CYIL 2012

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE DURING THE 66 TH SESSION … Venezuela both in the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee. While the OIC does not see any link between the finalization of the CCIT and this conference, the Members of the EU, USA, India and others argue for the adoption of the CCIT first and possible discussion on the convening of the conference after. Although this issue has nothing to do with the text of the draft CCIT, it forms an integral part of the negotiations. In the last couple years, almost no progress has been made in resolving these “outstanding issues”, despite the tireless efforts of the Greek coordinator of the CCIT and of Ambassador Rohan Perera, former Sri-Lankan ILC member and the Chair of both the Sixth Committee’s Working Group and the Ad Hoc Committee. With the 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, there was a little hope that – at the last year’s session of the Sixth Committee – the CCIT negotiations might be finally brought to a successful outcome. During the general debate, however, most of the key players in the negotiations on the CCIT restated their positions expressed on this matter at previous sessions of the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee. Some States went in their statements beyond this agenda item and responded to the ongoing political events. To provide an example, Syria condemned the State terrorism allegedly perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians. As a result of this, Israel – exercising its right of reply – pointed to the crimes of the Syrian Government against its own people and its support to terrorists. Syria – in its counter-reply – suggested that Israel should obtain patents for terrorism. The EU, which traditionally used to have a statement on this important agenda item, was regrettably unable to speak due to its internal problems. The only two EU Members States delivering a national statement were the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, the latter speaking in favor of urgent finalization of the CCIT and serious consideration of the Coordinator’s 2007 proposal. 71 Consequently, the Working Group of the Sixth Committee was constituted on the basis of the previous resolution on this item. 72 The Sixth Committee elected again Ambassador Perera as Chairman of this Working Group, which decided, in keeping with its established practice, that members of the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee would continue to act as “Friends of the Chair” during the meetings of this Group. Having served as Rapporteur during the last session of the Ad Hoc Committee, I had 71 Statement by Mr. P. Válek, Legal Adviser of the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the UN (hereinafter the “Czech Mission”) on Agenda Item 109, Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, October 4, 2011: “Second, turning to the responsibility of our Sixth Committee, we believe that one of its highest priorities should be the finalization of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism without further delay. We feel the urgency of this task in the same way as was expressed yesterday, e.g., by Lichtenstein, Guatemala and South Africa. In order to achieve this goal, we should give a chance to the 2007 compromise proposal – prepared by Mrs. Maria Telalian – that has not been rejected by anyone and that we seriously consider. Similarly to Switzerland, we think that this proposal was carefully drafted and, in particular, that its draft Article 3 preserves the integrity of international humanitarian law. As such, in our view, no further modifications are needed. Any remaining questions that some delegations may have can be addressed in the Working Group.” 72 Resolution of the GA No. 65/34 of December 6, 2010, UN Doc. A/RES/65/34.

307