Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden

Datum publicatieOrganisatieJaargang en nummerRubriekDatum totstandkoming
Ministerie van Buitenlandse ZakenTractatenblad 2011, 73Verdrag

49 (1998) Nr. 5

A. TITEL

Statuut van Rome inzake het Internationaal Strafhof;

Rome, 17 juli 1998

B. TEKST

De definitieve Engelse en Franse tekst van het Statuut zijn geplaatst in Trb. 2000, 120.


Op 10 juni 2010 is tijdens een Herzieningsconferentie te Kampala in overeenstemming met artikel 121, derde lid, van het Statuut een wijziging van artikel 8 van het Statuut aangenomen. De Engelse en de Franse tekst1) van de wijziging luiden als volgt:


Amendment to article 8

Add to article 8, paragraph 2 (e), the following:

  • “(xiii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

  • (xiv) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

  • (xv) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.”



Amendement à l’article 8

Ajouter au paragraphe 2, e) de l’article 8 les points suivants:

  • «xiii) Le fait d’employer du poison ou des armes empoisonnées;

  • xiv) Le fait d’employer des gaz asphyxiants, toxiques ou similaires, ainsi que tous liquides, matières ou procédés analogues;

  • xv) Le fait d’utiliser des balles qui s’épanouissent ou s’aplatissent facilement dans le corps humain, telles que des balles dont l’enveloppe dure ne recouvre pas entièrement le centre ou est percée d’entailles.»


Op 11 juni 2010 zijn tijdens de Herzieningsconferentie te Kampala in overeenstemming met artikel 121, derde lid, van het Statuut eveneens wijzigingen aangenomen betreffende het misdrijf agressie. De Engelse en de Franse tekst1) van de wijzigingen luiden als volgt:


Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the Crime of Aggression

  • 1. Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Statute is deleted.

  • 2. The following text is inserted after article 8 of the Statute:

Article 8 bis Crime of aggression

  • 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

  • 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

    • a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

    • b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

    • c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

    • d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

    • e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

    • f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

    • g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

  • 3. The following text is inserted after article 15 of the Statute:

Article 15 bis Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)

  • 1. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraphs (a) and (c), subject to the provisions of this article.

  • 2. The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.

  • 3. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.

  • 4. The Court may, in accordance with article 12, exercise jurisdiction over a crime of aggression, arising from an act of aggression committed by a State Party, unless that State Party has previously declared that it does not accept such jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar. The withdrawal of such a declaration may be effected at any time and shall be considered by the State Party within three years.

  • 5. In respect of a State that is not a party to this Statute, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression when committed by that State’s nationals or on its territory.

  • 6. Where the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, he or she shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. The Prosecutor shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the situation before the Court, including any relevant information and documents.

  • 7. Where the Security Council has made such a determination, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression.

  • 8. Where no such determination is made within six months after the date of notification, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression in accordance with the procedure contained in article 15, and the Security Council has not decided otherwise in accordance with article 16.

  • 9. A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the Court’s own findings under this Statute.

  • 10. This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to other crimes referred to in article 5.

  • 4. The following text is inserted after article 15 bis of the Statute:

Article 15 ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)

  • 1. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraph (b), subject to the provisions of this article.

  • 2. The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.

  • 3. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.

  • 4. A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the Court’s own findings under this Statute.

  • 5. This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to other crimes referred to in article 5.

  • 5. The following text is inserted after article 25, paragraph 3, of the Statute:

  • 3 bis. In respect of the crime of aggression, the provisions of this article shall apply only to persons in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State.

  • 6. The first sentence of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Statute is replaced by the following sentence:

  • 1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7, 8 and 8 bis.

  • 7. The chapeau of article 20, paragraph 3, of the Statute is replaced by the following paragraph; the rest of the paragraph remains unchanged:

  • 3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7, 8 or 8 bis shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:



Amendements au Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale relatifs au crime d’agression

  • 1. Supprimer le paragraphe 2 de l’article 5.

  • 2. Ajouter après l’article 8 le texte qui suit:

Article 8 bis Crime d’agression

  • 1. Aux fins du présent Statut, on entend par «crime d’agression» la planification, la préparation, le lancement ou l’exécution par une personne effectivement en mesure de contrôler ou de diriger l’action politique ou militaire d’un État, d’un acte d’agression qui, par sa nature, sa gravité et son ampleur, constitue une violation manifeste de la Charte des Nations Unies.

  • 2. Aux fins du paragraphe 1, on entend par «acte d’agression» l’emploi par un État de la force armée contre la souveraineté, l’intégrité territoriale ou l’indépendance politique d’un autre État, ou de toute autre manière incompatible avec la Charte des Nations Unies. Qu’il y ait ou non déclaration de guerre, les actes suivants sont des actes d’agression au regard de la résolution 3314 (XXIX) de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies en date du 14 décembre 1974:

    • a) L’invasion ou l’attaque par les forces armées d’un État du territoire d’un autre État ou l’occupation militaire, même temporaire, résultant d’une telle invasion ou d’une telle attaque, ou l’annexion par la force de la totalité ou d’une partie du territoire d’un autre État;

    • b) Le bombardement par les forces armées d’un État du territoire d’un autre État, ou l’utilisation d’une arme quelconque par un État contre le territoire d’un autre État;

    • c) Le blocus des ports ou des côtes d’un État par les forces armées d’un autre État;

    • d) L’attaque par les forces armées d’un État des forces terrestres, maritimes ou aériennes, ou des flottes aériennes et maritimes d’un autre État;

    • e) L’emploi des forces armées d’un État qui se trouvent dans le territoire d’un autre État avec l’agrément de celui-ci en contravention avec les conditions fixées dans l’accord pertinent, ou la prolongation de la présence de ces forces sur ce territoire après l’échéance de l’accord pertinent;

    • f) Le fait pour un État de permettre que son territoire, qu’il a mis à la disposition d’un autre État, serve à la commission par cet autre État d’un acte d’agression contre un État tiers;

    • g) L’envoi par un État ou au nom d’un État de bandes, groupes, troupes irrégulières ou mercenaires armés qui exécutent contre un autre État des actes assimilables à ceux de forces armées d’une gravité égale à celle des actes énumérés ci-dessus, ou qui apportent un concours substantiel à de tels actes.

  • 3. Insérer le texte suivant après l’article 15:

Article 15 bis Exercice de la compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression (Renvoi par un État, de sa propre initiative)

  • 1. La Cour peut exercer sa compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression conformément aux paragraphes a) et c) de l’article 13, sous réserve des dispositions qui suivent.

  • 2. La Cour peut exercer sa compétence uniquement à l’égard de crimes d’agression commis un an après la ratification ou l’acceptation des amendements par trente États Parties.

  • 3. La Cour exerce sa compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression conformément à cet article, sous réserve d’une décision qui sera prise après le 1er janvier 2017 par la même majorité d’États Parties que celle requise pour l’adoption d’un amendement au Statut.

  • 4. La Cour peut, conformément à l’article 12, exercer sa compétence à l’égard d’un crime d’agression résultant d’un acte d’agression commis par un État Partie à moins que cet État Partie n’ait préalablement déclaré qu’il n’acceptait pas une telle compétence en déposant une déclaration auprès du Greffier. Le retrait d’une telle déclaration peut être effectué à tout moment et sera envisagé par l’État Partie dans un délai de trois ans.

  • 5. En ce qui concerne un État qui n’est pas Partie au présent Statut, la Cour n’exerce pas sa compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression quand celui-ci est commis par des ressortissants de cet État ou sur son territoire.

  • 6. Lorsque le Procureur conclut qu’il y a une base raisonnable pour mener une enquête pour crime d’agression, il s’assure d’abord que le Conseil de sécurité a constaté qu’un acte d’agression avait été commis par l’État en cause. Il avise le Secrétaire général de l’Organisation des Nations Unies de la situation portée devant la Cour et lui communique toute information et tout document utiles.

  • 7. Lorsque le Conseil de sécurité a constaté un acte d’agression, le Procureur peut mener l’enquête sur ce crime.

  • 8. Lorsqu’un tel constat n’est pas fait dans les six mois suivant la date de l’avis, le Procureur peut mener une enquête pour crime d’agression, à condition que la Section préliminaire ait autorisé l’ouverture d’une enquête pour crime d’agression selon la procédure fixée à l’article 15, et que le Conseil de sécurité n’en ait pas décidé autrement, conformément à l’article 16.

  • 9. Le constat d’un acte d’agression par un organe extérieur à la Cour est sans préjudice des constatations que fait la Cour elle-même en vertu du présent Statut.

  • 10. Le présent article est sans préjudice des dispositions relatives à l’exercice de la compétence à l’égard des autres crimes visés à l’article 5.

  • 4. Insérer le texte suivant après l’article 15 bis du Statut:

Article 15 ter Exercice de la compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression (Renvoi par le Conseil de sécurité)

  • 1. La Cour peut exercer sa compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression conformément au paragraphe b) de l’article 13, sous réserve des dispositions qui suivent.

  • 2. La Cour peut exercer sa compétence uniquement à l’égard de crimes d’agression commis un an après la ratification ou l’acceptation des amendements par trente États Parties.

  • 3. La Cour exerce sa compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression conformément à cet article, sous réserve d’une décision qui sera prise après le 1er janvier 2017 par la même majorité d’États Parties que celle requise pour l’adoption d’un amendement au Statut.

  • 4. Le constat d’un acte d’agression par un organe extérieur à la Cour est sans préjudice des constatations que fait la Cour elle-même en vertu du présent Statut.

  • 5. Le présent article est sans préjudice des dispositions relatives à l’exercice de la compétence à l’égard des autres crimes visés à l’article 5.

  • 5. Ajouter le texte qui suit après le paragraphe 3 de l’article 25:

  • 3 bis. S’agissant du crime d’agression, les dispositions du présent article ne s’appliquent qu’aux personnes effectivement en mesure de contrôler ou de diriger l’action politique ou militaire d’un État.

  • 6. Remplacer la première phrase du paragraphe 1 de l’article 9 par la phrase suivante:

  • 1. Les éléments des crimes aident la Cour à interpréter et appliquer les articles 6, 7, 8 et 8 bis.

  • 7. Remplacer le chapeau du paragraphe 3 de l’article 20 par le texte suivant, le reste du paragraphe restant inchangé:

  • 3. Quiconque a été jugé par une autre juridiction pour un comportement tombant aussi sous le coup des articles 6, 7, 8 ou 8 bis ne peut être jugé par la Cour pour les mêmes faits que si la procédure devant l’autre juridiction:


C. VERTALING

Zie Trb. 2000, 120, Trb. 2002, 135 en Trb. 2004, 258.


De vertaling van de in rubriek B hierboven geplaatste wijziging van artikel 8 van 10 juni 2010 luidt als volgt:


Wijziging van artikel 8

Aan artikel 8, tweede lid, onder e, wordt het volgende toegevoegd:

  • „xiii. gebruik van gif of giftige wapens;

  • xiv. gebruik van verstikkende, giftige of andere gassen en alle soortgelijke vloeistoffen, materialen of apparaten;

  • xv. gebruik van kogels die in het menselijk lichaam gemakkelijk in omvang toenemen of platter worden, zoals kogels met een harde mantel die de kern gedeeltelijk onbedekt laat of voorzien is van inkepingen.”


De vertaling van de in rubriek B hierboven geplaatste wijzigingen betreffende het misdrijf agressie van 11 juni 2010 luidt als volgt:


Wijzigingen van het Statuut van Rome inzake het Internationaal Strafhof betreffende het misdrijf agressie

  • 1. Artikel 5, tweede lid, van het Statuut wordt geschrapt.

  • 2. De volgende tekst wordt ingevoegd na artikel 8 van het Statuut:

Artikel 8 bis Het misdrijf agressie

  • 1. Voor de toepassing van dit Statuut wordt verstaan onder het „misdrijf agressie”: het plannen, voorbereiden, in gang zetten of uitvoeren, door een persoon die in de positie verkeert daadwerkelijk controle uit te oefenen over of leiding te geven aan het politieke of militaire optreden van een Staat, van een daad van agressie die door zijn aard, ernst en schaal een onmiskenbare schending vormt van het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties.

  • 2. Voor de toepassing van het eerste lid wordt verstaan onder „daad van agressie”: het gebruik van wapengeweld door een Staat tegen de soevereiniteit, territoriale integriteit of politieke onafhankelijkheid van een andere Staat, of op enige andere wijze die onverenigbaar is met het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties. Elk van de volgende handelingen wordt, ongeacht of er een oorlogsverklaring is, in overeenstemming met resolutie 3314 (XXIX) van de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties van 14 december 1974, als een daad van agressie aangemerkt:

    • a. de invasie of aanval door de strijdkrachten van een Staat van respectievelijk op het grondgebied van een andere Staat, of een militaire bezetting, ook als deze van tijdelijke aard is, die het gevolg is van deze invasie of aanval, of enige annexatie door middel van geweld van het grondgebied van een andere Staat of deel daarvan;

    • b. het bombarderen door de strijdkrachten van een Staat van het grondgebied van een andere Staat of het gebruik van enig wapen door een Staat tegen het grondgebied van een andere Staat;

    • c. de blokkade van de havens of kusten van een Staat door de strijdkrachten van een andere Staat;

    • d. een aanval door de strijdkrachten van een Staat op de land-, zee- of luchtstrijdkrachten of de zee- en luchtvloot van een andere Staat;

    • e. de inzet van strijdkrachten van een Staat die met instemming van de ontvangende Staat op het grondgebied van een andere Staat aanwezig zijn, in strijd met de voorwaarden vervat in de daarop betrekking hebbende overeenkomst of een verlenging van hun aanwezigheid op dit grondgebied na het verstrijken van de overeenkomst;

    • f. het optreden van een Staat waarbij wordt toegestaan dat zijn grondgebied, dat hij aan een andere Staat ter beschikking heeft gesteld, door die andere Staat wordt gebruikt om een daad van agressie te plegen tegen een derde Staat;

    • g. het sturen door of namens een Staat van gewapende bendes, groepen, ongeordende troepen of huurlingen, die met wapengeweld gepaard gaande handelingen plegen tegen een andere Staat die zo ernstig zijn dat zij gelijkstaan met de hierboven genoemde handelingen, of die daar in aanzienlijke mate bij betrokken zijn.

  • 3. De volgende tekst wordt ingevoegd na artikel 15 van het Statuut:

Artikel 15 bis Uitoefening van rechtsmacht ter zake van het misdrijf agressie (Aangifte door een Staat, eigener beweging)

  • 1. Het Hof is bevoegd rechtsmacht uit te oefenen ter zake van het misdrijf agressie in overeenstemming met artikel 13, onder a en c, met inachtneming van de bepalingen van dit artikel.

  • 2. Het Hof is uitsluitend bevoegd rechtsmacht uit te oefenen ter zake van misdrijven van agressie die zijn gepleegd een jaar na de bekrachtiging of aanvaarding van de wijzigingen door dertig Staten die Partij zijn.

  • 3. Het Hof oefent rechtsmacht ter zake van het misdrijf agressie uit in overeenstemming met dit artikel, met inachtneming van een besluit dat na 1 januari 2017 wordt genomen door dezelfde meerderheid van Staten die Partij zijn als nodig is voor het aannemen van een wijziging van het Statuut.

  • 4. Het Hof is in overeenstemming met artikel 12 bevoegd rechtsmacht ter zake van een misdrijf van agressie uit te oefenen dat voort vloeit uit een daad van agressie gepleegd door een Staat die Partij is, tenzij deze Staat die Partij is vooraf heeft verklaard dat hij een dergelijke rechtsmacht niet aanvaardt door het neerleggen van een verklaring bij de Griffier. Deze verklaring kan te allen tijde worden ingetrokken en wordt door de Staat die Partij is binnen drie jaar overwogen.

  • 5. Ten aanzien van een Staat die geen Partij is bij dit Statuut, oefent het Hof zijn rechtsmacht niet uit ter zake van het misdrijf agressie wanneer dit misdrijf door onderdanen van die Staat of op zijn grondgebied wordt gepleegd.

  • 6. Indien de Aanklager concludeert dat er een redelijke basis is om tot een onderzoek naar een misdrijf van agressie over te gaan, vergewist hij of zij zich er eerst van of de Veiligheidsraad heeft vastgesteld dat de betreffende Staat een daad van agressie heeft gepleegd. De Aanklager stelt de Secretaris-Generaal van de Verenigde Naties in kennis van de situatie voor het Hof, met inbegrip van relevante informatie en documenten.

  • 7. Indien de Veiligheidsraad een daad van agressie heeft vastgesteld, kan de Aanklager overgaan tot het onderzoek met betrekking tot een misdrijf van agressie.

  • 8. Indien een dergelijke vaststelling niet binnen zes maanden na de datum van kennisgeving is geschied, kan de Aanklager overgaan tot het onderzoek naar een misdrijf van agressie op voorwaarde dat de Afdeling Vooronderzoek toestemming heeft gegeven voor het aanvangen van het onderzoek naar een misdrijf van agressie in overeenstemming met de in artikel 15 vervatte procedure en de Veiligheidsraad niet anderszins heeft besloten in overeenstemming met artikel 16.

  • 9. Het vaststellen van een daad van agressie door een orgaan buiten het Hof laat de eigen bevindingen van het Hof uit hoofde van dit Statuut onverlet.

  • 10. Dit artikel laat de bepalingen met betrekking tot het uitoefenen van rechtsmacht ter zake van andere in artikel 5, genoemde misdrijven onverlet.

  • 4. De volgende tekst wordt ingevoegd na artikel 15 bis van het Statuut:

Artikel 15 ter Uitoefening van rechtsmacht ter zake van het misdrijf agressie (Aangifte door de Veiligheidsraad)

  • 1. Het Hof is bevoegd rechtsmacht uit te oefenen ter zake van het misdrijf agressie in overeenstemming met artikel 13, onder b, met inachtneming van de bepalingen van dit artikel.

  • 2. Het Hof is uitsluitend bevoegd rechtsmacht uit te oefenen ter zake van misdrijven van agressie die zijn gepleegd een jaar na de bekrachtiging of aanvaarding van de wijzigingen door dertig Staten die Partij zijn.

  • 3. Het Hof oefent rechtsmacht ter zake van het misdrijf agressie uit in overeenstemming met dit artikel, met inachtneming van een besluit dat na 1 januari 2017 wordt genomen door dezelfde meerderheid van Staten die Partij zijn als nodig is voor het aannemen van een wijziging van het Statuut.

  • 4. Het vaststellen van een daad van agressie door een orgaan buiten het Hof laat de eigen bevindingen van het Hof uit hoofde van dit Statuut onverlet.

  • 5. Dit artikel laat de bepalingen met betrekking tot het uitoefenen van rechtsmacht ter zake van andere in artikel 5, genoemde misdrijven onverlet.

  • 5. De volgende tekst wordt ingevoegd na artikel 25, derde lid, van het Statuut:

  • 3. bis. Met betrekking tot het misdrijf agressie zijn de bepalingen van dit artikel uitsluitend van toepassing op personen die in de positie verkeren daadwerkelijk controle uit te oefenen over of leiding te geven aan het politieke of militaire optreden van een Staat.

  • 6. De eerste zin van artikel 9, eerste lid, van het Statuut wordt vervangen door de volgende zin:

  • 1. Elementen van misdrijven helpen het Hof bij de interpretatie en toepassing van de artikelen 6, 7, 8 en 8 bis.

  • 7. De aanhef van artikel 20, derde lid, van het Statuut wordt vervangen door de volgende tekst; de rest van het lid blijft onveranderd:

  • 3. Niemand die voor een ander gerecht heeft terechtgestaan ter zake van gedragingen die ook ingevolge de artikelen 6, 7, 8 of 8 bis verboden zijn, staat voor het Hof terecht voor dezelfde gedragingen, tenzij de procedure bij het andere gerecht:


D. PARLEMENT

Zie Trb. 2004, 258.


De in rubriek B hierboven geplaatste wijzigingen van 10 en 11 juni 2010 behoeven ingevolge artikel 91 van de Grondwet de goedkeuring van de Staten-Generaal, alvorens het Koninkrijk aan de wijzigingen kan worden gebonden.

E. PARTIJGEGEVENS

Zie rubriek E van Trb. 1999, 13 en rubriek F van Trb. 2002, 135.

Partij

Onder tekening

Ratificatie

Type*

In werking

Opzegging

Buiten werking

Afghanistan

 

10-02-03

T

01-05-03

   

Albanië

18-07-98

31-01-03

R

01-05-03

   

Algerije

28-12-00

         

Andorra

18-07-98

30-04-01

R

01-07-02

   

Angola

07-10-98

         

Antigua en Barbuda

23-10-98

18-06-01

R

01-07-02

   

Argentinië

08-01-99

08-02-01

R

01-07-02

   

Armenië

01-10-99

         

Australië

09-12-98

01-07-02

R

01-09-02

   

Bahama’s

29-12-00

         

Bahrein

11-12-00

         

Bangladesh

16-09-99

23-03-10

R

01-06-10

   

Barbados

08-09-00

10-12-02

R

01-03-03

   

België

10-09-98

28-06-00

R

01-07-02

   

Belize

05-04-00

05-04-00

R

01-07-02

   

Benin

24-09-99

22-01-02

R

01-07-02

   

Bolivia

17-07-98

27-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Bosnië en Herzegovina

17-07-00

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Botswana

08-09-00

08-09-00

R

01-07-02

   

Brazilië

07-02-00

20-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Bulgarije

11-02-99

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Burkina Faso

30-11-98

16-04-04

R

01-07-04

   

Burundi

13-01-99

21-09-04

R

01-12-04

   

Cambodja

23-10-00

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Canada

18-12-98

07-07-00

R

01-07-02

   

Centraal Afrikaanse Republiek

07-12-99

03-10-01

R

01-07-02

   

Chili

11-09-98

29-06-09

R

01-09-09

   

Colombia

10-12-98

05-08-02

R

01-11-02

   

Comoren, de

22-09-00

18-08-06

R

01-11-06

   

Congo, Democratische Republiek

08-09-00

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Congo, Republiek

17-07-98

03-05-04

R

01-08-04

   

Cookeilanden

 

18-07-08

T

01-10-08

   

Costa Rica

07-10-98

07-06-01

R

01-07-02

   

Cyprus

15-10-98

07-03-02

R

01-07-02

   

Denemarken

25-09-98

21-06-01

R

01-07-02

   

Djibouti

07-10-98

05-11-02

R

01-02-03

   

Dominica

 

12-02-01

T

01-07-02

   

Dominicaanse Republiek, de

08-09-00

12-05-05

R

01-08-05

   

Duitsland

10-12-98

11-12-00

R

01-07-02

   

Ecuador

07-10-98

05-02-02

R

01-07-02

   

Egypte

26-12-00

         

Eritrea

07-10-98

         

Estland

27-12-99

30-01-02

R

01-07-02

   

Fiji-eilanden

29-11-99

29-11-99

R

01-07-02

   

Filipijnen, de

28-12-00

         

Finland

07-10-98

29-12-00

R

01-07-02

   

Frankrijk

18-07-98

09-06-00

R

01-07-02

   

Gabon

22-12-98

20-09-00

R

01-07-02

   

Gambia

04-12-98

28-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Georgië

18-07-98

05-09-03

R

01-12-03

   

Ghana

18-07-98

20-12-99

R

01-07-02

   

Griekenland

18-07-98

15-05-02

R

01-08-02

   

Guinee

07-09-00

14-07-03

R

01-10-03

   

Guinee-Bissau

12-09-00

         

Guyana

28-12-00

24-09-04

R

01-12-04

   

Haïti

26-02-99

         

Honduras

07-10-98

01-07-02

R

01-09-02

   

Hongarije

15-01-99

30-11-01

R

01-07-02

   

Ierland

07-10-98

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

IJsland

26-08-98

25-05-00

R

01-07-02

   

Iran

31-12-00

         

Israël

31-12-00

         

Italië

18-07-98

26-07-99

R

01-07-02

   

Ivoorkust

30-11-98

         

Jamaica

08-09-00

         

Japan

 

17-07-07

T

01-10-07

   

Jemen

28-12-00

         

Jordanië

07-10-98

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Kaapverdië

28-12-00

         

Kameroen

17-07-98

         

Kenia

11-08-99

15-03-05

R

01-06-05

   

Koeweit

08-09-00

         

Kroatië

12-10-98

21-05-01

R

01-07-02

   

Kyrgyzstan

08-12-98

         

Lesotho

30-11-98

06-09-00

R

01-07-02

   

Letland

22-04-99

28-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Liberia

17-07-98

22-09-04

R

01-12-04

   

Liechtenstein

18-07-98

02-10-01

R

01-07-02

   

Litouwen

10-12-98

12-05-03

R

01-08-03

   

Luxemburg

13-10-98

08-09-00

R

01-07-02

   

Macedonië, de voormalige Joegoslavische Republiek

07-10-98

06-03-02

R

01-07-02

   

Madagaskar

18-07-98

14-03-08

R

01-06-08

   

Malawi

02-03-99

19-09-02

R

01-12-02

   

Mali

17-07-98

16-08-00

R

01-07-02

   

Malta

17-07-98

29-11-02

R

01-02-03

   

Marokko

08-09-00

         

Marshalleilanden, de

06-09-00

07-12-00

R

01-07-02

   

Mauritius

11-11-98

05-03-02

R

01-07-02

   

Mexico

07-09-00

28-10-05

R

01-01-06

   

Moldavië

08-09-00

12-10-10

R

01-01-11

   

Monaco

18-07-98

         

Mongolië

29-12-00

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Montenegro

 

23-10-06

VG

03-06-06

   

Mozambique

28-12-00

         

Namibië

27-10-98

25-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Nauru

13-12-00

12-11-01

R

01-07-02

   

Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der

18-07-98

         

– Nederland:

           

 – in Europa

 

17-07-01

R

01-07-02

   

 – Bonaire

 

 

10-10-10

   

 – Sint Eustatius

 

 

10-10-10

   

 – Saba

 

 

10-10-10

   

– Aruba

 

17-07-01

R

01-07-02

   

– Curaçao

 

 

10-10-10

   

– Sint Maarten

 

 

10-10-10

   

Nieuw-Zeeland

07-10-98

07-09-00

R

01-07-02

   

Niger

17-07-98

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Nigeria

01-06-00

27-09-01

R

01-07-02

   

Noorwegen

28-08-98

16-02-00

R

01-07-02

   

Oekraïne

20-01-00

         

Oezbekistan

29-12-00

         

Oman

20-12-00

         

Oost-Timor

 

06-09-02

T

01-12-02

   

Oostenrijk

07-10-98

28-12-00

R

01-07-02

   

Panama

18-07-98

21-03-02

R

01-07-02

   

Paraguay

07-10-98

14-05-01

R

01-07-02

   

Peru

07-12-00

10-11-01

R

01-07-02

   

Polen

09-04-99

12-11-01

R

01-07-02

   

Portugal

07-10-98

05-02-02

R

01-07-02

   

Roemenië

07-07-99

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Russische Federatie

13-09-00

         

Saint Kitts en Nevis

 

22-08-06

T

01-11-06

   

Saint Lucia

27-08-99

18-08-10

R

01-11-10

   

Saint Vincent en de Grenadines

 

03-12-02

T

01-03-03

   

Salomonseilanden

03-12-98

         

Samoa

17-07-98

16-09-02

R

01-12-02

   

San Marino

18-07-98

13-05-99

R

01-07-02

   

Sao Tomé en Principe

28-12-00

         

Senegal

18-07-98

02-02-99

R

01-07-02

   

Servië

19-12-00

06-09-01

R

01-07-02

   

Seychellen, de

28-12-00

10-08-10

R

01-11-10

   

Sierra Leone

17-10-98

15-09-00

R

01-07-02

   

Slovenië

07-10-98

31-12-01

R

01-07-02

   

Slowakije

23-12-98

11-04-02

R

01-07-02

   

Soedan

08-09-00

         

Spanje

18-07-98

24-10-00

R

01-07-02

   

Suriname

 

15-07-08

T

01-10-08

   

Syrië

29-11-00

         

Tadzjikistan

30-11-98

05-05-00

R

01-07-02

   

Tanzania

29-12-00

20-08-02

R

01-11-02

   

Thailand

02-10-00

         

Trinidad en Tobago

23-03-99

06-04-99

R

01-07-02

   

Tsjaad

20-10-99

01-11-06

R

01-01-07

   

Tsjechië

13-04-99

21-07-09

R

01-10-09

   

Uganda

17-03-99

14-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Uruguay

19-12-00

28-06-02

R

01-09-02

   

Venezuela

14-10-98

07-06-00

R

01-07-02

   

Verenigd Koninkrijk, het

30-11-98

04-10-01

R

01-07-02

   

Verenigde Arabische Emiraten, de

27-11-00

         

Verenigde Staten van Amerika, de

31-12-00

         

Zambia

17-07-98

13-11-02

R

01-02-03

   

Zimbabwe

17-07-98

         

Zuid-Afrika

17-07-98

27-11-00

R

01-07-02

   

Zuid-Korea

08-03-00

13-11-02

R

01-02-03

   

Zweden

07-10-98

28-06-01

R

01-07-02

   

Zwitserland

18-07-98

12-10-01

R

01-07-02

   

* O=Ondertekening zonder voorbehoud of vereiste van ratificatie, R= Bekrachtiging, aanvaarding, goedkeuring of kennisgeving, T=Toetreding, VG=Voortgezette gebonden heid, NB=Niet bekend

Uitbreidingen

Denemarken

Uitgebreid tot

In werking

Buiten werking

Faeröer

01-10-2006

 

Groenland

01-10-2004

 

Verenigd Koninkrijk, het

Uitgebreid tot

In werking

Buiten werking

Akrotiri en Dhekelia (Soevereine Basis Gebieden op Cyprus)

11-03-2010

 

Anguilla

11-03-2010

 

Bermuda

11-03-2010

 

Britse Maagdeneilanden

11-03-2010

 

Caymaneilanden

11-03-2010

 

Falklandeilanden

11-03-2010

 

Montserrat

11-03-2010

 

Pitcairneilanden

11-03-2010

 

Sint-Helena, Ascension en Tristan da Cunha

11-03-2010

 

Turks- en Caicoseilanden

11-03-2010

 

Verklaringen, voorbehouden en bezwaren

Albanië, 30 augustus 2004

In accordance with article 87, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Republic of Albania declares that the requests of the Court shall be sent through diplomatic channels to the Ministry of Justice, Department of International Judicial Cooperation, Boulevard A. Zog, Tïrana, Albania.

In accordance with article 87, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the requests for cooperation and all the supporting documents of the requests, shall be in Albanian Language and in one of the working languages of the Court, English or French.

Andorra, 30 april 2001

With regard to article 103, paragraph 1(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Andorra declares that it would, if necessary, be willing to accept persons of Andorran nationality sentenced by the Court, provided that the sentence imposed by the Court was enforced in accordance with Andorran legislation on the maximum duration of sentences.

With regard to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Andorra declares that all requests for cooperation made by the Court under part IX of the Statute must be transmitted through the diplomatic channel.

With regard to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Andorra declares that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must, in accordance with article 50 of the Statute establishing Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish as the official languages of the Court, be drafted in French or Spanish or accompanied, where necessary, by a translation into one of these languages.

Argentinië, 8 februari 2001

With regard to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Argentine Republic hereby declares that requests for cooperation coming from the Court, and any accompanying documentation, shall be in Spanish or shall be accompanied by a translation into Spanish.

Argentinië, 26 januari 2005

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute, the Argentine Government wishes to inform the Secretary-General, in his capacity as depositary of the Rome Statute, that it has chosen the diplomatic channel as the channel of communication. To that end, communications from the International Criminal Court should be addressed to the Embassy of the Argentine Republic at The Hague, which shall transmit them to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship and, through that Ministry, to the relevant local authorities, where necessary.

Argentinië, 19 mei 2010

[The Argentine Government refers] to the attempt to extend the application of the Rome Statute to the Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur on the part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated 11 March 2010.

The Argentine Government recalls that the Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur and the surrounding maritime areas are an integral part of the Argentine national territory and are illegally occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, being the subject of a sovereignty dispute between both countries which is recognized by several international organizations.

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 316[0] (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which the sovereignty dispute referred to as the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” is recognized and the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are urged to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute. Concurrently, the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations has repeatedly affirmed this view. Also, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted, on 4 June 2009, a new pronouncement, in similar terms, on the question.

Therefore, the Argentine Government objects and rejects the British attempt to extend the application of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Islas Malvinas.

The Argentine Government reaffirms its legitimate sovereign rights over the Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur and the surrounding maritime areas.

The Argentine Government requests the Secretary-General that this note and its English text be notified to the States Parties and Contracting States to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Australië, 1 juli 2002

The Government of Australia, having considered the Statute, now hereby ratifies the same, for and on behalf of Australia, with the following declaration, the terms of which have full effect in Australian law, and which is not a reservation:

Australia notes that a case will be inadmissible before the International Criminal Court (the Court) where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a State. Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. To enable Australia to exercise its jurisdiction effectively, and fully adhering to its obligations under the Statute of the Court, no person will be surrendered to the Court by Australia until it has had the full opportunity to investigate or prosecute any alleged crimes. For this purpose, the procedure under Australian law implementing the Statute of the Court provides that no person can be surrendered to the Court unless the Australian Attorney-General issues a certificate allowing surrender. Australian law also provides that no person can be arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court without a certificate from the Attorney-General.

Australia further declares its understanding that the offences in Article 6, 7 and 8 will be interpreted and applied in a way that accords with the way they are implemented in Australian domestic law.

Australië, 10 maart 2004

…[P]ursuant to paragraph 1 (a) of Article 87 of the Rome Statute,…the Australian Government has designated the Australian Embassy to The Netherlands as the diplomatic channel for transmission of requests for cooperation in accordance with that Article.

…[P]ursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 87 of the Rome Statute, …any such request for cooperation in accordance with that Article should be either be in, or accompanied by a translation into, English.

België, 28 juni 2000

Pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1 (b) of the Statute and having regard to the rules of international humanitarian law which may not be derogated from, the Belgian Government considers that article 31, paragraph 1 (c), of the Statute can be applied and interpreted only in conformity with those rules.

With reference to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Kingdom of Belgium declares that the Ministry of Justice is the authority competent to receive requests for cooperation.

With reference to article 87, paragraph 2, the Kingdom of Belgium declares that requests by the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be in an official language of the Kingdom.

Belize, 5 april 2000

Pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Belize declares that all requests made to it in accordance with Chapter 9 be sent through diplomatic channels.

Brazilië, 20 juni 2002

…with regard to article 87, paragraph 2 of the said Statute, the official language of the Federative Republic of Brazil is Portuguese and that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must be drafted in Portuguese or accompanied by a translation into Portuguese.

Chili, 29 juni 2009

  • 1. In accordance with article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute, the requests for cooperation from the International Criminal Court shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile.

  • 2. In accordance with article 87 (2) of the Statute the requests for cooperation from the International Criminal Court and any documents supporting the request shall be in Spanish or be accompanied by a translation into Spanish.

Colombia, 5 augustus 2002

  • 1. None of the provisions of the Rome Statute concerning the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court prevent the Colombian State from granting amnesties, reprieves or judicial pardons for political crimes, provided that they are granted in conformity with the Constitution and with the principles and norms of international law accepted by Colombia.

    Colombia declares that the provisions of the Statute must be applied and interpreted in a manner consistent with the provisions of international humanitarian law and, consequently, that nothing in the Statute affects the rights and obligations embodied in the norms of international humanitarian law, especially those set forth in article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions and in Protocols I and II Additional thereto.

    Likewise, in the event that a Colombian national has to be investigated and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, the Rome Statute must be interpreted and applied, where appropriate, in accordance with the principles and norms of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

  • 2. With respect to articles 61(2)(b) and 67(1)(d), Colombia declares that it will always be in the interests of justice that Colombian nationals be fully guaranteed the right of defence, especially the right to be assisted by counsel during the phases of investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

  • 3. Concerning article 17(3), Colombia declares that the use of the word “otherwise” with respect to the determination of the State’s ability to investigate or prosecute a case refers to the obvious absence of objective conditions necessary to conduct the trial.

  • 4. Bearing in mind that the scope of the Rome Statute is limited exclusively to the exercise of complementary jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and to the cooperation of national authorities with it, Colombia declares that none of the provisions of the Rome Statute alters the domestic law applied by the Colombian judicial authorities in exercise of their domestic jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Colombia.

  • 5. Availing itself of the option provided in article 124 of the Statute and subject to the conditions established therein, the Government of Colombia declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by Colombian nationals or on Colombian territory.

  • 6. In accordance with article 87(1)(a) and the first paragraph of article 87(2), the Government of Colombia declares that requests for cooperation or assistance shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel and shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into the Spanish language.

Colombia, 18 maart 2004

[Pursuant] … to the notification that Colombia must make as a State party to the Rome Statute concerning the communication channel and official language to be used when requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request are transmitted, in accordance with article 87, paragraphs 1(a) and 2 of the above-mentioned instrument … , [the Government of Colombia wishes to inform] that any communications sent or received in this area should be drafted in Spanish and that the channel for transmission should be the Embassy of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, at The Hague, which can be contacted as follows:

Embassy of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Address: Groot Hertoginnelaan 14

2517 EG Den Haag

Netherlands

Telephone: +;31-(0)70-3614545

Fax: +31-(0)70-3614636.

Congo, Democratische Republiek, 11 april 2002

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, requests for cooperation issued by the Court shall be transmitted to the Government Procurator’s Office of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

For any request for cooperation within the meaning of article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, French shall be the official language.

Cyprus, 7 maart 2002

  • 1. Pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International [Criminal] Court, the Republic of Cyprus declares that requests from the Court may also be transmitted directly to the Ministry of Justice and Public Order.

  • 2. Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Republic of Cyprus declares that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting them shall be transmitted also in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court.

Denemarken, 21 juni 2001

Pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Statute, Denmark declares that requests from the Court shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Ministry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests.

Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, Denmark declares that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Danish which is the official language of Denmark or in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court.

Duitsland, 11 december 2000

The Federal Republic of Germany declares, pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Rome Statute, that requests from the Court can also be transmitted directly to the Federal Ministry of Justice or an agency designated by the Federal Ministry of Justice in an individual case. Requests to the Court can be transmitted directly from the Federal Ministry of Justice or, with the Ministry’s agreement, from another competent agency to the Court.

The Federal Republic of Germany further declares, pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Rome Statute, that requests for cooperation to Germany and any documents supporting the request must be accompanied by a translation into German.

Egypte, 26 december 2000

  • 2. The Arab Republic of Egypt affirms the importance of the Statute being interpreted and applied in conformity with the general principles and fundamental rights which are universally recognized and accepted by the whole international community and with the principles, purposes and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles and rules of international law and international humanitarian law. It further declares that it shall interpret and apply the references that appear in the Statute of the Court to the two terms fundamental rights and international standards on the understanding that such references are to the fundamental rights and internationally recognized norms and standards which are accepted by the international community as a whole.

  • 3. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that its understanding of the conditions, measures and rules which appear in the introductory paragraph of article 7 of the Statute of the Court is that they shall apply to all the acts specified in that article.

  • 4. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that its understanding of article 8 of the Statute of the Court shall be as follows:

    • (a) The provisions of the Statute with regard to the war crimes referred to in article 8 in general and article 8, paragraph 2 (b) in particular, shall apply irrespective of the means by which they were perpetrated or the type of weapon used, including nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in nature and cause unnecessary damage, in contravention of international humanitarian law.

    • (b) The military objectives referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) of the Statute must be defined in the light of the principles, rules and provisions of international humanitarian law. Civilian objects must be defined and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I) and, in particular, article 52 thereof. In case of doubt, the object shall be considered to be civilian.

    • (c) The Arab Republic of Egypt affirms that the term “the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” used in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), must be interpreted in the light of the relevant provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I). The term must also be interpreted as referring to the advantage anticipated by the perpetrator at the time when the crime was committed. No justification may be adduced for the nature of any crime which may cause incidental damage in violation of the law applicable in armed conflicts. The overall military advantage must not be used as a basis on which to justify the ultimate goal of the war or any other strategic goals. The advantage anticipated must be proportionate to the damage inflicted.

    • (d) Article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (xvii) and (xviii) of the Statute shall be applicable to all types of emissions which are indiscriminate in their effects and the weapons used to deliver them, including emissions resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.

  • 5. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that the principle of the non-retroactivity of the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to articles 11 and 24 of the Statute, shall not invalidate the well established principle that no war crime shall be barred from prosecution due to the statute of limitations and no war criminal shall escape justice or escape prosecution in other legal jurisdictions.

    Pursuant to article 87, paragraphs 1 and 2, the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that the Ministry of Justice shall be the party responsible for dealing with requests for cooperation with the Court. Such requests shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel. Requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be in the Arabic language, being the official language of the State, and shall be accompanied by a translation into English being one of the working languages of the Court.

Estland, 30 januari 2002

Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 1 of the Statute the Republic of Estonia declares that the requests from the International Criminal Court shall be transmitted either through the diplomatic channels or directly to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is the authority to receive such requests.

Pursuant to 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute the Republic of Estonia declares that requests from the International Criminal Court and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Estonian which is the official language of the Republic of Estonia or in English which is one of the working languages of the International Criminal Court.

Finland, 29 december 2000

Pursuant to article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests for cooperation shall be transmitted either through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Ministry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests. The Court may also, if need be, enter into direct contact with other competent authorities of Finland. In matters relating to requests for surrender the Ministry of Justice is the only competent authority.

Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Finnish or Swedish, which are the official languages of Finland, or in English which is one of the working languages of the Court.

Frankrijk, 9 juni 2000

  • 1. The provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court do not preclude France from exercising its inherent right of self-defence in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter.

  • 2. The provisions of article 8 of the Statute, in particular paragraph 2 (b) thereof, relate solely to conventional weapons and can neither regulate nor prohibit the possible use of nuclear weapons nor impair the other rules of international law applicable to other weapons necessary to the exercise by France of its inherent right of self-defence, unless nuclear weapons or the other weapons referred to herein become subject in the future to a comprehensive ban and are specified in an annex to the Statute by means of an amendment adopted in accordance with the provisions of articles 121 and 123.

  • 3. The Government of the French Republic considers that the term “armed conflict” in article 8, paragraphs 2 (b) and (c), in and of itself and in its context, refers to a situation of a kind which does not include the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether collective or isolated.

  • 4. The situation referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (xxiii), of the Statute does not preclude France from directing attacks against objectives considered as military objectives under international humanitarian law.

  • 5. The Government of the French Republic declares that the term “military advantage” in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole and not from isolated or specific elements thereof.

  • 6. The Government of the French Republic declares that a specific area may be considered a “military objective” as referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) as a whole if, by reason of its situation, nature, use, location, total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, taking into account the circumstances of the moment, it offers a decisive military advantage.

    The Government of the French Republic considers that the provisions of article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (ii) and (v), do not refer to possible collateral damage resulting from attacks directed against military objectives.

  • 7. The Government of the French Republic declares that the risk of damage to the natural environment as a result of the use of methods and means of warfare, as envisaged in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), must be weighed objectively on the basis of the information available at the time of its assessment.

    Pursuant to article 124 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory.

    Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the French Republic declares that requests for cooperation, and any documents supporting the request, addressed to it by the Court must be in the French language.

Frankrijk, 10 mei 2004

… The Permanent Mission of France confirms that the channel to be used for transmitting any communication between France and the International Criminal Court shall be the diplomatic channel through the embassy of France at The Hague.

Requests for cooperation from the International Criminal Court should be transmitted in the original or in the form of a certified true copy, accompanied by all supporting documentation. In cases of urgency, such documents may be transmitted by any means to the Procureur de la République (Government Procurator) for Paris. They shall then be transmitted through the diplomatic channel.

Frankrijk, 13 augustus 2008

Withdrawal, with effect from 15 June 2008, of the following declaration:

“Pursuant to article 124 of the Statute of the International Court, the French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory.”

Gambia, 28 juni 2002

Pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Statute, the Republic of the Gambia declares that requests from the Court shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Department of State for Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such request.

Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, the Republic of the Gambia declares that requests from the Court and any document supporting such requests shall be in English which is one of the working languages of the Court and the official language of the Republic of the Gambia.

Georgië, 5 september 2003

…according to the Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Rome Statute any request for cooperation or additional documentation shall be provided in Georgian language or in adequate translation.*

[*1. Should read “Article 87, paragraph 2”.]

Georgië, 30 april 2009

…based on Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the law of Georgia on “Cooperation of Georgia and the International Criminal Court”, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia is the delegated authority to be a counterpart to the Criminal Court.

Based on Article 9 of the same law, written communication between two organs must be conducted in Georgian language or the document has to have the annex in Georgian language.

Based on the regulation of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, the Department for International Public Law of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia is the contact organ for the International Criminal Court.

The contact information for the department is: Tel (+995 32) 40 51 60/34; Fax(+995 32) 40 51 60.

Griekenland, 7 april 2004

…pursuant to article 87 paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute, the Hellenic Republic declares that, until further notice, requests by the Court for cooperation shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel.

Furthermore, pursuant to article 87 paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute, the Hellenic Republic declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be accompanied by a translation into the Greek language.

Honduras, 13 juli 2004

With respect to article 87, paragraph 1 (a), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Republic of Honduras has designated the Ministry of the Interior and Justice as the competent authority to receive and transmit requests for cooperation. With respect to article 87, paragraph 2, the Republic of Honduras declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request should be submitted in the Spanish language, or accompanied by a translation into Spanish. Lastly, with regard to article 103, the Republic of Honduras declares its willingness to accept persons sentenced by the Court, provided that such persons are of Honduran nationality, the Court has decided their cases pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1 (c), and the terms of their sentences are equal to or less than the maximum terms permitted by Honduran law for committing the crimes of which they have been convicted.

II. This Agreement shall be submitted to the Sovereign National Congress for its consideration, for the purposes of article 205, paragraph 30, of the Constitution of the Republic.

For communications: (F) Ricardo Maduro: President; Secretary of State to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: (F) Guillermo Pérez-Cadalso.

Hongarije, 30 november 2001

… the Government of the Republic of Hungary makes the following declaration in relation to Article 87 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome, 17 July 1998):

Requests of the Court for cooperation shall be transmitted to the Government of the Republic of Hungary through diplomatic channel. These requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be made in English.

IJsland, 9 juni 2004

  • 1. With reference to article 87, paragraph 1(a), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Iceland declares that the Ministry of Justice is designated as the channel for the transmission of requests for cooperation from the Court.

  • 2. With reference to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Iceland declares that requests for cooperation from the Court and any documents supporting the requests shall be submitted in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court.

Israël, 31 december 2000

Being an active consistent supporter of the concept of an International Criminal Court, and its realization in the form of the Rome Statute, the Government of the State of Israel is proud to thus express its acknowledgment of the importance, and indeed indispensability, of an effective court for the enforcement of the rule of law and the prevention of impunity.

As one of the originators of the concept of an International Criminal Court, Israel, through its prominent lawyers and statesmen, has, since the early 1950’s, actively participated in all stages of the formation of such a court. Its representatives, carrying in both heart and mind collective, and sometimes personal, memories of the holocaust – the greatest and most heinous crime to have been committed in the history of mankind –enthusiastically, with a sense of acute sincerity and seriousness, contributed to all stages of the preparation of the Statute. Responsibly, possessing the same sense of mission, they currently support the work of the ICC Preparatory Commission.

At the 1998 Rome Conference, Israel expressed its deep disappointment and regret at the insertion into the Statute of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain states. Israel warned that such an unfortunate practice might reflect on the intent to abuse the Statute as a political tool. Today, in the same spirit, the Government of the State of Israel signs the Statute while rejecting any attempt to interpret provisions thereof in a politically motivated manner against Israel and its citizens. The Government of Israel hopes that Israel’s expressions of concern of any such attempt would be recorded in history as a warning against the risk of politicization, that might undermine the objectives of what is intended to become a central impartial body, benefiting mankind as a whole.

Nevertheless, as a democratic society, Israel has been conducting ongoing political, public and academic debates concerning the ICC and its significance in the context of international law and the international community. The Court’s essentiality – as a vital means of ensuring that criminals who commit genuinely heinous crimes will be duly brought to justice, while other potential offenders of the fundamental principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience will be properly deterred – has never seized to guide us. Israel’s signature of the Rome Statute will, therefore, enable it to morally identify with this basic idea, underlying the establishment of the Court.

Today, [the Government of Israel is] honoured to express [its] sincere hopes that the Court, guided by the cardinal judicial principles of objectivity and universality, will indeed serve its noble and meritorious objectives.

Israël, 28 augustus 2002

…in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, […] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.

Italië, 28 april 2004

Italy hereby specifies that it would like to receive the requests for cooperation provided for by Article 87 of the Rome Statute through diplomatic channels. The language in which those requests and the relevant documents should be received is Italian, together with a French translation.

Japan, 17 augustus 2007

… pursuant to article 87 paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute, the Government of Japan declares that, until further notice, requests by the Court for cooperation shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel.

… pursuant to article 87 paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute, the Government of Japan declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be in English and be accompanied by a translation into the Japanese language.

Jordanië, 11 april 2002

The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan hereby declares that nothing under its national law including the Constitution, is inconsistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, it interprets such national law as giving effect to the full application of the Rome Statute and the exercise of relevant jurisdiction thereunder.

Kroatië, 19 juli 2004

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Republic of Croatia declares that requests from the Court shall be transmitted through diplomatic channel to the Ministry of Justice – Department for Cooperation with the International Criminal Courts.

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Republic of Croatia declares that requests for cooperation and documents supporting the request from the Court shall be in Croatian which is the official language of the Republic of Croatia and shall be accompanied by a translation in English which is one of the working languages of the International Criminal Court.

Lesotho, 17 maart 2004

Pursuant to Article 87 paragraph 1 (a) and 2 of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, with regard to the Kingdom of Lesotho, requests for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel, that is, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Lesotho, and such communication be in the English language.

Letland, 28 juni 2002

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the Republic of Latvia declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into the Latvian language.

Liechtenstein, 2 oktober 2001

Pursuant to article 103, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Principality of Liechtenstein declares its willingness to accept persons sentenced to imprisonment by the Court, for purposes of execution of the sentence, if the persons are Liechtenstein citizens or if the persons’ usual residence is in the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Requests of the Court made pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, shall be transmitted to the central authority for cooperation with the International Criminal Court, namely the Ministry of Justice of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, the Court may serve in decisions and other records or documents upon recipients in the Principality of Liechtenstein directly by mail. A summons to appear before the Court as a witness or expert shall be accompanied by the Rule of Procedure and Evidence of the Court on self-incrimination; this Rule shall be given to the person concerned in a language that the person understands.

The official language in the sense of article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute is German. Requests and supporting documentation shall be submitted in the official language of the Principality of Liechtenstein, German, or translated into German.

Litouwen, 12 mei 2003

And whereas, it is provided in paragraph 1 of Article 87, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that requests of the International Criminal Court for cooperation may be transmitted directly to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania or to the Prosecutor’s General Office of the Republic of Lithuania;

And whereas, it is provided in paragraph 2 of Article 87, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that requests of the International Criminal Court for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be presented either in Lithuanian language, which is State Language of the Republic of Lithuania, or in English language, which is one of the working languages of the International Criminal Court, or be accompanied by a translation either into Lithuanian language or in English language;…

And whereas, it is provided in paragraph1(b) of Article 103, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania is willing to accept persons, sentenced by the International Criminal Court to serve the sentence of imprisonment, if such persons are nationals of the Republic of Lithuania.

Luxemburg, 3 maart 2004

…French is the language chosen by the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and that the Embassy of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg at The Hague is the most appropriate channel for the transmission of all communications with the International Criminal Court.

Macedonië, de voormalige Joegoslavische Republiek, 27 mei 2004

… pursuant to Article 87 (1) of the Statute, that requests from the Court shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Ministry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests.

… pursuant to Article 87 (2) of the Statute, that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Macedonian which is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia or in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court.

Mali, 21 mei 2004

Pursuant to article 87, paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 of the Rome Statute, relating to the designation of channels of communication between States parties and the Court and to the language to be used in requests for cooperation, the Permanent Mission of Mali to the United Nations has the honour to inform the Secretariat that the Government of Mali wishes such requests to be addressed to it in French, the official language, through the diplomatic channel.

Malta, 29 november 2002

Article 20, paragraphs 3 (a) and (b).

With regard to article 20 paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Malta declares that according to its constitution no person who shows that he has been tried by any competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial for that offence save upon the order of a superior court made in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal; and no person shall be tried for a criminal offence if he shows that he has been pardoned for that offence.

It is presumed that under the general principles of law a trial as described in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of Article 20 of the Statute would be considered a nullity and would not be taken into account in the application of the above constitutional rule. However, the matter has never been the subject of any judgment before the Maltese courts.

The prerogative of mercy will only be exercised in Malta in conformity with its obligations under International law including those arising from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Article 97, paragraph 2

Malta declares, pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute, that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request, must be in English or accompanied, where necessary, by a translation into English.

Marshalleilanden, de, 18 februari 2004

…the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United Nations is the designated channel of communication between the States Parties and the Court and English is the designated language.

…Please find below the Mission’s contact information:

Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United Nations

800 Second Avenue, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10017

Tel No: (212) 983-3040

Fax No: (212) 983-3202

Email: marshallislands@un.int

Mexico, 28 oktober 2005

The Government of the United Mexican States requests, in accordance with article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, that the requests for cooperation from the International Criminal Court shall be transmitted through diplomatic channels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Similarly, the Government of the United Mexican States decides that the request for cooperation from the International Criminal Court, and any documents supporting such requests to which article 87, paragraph 2 refers, shall be written in or submitted together with a translation into Spanish.

Moldavië, 12 oktober 2010

  • 1. According to the provisions of the article 87 paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Republic of Moldova declares that all the cooperation requests and all the related documents shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel.

  • 2. According to the provisions of the article 87 paragraph 2 of the Statute, the Republic of Moldova declares that all the cooperation requests and any documents supporting the requests shall be prepared in Moldovan language or in English, which is one of the working languages of the International Criminal Court, or be accompanied by a translation into one of these languages.

Montenegro, 23 oktober 2006

…in accordance with article 87, paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 of the Rome Statute, Serbia and Montenegro has designated Diplomatic Channel of communication as its channel of communication with the International Criminal Court and Serbian and English language as the languages of communication.

Namibië, 8 oktober 2002

…with reference to Article 87 paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, [the Republic of Namibia] declares that all requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request, must either be in, or be accompanied by a translation into the English language.

Namibië, 21 juli 2004

…in terms of the provisions of Article 87 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Republic of Namibia designates the Namibian diplomatic channel or the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice of the Government of the Republic of Namibia as the appropriate channel of communication.

Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 10 maart 2004

[Pursuant] to article 87, paragraphs 1(a) and 2 of the Rome Statute concerning designation of channels and languages of communication between States Parties and the Court, … the Kingdom of the Netherlands indicates English as language of communication and designates as national authority charged with receiving communications:

Ministry of Justice

Office of International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Postbus 203301

2500 EH Den Haag

Fax. (+31) (0) 70 370 7945

Nieuw-Zeeland, 7 september 2000

  • 1. The Government of New Zealand notes that the majority of the war crimes specified in article 8 of the Rome Statute, in particular those in article 8 (2) (b) (i)-(v) and 8 (2) (e) (i)-(iv) (which relate to various kinds of attacks on civilian targets), make no reference to the type of the weapons employed to commit the particular crime. The Government of New Zealand recalls that the fundamental principle that underpins international humanitarian law is to mitigate and circumscribe the cruelty of war for humanitarian reasons and that, rather than being limited to weaponry of an earlier time, this branch of law has evolved, and continues to evolve, to meet contemporary circumstances. Accordingly, it is the view of the Government of New Zealand that it would be inconsistent with principles of international humanitarian law to purpot to limit the scope of article 8, in particular article 8 (2) (b), to events that involve conventional weapons only.

  • 2. The Government of New Zealand finds support for its view in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) and draws attention to paragraph 86, in particular, where the Court stated that the conclusion that humanitarian law did not apply to such weapons “would be incompatible with the intrinsically humanitarian character of the legal principles in question which permeates the entire law of armed conflict and applies to all forms of warfare and to all kinds of weapons, those of the past, those of the present and those of the future.”

  • 3. The Government of New Zealand further notes that international humanitarian law applies equally to aggressor and defender states and its application in a particular context is not dependent on a determination of whether or not a state is acting in self-defence. In this respect it refers to paragraphs 40-42 of the Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Case.

    Consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account its commitment to the development of self-government through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this ratification shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory.

Nieuw-Zeeland, 9 maart 2004

[Pursuant to] article 87 paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 of the Rome Statute concerning designation of channels and language of communication between the States Parties to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court, [the Government of New Zealand has the] honour to advise that [it] designates the diplomatic channel through the New Zealand Embassy in The Hague as its preferred channel of communication with the International Criminal Court, and English as its preferred language of communication.

Noorwegen, 16 februari 2000

  • 1. With reference to Article 87, paragraph 1 (a), the Kingdom of Norway hereby declares that the Royal Ministry of Justice is designated as the channel for the transmission of requests from the Court.

  • 2. With reference to Article 87, paragraph 2, the Kingdom of Norway hereby declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting the request shall be submitted in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court.

Oost-Timor, 17 december 2004

…that the official language of communication between the Court and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste shall be English.

Oostenrijk, 28 december 2000

Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute the Republic of Austria declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into the German language.

Panama, 25 mei 2004

… requests for cooperation pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a), of the Rome Statute shall be transmitted by the Court to the Republic of Panama through the diplomatic channel.

In addition, requests for cooperation pursuant to paragraph 2 of the aforementioned article, and any documents supporting such requests, shall be written in or translated into Spanish, the official language of the Republic of Panama.

Peru, 12 april 2004

The Permanent Mission of Peru wishes to state that the channel of communication with the International Criminal Court shall be the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru through the Embassy of Peru in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and furthermore that requests for cooperation by the International Criminal Court to Peru should be made in the Spanish language or be accompanied by a translation into Spanish.

Polen, 12 november 2001

In accordance with Article 87 paragraph 2 of the Statute the Republic of Poland declares that applications on cooperation submitted by Court and documents added to them shall be made in Polish language.

Portugal, 5 februari 2002

The Portuguese Republic declares the intention to exercise its jurisdictional powers over every person found in the Portuguese territory, that is being prosecuted for the crimes set forth in article 5, paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, within the respect for the Portuguese criminal legislation. ...

With regard to article 87, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Portuguese Republic declares that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must be drafted in Portuguese or accompanied by a translation into Portuguese.

Roemenië, 11 april 2002

  • 1. With reference to article 87 paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, the Ministry of Justice is the Romanian authority competent to receive the requests of the International Criminal Court, to send them immediately for resolution to the Romanian judicial competent bodies, and to communicate to the International Criminal Court the relevant documents:

  • 2. With reference to article 87 paragraph 2 of the Statute, the requests of the International Criminal Court and the relevant documents shall be transmitted in the English language, or accompanied by official translations in this language.

Samoa, 26 maart 2004

[The Government of Samoa] has the honour to advise that in pursuance of article 87 paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 of the Rome Statute concerning the designation of channels and languages of communication between the States Parties and the International Criminal Court, such channel and language of communication is as follows:

Channel: Permanent Mission of Samoa to the United Nations

800 Second Avenu, Suite 400 J

New York, New York 10017

Tel: (212) 599-6196

Fax: (212) 599-0797

Language: English.

Servië, 26 mei 2006

...in accordance with article 87, paragraphs 1 (a) and 2, of the Rome Statute Serbia and Montenegro has designated Diplomatic Channel of communication as its channel of communication with the International Criminal Court and Serbian and English language as the languages of communication.

Sierra Leone, 30 april 2004

...the Permanent Mission of Sierra Leone to the United Nations remains the main channel of communication between Sierra Leone as a State Party and the Court, the language of communication is English.

Slovenië, 27 juni 2006

Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute the Republic of Slovenia declares that requests for cooperation made by the Court, shall be addressed to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Slovenia.

Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute the Republic of Slovenia declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by translation into Slovene language.

Slowakije, 11 april 2002

Pursuant to Article 103, paragraph 1 (b) of the Statute the Slovak Republic declares that it would accept, if necessary, persons sentenced by the Court, if the persons are citizens of the Slovak Republic or have a permanent residence in its territory, for purposes of execution of the sentence of imprisonment and at the same time it will apply the principle of conversion of sentence imposed by the Court.

Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute the Slovak Republic declares that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted in English which is one of the working languages of the Court along with the translation into Slovak which is the official language of the Slovak Republic.

Soedan, 27 augustus 2008

I, Deng Alor Koul, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Sudan, hereby notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as depositary of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, that Sudan does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute. Accordingly, Sudan has no legal obligation arising from its signature on 8 September 2000.

Spanje, 24 oktober 2000

Spain declares its willingness to accept at the appropriate time, persons sentenced by the International Criminal Court, provided that the duration of the sentence does not exceed the maximum stipulated for any crime under Spanish law.

In relation to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Kingdom of Spain declares that, without prejudice to the fields of competence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice shall be the competent authority to transmit requests for cooperation made by the Court or addressed to the Court.

In relation to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Kingdom of Spain declares that requests for cooperation addressed to it by the Court and any supporting documents must be in Spanish or accompanied by a translation into Spanish.

Suriname, 25 augustus 2008

In accordance with article 87 paragraph 1 and 2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Government of the Republic of Suriname declares that all requests for cooperation and any other supporting documents that it receives from the Court shall be transmitted through diplomatic channels in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court along with the translation into Dutch, which is the official language of the Republic of Suriname.

Tsjaad, 14 december 2010

The Government of the Republic of Chad maintains the diplomatic channel for communication and French as the working language in accordance with article 87, paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 of the Rome Statute.

Tsjechië, 21 juli 2009

In accordance with Article 103, paragraph 1, subparagraph [b] of the Statute, the Czech Republic declares that it is willing to accept sentenced persons who are citizens of the Czech Republic or have permanent residence in the territory of the Czech Republic.

On accepting this Statute, the Czech Republic declares in accordance with Article 87, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Statute, that requests for cooperation may be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or sent:

  • 1. if the request is for surrender or temporary transfer of a person or for transit of a person, directly to the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic;

  • 2. if the request is for other forms of cooperation, until the commencement of the trial, directly to the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Czech Republic and, after the commencement of the trial, directly to the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic.

In accordance with Article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute, the Czech Republic declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or accompanied by a translation into the Czech language.

Uruguay, 28 juni 2002

As a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic.

Pursuant to the provisions of part 9 of the Statute entitled “International cooperation and judicial assistance”, the Executive shall within six months refer to the Legislature a bill establishing the procedures for ensuring the application of the Statute.

Verklaring van Denemarken, 21 augustus 2003

Denmark has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Denmark has noted that Uruguay effectively condition its application of provisions of the Statute on their accordance with the Constitution of Uruguay. The Government of Denmark believes that an interpretative declaration to this effect in substance must be understood as a reservation to the Statute, which if accepted would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Statute. In addition, Article 120 of the Statute expressly precludes the making of reservations to the Statute.

For these reasons Denmark objects to the reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Denmark and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. The Statute will be effective between the two states, without the Eastern Republic of Uruguay benefiting from its reservations.

Bezwaar door Duitsland, 7 juli 2003

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the Interpretative Declaration to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court made by the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay at the time of its ratification of the Statute.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the Interpretative Declaration with regard to the compatibility of the rules of the Statute with the provisions of the Constitution of Uruguay is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Statute on a unilateral basis. As it is provided in article 120 of the Statute that no reservation may be made to the Statute, this reservation should not be made.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the aforementioned “declaration” made by the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay.

Bezwaar door Finland, 8 juli 2003

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of these interpretative declarations, in particular the statement that “as a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic.” Such a statement, without further specification, has to be considered in substance as a reservation which raises doubts as to the commitment of Uruguay to the object and purpose of the Statute.

The Government of Finland would like to recall Article 120 of the Rome Statute and the general principle relating to internal law and observance of treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Finland and Uruguay. The Statute will thus become operative between the two states without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation.

Verklaring van Ierland, 28 juli 2003

Ireland has examined the text of the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Ireland notes that the said interpretative declaration provides that the application of the Rome Statute by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall be subject to the provisions of the Constitution of Uruguay. Ireland considers this interpretative declaration to be in substance a reservation.

Article 120 of the Rome Statute expressly precludes the making of reservations. In addition, it is a rule of international law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations.

Ireland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Ireland and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. The Statute will therefore be effective between the two states, without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation.

Bezwaar door Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 8 juli 2003

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of Uruguay and regards the declaration made by the Government of Uruguay to effectively be a reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the application of the Statute by the Government of Uruguay will be limited by the bounds of national legislation. The reservation made by Uruguay therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of Uruguay to the object and purpose of the Statute.

Article 120 of the Statute precludes reservations.

On these two grounds the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Uruguay. The Statute will be effective between the two States, without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation.

Verklaring van Noorwegen, 29 augustus 2003

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of Uruguay upon ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Government of Norway notes that the interpretative declaration purports to limit the application of the Statute within national legislation, and therefore constitutes a reservation.

The Government of Norway recalls that according to Article 120 of the Statute, no reservations may be made to the Statute.

The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Uruguay upon ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute in its entirety between the Kingdom of Norway and Uruguay. The Statute thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and Uruguay without Uruguay benefiting from the reservation.

Verklaring van Verenigd Koninkrijk, het, 31 juli 2003

At the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay made two statements which are called “interpretative declarations”, at the first of which states that “as a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic”.

The Government of the United Kingdom has given careful consideration to the so-called interpretative declaration quoted above. The Government of the United Kingdom is obliged to conclude that this so-called interpretative declaration purports to exclude or modify the legal effects of the Rome Statute in its application to the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and is accordingly a reservation. However, according to Article 120 of the Rome Statute, no reservations may be made thereto.

Accordingly, the Government objects to the above-quoted reservation by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. However, this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Rome Statute between the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

Bezwaar door Zweden, 7 juli 2003

The Government of Sweden has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Statute).

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by Uruguay to the Statute in substance constitutes a reservation.

The Government of Sweden notes that the application of the Statute is being made subject to a general reference to possible limits of the competence of the State and the constitutional provisions of Uruguay. Such a general reservation referring to national legislation without specifying its contents makes it unclear to what extent the reserving State considers itself bound by the obligations of the Statute. The reservation made by Uruguay therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of Uruguay to the object and purpose of the Statute.

According to article 120 of the Statute no reservations shall be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Sweden and Uruguay. The Statute enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation.

Uruguay, 19 juli 2002

…in accordance with article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay wishes to inform the Secretary-General that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests should be drawn up in Spanish or be accompanied by a translation into Spanish.

Uruguay, 21 juli 2003

The Eastern Republic of Uruguay, by Act No. 17.510 of 27 June 2002 ratified by the legislative branch, gave its approval to the Rome Statute in terms fully compatible with Uruguay’s constitutional order. While the Constitution is a law of higher rank to which all other laws are subject, this does not in any way constitute a reservation to any of the provisions of that international instrument.

It is noted for all necessary effects that the Rome Statute has unequivocally preserved the normal functioning of national jurisdictions and that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is exercised only in the absence of the exercise of national jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is very clear that the above-mentioned Act imposes no limits or conditions on the application of the Statute, fully authorizing the functioning of the national legal system without detriment to the Statute.

The interpretative declaration made by Uruguay upon ratifying the Statute does not, therefore, constitute a reservation of any kind.

Lastly, mention should be made of the significance that Uruguay attaches to the Rome Statute as a notable expression of the progressive development of international law on a highly sensitive issue.

Uruguay, 5 maart 2004

…according to article 87 paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute, …the Government of Uruguay has designated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as its channel of communication with the International Criminal Court.

Uruguay, 26 februari 2008

[The Eastern Republic of Uruguay has communicated to the Secretary-General] the withdrawal of the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

As you know, Uruguay signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 19 December 2000. The Statute was approved at the national level by Act No. 17.510, which was promulgated by the Executive on 27 June 2002.

At that time, however, Uruguay made an interpretative declaration relating to the aforementioned Statute, in language identical to article 2 of the above-mentioned Act.

Without prejudice to the interpretative declaration made at the time of its promulgation, the Act itself (art. 3) states that the Executive shall within six months refer to the Legislature a bill establishing the procedures for ensuring the application of the Statute, pursuant to the provisions of part 9 of the Statute entitled “International cooperation and judicial assistance”.

Verenigd Koninkrijk, het, 4 oktober 2001

The United Kingdom understands the term “the established framework of international law”, used in article 8 (2) (b) and (e), to include customary international law as established by State practice and opinio iuris. In that context the United Kingdom confirms and draws to the attention of the Court its views as expressed, inter alia, in its statements made on ratification of relevant instruments of international law, including the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) of 8th June 1977.

The United Kingdom declares, pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, that requests for co-operation, and any documents supporting the request, must be in the English language.

Verenigde Staten van Amerika, de, 6 november 1998

[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies:

First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to “re-correct” only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference.

Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General’s communication suggests that it is “established depositary practice” that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure, as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted.

More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents “established depositary practice” for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all.

In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention.

Verenigde Staten van Amerika, de, 6 mei 2002

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.

Zweden, 28 juni 2001

In connection with the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and, with regard to the war crimes specified in Article 8 of the Statute which relate to the methods of warfare, the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden would like to recall the Advisory Opinion given by the International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, and in particular paragraphs 85 to 87 thereof, in which the Court finds that there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons.

With regard to Article 87, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Kingdom of Sweden declares that all requests for cooperation made by the Court under part IX of the Statute must be transmitted through the Swedish Ministry of Justice.

With regard to Article 87, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Kingdom of Sweden declares that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must be drafted in English or Swedish, or accompanied, where necessary, by a translation into one of these languages.

Zwitserland, 12 oktober 2001

In accordance with article 103, paragraph 1, of the Statute, Switzerland declares that it is prepared to be responsible for enforcement of sentences of imprisonment handed down by the Court against Swiss nationals or persons habitually resident in Switzerland.

Requests for cooperation made by the Court under article 87, paragraph 1 (a), of the Statute shall be transmitted to the Central Office for Cooperation with the International Criminal Court of the Federal Bureau of Justice.

The official languages within the meaning of article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, shall be French, German and Italian.

The Court may serve notice of its decisions and other procedural steps or documents on the persons to whom such decisions or documents are addressed in Switzerland directly through the mail. Any summons to appear in Court as a witness or expert shall be accompanied by the provision of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Court concerning self-incrimination; that provision shall be provided to the person concerned in a language which he or she is able to understand.

G. INWERKINGTREDING

Zie Trb. 2002, 135.

Wat betreft het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, geldt het Statuut, dat vanaf 1 juli 2002 voor Nederland (het Europese deel), de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba gold, vanaf 10 oktober 2010 voor Nederland (het Europese en het Caribische deel), Aruba, Curaçao en Sint Maarten.


De wijziging van artikel 8 van 10 juni 2010 zal ingevolge artikel 121, vijfde lid, van het Statuut voor de staten die de wijziging hebben aanvaard in werking treden een jaar na de nederlegging van hun akten van bekrachtiging of aanvaarding.


De wijzigingen betreffende het misdrijf agressie van 11 juni 2010 zullen ingevolge artikel 123, derde lid, juncto artikel 121, vijfde lid, van het Statuut voor de staten die de wijziging hebben aanvaard in werking treden een jaar na de nederlegging van hun akten van bekrachtiging of aanvaarding.

J. VERWIJZINGEN

Zie Trb. 1999, 13 en Trb. 2004, 258.

Elementen van misdrijven

Op 9 september 2002 zijn ingevolge artikel 9 van het Statuut elementen van misdrijven aangenomen die het Internationaal Strafhof helpen bij de interpretatie en toepassing van de artikelen 6, 7 en 8 van het Statuut. Tijdens de Herzieningsconferentie te Kampala zijn op 10 en 11 juni 2010 in overeenstemming met artikel 9, tweede lid, wijzigingen van de elementen aangenomen. De tekst van de elementen van misdrijven en de wijzigingen is te vinden op: http://www.icc-cpi.int.

Afspraken betreffende het misdrijf agressie

Tijdens de Herzieningsconferentie te Kampala zijn op 11 juni 2010 afspraken gemaakt met betrekking tot de wijzigingen van het Statuut betreffende het misdrijf agressie. De tekst van de afspraken is te vinden op: http://www.icc-cpi.int.

Overige verwijzingen

Titel

:

Handvest van de Verenigde Naties;

San Francisco, 26 juni 1945

Laatste Trb.

:

Trb. 2011, 57

Uitgegeven de tweeëntwintigste april 2011.

De Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken,

U. ROSENTHAL


X Noot
1)

De Arabische, Chinese, Russische en Spaanse tekst zijn niet opgenomen.

X Noot
1)

De Arabische, Chinese, Russische en Spaanse tekst zijn niet opgenomen.