CYIL 2012

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE DURING THE 66 TH SESSION … body on the exercise of universal jurisdiction. This body should check the validity, legality and factual basis of indictments issued by judges in individual States and warrants before they can be approved for execution outside their own territories.” 82 The Latin American States expressed high expectations regarding the Working Group of the Sixth Committee, which was supposed to clarify the most pressing questions related to universal jurisdiction, e.g., the list of crimes for which it applies. As this topic falls within the exclusive competence of the EU Member States, there was no EU statement on this item, like in the previous two debates. Nine EU Member States, however, delivered a statement in their national capacity. Among them was also the Czech Republic, which rejected the above-stated proposal of the AU for legal reasons and repeated its opinion that the question of scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction should be left to the ILC. In concreto , it was suggested that the ILC could prepare a study on this issue. 83 Interestingly, it seems that the number of States preferring the ILC option is slowly rising. The Working Group met three times, under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Eduardo Ulibarri, the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the UN. Although “a thorough discussion of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction” in the Working Group mirrored to a large extent the general debate in the Sixth Committee, some of the issues were examined in greater detail. At the first meeting of the Working Group, a Chilean non-paper 84 was presented. It was, however, too extensive to serve as a basis for further discussion. Therefore, at the second meeting, Ambassador Ulibarri distributed a one-page document called “Informal Working Notes from the Chair” which was divided into two parts: “Perceived Areas of Agreement” and “Issues to be Considered”. The States then exchanged views on this document, spending most time on the questions as to whether universal jurisdiction is complementary to other types of jurisdiction and how to proceed with this issue, i.e., whether to keep it in the Sixth Committee or to move it on to the ILC. The Costa Rican Chairman then prepared the second version of this document. Surprisingly, the first point of the “Perceived Areas of Agreement” – which read: “The main purpose of universal jurisdiction is to fight/avoid impunity. As such, it is an important concept/principle 82 The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, Report of the SG, UN Doc. A/66/93, p. 32, para. 168. 83 Statement by Mr. P. Válek, Legal Adviser of the Czech Mission on Agenda Item 84, The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, October 12, 2011: “…Although the developments in this Committee took a different path, we have not changed our view on this matter. In this respect, we fully share the opinion of Switzerland, as set out in paragraph 149 of the Report of the SG. In addition, it seems that next year, the agenda of the International Law Commission will not be as heavy as in the recent years, this expert body could, therefore, prepare a study on this issue. Having said that, we stand ready to participate in the working group established by the resolution 65/33, although it is not entirely clear to us what its possible outcomes might be. Undertaking of ‘a thorough discussion’ of this complex issue, as stipulated in the resolution, might be useful in order to further clarify this concept. We would not support, however, any conclusions proposing the establishment of ‘an international commission on universal jurisdiction’ …” 84 Non-paper by Chile, dated October 7, 2011, UN Doc. A/C.6/66/WG.3/DP.1.

311