Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-221"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.9.3-221"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As regards the International Criminal Court, the Council would point out the importance that the Union attaches to preserving the integrity of the Rome Statute. We must leave no stone unturned in our endeavours to promote universal signature of the Rome Statute and its full enforcement though national legislation. The Member States should become party to the agreement on the privileges and immunity of the Court and ensure that national implementing legislation is enforced. They should also refrain from making statements expressing reservations that are permitted under Article 120 of the Rome Statute. To this end, the Union has promoted a whole raft of initiatives – political dialogue and other initiatives – to persuade third countries, including the United States, to sign the Rome Statute. The Union believes that universal signing-up to the Rome Statute is essential for the International Criminal Court to be fully effective and, to this end, considers that initiatives should be encouraged, which increase acceptance of the Statute, provided that they are consistent with the letter and spirit of the document.
The Council would like to mention that it has, on every possible occasion – common positions of the Union, guidelines and various initiatives undertaken by third countries – clearly and consistently stressed its position as regards bilateral agreements on non-surrender negotiated or concluded with the United States. The Member States to whom the USA has proposed agreements of this kind immediately asked for a common approach from the Union on these proposals within the framework of the Council. Since the beginning of the process, the Council has identified a clear political objective for this common approach. The basis for any solution that takes into account the concerns of the United States must preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute and must not jeopardise the functioning of the International Criminal Court. I would refer you, in particular, to the Union guidelines annexed to the Council conclusions of 30 September 2002, in which the Council confirmed that, according to the current wording, signing bilateral agreements with the United States would be incompatible with the obligations that the Statute of the International Criminal Court imposes on States Parties, as it could also be incompatible with other international agreements to which the said countries are also States Parties. Furthermore, the solution adopted should provide for an appropriate system, which would mean that anyone who has committed a crime falling within the remit of the Court could not go unpunished. This system should ensure that national judges conduct appropriate investigations into persons brought before the International Criminal Court and, where there is sufficient proof, set the appropriate legal proceedings in motion.
In any case, the solution adopted as regards the citizenship of those people who are not to be surrendered should only affect people who do not have citizenship of a State Party to the International Criminal Court. As regards the scope, this should only cover people that are in the territory of the State to which the application has been made because they have been sent there by another State, and being surrendered cannot be interpreted in such a way as to include transit.
As was confirmed by the Council in the common position of June 2003, the Member States are continuing, where appropriate, to draw the attention of third countries to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002 on the International Criminal Court and on the Union principles annexed to it, regarding proposals for agreements and conventions relating to the conditions for surrendering persons to the Court. It states that the 10 accession countries supported the Union’s common position of June 2003, to which the associate countries, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and the EFTA countries, also conformed.
As regards Guantanamo Bay, as the European Parliament knows from the replies given by the Council to a series of written questions on this issue, the Council has not formally discussed this subject with the United States. I must say, moreover, as an aside, that, just yesterday, in the meeting held between the General Affairs and External Relations Council and the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell
we were able to raise this issue as well and to discuss it directly with him. I will, of course, delay going into greater detail on this aspect because it was raised only yesterday. In this regard, it must be assumed that the protection of the rights and interests of the citizens of Member States outside the Union is, according to the Vienna Convention on consulate relations, the sole competence of the individual Member State concerned. The Member States whose citizens are detained in Guantanamo Bay, are, therefore, adopting measures, which they deem necessary to ensure that their citizens’ rights are respected in the context of the relevant bilateral agreements with the United States. The Council is not in a position to provide details on the nature of these measures and any requests for information should be addressed to the Member States concerned.
As regards the question on the United States’ request for passengers’ personal data, the Council is taking the grave concerns voiced by Parliament, most recently in the resolution adopted on 9 October 2003, very seriously. The Council has fully supported the Commission in its sustained efforts to achieve a definitive solution which complies with the clear provisions of the law by the end of the year."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples