VZCZCXYZ0007
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0077/01 0422242
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 112242Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8136

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000077 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ICTY PARM PREF PREL UNSC
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR RAPP (S/SWCI) HOLDS MEETINGS IN NEW 
YORK ON THE ICC, THE SCSL, AND THE TRANSFER OF ICTR CASES 
TO RWANDA 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  Ambassador Stephen Rapp (S/WCI), held 
meetings in New York February 1, 2 and 5 to take the pulse of 
the P5, Austria, and Rwanda on the possibility of the 
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 
transferring cases to Rwanda's national judicial system 
where an international judge would participate.  There was 
general support for the idea although Russia had concerns 
about UN assessed funding for the international judge.  The 
UK and Austria had some procedural/technical questions with 
respect to how cases would be transferred. Rwanda confirmed 
its continuing support for the idea. China, in a meeting on 
February 5, said that it would welcome ways in which the ICTR 
could finish its work sooner.  With France and the UK, 
Ambassador 
Rapp also discussed issues related to the ICC, the Special 
Court 
for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon 
(STL). 
END SUMMARY. 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
International Judge sitting in Rwandan National Court? 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In all of his meetings Ambassador Rapp emphasized 
the desirability of transferring cases from the ICTR to 
Rwanda as a way for the ICTR to finish its work sooner, and to 
eliminate the need for the residual mechanism (RM) to try 
cases, resulting in significantly reduced costs.  He 
explained that the ICTR's prosecutor, Bubacar Jallow, 
intends to request the transfer of eight of the eleven 
"fugitive" cases to Rwanda within the next few months as 
many previous obstacles have been overcome, including 
solitary confinement and the death penalty for example. 
According to the Ambassador, Jallow has also indicated he 
would request the transfer of the three high level 
fugitives to Rwanda if they have not been apprehended 
within the next couple of years.  Ambassador Rapp said that 
including an international judge (likely from the ICTR's 
roster) on the panel of Rwandan judges would go a long way 
in eliminating concerns that Rwanda's judicial system 
lack's independence.  He said the international judge would 
be funded by UN assessed contributions as would costs for 
translation.  He also said that it is within Rwanda's 
Chief Justice's power to include an international judge 
on a panel of judges to hear a national case and that 
Rwanda has already done so in civil, commercial cases. 
Procedurally, Ambassador Rapp acknowledged that adoption of 
a Security Council resolution adjusting the ICTR's statute 
or possibly the rules of procedure is necessary to 
facilitate inclusion of an international judge in a Rwandan 
national panel that would hear ICTR cases. 
 
¶3. (SBU)  RWANDA:  In his meeting with Rwandan Mission to 
the UN's Legal Adviser Alfred Ndabarasa, Ambassador Rapp 
said that Rwanda's President and Justice Minister had both 
supported  the idea when he presented it to them last 
November.  Ndabarasa said his government highly appreciates 
the work S/WCI has done so far and confirmed that Jallow 
plans to go to Kigali to present several cases for 
transfer.  Ndabarasa also confirmed that Rwanda's president 
and justice minister are aware of and support the proposal 
and that his sense is that Kigali would like all ICTR cases 
resolved as soon as possible.   Ambassador Rapp said that 
once a case is transferred to Rwanda from the ICTR, it 
would take significantly less time to complete than it 
would if it were to remain in the ICTR.   Ndabarasa, 
switching gears, told the Ambassador that the ICTR's 
archives should be located in Kigali once the ICTR finishes 
its work.  Ambassador Rapp said he would look at the issue 
very carefully but pointed out that access to original 
documents, information related to the protection of 
witnesses, and Rule 70 material by the RM is necessary. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  RUSSIA:  After Ambassador Rapp outlined the 
proposal, Gennady Kuzmin, the Russian Mission to the UN's 
Legal Adviser, said that Russia would like to speed up the 
ICTR's work.  Kuzmin said the problem with transferring 
cases to Rwanda is that some judges in the ICTR, in 
particular Russian judge Egorov, are convinced that Rwanda 
lacks the ability to prosecute such cases.  He said that in 
theory, Russia could support the proposal for including an 
international judge in a Rwandan proceeding, but money would 
be a concern.  Kuzmin explained that Russia's UN financial 
assessment increased when the most recent scale of 
assessments 
was adopted in December.  He asked whether the international 
judges that would sit on a Rwandan panel could be funded from 
voluntary contributions.  Ambassador Rapp explained the 
problem 
the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) has had with 
raising 
 
 
 
adequate funding to finish its work and the even more 
difficult 
time it will have to fund its residual mechanism once 
awareness 
of the crimes that occurred begins to fade.   He said that the 
longest sentence in the SCSL is 52 years which means any 
SCSL residual mechanism would potentially have to exist 
until the year 2055.  As a result, he said that assessed 
funding for such a mechanism would ensure its viability and 
stressed that assessed funding to pay for an international 
judge for ICTR cases tried in Rwanda is non-negotiable. 
Kuzmin replied that in the case of the International 
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 
sentences should have been served in the country of the 
prisoner's origin rather than incurring such a burden on 
the European countries that now have them.   The Ambassador 
said that many of the sentences that are being served in 
European countries are coming to an end and that the ICTR's 
cases are not comparable. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Ambassador Rapp told Kuzmin that ICTR President 
Byron is enthusiastic about the idea.  Kuzmin responded 
that the majority of the ICTR's judges are "comfortable" 
with their current status and implied that they are not 
motivated to finish the ICTR's work quickly as only one 
substantial judgment was rendered in the past year.  Kuzmin 
also said that Austria's proposed RM for the ICTY/ICTR has a 
huge number of functions and is far-fetched in its current 
form. 
Ambassador Rapp acknowledged that the RM needs to be small 
and efficient but explained it still must be able to deal with 
the rights of the accused.  In closing, Kuzmin raised the 
issue of the perception of the lack of objectivity 
resulting from white, international judges sitting on a 
Rwandan judicial panel hearing cases of African criminals. 
The Ambassador said that the international judges could also 
come from Africa and said that in any case Kigali is 
satisfied 
with the approach that has been proposed. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  FRANCE AND THE UK:  After Ambassador Rapp 
presented 
the Rwandan proposal to the UK Mission the UN's Legal 
Adviser Catherine Adams and the French Mission to the UN 
Legal Adviser, Sheraz Gasri, Adams recalled that in the 
ICTR cases that denied referrals, solitary confinement (now 
fixed through legislation) and witness protection were the 
issues, not the independence of the Rwandan judicial 
system, and asked whether if we go down this route, we are 
satisfied that the witness protection issues are solved? 
Ambassador Rapp responded that even though the Appellate 
Chamber had overruled a trial chamber that found problems 
with independence, he thought the problem was still there, 
even if not stated in the four corners of the decisions. 
With respect to witness protection he noted that, as it is, 
ICTR relies on the GOR.   The only witness protection ICTR 
offers is through the use of pseudonyms and anonymity.   If 
a witness is harassed, ICTR instructs him/her to contact 
the local policy chief.  He thought some NGO's would 
support the independent judge idea (although Human Rights 
Watch may not.) 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  Adams noted that the statute/rule change should 
occur before the Prosecutor moved for transfer.  Ambassador 
Rapp said that the Prosecutor was willing to defer if need 
be.  The most likely vehicle for a change would be the SC 
resolution in June to extend the terms of the ICTY/ICTR 
judges.  It could be done in the RM resolution, but it 
appears that resolution will take longer, as defining the 
RM will need to take account of progress on ICTR transfers 
and Mladic and anyway there won't be a need to have an RM 
up and running before 2012. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Adams said she was trying to conceive of what the 
ICTR/RM Statutes would need to say.  If the GOR doesn't 
need to legislate, there would need to be an undertaking by 
the GOR that they would include an international judge on 
the panel when a fugitive was tried in the future. 
Ambassador Rapp responded that the judges could transfer 
the case conditional on the GOR appointing a judge from the 
ICTR (or RM).  No matter what, the RM is going to need the 
capacity to do a trial in Arusha if necessary.  He added 
that there were issues raised by transferring a case in the 
absence of a fugitive.  Presumably the judges would appoint 
an attorney to represent the fugitive as has been done in 
previous cases. There would then be an issue of appeal. 
Because the defendant would not be present, his time to 
appeal would not run until he received actual notice, 
although perhaps the prosecution could argue that the 
appeal could also be done in absentia.  If it was decided 
that the appeal could not be taken until after the 
 
 
 
defendant was detained, then ICTR would have to stand up 
an appeals chamber again.  This was not an ideal situation, 
but was the reality. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Gasri asked whether the international 
judge/ICTR/RM would retain any competence over 
investigations in a transferred case.  Ambassador Rapp 
answered 
that, while it is possible that the RM Prosecutor could be 
given authority to assist in investigations, the theory was 
that the national jurisdiction would handle the necessary 
steps after transfer.  Gasri said that France was 
"obsessed" with the potential costs of the RM, and if we 
ended up with international judges plus a big RM to 
investigate, we could be looking at a lot of money. 
Ambassador 
Rapp said that the USG wanted the RM to be tiny, but able 
to deal with review petitions, witness protection, etc.  When 
ICTY 
cases have been transferred, he noted, the ICTY Prosecutor 
has no further obligation to do anything.  The Russians, he 
said, had expressed the concern that the RM not outlive its 
usefulness. 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  Gasri then asked what would happen if a 
fugitive were arrested now.  Ambassador Rapp said that, as 
for 
the three high level ICTR fugitives (Kabuga, Bizimana and 
Mpiranya), if they are apprehended in the next year or two, 
they should be tried by ICTR.  As for the other eight, a date 
should be established and anyone who is detained after that 
date should be transferred to the Rwandan courts.  Adams 
said that Brammertz had seemed quite optimistic about 
arresting Mladic.  Ambassador Rapp said that "everyone 
realizes 
this is the year that we have to get Mladic," and explained 
that the USG was very active on this front, through 
offering rewards, etc. 
 
¶11. (SBU)  Adams added that the thinking seemed to be that 
if Mladic were arrested, Hadzic would be referred. 
Ambassador 
Rapp explained that the situation was complicated because 
Hadzic is a Vukovar case.  In a previous Vukovar case, 
then-ICTY-prosecutor Del Ponte decided that because of the 
"victor's justice" perception, the case should be tried in 
the 
Hague rather than Croatia.  On the other hand, Zagreb had to 
date 
received only one transferred case from the ICTY and the 
Croatian 
prosecutor had demonstrated integrity.  Perhaps a similar 
solution 
to what we are proposing for the ICTR fugitives could be 
worked out, 
with an international judge being deployed in Croatia.  He 
thought that in the end, if there was only one remaining 
ICTY fugitive, the decision would be to transfer the case 
and not keep ICTY open for one fugitive. 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  AUSTRIA:  In his discussion with Austrian 
Mission to the UN Legal Adviser Konrad Buhler on the 
proposal, Ambassador Rapp pointed out that the Security 
Council would have to adopt a resolution amending the 
ICTR's statute in order for an international judge to be 
included in a Rwanda panel of judges that would hear ICTR 
cases.  The Ambassador suggested that the Informal Working 
Group on International Tribunals (IWGIT) might include this 
language in the resolution it would adopt in June on the 
extension of judges or in the RM resolution.  He also said 
that if Jallow moved this spring to transfer cases and 
failed, the next time he would be able to request transfer 
again would be in 2011.   Explaining that he had discussed 
this with Jallow, Ambassador Rapp said that Jallow is 
willing to hold off on requesting transfers until the IWGIT 
deals with the proposal.   Buhler responded that Austria is 
very open to any flexible and creative ideas and that the 
RM should be relieved as much as possible from the burden 
of dealing with lower level cases that can be transferred. 
He said that Austria would look at the legal framework of 
the proposal and would be concerned with  issues such as 
"due process" and  "fair trial". 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Buhler outlined several aspects of the proposal 
that would need more consideration.  He questioned whether, 
in a 
panel of three judges (two Rwandan and one international), 
the Rwandan court could actually be independent as the two 
Rwandan judges would be in the majority.  He expressed 
doubt that any Security Council member's Chief Justice has 
the authority to appoint international judges to preside on 
 
 
 
a panel of judges in one of their national courts.  He 
added that such a thing would be unthinkable in Austria and 
a process as serious as this should not be "so easy". 
Buhler said he would have to look at the overall proposal 
and would be happy to discuss it in the IWGIT.  He 
suggested that the UN's legal office (OLA) draft a short 
paper in reaction to the proposal that would include draft 
elements for a Security Council resolution.  Ambassador 
Rapp responded that the UN's Deputy Legal Counselor, Peter 
Taksoe-Jensen, was intrigued by the proposal.  Buhler 
queried whether even though Rwanda supports the  transfer 
of all remaining "fugitive" cases, the international 
community wants all cases to go to Rwanda.  The Ambassador 
said that rewards have been offered for the three high 
level ICTR fugitives.  And unlike the Mladic case in the 
ICTY, there is a possibility that all three of these cases 
could be tried in Kigali.  Although Buhler said he is 
skeptical the IWGIT would support the transfer of these 
three cases to Rwanda, he said such transfers would be 
ideal in that they would eliminate the need for the RM to 
conduct trials. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Buhler also questioned whether there would be a 
problem with placing international judges on Rwandan 
judicial panels in criminal cases.  Buhler said that Russia 
was concerned about the monitoring of transferred cases but 
if an international judge is assigned, there would be 
built-in monitoring.  Buhler also raised the possibility 
that once a case is transferred and an international judge 
assigned, Rwanda might say it doesn't like the judge. 
How Buhler asked, would the issue be resolved?  Could there 
be a withdrawal of the referral (deferral)?  He questioned 
whether the RM or the Security Council would make such a 
decision.  Ambassador Rapp responded that Rwandan law allowed 
non-Rwandan judges to sit in Rwanda's courts and that a 
referral 
could be made conditional on acceptance of the judge 
designated 
by the ICTR or RM.  He said the present rules allowed for a 
deferral 
of a case back to the ICTR but the provision might be revised 
if the 
international judge idea were approved. 
 
¶15.  (U)  CHINA:  Ambassador Rapp also met with Chinese 
Mission to 
the UN Legal Adviser Xiaomei Guo to discuss the issue of 
transferring 
the remaining ICTR "fugitive" cases to Rwanda and enhancing 
the ability 
to do so by including an international judge on Rwanda's 
national 
judicial panel that would hear such cases at both the trial 
and appeals 
level.  Xiaomei's response was somewhat positive in that she 
welcomed 
any idea that would allow the ICTR to finish its work 
earlier.  She said 
she had to report the proposal to Beijing before she could 
have an 
official reaction and also said that she thought it should be 
discussed 
in the IWGIT. 
 
---------------------------------- 
International Criminal Court (ICC) 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶16.  (SBU) FRANCE AND THE UK:  Ambassador Rapp mentioned the 
upcoming 
gathering at Glen Cove and indicated that Legal Adviser Koh 
hoped it 
might be possible to reach a consensus solution there. 
 
¶17.  (SBU)  Ambassador Rapp said that the argument that works 
best with NGOs is the "just don't go there" argument-that 
taking on the crime of aggression would politicize the 
court and undermine its core work of punishing genocide, 
war crimes and crimes against humanity.  He expects that 
some NGOs will write editorials and take positions arguing 
against including aggression in the ICC's jurisdiction. 
 
¶18.  (SBU) Ambassador Rapp explained that the U.S. position 
was 
that there must be a Security Council determination of 
aggression (a SC trigger).  The question the USG hasn't 
answered, he said, is whether if we could get the SC 
trigger, we would accept the definition of aggression.  He 
noted that the USG still has problems with the definition, 
e.g., 
the term "manifest" violation, which simply means a clear 
 
 
 
violation, 
not an egregious one. 
 
¶19.  (SBU)  Ambassador Rapp asked what the UK and French 
legal 
advisers had heard from their capitols.  Adams, stressing 
that this issue was handled out of London, said that based 
on her contacts with Daniel Bethlehem and Chris Whomersley, 
she understood that the UK was focusing on the SC trigger 
rather than the definition, "which seems to be agreed to a 
large extent."  One argument the UK is looking at, she 
said, is that it would be ultra vires (inconsistent with 
the Charter) for the ICC to prosecute aggression absent a 
SC determination of aggression.  Gasri said that the French 
position is that the SC must make the determination of 
aggression, but the definition of aggression is OK. 
 
 
 
¶20.  (SBU)  Ambassador Rapp noted that we were concerned that 
the 
aggression definition being worked on, especially without a 
SC trigger, would make it harder to build coalitions in the 
future. He added that, assuming the 121.5 alt proposal is 
adopted, the crime of aggression provision won't apply to 
Parties that don't ratify or to non-Parties.  This 
will create a patchwork, not a system of universal 
jurisdiction.  Gasri noted that the Security Council could 
make it universal.  Ambassador Rapp came back by saying that 
the 
Security Council could refer cases to the ICC, as he thinks 
they would have been prepared to do in 1991 with the Iraq 
invasion of Kuwait.  Again, he noted that the argument that 
resonates with NGOS (or at least some of them) is that the 
court will be overrun with aggression cases.  He could 
imagine, for example, border incursion cases coming from 
Latin America.  If there were a SC trigger, only the most 
egregious cases would be tried, the ones that shock the 
conscience, such as what happened in 1991. 
 
¶21.  (SBU)  Ambassador Rapp added that he wasn't sure this 
was 
accurate, but he had understood that Sweden at one point 
had been talking about a proposal where countries would 
agree to an ICC aggression trial after the incident, almost 
like an arbitration.  He noted that this again would create 
a patchwork, but that the USG might find it to be the least 
objectionable "at the end of the day." 
 
¶22.  (SBU) Ambassador Rapp asked whether the Assembly of 
States 
Parties (ASP) meeting in NY from February 22-25 offered 
potential 
for defining the debate on aggression.  Adams responded that 
she thought 
that progress could only be made outside formal meetings. 
Ambassador Rapp noted that most of the meeting was going to 
be 
devoted to stocktaking in any event, with only one short 
session on aggression.  On the subject of stocktaking, he 
noted that if Kampala ended with no agreement on 
aggression, people would say it was a failure.  One way to 
counter this would be to achieve results on stocktaking. 
One possibility, which his office was exploring, was to 
focus on complementarity, but with an emphasis on the more 
positive aspects of capacity-building and assistance.  He 
thought this would be popular with the Africans, among 
others.  Adams responded that it would be good if the 
Review Conference could do something substantive beyond the 
Belgian proposal.  At the same time, there were risks. 
Complementarity would evoke Bashir, etc.  She noted that 
the SG and the Ministers are currently slated to come at 
the beginning of the meeting, probably because they were 
not expecting big results at the end.  Her personal view 
was that there should be a Ministerial Declaration worked 
out in advance that would be quite general and that 
everyone could agree to.  Possibly there could be more 
specific results on stocktaking as well. 
 
¶23. (SBU) Ambassador Rapp wrapped up the discussion by saying 
that various sources, including NGOs,  had told him that so 
long as the P-5 stick together, there would be no outcome 
on aggression.  He made clear that if the RC ended up with 
a pre-trial chamber deciding whether aggression had 
occurred, the USG's ability to contribute to and cooperate 
with the ICC in the future would be seriously and adversely 
affected.  He noted that the USG was currently doing a 
review of the ways in which we could currently assist the 
ICC, with decisions to be taken soon. 
 
¶24.  (SBU) CHINA: Ambassador Rapp said that the USG is trying 
to be 
 
 
 
tactful in its approach and explained that when he and Harold 
Koh 
attended the ICC meeting in The Hague in November they 
received a 
warm welcome but clearly stated that including the "crime of 
aggression" 
in the ICC's statute is not a good thing and that there needs 
to be a SC trigger. 
He added that the USG is thinking about ways we might be able 
to assist the ICC 
"in kind" in special cases.  For example, Rapp said the USG 
could help the ICC 
with providing information or by assisting with 
investigations in certain cases. 
He also said that the USG wants to take part in the 
stocktaking exercise as ICC 
cases are taking much too long and it needs to do more to 
improve its efficiency. 
Rapp also said that we want to work with the ICC on the 
complementarity issue. 
 
¶25.  (SBU)  Returning to the crime of aggression, Rapp said 
that 
Prince Zaid, Christian Wenaveser, Belgium, Germany and Greece 
are 
the only real supporters of it.  He explained that the USG 
would 
prefer to see this issue discussed in Kampala and then 
deferred. 
If that's not possible, then he said we would need a SC 
trigger. 
Xiamei agreed that a SC trigger is critical and said that she 
thought there would be a P5 legal advisers meeting on this 
issue 
before Kampala and added that the P5 should do something 
before 
the conference and at a minimum, France and UK, as parties to 
the 
ICC, should convince others that it (crime of aggression) 
should 
be blocked.  Rapp asked how we'd block with only 2 votes?  He 
also 
said that lots of states would agree with our points, but in 
the end 
won't block it.   He said there is a possibility some more EU 
states 
will join us and possibly Colombia in South America but the 
rest of 
South America and Africa would have a negative view of the SC 
and hence 
would not support including the crime of aggression with a SC 
"trigger". 
Ambassador Rapp said that there will be a meeting in Glen 
Cove 3-5 
March to discuss the issue and that this meeting would be a 
good place 
for interested states to reach a compromise (before the 
review conference) 
- if we wanted a compromise - but we don't want a compromise! 
 Ambassador 
Rapp said that UK Deputy Legal Adviser Whomersley has already 
said that 
we're going to lose on this issue and that he would put out a 
statement 
indicating the decision is "ultra vires" in that under 
article 39 of the 
UN Charter only the SC can determine what constitutes a crime 
of aggression. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) RM 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶26.  (SBU) FRANCE AND THE UK: Ambassador Rapp summed up the 
issue by 
saying that fundraising for the SCSL is so challenging now 
that it may run out of funds in the middle of the Charles 
Taylor trial and we have to ask how it will be possible to 
raise $500,000 (or maybe $250,000) a year for the next 50 
years.  The most promising solution seems to be having the 
SC establish the SCSL RM and fund it via assessed 
contributions. 
 
¶27.  (SBU) Gasri suggested that the USG should make a 
demarche in Paris.  Although Paris had said that France did 
not support this initiative, she did not think the decision 
had been made at a very high level. 
 
¶28.  (SBU) Ambassador Rapp noted it was not certain when the 
Taylor judgment will be delivered, but it is believed that the 
current presiding judge will try to deliver a judgment before 
 
 
 
her term expires in January 2011.  In that case, the appeal 
should 
be done in six months, and the court should close soon 
after that.  He observed that the Canadian chair of the 
Management Committee kept raising the idea of a UN 
subvention.  The USG and UK had said firmly when a 
subvention was done (painfully) four or five years ago, 
that they would never support such an initiative again, but 
it might be an alternative if worst came to worst.  Another 
possibility was an "endowment" through a trust fund. 
 
¶29.  (SBU) Adams argued that it made sense to bring all of 
the ad hoc tribunals together in their final phase.  If 
this was to happen, we need to make progress on the 
ICTY/ICTR RM.  In her view, there had been no progress in 
the last twelve months.  The reality was that there needed 
to be a P-5 discussion.  The UK has clear legal redlines. 
While the Chinese keep repeating that virtually all of the 
ICTY/ICTR functions should be sent to national 
jurisdictions, they don't really give details about how 
that could be done.  The Russians are key.  They have very 
political issues about ICTY, but don't seem to be bothered 
by ICTR.  It was unfortunate that Gennady Kuzmin was 
leaving in the summer, because he understands the 
situation.  One issue Adams found particularly difficult to 
deal with was contempt-should we stand up a whole tribunal 
to deal with contempt of court?  Ambassador Rapp thought the 
contempt issue could be contained over time.  He believed 
the rules permitted use of a single judge and a 
simplified procedure.  Also, if a witness were assaulted 
or murdered, the local courts should be able to deal with 
that. 
 
¶30.  (SBU) Adams opined that it was key to agree on the 
statute for the ICTY/ICTR RM.  She briefly raised the Lebanon 
tribunal, for which she heads the Management Committee. 
She said she understood that Patricia O'Brien had a 
"lively" conversation with the Prosecutor in the Hague last 
week in essence pressing for concrete results.  She felt 
there was a sense of "impending doom," that the donors will 
lose interest, if nothing happened by the end of the year. 
Ambassador Rapp responded that he had spoken with the 
Prosecutor 
who seemed very optimistic about having something to show 
by the end of the year, and mentioned that the USG was 
doing its best to help. 
 
RICE