INTRODUVTION

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent and permanent court

established on 17 July 1998. This court trial those persons who are accused of the most
serious crimes of international Concern like genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 105 countries. However, a number of
states including China, India and the United States, are not the State Parties to the ICC
Rome Statute. Text of the Rome (Italy) Statute circulated as document A/CONF.183/9
of 17 July 1998 and corrected by process-verb aux of Nov 1998, July 1999, Nov 1999,
May 2000, Jan 2001 and Jan 2002. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, it has
128 articles. International Criminal Court officially based in Hague, Netherlands .It has
four main bodies Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and
the Registry. These bodies work with other semi-autonomous offices such as the Office
of the Public Counsel for Defense and the office of Public Counsel for victims etc. The
ICC is an independent international organization. In accordance with article 2 of the
Rome Statute, the relationship with the United Nations system is govern by an
agreement that has been approved by the Assembly of States Parties during its first
Session held in New York from 3 to 10 September 2002.Under the Rome Statute article
(5), ICC limited only to most serious crimes like the crime of genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Court framed in four organs
Presidency, Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and Registry. The judicial
functions of the Court are carried out in each Appeal, Trial and Pre-Trial Chambers.
Since its inception the ICC has opened investigations on the cases e.g. situation in
Democratic Republic of the Congo, situation in Uganda, situation in Central African
Republic and situation in Darfur, Sudan.

International Criminal courts official head office is in Hague, Netherlands, but

according to Article 3 proceedings may take place anywhere in the world. Officially
18th judges chair the ICC. Currently (on 9 October 2007) court has 485 members of
staff from 80 states. According to Article 50 of Rome Statue ICC has official
languages Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish but the working
languages of the Court shall be English and French. The Rules of Procedure and
Evidence shall determine the cases in which other official languages may be used as
working languages, but Court shall authorize a language other than English or French
to be used by request of a party or State,Some time International Criminal Court
named as World Court and people jumble it with International Court of Justice, both
dealing with international matters-but originally functioning in different perspectives.

Meanwhile, after UN approval, Rome Statue of International Criminal Court

was opened (accordance to its article 125) for signature by all States in Rome at the
Headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on 17
July 1998. Thereafter, in Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy until 17 October 1998 and
later on Statute was opened for signature in New York, at United Nations Headquarters,
till 31 December 2000.One hundred fifteen states singed, 29 African, 13 Asian, 16
Eastern European, 22 Latin American and Caribbean, and 25 Western European States
were signed on it up to 17 October 2007.US was the first country who unsigned the
Rome Statue on May 6, 2002 after approximately one and half year membership (signed
December 31, 2000). Israel did the same on 28 August 2002.

Although the idea to establish a permanent international criminal court can be

traced back to nineteenth century. But this idea become more stronger when twentieth
century come with Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Iraq, with the
depredation of Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, Pol Pot and host of
other despots and murderers-too many lives been lost, many family broken, too many
hopes and dreams snuffed out by this inhumanity. So, In 1948 the UN General
Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. Article 1 of that Convention characterises genocide as "a crime under
international law", and Article 6 provides that persons charged with genocide "shall be
tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed
or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction In Brief, after creation
(1948) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals since world war two (1939-1947) serious
discussions started about creation of permanent International Criminal Court.
Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law

The death penalty

Global abolition of the death penalty is a priority for the Government. We oppose the
death penalty because we consider that its use undermines human dignity, that there is
no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value, and that any miscarriage of justice leading
to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable.

The Government publicly launched its strategy for the abolition of the death penalty in
October, to coincide with the World Day Against the Death Penalty and the European
Day against the Death Penalty. The strategy sets out our policy on the death penalty
and provides guidance to our embassies and high commissions on how they can support
our efforts to:

increase the number of abolitionist countries, or countries with a moratorium on

the use of the death penalty;
restrict the use of the death penalty in retentionist countries and reduce the
numbers of executions; and
ensure EU minimum standards are met in retentionist countries.

Our strategy also identifies those countries and regions where our embassies and high
commissions have been specifically tasked to implement the strategy. We focus our
efforts where we believe that we can achieve real results. We have selected our five
priority countries/regions for a number of reasons: China is the most prolific user of
the death penalty; Iran continues to use the death penalty for juvenile offenders and is
second only to China in the overall number of executions; Belarus is the last country
in Europe that retains this sanction; in the Caribbean, although the number of
executions is low, every English-speaking country retains the death penalty on its
books; and abolition in the US would send an important signal to the rest of the world.

There have been some positive developments in 2010. Mongolia introduced a

moratorium on the use of the death penalty in January; Kyrgyzstan acceded to the 2nd
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
aims for abolition of the death penalty; and Guyana ended the mandatory death penalty
for most categories of murder. But there have also been setbacks. Both South Korea
and Singapore ruled the mandatory death penalty to be constitutional, after
unsuccessful legal challenges; Taiwan broke its five-year de-facto moratorium by
executing four death row inmates; and the prime minister of Mauritius announced his
intention to reintroduce the death penalty.

In 2010 we funded project work in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
We also funded the Death Penalty Project, an NGO with which we work closely. Its
work in 2010 on the case of Godfrey Mutiso led to the mandatory death penalty being
ruled unconstitutional in Kenya, following similar work which led to the 2009 ruling
in Uganda that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional, resulting in 167 death
sentences being commuted to life imprisonment. The Death Penalty Project also ran a
successful workshop in Barbados, bringing together legal experts from across the
Caribbean to consider the issues and challenges that need to be addressed in order to
further restrict the death penalty in the region.

In China we provided capacity building for legislative reform. A revision to Chinas

criminal code in 2011 is likely to reduce the number of capital crimes from 68 to 55.
This will be implemented by a restructuring of the criminal punishment system. In
addition, on 1 July China introduced new evidence guidance on death penalty cases.
Along with the EU, we are the main foreign donor working closely with the Chinese
authorities on reform and eventual abolition of the death penalty. We also fund two
death penalty-related projects as part of a wider EU programme.

The UN plays an important role in creating momentum towards global abolition. In

December we co-sponsored the cross-regional UN General Assembly resolution on the
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty and lobbied actively for support. This
resolution calls upon states to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to
abolishing the death penalty. The steady increase of support for this resolution,
previously adopted in 2007 and 2008, reinforces the international trend towards global
abolition. We lobbied Mongolia and Gambia, both of which voted to support the
resolution for the first time. We also raised our concerns about the death penalty during
the Universal Periodic Review process in the UN Human Rights Council, including,
for example, recommending to the US that it establish a moratorium on the use of the
death penalty at the federal and state level as a first step towards abolition.

Bilaterally we raised the death penalty directly with governments in a number of

countries and regions, including China, the US, the Caribbean and Japan. Where a UK
national faces the death penalty abroad, we use all appropriate influence to prevent their
execution. We also work with the EU to lobby other governments and to raise
individual cases of third country nationals facing the death penalty.

Torture prevention
Our work on torture prevention includes encouraging states to sign and ratify the
international instruments prohibiting and preventing torture; where appropriate, raising
specific cases where allegations of torture are made; strengthening the institutional
capacity of the FCO to tackle torture by ensuring that all staff are alert to allegations of
mistreatment in their host country; and supporting reform in institutions overseas where
torture is most likely to occur, for example in prisons and other places of detention. In
September, we hosted a one-day seminar with the Arts and Humanities Research
Council which brought together British and European academics and NGO experts on
torture prevention. On the basis of this seminar, we will launch an updated global
torture prevention strategy in 2011.

The main international instruments which prohibit and prevent torture are the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on
Human Rights and the UN Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol. The
Convention against Torture obliges states to take measures to prevent acts of torture in
any territory under their jurisdiction and to ensure that all acts of torture are
criminalised. Under the Optional Protocol, signatories must establish independent
safeguards and checks in places of detention so that officials cannot mistreat detainees
without being brought to account. We encourage countries to ratify the Optional
Protocol and to establish national preventive mechanisms to monitor places of
detention. In Nigeria, we supported a project to improve the documentation of torture
and to achieve redress for victims which led to case reviews and prosecutions and
resulted in a group of core volunteer lawyers and medical practitioners being set up to
look at cases. Our support for the Geneva-based NGO, the Association for the
Prevention of Torture, helped maintain momentum towards establishing a national
preventive mechanism in Kazakhstan and in Kyrgyzstan, and in Nepal their work led
to the National Human Rights Commission adopting new guidelines on detention
monitoring. We also worked with them in Ghana, Lebanon, Paraguay, Senegal and
Tajikistan.

We continued to lobby states to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol. As of 31

December, 57 states had become party to it. Seven states ratified the Optional Protocol
during 2010: Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Gabon,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Togo and a further three states signed it: Bulgaria,
Panama and Zambia. In October, the monitoring body established under the Optional
Protocol, the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, grew from 10 to 25
members (its maximum) as a result of the increased number of ratifications. This will
significantly increase the capacity of the sub-committee to conduct monitoring visits to
places of detention. The Government has pledged an additional 520,000 in 2011 to
the Special Fund for Torture Prevention held by the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, which will help finance the work of the sub-
committee in providing expertise on establishing national preventive mechanisms and
in providing assistance to countries on implementing the recommendations of the sub-
committee.

We are also strengthening our institutional capability to tackle torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. We are updating the guidance for all our staff on how
to report allegations and concerns they may have about suspected torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment that occur overseas so that they can be acted upon
appropriately. The updated guidance will be published and issued to staff in 2011.

Prison reform
Prison conditions in many countries do not meet human rights standards. Independent
oversight of prisons is important to maintain prison standards and prevent the
mistreatment of prisoners. In 2010, we worked with the International Centre for Prison
Studies to bring prison management practices in China towards international human
rights standards. Prison construction standards have been updated and in 2011 the
prison law will be revised. We also funded a project with the Great Britain China
Centre to establish independent monitoring of police detention centres in China. After
a successful pilot programme, two more lay visitor schemes were launched in October.
In Nigeria we funded a project to develop a new curriculum for prison service training
resulting in a marked improvement in prison management by those who attended the
pilot management and leadership course.

International justice system

The Government is committed to the principle that there should be no impunity for the
most serious international crimes. We are unique in being actively engaged with all six
existing international criminal tribunals: as a State Party to the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court; as a member of the Security Council, which oversees the
international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; and as a major
donor and member of the management bodies of the voluntary-funded tribunals for
Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Lebanon.

International Criminal Court

Since the International Criminal Court was set up in 2002, it has established itself as a
corner-stone of international justice. The UK has had a long-standing reputation for
promoting and supporting the work of the Court. In 2010, the UK provided political
and practical support to the Court for its ongoing cases and investigations. For example,
we welcomed the Kenyan governments commitment to co-operate fully with the
Courts investigation and provided 200,000 to support measures to protect and
relocate vulnerable witnesses. We consistently encouraged the Kenyan government to
stand by its obligations under the Rome Statute and as a UN member state. We made
clear our disappointment that President Bashir of Sudan was allowed to visit Kenya in
defiance of the Courts arrest warrants for war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide.

We also supported the growth and consolidation of the Court at the first-ever Review
Conference in Kampala in June. We made three pledges at the conference, setting out
our commitment to cooperate with the Court; deliver justice to the victims of crimes
under the Courts jurisdiction; and promote wider ratification of the Rome Statute. We
also donated 40,000 to the Courts Trust Fund for Victims, which assists victims to
rebuild their lives and communities. We will announce a further substantial donation
to this fund in 2011. We will also explore opportunities to provide further support for
victims and for developing national capacity and action to combat impunity.

The Review Conference also considered amendments to the original Rome Statute,
which has not been revised since it was first agreed in 1998. States Parties considered
including a definition of the crime of aggression and establishing the conditions under
which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction over this crime; and including the use of
certain weapons in a non-international armed conflict as a war crime, in particular
bullets that flatten on impact and toxic gases. We will now consider whether to ratify
the amendments agreed at the Review Conference.

Throughout 2010, the UK participated actively in working groups in New York and
The Hague to support and develop management and oversight of the Court to ensure
that it continues to mature as an efficient and effective institution. We led negotiations
at the International Criminal Courts Assembly of States Parties in December to agree
a new independent oversight mechanism, as part of a robust and transparent
management system.

The year 2011 is likely to see the first judgment from the Court, with two other ongoing
trials continuing and the possibility of three other trials starting. Further trial and pre-
trial activity is likely to take place on the Courts new investigation in Libya, which
was opened on 3 March 2011 following a unanimous decision of the UN Security
Council to refer the Libya situation to the ICC. We will work closely with key partners
to ensure that the Court continues to receive international support and cooperation and
to combat attempts to undermine it.

International criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

In 2010, the UK played a leading role in the UN Security Council tribunals working
group for the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
In December, after three years of discussions, the UN Security Council adopted a
resolution to safeguard the legacy of the tribunals, once they have completed their trials
and appeals, including by ensuring that any remaining fugitives are not allowed to
escape justice; that witnesses remain protected, and that appropriate arrangements are
made for the management of the tribunals archives.

We also offered political and practical support to both tribunals, including ensuring that
full cooperation with the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia remains a key precondition
for progress towards the EU for the countries of the Western Balkans.

In Serbia we funded a project by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights to change
attitudes towards the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and to promote awareness of
war crimes. This included public surveys, conferences and a publication in Serbia,
Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further conferences in Zagreb and Sarajevo are
planned.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UK supported a number of activities in the justice

sector including a project aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the State Prosecutors
Office in dealing with Srebrenica-related war crimes, through seconding prosecutors
and legal officers, as well as through capacity-building programmes. We also
supported the International Commission on Missing Persons to continue its work with
the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and domestic courts, providing DNA reports and
expert testimony for war crimes cases.

In Kosovo we seconded expert staff to EULEX Kosovo, the EU Rule of Law Mission,
including two judges, three prosecutors and the head of the organised crime unit. The
Kosovo Special Prosecution Office, under supervision of EULEX prosecutors, filed
three war crimes indictments, one of which led to a conviction and seven years
imprisonment. EULEX also increased its cooperation with the Serbian authorities and
the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in investigating ongoing war crimes.

Extraordinary Chambers of the Court of Cambodia

In July, judgment was delivered in Case 1 at the Court. The defendant, Kaing Guek
Eav, also known as Duch, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was
sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. The appeal hearing will take place in March
2011. Throughout the course of Duchs trial we have funded a TV series in Cambodia
which has provided information to more than 2 million rural Cambodians each week
on the trials proceedings. Our Ambassador was present at the reading of the verdict
and embassy staff joined community members in the provinces to watch it on television.
As Jeremy Browne said upon its announcement, the verdict will play an important role
in helping Cambodians come to terms with the past as they move forward with national
reconciliation.

A closing order in Case 2 at the Court against the four remaining senior leaders of the
Khmer Rouge regime was signed in September. This trial is expected to commence in
mid-2011 and will address charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions and offences under the 1956 Cambodian criminal
code.

We also provided practical support to the Court. We supported it in its efforts to raise
funds, which are pledged on a voluntary basis. In December we contributed 215,000
to the Court, bringing our total contribution to date to around 2.3 million, and we also
provided additional resources for court monitoring and training for the Office of the
Co-Prosecutors and the Victims Support Unit.

Special Court for Sierra Leone

Securing funding for the Special Court, also pledged on a voluntary basis, grew
increasingly difficult throughout 2010. The UK contributed more than 2 million but
extensive appeals to donors for further essential funds yielded insufficient results and
the Special Court faced critical financial shortfalls. In response, we worked to secure
emergency UN funding for the Special Court which will move it onto a more secure
financial footing for 2011. We also played a key role in securing a provisional
agreement with the government of Sierra Leone on a cost effective Residual
Mechanism for the Special Court, which should guarantee that essential functions, such
as witness protection and security of the archives, can continue effectively.

With trial activity in Freetown already completed, the only remaining trial at the Special
Court is that of Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president. This is taking place in
The Hague. Mr Taylor is charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes in
Sierra Leone. November saw the closure of the defence case in the Taylor trial and a
verdict is now expected in the summer of 2011. If convicted, Mr Taylor will serve his
sentence in the UK under a 2007 sentence enforcement agreement.

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

During 2010, the tribunal continued its investigative phase and prepared for the start of
judicial activity. On 17 January 2011 the Prosecutor submitted the first indictment to
the pre-trial judge. The UK announced a further 1 million funding for the tribunal for
2011, which brought our total contribution up to 2.3 million.

Powers and function

On the other hand, International criminal court has jurisdiction hear and decide about
four groups of crimes genocide, Crimes against Humanity, war crime, and the crime of
aggression under the Article 5 of the Rome Statute. December, 1948 declarations,
United Nation Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(CPPCG) define the genocide in article (2) In the present Convention, genocide means
any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily
or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of
the group to another group. Similarly Rome Statue Article 7 defines the crime against
humanity, primarilycrime against humanity" means any of the coming acts when
committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population, with knowledge of the attack: of Murder; Extermination; Enslavement;
Deportation or forcible transfer of population; Imprisonment or other severe
deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
Torture; Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; Persecution
against any identifiable group or collectively on political, racial, national, ethnic,
cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, and Other inhumane acts of a
similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to
mental or physical health. International Criminal Court also have right to hear the
cases on war crime which define in Rome Statute Article 8 war crimes means:
any of the mentioned acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of
the relevant Geneva Convention: Wilful killing; Torture or inhuman treatment,
including biological experiments; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to
body or health; Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by
military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; Compelling a prisoner of
war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power ;Wilfully
depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular
trial; Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement , taking of hostages.
Likewise, Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a
provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and
setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect
to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the
Charter of the United Nations.