Seanad debates

Tuesday, 13 June 2006

International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Second Stage.

 

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

6:00 pm

Photo of Frank FaheyFrank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect in Irish law to the provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on 17 July 1998, otherwise known as the Rome Statute. The Bill creates domestic offences and associated penalties for ICC crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It enables assistance to be given to the ICC by permitting the arrest and surrender of persons requested by the ICC. The Bill also provides for freezing of assets and enforcement of ICC orders for fines or forfeiture of such assets to the ICC and other forms of practical assistance in the investigation of ICC offences. The Bill also provides for sittings of the ICC in the State and related technical matters.

Members of this House will recall that this Bill is preceded by a constitutional amendment, which was approved by a majority of voters in a referendum held in June 2001. The amendment was enacted in 2002. It ensures that the State's constitutional obligations will not conflict with the fulfilment of its obligations under the Rome statute since submission.to the jurisdiction of the ICC necessitates a partial transfer to the ICC of the sovereign power of the State to administer criminal justice.

The International Criminal Court is a new departure in the struggle to bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity. Unlike previous tribunals, it is the first court to be established on a permanent international basis and it will be in the first court to be in existence before a conflict breaks out. This permanency should ensure a proactive rather than reactive response to such atrocities in the future.

The framework which paved the way for the establishment of the ICC was to create an independent international court but also a court dependent on the executives of the various jurisdictions which it represents for its functioning. As a result, the court is independent in the exercise of its functions but is, at the same time, dependent on assistance from state parties in bringing perpetrators of ICC crimes to justice.

The establishment of the ICC has its roots in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These conventions developed the scope of genocide as a crime against humanity and extended international responsibility into situations of international conflict. During the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, crimes against humanity were linked to armed conflict. The recent tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have now established these crimes as self-standing to be prosecuted even in the absence of armed conflict.

These tribunals also served to revive the international momentum for establishing a permanent, international, independent criminal court. The work of the International Law Commission, which were tasked with the development of proposals for a permanent International Criminal Court, culminated in a text finalised at a meeting of the international community in Rome in July 1998. The International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002, by which time 60 states had ratified the statute. To date, 100 states have become party to the statute.

The court, which has its seat in the Hague, is comprised of four organs: the presidency, consisting of a president and two vice presidents who are responsible for the administration of the court; the divisions or chambers of the court comprising pre-trial, trial and appeal divisions; the independent office of the prosecutor; and the registry with responsibility for non-judicial administration of the Court. An Irish judge at the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Ms Maureen Harding Clark, was elected as one of the 18 judges of the court. At subsequent meetings of the state parties, the prosecutor, deputy prosecutor and registrar of the court were elected. Since their appointment, the various organs of the ICC have been active in recruiting staff, drafting regulations and formulating policies to inform their work, in readiness for the court's first cases.

The ICC is already operational in that it has received referrals from state parties. These relate to the Ugandan Government's conflict with the Lord's Resistance Army, an alleged incident in Ituri in the Democratic Republic of Congo and an incident in the Central African Republic. These have become the court's first cases. Most recently, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1593 on 31 March 2005 referring the ongoing conflict in Darfur to the ICC. This case is important to the ICC because it is the Security Council's first such referral and represents a welcome affirmation of the legitimacy of the ICC. It demonstrates the court's authority and the international community's commitment to ending impunity.

Another important recent development was the arrest and transfer to the ICC of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese national and alleged founder and leader of the Union des Patriotes Congolais, UPC. This arrest was on foot of a warrant issued by the pre-trial chamber dealing with this referral. The chamber found there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Lubanga had committed the war crime of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities. While not wishing to pre-empt the outcome of proceedings before the court, this first arrest and transfer to the court marks a significant milestone in its development and demonstrates that the mechanisms established by the Rome statute can have real effect in practice.

The International Criminal Court brings a new sense of individual criminal responsibility to these international crimes. The ICC jurisdiction extends to offences committed by nationals of state parties, or committed on the territory of state parties and non-state parties who consented to the ICC having a role. This individual responsibility is extended to ensure that any diplomatic immunity attaching to a person because of a connection with a state party is not a bar to proceedings. As in the Darfur case, the court also has jurisdiction over crimes committed in situations anywhere in the world which are referred to it by the United Nations Security Council. In addition to prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes, the court may also prosecute those in authority who order crimes to be committed including Heads of State and government officials. This formulation should ensure that people holding state positions who orchestrate such attacks on humanity cannot hide behind their office so as to evade prosecution. Sections 13 and 61, respectively, of the Bill implement this criminal responsibility.

Apart from these specific ICC provisions, the Irish courts may apply domestic criminal law principles when considering ICC offences. Under section 3 of the Bill, the courts may also take into account the rules of procedure and evidence, the elements of crime and any relevant judgment or decision of the ICC, together with the preparatory background work in drafting the statute and the published views of commentators on the operation of the statute.

Individual criminal responsibility is grounded on the principle of complementarity of the Statute of Rome. The ICC is not a substitute for national criminal justice systems in that it will only take on an investigation where a state is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. As such, it is an institution to encourage states to prosecute such international crimes rather than seek to diminish states' domestic judicial authority. Under Article 14 of the statute, any state party can refer a crime to the prosecutor and no state party has a veto over prosecution. In addition, as previously noted, the ICC may consider offences wherever committed, if referred by the United Nations Security Council.

In terms of the jurisdiction to be taken by state parties, the statute requires that they provide jurisdiction for crimes committed on the territory of the state, or by a national of the state outside the state. A further category of jurisdiction — universal jurisdiction — whereby jurisdiction is adopted over any offence committed in any state by a person of any nationality, was previously adopted in the Geneva Conventions Acts 1962 and 1998 in respect of grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. As many of these grave breaches are comparable with ICC offences, universal jurisdiction is also adopted in section 12 for those ICC offences, which are also grave breaches. It is a matter for Irish courts to decide, depending on the facts on the particular case, whether the ICC offence is comparable with a grave breach for the purposes of exercising such universal jurisdiction.

The creation of a permanent independent prosecutor who can investigate and prosecute ICC offences is yet another strength of the ICC as compared with previous tribunals. This is of critical importance in cases where democracy has broken down and where state institutions may not be available to undertake such investigations. Section 59 implements this provision in the Irish context.

While such stringent measures are necessary in the prosecution of these crimes, the statute is balanced with equally demanding safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and also to reflect state parties' genuine concerns for their sovereignty. This is reflected in the Bill in that, although the Irish High Court in considering a request for surrender may not review the grounds supporting the request as authorised by the pre-trial chamber, there is the possibility of admissibility and jurisdictional challenges.

At each stage in the arrest and surrender process established in Part 3, there is a brake on proceedings to allow for the possibility of admissibility challenges before the ICC. Thus, the Minister may postpone the certification of a request for surrender in section 19 until any challenge to the admissibility of the case or to the ICC's jurisdiction is determined. Similarly, the High Court will not make a surrender order under section 25 if there are challenges to admissibility. Additionally section 27 ensures that a person who has been committed under a surrender order may not be surrendered until 15 days after the order has been made or, alternatively, until all appeal proceedings have been determined. Even after the High Court has made the surrender order, the Minister, under section 31, may still postpone the actual surrender pending the conclusion of any admissibility challenges.

The statute also recognises the rights of the individual by specifying a schedule of entitlements in Article 55, typical of the standards expected in an Irish criminal prosecution. The statute places particular emphasis on guaranteeing the interests of victims of ICC crimes. This complement of rights creates obligations throughout the Bill, and rather than list these at this point, I will make appropriate references to the rights as I elaborate on individual provisions in the Bill.

The rights of persons coming before the Irish courts in connection with a domestic prosecution of an International Criminal Court offence are similar to domestic rights during any criminal prosecution. The rights of individuals appearing before the ICC are further protected by the administration of the ICC. Before the prosecutor proceeds with an investigation, the pre-trial chamber of the court must be satisfied that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC and that the arrest of the person is necessary to ensure his or her appearance at trial. The pretrial chamber must also be satisfied that the arrest of the person is necessary to ensure that he or she does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or court proceedings, and to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime which is within the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, the individual's rights are protected by the pretrial chamber before trial and by the ICC during the trial itself.

I now turn to the specific provisions of the Bill, which is in six parts and has three schedules. Part 1 lays down preliminary matters for co-operation with the ICC and for the hearing of ICC offences by Irish courts. It defines key terms and makes general provisions regarding interpretation by Irish Courts of the Act and of the statute. This part also deals generally with requests from the ICC, including the procedures to be followed where the disclosure of information might be prejudicial to the security interests of the State. Expenses incurred in the administration of the Act are also provided for in this part.

On the effect on Irish criminal law, Part 2 has the greatest impact because it establishes domestic jurisdiction for ICC offences. The existing offence of genocide is consolidated in section 7, while in section 6 existing definitions of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions are expanded and a new offence of crimes against humanity is created. Ancillary offences are created in section 8 while new offences against the administration of justice, either before the ICC or before an Irish court considering an ICC offence, are created in section 11.

Sections 9 and 10 require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before initiating these proceedings, while the gravity of these crimes is reflected in the applicable sentences for these offences which correspond to the penalties in the Rome statute, that is, life for murder or where the seriousness of the offence justifies same and, in all other circumstances, imprisonment for up to 30 years depending on the nature of the offence. The courts may also order a fine or forfeiture in accordance with the Article 77 of the statute. In such instances, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 is triggered to facilitate enforcement of the orders.

Other sections in this part deal with items such as universal jurisdiction, in section 12, the applicable law in determining whether a person has committed an offence under the Act, in section 13, and provisions for the protection of victims and witnesses, in section 14.

Part 3 deals with requests for arrest and surrender of persons to the ICC in connection with the investigation, prosecution of an ICC offence or, alternatively, surrender to a state of enforcement for the enforcement of an ICC sentence. This part implements the requirement in Article 91(2)(c) of the statute that the requirements are not more burdensome than those applicable to extradition requests in treaties to which the State is a party. This part is informed on the basis that it is a matter for the ICC and not either the Minister or the High Court to question the validity or authorisation of a warrant. The Minister may seek further information in support of a request and the High Court may consider the execution of the warrant of arrest and whether the rights of the individual regarding the arrest have been respected. Any matters concerning whether the warrant of arrest has been properly issued are to be considered by the ICC, and Article 59 of the statute provides accordingly. If the request conflicts in any way with the State's obligations under diplomatic immunity, it is presumed that it is a matter for the ICC to resolve these issues under Article 98 of the statute in advance of making the request.

Sections 16 to 22 establish the basis for receipt of an ICC request for the arrest and surrender of the requested person. The arrangements are similar to those under the International War Crimes Tribunal Act 1998 in that once a request is received and certified by the Minister to be in order, a warrant of arrest is issued by the High Court. It is appropriate that these requests are considered by a superior court because of the serious nature of the crimes within the remit of the ICC and because the ICC may be requesting the surrender of a person who has not yet been charged, much less prosecuted or convicted of a crime. There are also safeguards from an ICC perspective in that the prosecutor must satisfy the pre-trial chamber of the ICC that there are "reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC".

The other significant difference from domestic criminal investigation and prosecution is that in urgent cases a person may be detained on a provisional arrest warrant issued by the High Court for up to 60 days, as required by the statute, pending the receipt of a formal request from the ICC. While provisional arrest warrants are not unusual in extradition proceedings, this detention period is in contrast to a maximum detention of 18 days in extradition cases.

Section 18 provides for situations where there is an extradition request competing with the ICC request. If the competing request is received from another state party or from a third state where no international obligation exists to comply with the request, the Bill gives priority to the ICC request. Where there is an international obligation to consider, the Bill lists the factors to be taken into account before any decision is reached.

Once arrested, sections 23 to 29 require that a person be shown a copy of a warrant of arrest either at the time of arrest or within 24 hours of arrest and also requires that the person be brought immediately before the High Court. The High Court, on being satisfied that there are no outstanding issues of admissibility, may make an order for surrender to take place not earlier than 15 days after the making of the order. In accordance with the rights articles of the statute, the person must also be provided with a competent interpreter and legal aid where necessary.

The Bill also provides that the High Court has the powers of adjournment, remand and bail including, but not limited to, the powers of the High Court in criminal matters. Included in these powers is provision for an appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court against an order to grant or refuse surrender. The habeas corpus procedure under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution will also be available.

Once a surrender order has been made by the High Court, it is a matter for the Minister to arrange for the surrender of that person and sections 29 to 33 provide accordingly. The person concerned may consent to surrender in which case the previously mentioned time limits do not apply. Provision is also made for the Minister, in consultation with the ICC, to postpone the making of a surrender order pending the finalisation by the court of any admissibility or jurisdictional challenges or pending the conclusion of domestic investigations or proceedings, excluding extradition proceedings. Where it is necessary in the interests of the person's health, provision is made for alternate custody in a hospital pending surrender. Where it appears to the Minister on the basis of information received that the request for surrender is not being proceeded with, provision is made for the person to be released. In any event, once all appeal proceedings have been concluded and where there are no postponements in place or health considerations preventing surrender, the High Court may order the release of the person from custody if the person is not surrendered within one month of the surrender order being made.

The final provisions of this part, sections 34 to 36, provide for the possibility of subsequent arrest or surrender following release under this part and also provide for sentence calculation for persons already in detention for other offences at the time of the arrest and surrender. The Minister may also waive the rule of speciality and consent to a person being proceeded against for any conduct committed prior to surrender other than the conduct for which he or she has been surrendered. This waiver may be subject to the receipt of any information or assurances as may be necessary from the ICC.

Part 4 establishes the co-operative framework to enable compliance with ICC requests to freeze and subsequently confiscate assets of the accused. Article 77 of the statute provides that fine and forfeiture orders may be imposed in addition to prison sentences. The imposition of fines is governed by the rules of procedure and evidence of the court while proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from ICC crime may be forfeited without prejudice to the interests of bona fide third parties. The statute also envisages the establishment of a trust fund for the benefit of victims of ICC crimes and for the families of such victims. Using this fund, the ICC may order money and other property collected through fines or forfeiture to be paid over to the fund.

The procedures established in this part follow the precedents established in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 with some minor amendments because the ICC rather than individual states is making the request for freezing or confiscation of assets. There are also some changes in the notification arrangements to reflect working arrangements of the various other organisations involved in the enforcement of these orders.

Part 5 makes provision for other forms of assistance to the ICC in the investigation or prosecution of ICC offences. With the exception of section 56, which relates to transit of surrendered persons through the State as provided for in Article 89(3) of the statute, the authority for the requests in this part is derived from Article 93. The provisions in this part are again to a large extent modelled on the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 but are repeated as the requests are originating from the International Criminal Court rather than an individual state as under the 1994 Act. Also, as the requests are from the ICC, procedures are simplified where possible while at the same time affording the individual the same rights as in a criminal investigation in the State.

The assistance provided in this part ranges from the provision of identification evidence in section 50 to location of persons, examination of sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites and provision of documents in section 51. This part also provides further practical investigative assistance in the service of ICC documents, including a summons by the gardaí in section 54. Additional information may be sought by either taking evidence before a District Court judge under section 52 or, under section 53, questioning of a person by the gardaí on behalf of the ICC. Section 55 also provides for the transfer of a prisoner to the ICC for the purposes of providing information.

The general framework for requests under this part is that the Minister on receipt of a request and having considered the request will forward it to the Garda Síochána for attention. The Bill provides for the involvement of the District Court in the authorisation of warrants and orders to proceed in cases of refusal to comply with requests for identification evidence or obstructing the locating of persons or property.

This framework seeks to establish a balance between, on the one hand, assisting the ICC in the investigation of these most heinous forms of crime and, on the other, safeguarding the rights of those subject to ICC requests. This balance is struck both by reference to the statute provisions and also by way of specific safeguards in the Bill.

Where co-operation involves the direct participation of the individual, as in the case of fingerprinting, questioning, taking of evidence, transfer of a prisoner to the ICC and, as far as possible, in connection with searches of property, the consent of the person involved must be sought. In addition to consent, a person being questioned in connection with an ICC offence must be informed of his or her rights under Article 55 of the statute and must be provided with a competent interpreter and legal assistance where necessary. These safeguards also apply to any person giving evidence where it appears that there are grounds for suspecting that the individual has committed an ICC offence.

Where a person is being questioned by the Garda, section 53 provides a further safeguard in fulfilment of an ICC obligation, that the questioning be video recorded and the recording forwarded to the ICC. In the case of the person giving evidence before the District Court under section 52, the person will not be compelled to give any evidence to the District Court that he or she would not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the State. Where necessary the judge may also direct that proceedings be held in private so as to ensure the attendance and protection of witnesses, and to protect victims, or indeed, persons alleged to have committed an ICC offence. This part also provides for the service of documents. If the document is a summons requiring attendance before the ICC as a witness, section 54 requires that it be accompanied by a notice highlighting that different procedures may apply in the ICC compared with criminal proceedings in the State. The notice must indicate that the ICC has provided, or has the authority under Article 93(2) to provide, an assurance that the person will not be prosecuted, detained or subjected to any restriction of personal freedom by the ICC in respect of any act that preceded his or her departure from the State.

There are three summary offences created in this part. Section 51 provides for two offences in respect of obstructing a member of the Garda Síochána in carrying out a search or failing to provide such information as is requested by the Garda Commissioner in carrying out the request. Section 52 creates an offence where a person who is giving evidence to the District Court on an ICC offence, without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to comply with a requirement to produce a document or other item to the court. Although the District Court may order the arrest of a person, who refuses to attend a Garda station to provide identification evidence as requested by the ICC, section 49 does not create an offence if that person refuses to give the identification evidence sought. This is in recognition of the person's right to silence under Article 55 of the statute. However, the fact that the person did not consent, will be recorded in the Garda report forwarded to the Minister for transmission to the International Criminal Court.

Section 57 — the final section of this part — provides that the enumerated assistance does not preclude giving any other lawful assistance to the ICC.

The final part of the Bill, Part 6, deals with miscellaneous matters arising in connection with the ICC sitting in the State to hear cases, immunities and privileges relating to the ICC and technical matters associated with the operation of the Bill. Section 58 takes account of statute provisions whereby the ICC may sit outside the seat of the court in The Hague by providing that the ICC may, while sitting in the State, perform its functions under the statute and has the effect of applying the statute as though the ICC was sitting in The Hague. For this reason, orders made by the ICC during a trial in the State are not reviewable by the Irish courts. This part also provides for investigations in the State by the ICC prosecutor.

Sections 60 and 61 are concerned with immunity under the statute. First, there is immunity for all the judges, the prosecutor and all other staff and persons as required by the statute and further detailed in the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities signed by Ireland on 9 September 2003. Section 60 limits the application of such privileges by applying them only in so far as is applicable under the agreement and recognises that these immunities may be waived as provided for under the agreement. Diplomatic or state immunity is not a bar to proceedings under the Act. For information, the text of the agreement is included in Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Section 62 provides that Ireland may ask the ICC for assistance in the investigation and prosecution of an ICC offence for which there is a minimum sentence of five years. Finally, sections 63 to 65 provide for technical matters associated with the operation of the Bill. Section 63 sets out the evidentiary standards of ICC documents coming before the domestic courts. Section 64 provides for regulations in connection with the implementation of the statute to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The final section of the Bill provides for consequential amendments to other legislation. These are detailed in Schedule 3. The Defence Act 1954 and the Geneva Conventions Act 1962 are amended so as to align penalties available for ICC offences with comparable offences in these Acts. The Extradition Act is amended so as to apply extradition to ICC offences and to exclude such offences from classification as "political offences". The Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967 is amended to make diplomatic immunity under that Act subject to obligations under the Rome statute. Finally, the Bail Act 1997 is amended so as to include ICC offences — as serious offences for which bail might be refused under that Act.

This Bill sends a clear message to the perpetrators of these international crimes that Ireland will not shirk our international obligations in safeguarding international peace from atrocities inflicted on innocent persons in war-torn jurisdictions. It adds another voice to that of the international community in seeking to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. It is a statement of our support for the International Criminal Court, and of our commitment to ensuring that it receives the assistance necessary to meet the challenges of the Rome statute in investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to Members' contributions.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and this Bill to Seanad Éireann.

The Minister of State will be aware that my party has long been a supporter of the establishment of the International Criminal Court and has espoused the need for such a body since the issue was agreed in Rome. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is the most important development in international law since the foundation of the United Nations. For that reason we fully support the Bill before the House this evening. It is a Bill that, after ratification, ensures our domestic law is in compliance with the obligations we undertook when we signed the Rome Statute. The International Criminal Court is an important tribunal that will exist so that we as a collective global people can try individuals responsible for the most serious international crimes — war crimes and crimes against humanity, torture, enforced disappearances and genocide. Through it we can send out a clear message that humanity will not countenance such activities, regardless of who is committing them. When we consider the enormous suffering that has taken place among our continental neighbours, through two world wars and the recent and ever-present conflicts in places such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Chechnya, we clearly see the depth of unnecessary suffering and loss of life that has been imposed on our European brothers and sisters.

Such conflicts are compounded by the actions of a few tyrants at whatever level they operate, when they rape, ethnically cleanse, murder, kidnap and torture. That is just in Europe. When one looks at the wider world, there is a frightening array of zones wherein war crimes are the norm and genocide is occurring as we speak. Those regions include Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor, Tibet, Palestine, Congo and others too numerous to mention. These are the reasons we need a forum such as the International Criminal Court.

The court has been in gestation for almost a century. After the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles provided for the establishment of an international tribunal to try the German emperor. Kaiser Wilhelm never stood trial, but efforts after the Second World War were more successful when temporary tribunals were set up in Nuremburg and Tokyo to try the major war criminals. In addition, the Nuremburg charter specified areas that are still considered to be key crimes under international law — crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In many ways these initiatives were the forerunners of the International Criminal Court. In particular, they forever shattered the notion that state sovereignty could be used as a defence for acts that were considered outrages on the consciences of mankind.

Thereafter, crimes of genocide and the Geneva Conventions were introduced. The General Assembly of the United Nations asked the International Law Commission to examine the possibility of an international criminal court. As an example of how slowly such matters move, that happened over 50 years ago. The Cold War ensured there was no possibility of getting agreement among nations. Nothing much happened after that until the 1980s. A small country proposed that efforts to establish an international criminal court should be resumed. When people argue that a small country such as Ireland has no role on the international stage, I point to the example set by Trinidad and Tobago in the 1980s, a little country of which most people here have probably never heard until this year's World Cup. It got discussions going again.

In the meantime, there have been temporary tribunals dealing with the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The establishment of those temporary tribunals gave a further impetus to the need for an international criminal court. Given revelations in recent times around the world, one sees even more justification for such a court. In Iraq, a good deal of attention is currently focusing on the recent incidents in Abu Ghraib, but let us not forget that over the previous 20 years a dreadful regime of torture was in place under Saddam Hussein and his lackeys. This did not just occur in Abu Ghraib, but throughout Iraq.

In recent times we had killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda and even now the way in which the Palestinians are being treated in the Middle East is contrary to international law. That brings me on to the question of the effectiveness of this court. Ireland is, and should be, an enthusiastic supporter of the International Criminal Court. To some degree it is relevant that the entire global village accepts its jurisdiction. It is probably significant that over 100 countries have ratified the treaty at this stage. It is timely to recall those countries which voted against the Rome statute. Seven countries voted against the statute in July 1988, one of which was the United States, a point to which I will return. China, which is not exactly a bastion of freedom and human rights, also refused to ratify, as did Iraq.

Israel voted against the statute for its own reasons, which one can see when one examines the state terrorism in which it is indulging at the expense of the Palestinian people. Libya, under the leadership of Mr. Gadaffi, is not a prime example of democracy and human rights, although it is fair to say that Mr. Gadaffi seems to have had some change of heart in recent times, which is to be encouraged. The other two countries which voted against it at the time were Qatar and Yemen.

The countries that do not want international inspection of their actions do not support the proceedings of the International Criminal Court. The United States, prime among such countries, signed the Rome Statute in the final days of President Clinton's time in office, but it has not yet ratified it. The authorities in that country feel that the US Senate would not ratify it. I have never been considered anti-American, but I question the approach of the American authorities in this respect. Every possible pressure should be brought to bear on the US, as the only global superpower, to encourage it to support the International Criminal Court.

The Americans stated that they are not against the idea of international accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, but that they do not agree with the form of the International Criminal Court. That is probably an easy way out for them. The US is happy for other nations to be bound by the court but it does not want to be bound by the court itself, which is an indefensible position. As a friend of the US, Ireland should continue to impose constructively any pressure it can, bilaterally and through international institutions, to encourage the US to support the court. The support of the US is vital if we want the court to be widely accepted in the short term. I do not doubt that it will be successful in the long term and that in years to come it will suit the US to support the efforts of the court. We have a duty to continue to press the issue with the US authorities.

One should not forget that the court's operations are under way. It is investigating a case in northern Uganda and it has received a second referral from the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is important not only that the court should be fully established, but that it should be fully accepted and recognised as a body that can bring good to the world. The tribunals at Nuremburg and Tokyo were established by the victors at the time. They were established post facto after Nazism and fascism had been defeated. The advantage of the International Criminal Court is that it is in place now. Those who are tempted to indulge in horrific practices are aware of its existence. They know they may be answerable to the body. It is not a question of getting the international community to support the establishment of such a body subsequently.

The International Criminal Court, which we have supported from the beginning, has started its work. I have a mild criticism in that it is a little late in the day to put in place measures that should have been put in place some years ago. I accept that there was a need for a referendum, which took place a few years ago to the best of my recollection. I also accept that the Bill, which is quite complex, contains a series of sections aimed at ensuring that our domestic law complies fully with our international obligations. I wish the Bill had been in place when we were ratifying the relevant treaty, which would have been the correct procedure. It is good that the Bill is now before the House and that we are in a position to support it, thereby ensuring we will comply fully with the court in every respect, including in our domestic law.

I ask the Minister of State to consider certain aspects of the Bill. Amnesty International produced a comprehensive document on the Bill, including many comments and recommendations. I hope he will assure me in his closing speech that the issues raised by Amnesty International have been taken fully into account. I do not intend to discuss the document in detail because the Minister of State will have read it just as I have. Amnesty International has raised issues such as increasing to 18 the age at which children may be conscripted or enlisted into armed forces. The existing articles provide that it is a war crime to conscript or enlist children under the age of 15 into armed forces or groups, or to use children under that age to participate actively in hostilities. It is not a theoretical problem because young children are unfortunately being drawn into conflicts in many parts of the world. They are generally not involved in the regular armed forces of a country, but many children are actively participating in hostilities with irregular groups, militias and terrorist groups. There is a strong case for raising the age of prohibition from 15, which was set to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I support an approach which would seek a higher standard of protection for children. As 18 years is the age of maturity, there is no case for conscription under that age, nor is there a case for drafting children under the age of 18 into militias and groups.

An issue which one might not speak about with complete certainty is the voluntary enlisting of children under that age into the regular forces of a country. This might not be as clear cut when talking about apprentices into a regular army or something similar. The case made by Amnesty International on that issue is a good one. It also deals with the issue of other crimes under international law that are not contained in its own statute. I would be in agreement with the thinking on that issue.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court is the most important progress in international law in many years but I hope that, once it is fully supported by the entire international community, the ambit of the court will be extended. I can envisage the International Criminal Court having jurisdiction at some stage in regard to drug trafficking and issues of that kind, which are of major importance today. I realise that may be well into the future but it is possibly a development that will take place once the court is operational and fully supported by all members of the international community.

Fine Gael is fully supportive of the International Criminal Court. We want Ireland to comply not only with its obligations, but to take the lead and give an example in ensuring the International Criminal Court becomes a permanent successful part of the international architecture. We do not want it to be merely a symbol but a working body that will help to bring to justice those who are guilty of these outrageous crimes. If the court succeeds in the short term, we will all be pleased and we can then hope to extend its ambit and jurisdiction to ensure it will have an even greater role in international affairs in future years.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and also this legislation. The establishment of an independent International Criminal Court at the Hague is to be welcomed. The fact that it is being inaugurated with 18 sitting judges, including an Irish judge, is very much a step in the right direction.

In 1948, the United Nations was mindful of the war crimes committed in the Second World War, particularly following the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials. It is welcome that an independent body will now pursue such cases because the argument that the victors adjudicated, so to speak, in trial over the vanquished was a faulty principle which was subsequently open to propaganda. It is important, therefore, that this body is independent, acts independently and that these new crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are recognised.

It is regrettable that it took 50 years until the statute was adopted in July 1998 in Rome because in the interim many such crimes were committed across the globe. We are mindful of many of them, one of the most notable of which was in Uganda where Idi Amin, the dictator, participated in substantial and brutal genocide and lived out his life in freedom, despite the fact that he was exiled. That sends the wrong message.

Tribunals have been set up to deal with the atrocities that took place in the Balkans, which were much more recent, but very few of the people involved in those atrocities have been brought to justice. Nearer to home, we all remember Bloody Sunday and the various bombing atrocities that took place on that day. Those atrocities, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, would have been worthy of investigation by such an international criminal court to bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

During war, occupying powers in particular operate with certain impunity where they have gained the upper hand and there must be some way of arresting the worst excesses that occur in such situations. The adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true. Therefore, I hope that this mechanism will act as a deterrent to people who may be inclined in that direction and that subsequent to a conflict, such individuals can be held accountable in an international court of law, brought to justice and penalised for such atrocities. The establishment of a permanent court with jurisdiction is welcome in that regard.

It is good that Ireland has played its part and was one of the first 89 countries to sign up to this initiative. It is highly appropriate that Ireland would have been in the vanguard because our population suffered during the early part of the last century at the hands of British occupying forces, more particularly the Blacks and Tans who committed many atrocities. It is regrettable that Britain is still in denial about that, given the criticism that was recently levelled from many in the establishment at Ken Loach on the showing of his award winning film, "The Wind that Shakes the Barley". The release of that film was an opportunity for them to address and put to bed that issue. Obviously with the passing of time nobody will suggest that issue will ever be examined by a criminal court, but it would welcome if such atrocities were recognised and an apology given. The ideal opportunity for doing that was the release of that film.

While the number of countries which have signed up to this initiative has increased to approximately 100, I agree with Senator Cummins that it is regrettable that while the US and Israel in particular have signed up to it, they have not subscribed to the jurisdiction of the court. Given some of the excesses that have occurred in Iraq and the great suffering of the Palestinian people over many decades, it is important that the rule of law would be seen to operate on an even-handed basis across the world.

As Senator Cummins said, we are a country which has very close ties with the United States over many centuries and in our fight for freedom it was supportive. Given that the United States is now the only superpower in the world, there is probably an additional obligation on it to be seen to operate within the Geneva Convention and the codes of normality that would apply to civilisation in a war situation. An opportunity has been missed in this regard. The fact that we enjoy freedom in Europe today is in no small measure due to the part played by the US in two world wars. I had strong reservations about the US intervention in Iraq but I did not have the same reservations about its intervention in Afghanistan. The latter threat was a major one that needed to be tackled. It would be a major step in the right direction if America fully subscribed to the objectives and the jurisdiction of this court. In that regard, perhaps it is a welcome indication that the UN Security Council recently referred the case of Darfur in Sudan to that court to be investigated, in regard to which the US abstained, which means it recognised the role and part that can be played by the court.

As the Minister of State said, we had a constitutional amendment which enables us to pass this legislation without fear of it conflicting with our Constitution. He outlined the various provisions of the Bill such as the arrest, surrender of individuals, the freezing of assets and forfeiture of moneys or assets to the International Criminal Court. I also note that within the Bill there is the question of removing any diplomatic impunity people might have. That is necessary because we cannot have a situation where people who commit such war crimes could subsequently claim some sort of diplomatic immunity.

We need to be reminded that the International Criminal Court is not a substitute for national law but it encourages the authorities within their own jurisdictions to address and prosecute these crimes when they are committed there. However, where the political situation has broken down or where states are unwilling or unable to do so, then the court comes into play.

The provision to create a permanent, independent prosecutor who can investigate and prosecute greatly strengthens the operation of the court system and the existence of a pre-trial chamber ensures that the system will be implemented to the best international legal standards. The court will therefore command the respect and support of people around the world, which is essential.

The provision that emphasises guaranteeing the interests of the victims of such crimes is a welcome innovation. Like other Senators, I have often said that our legislation should lay greater emphasis on the plight of victims, making them more central to the operation of our criminal justice system. We should consider including that principle in some of our domestic legislation. We have debated this before and it has not been accepted but many of us feel it should be, and many victims of crime feel they are left to one side or abandoned.

The introduction of this legislation sends a message to perpetrators of international crime that Ireland will not be found wanting in ensuring that such people are brought to justice for atrocities they commit, wherever they are. I am glad we are playing our part within the court and will continue to ensure that its operations are effective in bringing such criminals to justice. I hope that by imposing the severe penalties available to it, the court will deter armed forces around the world from rape, murder and genocide. That is in the interests of all humanity and the proper regulation of world affairs.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Henry.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this Bill and there seems to be a general welcome for it. We have been waiting for legislation of this kind since the Nuremburg trials of the 1940s to which no doubt many other speakers have referred. It is useful to remind ourselves of the expression of principle given when the Rome Statute was adopted. It reads:

The States Parties to this Statute. . .

Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,

Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,

Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes, . . .

Hear, hear say I. This is an attempt to introduce ethics into the conduct of international relations, including the horrible practice of warfare which has caused so much destruction and loss of life on this small planet over the centuries. It is a move in the right direction that we are to get some kind of international authority and in a direction on which a distinguished former Member of this House, Mary Robinson, has spoken on many occasions when using the phrase "ethical globalisation". I would like to think that is what we are doing here.

I have some reservations about the Bill, some of which have been mentioned. Senator Cummins referred to Amnesty International's submission. I propose to outline some of its concerns.

This court was founded in July 1998 at a United Nations diplomatic conference and the treaty that emerged became known as the Rome statute. The United States, under then President Bill Clinton, signed this but after his election in 2001, George W. Bush nullified that signature. This was a very regrettable act, although understandable in pragmatic terms because it might expose some significant figures from the recent American past to scrutiny which they probably would not welcome. This exemption of itself and taking to itself of exceptional status by the United States, has been highlighted by distinguished commentators such as Paul W. Kahn who said:

The US claim for special status undermines the very idea of the rule of law as a single, principled normative order to which we are all bound. Even worse, it may undermine the great international effort of the last century to subject the use of force to the rule of law. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.

It is regrettable that the American Government has taken the position of trying to water down or tear up the Geneva Conventions. It had a significant input into weakening even the Rome statute. I speak not as one who is anti-American but as one who is deeply committed to the essential principles of liberty and respect for the rule of law which until recently characterised the American political attitude.

It is a pity that the Government did not take on board the practice of some other countries to have full consultation with various representative groups, women's organisations, people who represent the victims of torture who have come to this country, lawyers' organisations, professional legal bodies, academics and groups such as Amnesty International.

That is why it is important to cite some of their reservations, the questions they raise and some of their requests that this legislation, which is good, be strengthened. For example, the Minister of State and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, have spoken about complementarity and the definition of crimes to be covered by this Act. While one welcomes the criminalisation of crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and so on, some sections of the Rome statute are inconsistent with the stronger provisions we have already enacted in Irish law. This is untidy, creates unnecessary confusion and should be cleared up.

Some of the crimes under sanctions and the definitions of some listed under Article 8 are much weaker than the prohibitions in other international protocols and treaties which we have signed. By incorporating all crimes as defined in the Rome statute in a lump, we have perhaps weakened our situation in regard to other treaties we have ratified. Amnesty International refers in particular to:

. . . the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol l) and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol ll), as well as national laws implementing them including the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1998.

In particular Article 57 (2) (a) (iii) of protocol l prohibits "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage". The definition of this crime in Article 8 (2) (b) (iv) of the Rome Statute is much weaker and because at the urging of the United States of America (USA) it replaces the narrow term "concrete and direct military advantage" with the expansive term "concrete and direct overall military advantage".

Amnesty International suggests the incorporation of Article 8(2)(b)(xx) into national law. It states:

[This article] includes the war crime of employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict. Such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare must be the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and be included in an annex to the Rome Statute by an amendment to it. There are a number of such prohibited weapons ...

Section 6 of our Bill expressly excludes this. The Government's reason for this is that we must wait a period of seven years for the final ratification and definition. However, other countries, notably Brazil, have got round this in their draft legislation. Brazil provides that war crimes cover any weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare that are the subject of a prohibition in any treaty ratified by Brazil. We could have done that and it would have strengthened the Bill.

There are other aspects of war crimes less serious than genocide or the other crimes listed, for example, unjustified delays in repatriating or freeing prisoners of war or interned civilians once active hostilities have ceased. This has been described internationally as a grave breach, but we have not criminalised it. One suspects this may be on account of American pressure. We merely have to look at the situation in Guantanamo Bay to realise how sensitive an instrument this might be. Americans are still interested in this kind of legislation, even though they have opted out of it.

Senator Cummins raised the matter of the prohibiting of conscripting or enlisting underage children. Amnesty International states that Articles 8(b)(xxvi) and 8(e)(vii) provide:

It is a war crime to conscript or enlist children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or to use them to participate actively in hostilities ... The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict which Ireland ratified on 18 November 2002 establishes a higher standard of protection for children.

The protocol provides for the age of 18. We signed that agreement so why do we not have the imagination and wit with this Bill to go for what we have already agreed in other elements of the law? People under 18 need this kind of protection. Amnesty International clearly states that as a result of its research, it believes that voluntary or compulsory recruitment by governments or armed groups of people or children under the age of 18 can jeopardise the mental and physical integrity of these people.

There are other crimes not contained in the Rome statute, for example, torture, extrajudicial executions, etc. As my time is short I will just list some of the other areas of concern such as the question of jurisdiction over past crimes, the notion of a statute of limitations and the question of command and responsibility.

With regard to the notion that civilians have less to fear from this Bill, I would call that the "Rumsfeld exemption" because of people like him who sit at desks away from the armed conflict and protect themselves. I am happy to hand over to my colleague, Senator Henry.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and welcome this Bill which has had a long gestation. It entered the Houses in 2003, so it is good to have at this Stage. I hope the Department will now show a sense of urgency with regard to the ratification of the UN convention on biological weapons, something for which we have been waiting a long time.

I am glad Senator Cummins mentioned the countries that did not initially sign the Rome Statute. I am glad also that everybody hopes that we will use our influence on the United States of America to return to the court. The US belonged briefly to it when President Clinton signed, but unfortunately President Bush removed the country from it.

It has been suggested that the Bill should raise the age of enlisting to 18. This would be wise because of our legislation in other areas.

I have concerns about other aspects of the Bill, particularly Part 5, and intend to put forward amendments to deal with those concerns. For example, section 50(1) proposes that a nail or any material found under a person's nail may be considered a bodily sample. I would be dismayed to think we would remove anybody's nail. It should be a "nail clipping" which would be just as useful to whoever sought the bodily sample. It would be wrong to remove a nail from someone.

The Bill also provides that a doctor will be someone whose name is on the general register of medical practitioners. That is good, but will people on temporary registers also be included? It is important to clarify that point.

The Bill also provides that identification evidence may include a fingerprint, palm print, photograph or bodily sample from a person or any related records. We should include photograph of the iris in this section as these records are frequently used as a final method of identification.

With regard to sending samples of hair, other than pubic hair, for identification purposes, cut hair may be useful for matching hair, although if the hair has been dyed it is more difficult. However, it is important to realise that plucked hairs may be what is required, because material from the hair follicle is necessary for DNA matching.

These are some areas on which I will propose amendments, but in general I welcome the Bill. Although there has been some criticism of it, it fits in with our legislation and I hope it will be enacted as soon as possible.

Photo of Tony KettTony Kett (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome the ratification of the International Criminal Court and its responsibilities as outlined by the Minister of State. The enactment of this legislation will ensure that Ireland can now comply with its obligations under the Rome statue to which we have signed up. We will now be able to co-operate with the International Criminal Court in ensuring that those responsible for atrocities will be held responsible. This a landmark development and should probably have taken place many years ago. It has become more possible as a result of the development and enlargement of the European Union and through greater co-operation between the nations of the world.

At times we have all watched in horror as events unfold on our television screens. Senators Cummins and Jim Walsh mentioned some of those events in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Bosnia and more recently in Iraq. We can only hope that lessons have been learned by the leaders who replaced the former leaders in these countries and that they will see that as a result of this type of legislation, they can no longer operate in the manner of their predecessors. Legislation and statutes such as this will ensure that such actions will not be accepted by civilised society.

The Irish people should be commended for endorsing these proposals in 2001. The horrible torture of prisoners in recent times, particularly associated with Iraq, has brought the issue of impunity for war crimes into sharp focus. The disappointing element with regard to the legislation is that we cannot go after these criminals retrospectively. I wonder whether there is a way that we can work within the laws existing at the time to chase them down. The number of countries signing up to these proposals makes the will of the majority of the international community clear. All nations must now ensure that there are no exceptions or exemptions from this type of prosecution. Regardless of position or rank, if people fall foul of the system, it must meet them head on. It is imperative that no one should be deemed to be immune from the rigours of this type of legislation. If the International Criminal Court is to be taken seriously, to be effective and to operate as a legitimate instrument for good, it has to be seen to be applicable across the board. In the past, people in authority, including Heads of State and government officials, have ordered their minions, for the want of a better word, to commit atrocities on their behalf. However, they were happy to hide behind these "lesser mortals" when the time came to pay the price for their actions. I hope the formation of the court will ensure there is no hiding place for such individuals.

When one considers that a statute of this nature was first suggested in 1948, following the terrible atrocities of the Second World War, it is hard to believe that Ireland and other countries have not implemented it before now. The designation of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes followed the terrible events of the Holocaust. We did not have to wait until the 1940s to bear witness to atrocities of that nature. Such crimes were also committed during the First World War and during various instances of colonisation in the 19th century. We can find examples of such activities closer to home, for example during the plantation, when people were removed from their homes to facilitate planters. I do not doubt that atrocities about which we are not fully aware were probably committed during that time.

It is somewhat disappointing that the United States of America has chosen not to sign up to this agreement, which is something to which other Senators have alluded. The US is a superpower, as we know, but it can sometimes be deemed to be a superbully. I speak as someone who supports the US and feels that the world is a safer place for its efforts, despite some of its behaviour in certain regions. I hate to think of the unsavoury outcomes in some countries throughout the world if the US had not been of assistance. The US has the might and it has the mien, but it also carries a major responsibility. That is something it has not lived up to in recent times as it did in the past.

There is an overriding need to ensure that the International Criminal Court upholds the highest standards of justice and fairness. If we address today's atrocities, we will deter tomorrow's killers. The court faces a considerable challenge from the United States, as I have said, because that country has refused to ratify the treaty creating the court. I assume the US believes its domestic legislation is sufficient to deal with its needs. It is refusing to subject its citizens to this international standard. Perhaps it sees it as a European standard rather than as an international standard.

The US also seems to have decided that the court is an instrument of unchecked powers. My reading of the matter is that such a claim is totally untrue. The US frequently lambastes other countries for human rights violations. It smacks of double standards that while the US has often supported war crimes prosecutions against the leaders of other countries — the prosecution of Saddam Hussein is a prime example — it is now seeking immunity for its own leaders.

The International Criminal Court is accountable to an assembly of member states. The assembly chooses its own prosecutors and judges. Ireland is happy that one of its own judges, of whom we are extremely proud, is now working with the court. It is not surprising that the court consists mainly of democratic states which are deeply committed to the values under which the court was founded. Similarly, it is not surprising that the countries which have not signed up to the treaty under which the court was established are, by and large, among the worst violators of human rights in the world. It is a poor show that the Bush Administration has suggested that the US will withhold military aid from countries which have joined the court but have not signed an agreement with the US stating that they will not extradite US citizens to the jurisdiction of the court. That very punitive policy is aimed at countries which are trying to protect the human rights of their citizens. It shows the US in quite a poor light. I have heard it stated that the US will veto any extension of that country's peacekeeping mission to other areas unless the US armed forces receive guarantees of immunity.

The introduction of this Bill is a good move on the part of the Government. I wish the Minister well with this legislation, which will be very effective.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the International Criminal Court Bill 2003. I find it hard to understand why it has taken so long to bring the Bill to the Seanad. As Senators have said, the statute of the International Criminal Court concluded in July 1998. We had a referendum in 2001 and the Constitution was amended in 2002. This Bill, which was published in 2003, was debated on Second Stage in the Dáil in May 2004 and on Committee Stage in the Dáil more than a year after that. It has taken more than two years for the Bill to move from Second Stage in the Dáil to Second Stage in the Seanad. I find it hard to understand why such delays were necessary. I propose to tease out some of the issues arising from this Bill on Committee Stage, as appropriate.

I join other Senators in referring to the United States of America's refusal to recognise the International Criminal Court. Senator Kett mentioned that the US has asked countries like East Timor to declare their support for the US position if they wish to receive aid from that country. A couple of speakers highlighted our support for the US. We should make our support for the US and our relationship with that country conditional on its signing up to the International Criminal Court. Tomorrow evening, the House will debate the problems with Ireland's policy on extraordinary rendition flights, which is an issue that was highlighted in a recent report prepared by the Council of Europe. It is very disingenuous of the Taoiseach to say things like "show me the evidence". It is quite obvious and logical that the Council of Europe means that Ireland is not doing its basic duty as a democratic country, which is to vindicate human rights — and the various conventions on human rights to which it has signed up — by putting in place certain practices and procedures relating to the use of its airspace by foreign aircraft, etc. Ireland is colluding with the US by failing to put in place the procedures which should be in place. If Ireland and other European countries do not stand up to the US on issues like the recognition of the International Criminal Court and the continuation of extraordinary rendition flights through our airspace, it will not be a surprise if the US continues to rest on its reputation of being a democracy and having good relationships with European countries.

That is all I would like to say on the International Criminal Court Bill 2003 at this stage. As I have said, I will tease out the various issues on Committee Stage.

Debate adjourned.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.