Cablegate: Nov 28 Icty/Ictr Unsc Working Group Meeting On

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

© Scoop Media