Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

Section 58 provides for sittings in the State of the ICC and subsection (2) stipulates that orders made by the ICC while sitting in the State will have the same effect as though the orders were made by the Central Criminal Court. The proposed amendment seeks to broaden the scope of subsection (2) by providing that orders made by the ICC before or after sitting in the State will also have effect as if they were orders made by the Central Criminal Court.

This proposal would seem to give orders of the ICC direct application in this country, with uncertain results. The suggested new material is being added after "detention" in line 42 of page 46, but before the closing bracket. Thus, it appears that orders for imprisonment or detention made by the ICC before or after sitting in the State would have direct effect in the State.

As requests made by the ICC for the arrest of persons will be processed in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill, this proposal is unnecessary. Under the provisions of Part 3, only the High Court can issue a warrant for the arrest of a person. In addition, the proposed amendment seems to go beyond the intent of the Rome Statute and the related Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute, in article 4, provides for the exercise of the functions and powers of the ICC on the territory of a state party. The agreement in article 12 provides that where the ICC exercises its functions outside its headquarters in The Hague, it may conclude with the state concerned an arrangement concerning the provision for the appropriate facilities for the exercise of its functions. I cannot accept the proposal to give the ICC orders for imprisonment or detention direct effect in the State and, accordingly, it is not proposed to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context