VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1095 3341843
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 301843Z NOV 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3223
INFO RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 8964

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001095 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREF PREL RW
SUBJECT: NOV 28 ICTY/ICTR UNSC WORKING GROUP MEETING ON 
RESIDUAL ISSUES 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  Members of the UNSC Working Group on Residual 
Issues concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal 
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) met on Nevember 28 to discuss a 
non-paper prepared by the Chair (Indonesia) on the 
preparation and consideration of the Joint Paper on Legacies 
and Residual Functions of the Ad Hoc Tribunals.  Members 
welcomed the non-paper and agreed to convene a Working Group 
meeting to begin substantive discussions immediately after 
the Group's meeting with ICTY/ICTR leadership on December 10. 
 Russia urged members to treat the January 1, 2009 date for 
the tribunals' completion as a deadline for completing the 
Working Group's report.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  Members generally agreed with the approach set out in the 
Chairman's (Indonesia) non-paper regarding the Working 
Group's consideration of the Joint Paper on Legacies and 
Residual Functions.  As a technical point, China proposed the 
Working Group also allocate time to consider the Office of 
the Legal Adviser's (OLA) recent legacy issues report on the 
Nuremberg Tribunal.  Members then turned their discussion to 
the issue of which relevant states to consult, upcoming 
consultations with ICTY/ICTR leadership and a timeline for 
the completion of the Working Group's consideration of the 
Joint Paper. 
 
¶3.  Qatar used the meeting to push for a more precise 
definition of "relevant states" and to begin a substantive 
discussion of the Joint Paper.  Regarding relevant states, 
most members remarked that the concept was already clear 
based on past meetings where the Working Group included 
States affected by or involved with the functions of the 
tribunals.  USUN reiterated its preference to continue the 
practice of engaging relevant States through "Informal, 
informal" consultations.  USUN added that the question of 
which relevant States to invite to such sessions should 
depend on the issues to be discussed.  Belgium asked whether 
the Working Group's work should be shared among a broader 
circle of stakeholders.  The United Kingdom and France said 
members could consider this option at a later point, but for 
now the Working Group's focus should be on States immediately 
concerned with or affected by the work of the tribunals. 
 
¶4.  Italy's Legal Adviser (who will take over as the Group's 
Chair in December) noted that scheduling constraints would 
make a Working Group meeting before the December 10th meeting 
with the tribunals' principals unrealistic.  Members agreed 
that the Working Group will convene immediately after the 
Group's meeting with ICTY/ICTR leaders to begin substantive 
discussions. 
 
¶5.  Russia reminded members that the completion strategy 
requires the tribunals to enter the completion stage as of 
January 1, 2009; therefore, the Working Group should aim to 
complete its report by the end of 2008.  China echoed 
Russia's view and added that the Working Group was obligated 
to consider the date in the completion strategy as a firm 
deadline.  The United Kingdom said using the date in the 
completion strategy was logical and wondered whether the 
Working Group should also aim to address outcomes by the 
January 2009 dealine. 
Khalilzad