A fourth investigation

17.    The budget requests additional resources for the fourth investigation, which is
expected to commence in 2006 and has already been approved in the 2006 budget. The
Court has indicated in a number of areas where additional resources will be required to
conduct the investigation effectively in 2007.

18.        The Team recommends that:


4
    Financial Regulation 6.6.
5
    Financial Regulation 6.8 states:
           The Registrar shall report together with the new draft programme budget to the Assembly
           of States Parties, through the Committee on Budget and Finance, on any exercise of the
           commitment authority given under regulation 6.7.



                                                     6
              The Committee recommends that the Assembly approve posts and resources
               requested for the fourth situation.

(C) Gender and Children Unit

19.     The Gender and Children Unit is located in the Investigation Division of the
Office of the Prosecutor. Despite its title, the Unit, with the assistance of a roster of
experts, has a broader mandate in supporting the work of the division in dealing
effectively with victims and witnesses.

           “The gender and Children Unit provides specialist advice and support in
           relation to victims/witness issues (e.g., pre-interview psychological
           assessment of potential witnesses; assistance to interviews of highly
           traumatized witnesses; the development of policies on the analysis and
           investigation methodologies regarding gender and sexual violence and
           violence against children and the implementation thereof.”6

20.     In previous years, the Team has raised concern about the level of staffing of the
Unit to meet this important mandate.7 In particular, the Team believes that there should
be adequate staff and resources for its roster of experts to provide pre-interview
assessments for all interviews conducted with victims and witnesses of the crimes during
investigations and, based on those assessments, to provide assistance in all interviews
with traumatized victims and witnesses, including victims of sexual violence and
violence against children, as well as to undertake monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation of investigation guidelines. A failure to reach this goal could cause
greater harm to victims and witnesses, undermine investigations and the reputation of the
Court which is mandated in Article 68 (1) of the Rome Statute to “take appropriate
measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and
privacy of victims and witnesses.”

21.     The Team is concerned that the three staff allocated to the unit will be unable to
conduct these functions, even with the assistance of the roster of experts, and to perform
its other policy and training tasks effectively. Although there is an increase in the 2007
budget providing for:

           “six 7-day missions… for each situation under investigation to enable one
           Associate Victims Expert or expert from the roster to perform pre-
           interview assessments and/or assist with interviewing of highly
           traumatized victims/witnesses by the investigators”8

6
 Propose Programme Budget for 2006 of the International Criminal Court, ICC-ASP/4/5, 24 August 2005,
para.137.
7
  See: The Budget and Finance Team of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Submission to
the Fifth Session of the Committee on Budget and Finance on 10-14 October 2005, Comments on the
Proposed Programme Budget for 2006 of the International Criminal Court, 23 September 2005, para. 10.
8
    ICC-ASP/5/9, 22 August 2006, para. 128.


                                                    7
it is not clear whether this increase is sufficient to achieve the goal of providing the
Unit’s services to all interviews with victims and witnesses. For example, the budget
indicates that 43 missions are planned by investigation teams to Darfur and the
Democratic Republic of Congo and 30 missions to the fourth situation. 9 Although not all
missions will involve interviewing victims and witnesses, it raises concern that the
provision for experts may not be adequate. The Team believes this is a very important
issue which should be monitored by the Committee and the Assembly to ensure that
sufficient resources are being allocated each year.

22.        The Team recommends that:

              The Committee requests the Court to report publicly in advance of its next
               session on:
                    i. The percentage of interviews with victims and witnesses of crimes
                       under the jurisdiction of the Court where a pre-interview psychosocial
                       assessment is conducted by an Associate Victims Expert from the
                       Gender and Children Unit or an expert from its roster.
                   ii. The percentage of interviews with traumatized victims and witnesses
                       which are attended and facilitated by an Associate Victims Expert
                       from the Gender and Children Unit or an expert from its roster.
                  iii. If the percentages are less than 100%, to set out measures that would
                       need to be taken and resources required to meet that target.

(D) Victims and Witnesses Unit

23.     Ensuring adequate resources for the Victims and Witnesses Unit to provide
protection, support and assistance to victims and witnesses has been a key area of focus
of the Team in previous years, especially given the security risks in all situations where
the Court is currently conducting investigations. The Team therefore welcomes the
provision in the proposed budget for an increase in field staff to undertake protection and
support activities. Adequate staff in the field is of course essential for the Unit to fulfil its
important mandate. With the commencement of cases, it is important to recognize that
the demands on the Unit will also increase as cases start. In particular, in addition to
providing services to the Prosecution, the Unit will need to ensure protection and support
for victims and witnesses contacted by the defence. The Unit’s services could also be
required by victims participating in the proceedings.

24.     The needs of victims and witnesses are often long-term (e.g. psychosocial care for
vulnerable witnesses such as rape victims or children, and provision of medical
assistance, including antiretroviral drugs for rape victims who have HIV/AIDS). Thus,
the Unit must ensure long-term strategies, such as referral of victims to local
organisations. While the Unit has indicated that they are looking into long-term referral
strategies, immediate needs have not allowed for medium or long term planning. It is

9
    ICC-ASP/5/9, 22 August 2006, para. 139.


                                                8
therefore unclear whether the increased staffing will be sufficient to ensure a sustainable
protection, support and assistance strategy.

25.     The Unit also has the very important task of seeking relocation agreements with
states, which will be a vital tool to ensure prompt measures are taken to guarantee the
safety of victims and witnesses in situations when they are in serious risk. At present,
there are reportedly a lack of relocation agreements which could frustrate the ability of
the Court to protect victims and witnesses who are most at risk. The Team supports the
Unit’s request for additional resources to intensify its efforts to address the issue with
states parties.

26.        The Team recommends that:

              The Committee recommends approving the budgetary increase proposed by
               the Court for the Victims and Witnesses Unit.

(E) Public Information Unit

27.     A priority issue for the Team in previous years and again this year, is ensuring
that the Court has adequate resources to conduct effective outreach, particularly in
countries where investigations are taking place. The Team welcomed the attention given
by the Assembly at its fourth session to this issue and its inclusion of the following
paragraph in its Resolution on Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the
Assembly of States Parties:

                   “Recognizes the importance for the Court to engage communities,
           in situations under investigation in a process of constructive interaction
           with the Court, designed to promote understanding and support for its
           mandate, to manage expectations and to enable those communities to
           follow and understand the international criminal justice process and, to
           that end, encourages the Court to intensify such outreach activities and
           requests the Court to present a detailed strategic plan in relation to its
           outreach activities to the Assembly of States Parties, in advance of its fifth
           session.”10

The Team is also grateful to members of the Committee who participated in a meeting on
this issue organized by the Team and the CICC’s Communications Team during the
Committee’s sixth session in April 2006, to hear their views on this issue.

28.     The Team welcomes consultations organized by the Court on the preparation of
the outreach strategy. The CICC’s Communications Team made recommendations on a
range of issues. In particular, the Communications Team highlighted the need for
investment in field staff and other resources to ensure that the Court can take effective
measures to inform communities in situations under investigation about the Court and its
work. The Team therefore welcomes the increase in the proposed budget for the Public
10
     Resolution ICC-ASP/4/Res.4, 3 December 2005, para. 22.


                                                    9
Information Unit to expand its outreach efforts. Unfortunately, it is difficult to comment
in detail on the full extent of the increase given the delay in the publication of the Court’s
outreach strategy. It would have been preferable if this document had been issued at the
same time as the budget. The Team has, however, developed the following general
comments based on the information in the budget request. The Team, in coordination
with the CICC’s Communications Team, will supplement these with comments on the
strategy once it is has been duly considered, particularly with partners in the field.

29.     The Team welcomes the investment in the field staff. The field staff will be
essential to ensure that local communities are informed about Court and its work.
However, an issue which is not clear in the budget is how the Court plans to conduct
effective outreach on the situation in Darfur and the fourth situation in 2007. The Team
will analyse this aspect of the strategy document carefully.

30.    The Team also welcomes investment in translation and interpretation of print,
audio-visual and other materials in at least 10 languages. Translation and interpretation of
these materials into local languages is vital to communicate effectively with local
communities.

31.      The Team has concerns about the level of field staff who are tasked with serving
as spokespersons for the Court and to liaise with heads of national and international
organizations. The P-2 grade provided to these posts raises doubts that the post will
attract the highest qualified candidates and whether their grade would undermine their
ability to liaise effectively with high ranking members of national and international
organizations.

32.     The Team recommends:

           The Committee recommends that the Assembly approve the important
            increases for outreach.
           The Committee continues to monitor the development of the Court’s outreach
            strategy and its resource requirements.

(F) Victims Participation and Reparations Section

33.      The Team has consistently called for adequate staff and resources for the Victims
Participation and Reparations Section to perform its important functions including,
informing victims of their rights to participate in trials and to apply for reparation as well
as facilitating and processing their applications. In particular, the Team believes that it is
important that field officers are in place in each situation from the start of an
investigation to develop networks and disseminate information on the rights of victims.
Although the Team welcomes the request for a third field officer for the Victims
Participation and Reparations Section, the Team notes that with four investigations taking
place in 2007, three field officers will not be sufficient to conduct effective field activities
in all four situations. The Team is disappointed that the Court did not request a fourth
field officer.



                                              10
34.        The Team recommends that:

               The Committee recommends the Assembly approve the additional resources
                requested for the Victims Participation and Reparations Section.
               The Committee requests the Court to review its resources for the field
                activities of the Victims Participation and Reparations Section and publicly
                reports on its strategy and resource requirements.

(G) Legal aid for defence and financial assistance for legal representatives for victims

35.     In recent years, the Team has called on the Court to provide more clarity on the
legal aid budgets for defence counsel and financial assistance for legal representatives for
victims. Unfortunately these issues have not been addressed in the 2007 budget.

36.     In relation to defence counsel, payment details of the Court’s legal aid scheme are
annexed to a 2004 Report to the Assembly on options for ensuring adequate defence
counsel for accused persons.11 The payment details, however, raise a number of concerns
as to whether the legal aid provided to defence counsel is adequate. For example, there
does not appear to be resources for defence counsel to employ expert witnesses. A budget
for 90 days of investigations by defence counsel is provided for each case, however, it is
not clear whether additional resources are available to extend the period of investigations
if required. There are provisions in the Regulations of the Court whereby a person
receiving legal aid can apply for additional resources, however, it is not clear whether
funds are allocated for providing additional resources.12 These issues are fundamental to
the principle of equality of arms which is cited as a key principle of the payment
scheme.13

37.    In relation to representation of victims, there is much less clarity. In a 2004
Report on the participation of and reparation of victims, the Court merely states:

           “In order to ensure that the obligations of the Registry as set forth in the Rome
           Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (in particular rule 16.2.b and
           rule 90.5) are respected, it is envisaged to request limited resources for legal
           assistance for victims such as the creation of the Office of Public Counsel and a
           budget of €310,000. This will enable the victims in the two cases anticipated by



11
     ICC-ASP/3/16, 17 August 2004, Annex II.
12
     Regulation 80 (3) and (4) state:
           3. A person receiving legal assistance paid by the Court may apply to the Registrar for
           additional means which may be granted depending on the nature of the case.
           4. Decisions by the Registrar on the scope of legal assistance paid by the Court as defined
           in this regulation may be reviewed by the relevant Chamber on application by the person
           receiving legal assistance.
13
     ICC-ASP/3/16, 17 August 2004, para. 16.


                                                       11
           the Prosecutor to receive, at a very modest level, the necessary legal assistance. It
           is also through legal assistance, that the protection of victims can be ensured.”14

The provision fails to set out the basis for the financial assistance budget and how it will
be used. It is also unclear how the Court will assess victims' lack of sufficient resources
when a group of victims wishes to appoint or are appointed a common legal
representative.

38.     It is very important that, with the Court conducting its first case in 2007, these
issues around legal aid for Defence Counsel and financial assistance for victims’ legal
representatives are fully resolved.

39.        The Team recommends:

              The Committee requests the Court to review its provisions for legal aid for
               defence counsel, in consultation with defence lawyers, bar associations and
               civil society organizations and report to the Committee at its next session on
               the outcome of the review.
              The Committee requests the Court to review its provisions for financial
               assistance for victims’ representation, in consultation with victims counsel,
               bar associations, victims’ organizations and other civil society organizations
               and to present a document setting out the details of the financial assistance
               scheme to the Committee at its next session.

(H) Office of Public Counsel for Victims

40.     In addition to the issues of legal aid set out in section (F), the Team is concerned
about the lack of clarity about who will provide assistance to victims. In particular, it is
not clear whether the Office of Public Counsel for Victims intends its staff to represent
victims at the Court. The first bullet point “expected result” for the Office listed in the
budget states: “Represent victim(s)/group(s) of victims in proceedings before the Court.”
There are a number of issues and concerns that would arise from such an approach which
need to be discussed, in consultation with civil society. In particular, there are questions
of whether such representation would be consistent with the Rome Statute or the
Regulations of the Court. Although Regulation 80 (2) stated: “The Chamber may appoint
counsel from the Office of Public Counsel for Victims,” Regulation 81 (4) states:

           “The Office of Public Counsel for victims shall provide support and
           assistance to the legal representative for victims and to victims, including,
           where appropriate:
           (a) Legal research and advice; and
           (b) Appearing before a Chamber in respect of specific issues.”




14
     ICC-ASP/3/21, 25 August 2005, para. 10.


                                                12
Furthermore, if the Office is to provide legal representation to victims, consideration
needs to be given to when it would be appropriate for the Office to do so.

41.    The Team recommends:

          The Committee requests the Court to report publicly on the role of the Office
           of Public Counsel for Victims in representing victims and its resource
           requirements.

(I) Permanent premises

42.     The Team, together with the CICC’s Premises Team, has consistently advocated
for investment in the process of establishing the permanent premises of the Court. The
Team, therefore, welcomes the proposed budget for the newly established Project Office
Permanent Premises. The Office will take the important first steps of defining the
permanent premises requirements (including formulating options for the different
geographical locations of the Court’s resources and activities) and undertaking other
tasks assigned to it by the Assembly at its fifth session.

43.      The CICC’s Premises Team has also consistently advocated for purpose-built
premises at the site of the Alexanderkazerne for reasons of security, flexibility and
functionality. In particular now that the Host State has offered a favourable loan, this
option is also financially advantageous. The Team notes that there is a general preference
for this option among most stakeholders.

44.     The Team is concerned that postponing a decision for purpose-built premises will
lead to costly and unnecessary delays. It is estimated that if a decision for purpose-built
premises is not taken at this session of the ASP, the Court will still have to pay for at least
one additional year rent for the ARC-building after the rent-free period runs out in 2012.

45.    The Team recommends:

          The Committee recommends that the Assembly approve the budgetary request
           for Project Office Permanent Premises.
          The Committee recommends that the ASP take a decision in favour of
           purpose-built premises at the site of the Alexanderkazerne at its next session.

(J) In situ hearings

46.     The ability of the Court to conduct in situ hearings in or close to the country
where the crimes were committed will be very important for a range of reasons, including
ensuring that the Court’s work is visible and relevant to the affected population; to dispel
criticisms that the Court is an European court detached from the country where the crimes
have been committed; in some cases to avoid disrupting the lives of victims and
witnesses who would otherwise have to travel to the Hague; and as legacy so that the
Court serves as a model for the national justice system. The Team therefore welcomes the


                                              13
inclusion of a budget summary for a 14 day hearing in situ, which if required would be
funded by the contingency fund. In situ hearings will require significant funding to be
conducted effectively. Issues such as security, victims’ services, outreach will need to be
considered and provided for. To ensure understanding of the Court’s approach and
transparency, the Team would welcome a detailed explanation by the Court of its budget
summary, explaining as far as possible, how an in situ hearing would work and the
resources required for it.

47.     The Team recommends:

            The Committee requests the Court to provide a public Report setting out the
             basis for its budgetary request for in situ hearings.

(K) Translations

48.      Article 50 (2) of the Rome Statute establishes that “[t]he working languages for
the Court shall be English and French.” The Team believes that the Court’s approach to
fulfilling this mandate requires clarification. In particular, it is currently not clear which
judicial documents are being translated and why. The Team notes that, to date, the Court
has not translated a significant proportion of its judicial documents. For example, in the
Democratic Republic of Congo situation and the Lubanga case, between 5 May 2004 and
27 September only 132 of the 272 documents filed in the public court records (48 per-
cent) were translated.15 This practice raises issues about the transparency of the Courts
work. It could also raise problems relating to efficient trial process and fair trials if parties
to cases are not fluent in both working languages of the Court.

49.      The Team notes that in 2005 the Assembly approved a significant budgetary
increase to meet the translation and interpretation requirements of the Court. The Team
would welcome greater clarity about how these resources are being allocated and used,
especially in relation to trial documents. The Team notes that in 2005, the Court issued a
Report on rationalizing translations capacities (ICC-ASP/4/CBF.1/7), however, the Court
has not made this report public. It is not known whether the Court had at that time
adopted a specific translations strategy to address these issues. At this early stage in the
Court’s first case, the Team urges the Committee to request the Court to take measures to
clarify its translation strategy, considering the need to ensure transparency of the Court’s
work, to avoid costly delays in trials and to ensure that trials are fair.

15
   The breakdown for the 132 documents which have not been translated is as follows:
- 2 documents were issued in December 2005;
- 3 document were issued in January 2006;
- 26 documents were issued in February and March 2006;
- 12 documents were issued in April 2006;
- 17 documents were issued in May 2006;
- 17 documents were issued in June 2006;
- 25 documents were issued in July 2006;
- 30 documents were issued in August 2006;
- 49 documents were issued between 1-27 September.



                                                   14
50.    The Team recommends that:
        The Committee request the Court to issue on its website its 2005 Report on
          rationalizing translations capacities.
        The Committee request the Court to provide an additional public report
          reporting on its translation strategy for 2006.

III. OTHER ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS
SEVENTH SESSION

(L) Status of overdue assessed contributions

51.     The Team has consistently raised concern about the status of non-payment of
assessed contributions by states parties and re-iterates its call for all states parties to pay
overdue contributions without delay and to address the causes of non-payment to prevent
future delays. The Team has followed the work of the Bureau’s New York Working
Group on the Issue of Arrears of States Parties and will consider its report when it has
been issued.

52.    The Team does not take any position on the Committee’s consideration of
requests for exemptions from loss of voting rights.

IV. CONCLUSION

53.      This paper has provided input on some areas of the budget where members of the
CICC have particular expertise, including, but not limited to, investigations, support for
victims and outreach. The paper is submitted for the consideration of the Committee at its
seventh session on 9-13 October 2006. The Team will review the Report of the
Committee on its seventh session and may issue further submissions to the Assembly at
the fifth session of the Assembly.




                                              15

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:9/25/2012
language:English
pages:15