Clause 5 - Proceedings for a delivery order
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)
I rise briefly to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. I have looked through several of the articles—in fact, I reviewed them again on the train this morning—and I marvel at his wonderful ingenuity in seeing potential pitfalls, which I, in my rude and rudimentary, non-legal fashion have failed to detect.
It is clear that there is an attempt in the statute of Rome to ensure that there is comprehensive protection for accused persons. Throughout our proceedings, the Government have sought to reassure us of their great confidence in the court and the structure that establishes it. We heard an enthusiastic presentation from the Government about how the court would be independent and unable to gang up on countries, about how excellent the judges would be, and how all the structures that have been put in place are designed to give us confidence that the ICC will be a proper and respectable court. I put it to the Minister, however, that articles can be changed.
It is my understanding that, in accordance with paragraph 7 of article 112,
``Each State Party shall have one vote. Every effort shall be made to reach decisions by consensus in the Assembly and in the Bureau. If consensus cannot be reached, except as otherwise provided in the Statute:
(a) Decisions on matters of substance must be approved by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting provided that an absolute majority of States Parties constitutes the quorum for voting''.
I understand that to mean that the quorum for voting will be at least 50 per cent. of the states parties and that any vote taken must have a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Therefore, articles of the statute could be changed by one-third of the membership.
The Government will, no doubt, tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough that his fears are unfounded because all the articles provide more than adequate protection for persons who are likely to be brought before the ICC. Nevertheless, if the Government were to accept my hon. and learned Friend's amendment, it would enact into UK law a real safeguard in the event of the articles of the statute being changed—by the mechanism that I have mentioned, if I am right—in a way that might remove from accused persons the kind of protections that we in the United Kingdom expect.
The new schedule proposed by my hon. and learned Friend would not in any way conflict with the statute. It would, however, provide some reassurance that the Government were prepared to include in the Bill a provision that any citizen of this country who was delivered up to the ICC would be entitled to all the rights, protections and privileges that they would be afforded under English law if they were facing indictment and trial in England or Wales.
That would do nothing to invalidate the Rome statute, and thereby cause problems for the present Government. However, it would be a way of saying that if an attempt were made to change the articles of the statute in a way of which we did not approve, such as to diminish the rights of accused persons, our domestic legislation would give power to a future Government to deal with the matter.
I hope that the Government appreciate that we are trying to learn the lessons of the past and use them to foresee how the court might work out in practice. If we raise hypothetical cases that cause us, Ministers and other Government Members concern, I is because we are trying to foresee the unforeseeable. That is our duty when setting up a permanent international criminal court.