Belgrade centre for human rights is of the opinion that USA attempt for signing separate agreements with the countries which signed Roman statute can endanger object of this contract and aim of the instauration of the International Criminal Court. As Viena Convention on the Contract Law obliges State on abstention of acts which would leave the contract signed by it (the State) without its object and purpose, contracting States of Roman Statute would break the object of the contract – instauration of the personal criminal liability for International crimes – accepting the agreement which USA offers.Except that, contracting States would break the purpose of Roman Statute which is reflected (expressed) in the idea that one permanent international court arbitrate (judge) suspected for serious crimes and to supervise trials under domestic courts of contracting states.
Exceptional agreement which USA are offering to membering States (contracting States) of Roman Statute is based on Article 98, chapter 2 of the Status of the International Criminal Court. This Article is covering situations where contract regulates presence of one country troops on the territory of the other country. USA insisted upon inclusion of this Article in International Criminal Court’s Statute and they were the ones who, later on, refused to ratify it.
Otherwise, Inernational Criminal Court establishes its jurisdiction by the citizenship of the accused or by the place where the crime is committed. Article 98 means exception of the jurisdiction (competence) instauration regime. It anticipates that Court cannot continue with the request for extradiction realization if the State which received the request would act oposite of her obligations according to the international contracts.
This is applying only to the contracts for asking acceptance of the sending State to extradict requested person to the Court. This means that State on which territory are situated foreign soldiers cannot extradict these soldiers to the Court without acceptance of the soldier’s domicile (native) country.
Like that, Article 98, chapter 2 enables contracting States to judge (arbitrate) their own soldiers who, while situated (on the territory of some other country) abroad have committed some krime which i sunder Court’s competence.
USA as a country grounded (based) on the Rule of Law should not decrease, with such behaviour, fifthy years old efforts of the international community to establish permanent international body in order to judge individuals (to commit trials) found responsible for serious international crimes. Insturation of this Court in July, this year, has shown willingness of the large number of countries to take part in establishing of the mechanism with which perpetrators of internaional crimes, no matter of the nationality, can be taken under the face of justice.
It is especially unusual that USA as a State which unequivocally insists on cooperation with an ad hoc international court, like Hague Tribunal is, subverts attempt to establish the International Criminal Court. Experts in Yugoslavia are fully aware that our country is obliged to cooperate with the Hagues Tribunal, which derives from the membership in the United Nations.
With the ratification of the Roman Statute
