VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0567/01 1791422
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271422Z JUN 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4502
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHBW/AMEMBASSY BELGRADE 0002
RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0463
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 0291
RUEHLGB/AMEMBASSY KIGALI 0276
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA 1540
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID 6317
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 0690
RUEHVJ/AMEMBASSY SARAJEVO 0902
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 9042
RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB 2937

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000567 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNSC
SUBJECT: UNSC ICTR/ICTY WORKING GROUP DISCUSSES EXTENSIONS 
OF JUDGE'S TERMS AND RESIDUAL ISSUES 
 
REF: SECSTATE 65279 
 
 ¶1.  (U)  Summary:  The UN Security Council Working Group 
(WG) on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former 
Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for 
Rwanda (ICTR) met June 25 to discuss draft elements of a UNSC 
resolution on residual issues and the extensions for several 
judges requested by both presidents for their respective 
tribunals.  Most delegations supported the idea of extending 
the terms of some of the judges from both tribunals, although 
Russia said that no action needed to be taken by the Council 
until the fall as there is not urgency.  China, Russia and 
South Africa lined up together and stated that the residual 
mechanism should be efficient and cost effective and that 
many of the functions listed in the draft needed to be 
eliminated. USUN delivered points contained in reftel.  No 
decisions were made during the meeting and Belgium, the 
Chair, indicated that the next meeting will be held during 
the week of July 14 to discuss next steps on the issue of 
judges.  He urged members to communicate to their capitals, 
positions posed on the draft elements of a UNSC resolution on 
residual issues and to be prepared to discuss at the next 
meeting on this matter which will be held during the last 
week of August.  End Summary. 
 
Draft Elements of a UNSC Resolution 
 
¶2.  (U)  Russia opened the discussion on the draft UNSC 
resolution by stating that any residual mechanism had to be 
compact, economically efficent, and had to include narrow, 
clearly defined competencies.  He also said that the WG 
needed to think about making sure that the residual mechanism 
exists for an established period of time so as not to exist 
indefinetly into the future after it is created.  To 
facilitate economic efficiency, Russia suggested establishing 
one mechanism with two segments (one focused on the ICTY the 
other on the ICTR).  He acknowledged that each tribunal has 
considerable differences and that there is a need to have 
specialists with the required experience assigned to each 
tribunal.  In regard to trial capacity, Russia indicated that 
option C was preferred.  This option would permit the 
residual mechanism to prosecute a specific list of fugitives. 
 Russia pointed out that the list should include only three 
people, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, and Felicien Kabuga 
and that the Court (in the future form of the residual 
mechanism) should report to the Council twice per year on its 
accomplishments/status.  In closing, Russia said that at the 
next meeting, he would propose deleting the majority of the 
functions included in the draft elements as they are 
superfluous and would not add any value to a future residual 
mechanism. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Croatia said that it would like to see a specific 
date on which the tribunals would finish their work and pass 
responsibility over to a residual mechanism.  The Croatian 
rep also said that, regarding trial capacity, Croatia 
supported option A.  This option would permit the residual 
mechanism to issue indictments for all remaining fugitives. 
Croatia said that the decision to refer cases to a national 
jurisdiction had to be a judicial function and that the UNSC 
had no business making such decisions in a resolution.  China 
and South Africa said they favored option C and that the list 
of functions would have to be significantly reduced.  The UK, 
Italy and Belgium leaned towards option B, which would permit 
the residual mechanism to revoke a case that had already been 
transferred to a national jurisdiction under Rule 11 bis of 
the tribunals' rules of procedure and evidence. 
 
Extension of terms of judges 
 
¶4.  (U)  The UK and Russia commented that the request by the 
ICTR was reasonable and that the WG should support the 
request.  All other delegations supported the ICTR request as 
well.  Russia pointed out, however, that the request is not 
urgent and that the WG should wait to act on it until the 
fall.  The Russian rep qualified his comment by adding that 
if the UNSC needed to extend the terms of the judges in the 
ICTR now, Russia would not oppose such an action. 
 
¶5.  (U)  In regard to the ICTY request for extension of some 
of its judges, the UN Office of Legal Affairs said that the 
 
 
request does not have any financial implications.  Russia 
responded by saying that it is not convinced there is a need 
for such extensions.  Italy disagreed and suggested that the 
WG ask the ICTY for more detailed information to help the WG 
better understand the necessity of the request.  The UK said 
that it fully supported the request and that if the WG did 
not support the request, it could end up costing more in the 
long run.  OLA provided a copy of UNSCR 1581 which included 
extensions of the terms of the ad-litem judges assigned to 
the ICTY in 2005 and explained that the current situation is 
quite similar.  Belgium, in conclusion, asked delegations to 
focus on the ICTY request for the extension of two judges 
that needs to be addressed in July so that the WG could take 
a decision on this part of the request at the WG's next 
meeting during the week of July 14. 
Khalilzad