Expert criticises failure to ratify court

Ireland may have won temporary membership of the United Nations Security Council, but its failure so far to ratify establishment of the new International Criminal Court has been described as an "embarrassment" by a Galway-based expert on human rights.

This State is "well behind" other European countries, several of which have ratified the Rome Statute underpinning the new court, Prof William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway, has said. The EU has promised that all member-states will approve it by the end of this year, but while the Irish Government has taken the preliminary step of signing the statute, it has not even prepared the necessary legislation, he told a symposium at the university.

The International Criminal Court will resemble ad-hoc tribunals set up to try crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the Yugoslavia and Rwanda conflicts. It will be empowered to prosecute people responsible for serious human rights violations - such as deposed Yugoslav leader Mr Slobodan Milosevic - in cases where national courts fail to assume their responsibilities. It will have jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of states that ratify the statute, and over crimes committed outside their territory by nationals of those states.

The enabling Rome Statute will come into effect when 60 governments ratify it, and 21 have done so to date. Among EU member-states that have given approval are Italy, France and Belgium, while Britain recently released draft legislation to facilitate it. Ratification will permit Ireland to participate in the election of judges, prosecutors and other court personnel. However, if the Government fails to give approval by the time the court is created - probably in late 2001 - it will not be able to propose candidates for these important positions.

Legislative changes will be required to allow for judicial co-operation - in areas like surrender of suspects and on-site investigations. NUI Galway law lecturer Dr Tom O'Malley outlined the areas of Irish criminal law that would be affected, and participants agreed the changes were simple and relatively minor. It was also felt Irish legislators could draw on successful models in other countries with similar legal systems, such as Canada and New Zealand.

There would be some "minor" constitutional issues, Dr John O'Dowd of UCD's law faculty said. For instance, the President would lose her/his immunity. The Rome Statute excludes immunity based on official status, a principle already recognised by most national courts and reaffirmed in the recent Pinochet case.

Several months ago the Attorney General indicated a constitutional amendment might be required to address the fact the Irish Constitution provides for trial by jury, whereas those accused by the International Criminal Court would be tried by a panel of judges. Participants at the symposium found this a puzzling argument, given that Ireland regularly extradites individuals where they are not entitled to trial by jury, and without any apparent constitutional problem.

Participants and speakers - including Prof Colm Campbell of the University of Ulster, and Christopher Keith Hall, legal adviser to Amnesty International in London - agreed the matter seemed low on the list of political priorities here. It mirrored a similar attitude to the creation of the Human Rights Commission and ratification of major international human rights treaties.

Law Society Conference on Human Rights 4