"As we close this century, there is for the first time realistic hope of a more just future. A Century stained with the sufferings of ceaseless war and atrocity is as much marked by our incomplete efforts to secure the foundations of an international society, one in which all peoples are equal and equally protected from abuse. The last decade has seen the application of dormant humanitarian principles and laws in various fora. The ICC offers us the opportunity to build on these disjointed enforcement efforts. A properly functioning permanent court will be humanity’s best chance yet to move out of its self-destructive cycle. Justice is a vindication, a historical right and a deterrent."¹

The efforts to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC) may be destined to be another dormant humanitarian effort unless states show their commitment to this noble cause for international justice by ratifying the Statute of the Court. The Statute of the ICC requires ratification by sixty states in order to come into force.² Over a year since the adoption of the ICC Statute by an overwhelming vote of 120 states at a diplomatic conference in Rome, there are only four states that have ratified the Statute — Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy. It may reasonably be expected that more states will soon ratify it as various regions have held meetings to study the ICC Statute and exchange views on the ratification procedure and the implementation of the Statute within national systems. Legal experts from the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a regional bloc that has been robust in its support for the establishment of the ICC, held a one-week conference in July 1999, and developed a model enabling act for implementation of the ICC Statute. These experts further affirmed the need for implementing legislation internally to give effect to the ICC Statute, and recommended the use of this model to that end.³

This article reflects on the honourable route that SADC chose in respect of the process to establish the ICC and seeks to answer the question why no SADC state has ratified the ICC Statute to date.

Delegations from Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania and South Africa had participated in the effort to establish the ICC as early as 1993 when the International Law Commission (ILC) presented a draft statute to the General Assembly Sixth Committee for consideration. It was, however, only later that SADC states consulted among each other with the view to develop a strategy aimed at making a meaningful impact on the negotiations on the establishment of the ICC. It had been quite clear that, in order to make an impact on these multilateral negotiations, SADC states had to speak with one voice and thus negotiate as a bloc rather than as ‘small’ individual states. On 14 September 1997, legal experts from SADC states thus met in Pretoria and adopted principles of consensus which were transmitted for review to SADC ministers of Justice and attorneys-general. On the basis of the principles submitted to them, SADC ministers of Justice and attorneys-general, issued a Common Statement (quoted below), which became the instruction manual for SADC’s negotiations:

"SADC Ministers of Justice/ Attorneys-General anxious to address the concerns expressed by SADC Member States that the setting up of the Court should be such that the integrity and the sovereignty of states shall not be undermined or compromised. Hereby:

Affirm their commitment to the early establishment of an independent and impartial Court which shall be an effective complement to national criminal justice systems, operating within the highest standards of international justice, and insist that the composition of the Court should reflect equitable geographical representation;



Further affirm their belief that an effective and independent Court is a necessary element of peace and security in our contemporary world where universal respect for human rights is of paramount significance to humanity;



Strongly believe that the Court must have inherent jurisdiction over the core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes in international and non-international armed conflict and aggression;



Further believe that the Court should have competence to decide admissibility issues regarding the inability, unwillingness or unavailability of national criminal justice systems to bring to justice those responsible for grave crimes under the Statute while respecting the complementary relationship between the Court and such national systems;



Support the independence of the Prosecutor, who should be able to initiate investigations and institute prosecutions on his or her own initiative and without influence from states or the Security Council, subject only to appropriate judicial scrutiny;



Affirm that the Court must respect the human rights of suspects, the accused, witnesses and victims at all stages of the proceedings, and in particular that the Court should be sensitive to the rights of women and children;



Emphasise that the Court should be provided with long-term secure funding as well as human, technical and other resources necessary for its effective functioning;



Stress that while recognising the role of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security the independence and operations of the Court and its judicial functions must not be unduly prejudice by political considerations;



Urge all states to fully cooperate with the Court;



Further stress that the number of ratifications required for the Statute to enter into force must be such that (a) it ensure its universality (b) it facilitates the establishment of the Court without undue delay;



Re-iterate that the basic principle underlying the setting up and operation of the Court should be the acceptance that the Court should contribute towards the furtherance of the integrity of states generally as well as equality of states within the general principles of international law;



Encourage all SADC member States to fully and actively participate in the Rome Conference with a view to finalising and adopting the Statute for the establishment of an effective Court at the end of the Conference and urge all states to contribute to the Trust Funds established for the assistance of least developed and developing countries to participate in the conference.



Further encourage all SADC member States to sign the Statute once it is adopted, and implement measures for its early ratification with a view to ensuring that the Court begins its work timeously."

SADC approached the negotiations at the Rome conference with the objective to achieve, as far as possible, the principles advanced by the ministers of Justice and attorneys-general in the Common Statement. To this end, it was necessary that SADC delegates occupy strategic positions within the political structures in the conference. The Rome conference organs consisted of the Plenary, the Committee of the Whole, the Drafting Committee and the Credentials Committee.

The Plenary merely rubber-stamped the discussions and decisions taken in the Committee of the Whole, the main working group of the Conference.

The Drafting Committee had a limited mandate to look at linguistic consistency and not to change the substance of the drafts submitted to it by the Committee of the Whole.

The Credentials Committee was responsible for accrediting states to the conference. There were also regional pressure groups, such as the African group and the Non-Aligned Movement group (NAM). It was important for SADC to have a strong influence within the regional groups in order to achieve the objectives as set out in the Common Statement of the ministers of Justice and attorneys-general. Furthermore, a number of SADC states were members of the so-called "like-minded states" grouping.⁴

A particularly important group of states that SADC needed to influence, were the other African states, and to this end, a lobbying drive for Lesotho to co-ordinate the African group on issues pertaining to the ICC was successful. This meant that SADC could also influence the agenda of the African group.

Lesotho was further elected to be one of the vice-chairpersons of the conference and was also responsible for co-ordinating the formulation of Part 9 of the Statute. The Lesotho delegate thus sat in on meetings of the Bureau of the conference.

South Africa was a member of the Drafting Committee of the conference and co-ordinated the formulation of Part 4 of the ICC Statute. This meant that South Africa was frequently invited to participate in the meetings of the Bureau of the conference.

Namibia was the co-ordinator of African states within the NAM, and Zambia was a member of the Credentials Committee of the conference.

These strategic positions ensured that SADC was represented at all levels of the conference and could thus effectively influence the negotiations in the Committee of the Whole. As a result, the bulk of the instructions of the ministers of Justice and attorneys-general were achieved at the Rome Conference. However, the encouragement to "... all SADC member States to sign the Statute once it is adopted, and implement measures for its early ratification" has not been heeded by all SADC states, and there are still states that have not signed the Statute of the ICC.

The strategic positions that SADC delegates occupied, came to bear fruit, particularly on 17 July 1998, the last day of the conference. Until the afternoon meeting of the Committee of the Whole, when states voted to accept the draft Statute presented by the Bureau of the conference, the atmosphere were fluid on whether the Statute will be adopted or not. The Bureau of the conference had distributed the draft Statute early in the morning of 17 July 1998 for states to consider, and to convene in the afternoon to deliberate on whether it should be accepted or not. South Africa as chair of SADC convened a meeting in the morning of 17 July 1998, and Lesotho as co-ordinator of the African group was to convene an African group meeting soon after the SADC meeting. After careful consideration of the draft presented by the Bureau, SADC decided that, although the draft Statute was not the best result that SADC would have hoped for, they would accept it as a package deal.

Within the African group, there were states that felt strongly that the draft Statute was not acceptable, particularly because the crime of aggression had not been included to their satisfaction. SADC delegates, through the patience and tactful leadership of Lesotho as chair of the African group, prevailed upon the group to accept the draft Statute as a package deal. When the Statute was put to a vote, African states voted in favour of adopting the Statute as agreed to in the African group meeting.

The option to support a complementary jurisdiction rather than the primary jurisdiction of the ICC with regard to crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression was to protect the sovereignty of states. All delegations wanted the issue of the protection of sovereignty addressed and thus were supportive of the Court being complementary to national jurisdiction. SADC delegates were therefore in line with the other delegates in the conference regarding the complementarity principle. Appropriately, the principle of complementary jurisdiction is included in the first article of the ICC Statute.⁵ Linked to the principle of complementarity is Article 17 of the Statute of the ICC on "[i]ssues of admissibility." It was important, particularly to the South African delegation, that the granting of amnesty to a person during the course of a process such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) should not be construed by history as "... shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court."⁶ With the assistance and support of SADC delegates and others, South Africa made the proposal that now appears in Article 17 (2) (c) of the ICC Statute as a matter of principle to recognise proceedings such as those of a TRC. The article states the following:

"In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice."

It was necessary for the legal experts of SADC to define what would constitute an independent court. The instructions from the ministers of Justice and attorneys-general had merely stated that the ICC must be independent. There were various issues under negotiation that were relevant to the independence of the Court. These issues were the financing of the Court, the election of judges, the powers of the prosecutor, the between the Court and the United Nations, and the role of the UN Security Council.

During the Rome conference, four financing options were considered: states party, the UN, voluntary funding, and a combination of the three. The South African delegation supported the option that the ICC should be financed from the regular budget of the UN as is the case with human rights monitoring bodies. However, this option did not enjoy consensus within SADC as this meant that the Court would be subject to the power of the UN. SADC legal experts, however, agreed that the Court will need a steady and reliable source of funding at its inception until such a time as it gains universal membership from which it can draw its funding. SADC legal experts further agreed that the regular budget of the UN could be a source of such funding. They therefore came to the conclusion that an option that was viable and that protected the independence of the Court was one that incorporated the UN, contributions by states party and voluntary contributions. The option supported by SADC states is the one that now appears in Article 115 and 116 of the ICC Statute.

With respect to the election of judges, it was agreed from the outset that no two judges may be nationals of the same state. There was another option, however, that judges could be elected from the nationals of states that are not party to the Statute and that they may be subject to re-election. There was also an option that the General Assembly, rather than states party, may elect the judges. The idea that states which were not party to the ICC Statute would have an influence on who is elected to be judge in the ICC was unacceptable. Thus, SADC legal experts supported the option that judges must be elected by states party from nationals of states that are party to the ICC Statute, and may serve a long period without an option of re-election in order to protect their independence. Article 36 of the Statute largely reflects the view that was held by SADC experts on the election of judges.

It had been the view of SADC and many other states, particularly those who belonged to the so-called like-minded group, that the power of the prosecutor to initiate investigation of his own free will is linked to the independence of the office of the prosecutor and reflected the independence of the ICC. There were, however, many other delegations who were opposed to the granting of power to the prosecutor to initiate investigations of his own accord. It was due to the hard lobbying of the like-minded states, the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and SADC states that the ICC Statute ended up with the power of the prosecutor to initiate investigation proprio muto.⁷

The kind of relationship between the Court and the UN was also considered in the light of the independence of the Court. Delegates considered three possible types of relationships that the ICC may have with the UN:

as a subsidiary organ of the UN;


as a principal organ of the UN; or


as an independent organ establish by a treaty and brought into a relationship with the UN.

If the ICC were to have been established as a principal or subsidiary organ of the UN, the UN Charter would have to be amended, which is difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the option to establish the ICC as a subsidiary organ of the UN, raised the question which principal organ of the UN would oversee the Court and whether such oversight would not jeopardise the independence of the Court. It was thus the view of SADC legal experts that an ICC established through a treaty and brought into a relationship with the UN would safeguard the independence of the Court.

SADC states wanted no role for the UN Security Council in the proceedings of the ICC. The only role that SADC saw for the Security Council was one of referring matters to the prosecutor’s office for investigation and prosecution. Article 16 of the ICC Statute reflects a compromise position that was reached, as states such as the United States preferred the proposal made by the ILC on the role of the Security Council, which was much more intrusive.⁸

One of the instructions of the SADC ministers of Justice and attorneys-general clearly stated that the ICC should have universal jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. The options that existed before the beginning of the Rome conference concentrated on which states party were eligible to lodge a complaint with the ICC.⁹ Furthermore, a fair number of the delegations were of the view that the Court should not exercise jurisdiction unless states party gave their express consent (and ‘opt in’ regime). In SADC‘s view, any state that ratifies the Statute of the ICC gives its express consent to the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in its territory in accordance with the Statute. In keeping with their instructions, SADC legal experts supported the option that:

"... the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 provided that one of the following States is a party to the Statute or has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crime in question: the State that has custody of the suspect; State of nationality of the suspect; or State on the territory of which the act or omission in question occurred."¹⁰

Views on the jurisdictional issue of the ICC were extremely polarised and it became apparent to the Bureau of the conference that a consensus would never be reached. To this end, Philippe Kirsch of Canada, the chairperson of the Committee of the Whole (where negotiation decisions were taken), convened a special meeting of the Committee to hear the views of delegates on the issue of jurisdiction, among others. This special meeting was seen as a virtual voting session. Again, due to vigorous lobbying of the like-minded states, NGOs and SADC’s efforts among the African states, the Bureau of the conference was convinced that the concept of universal jurisdiction enjoyed considerable support. However, notwithstanding this considerable support for the option of universal jurisdiction, the Bureau could not ignore the other states that opposed the concept, particularly the US. The compromise position that appears in Article 12 of the ICC Statute was therefore accepted, without including the custodial state. Over and above the Article 12 compromise, there is an ‘opt out’ provision for war crimes for a period of seven years for states wishing to exercise the option of a transitional period in Article 124 of the ICC Statute. The NGOs realised the importance of the ‘virtual vote’ meeting of the Committee of the Whole and counted the states that spoke in favour and against universal jurisdiction. They came to the conclusion that 79 per cent of states at the conference supported universal jurisdiction.

The other aspect which was of interest to SADC states was that the ICC should also have jurisdiction over legal persons, such as companies and institutions, and should not be limited to natural persons. However, this proposal by SADC states seemed to lead to a similar discussion as the one held by the ILC on draft Article 19 on state responsibility where no consensus could be reached. Similarly, no consensus could be reached by delegates on the extension of jurisdiction to legal persons, and the matter was abandoned.

The age of criminal responsibility is another issue that concerned SADC delegates. Although SADC delegates supported the provision that persons who use children under the age of fifteen as child soldiers should be held responsible for war crimes, they were not totally convinced of the necessity for the provision that appears in Article 26 of the Rome Statute.¹¹ SADC states did not express any vigorous opposition to Article 26, except to point out that it encourages persons to use children between the ages of fifteen and eighteen as child soldiers without fear of prosecution for themselves or the children they use. What Article 26 does, as far as the SADC delegates were concerned, is to state the age of criminal responsibility within the ICC. However, this was a provision that enjoyed substantial support from the like-minded states, a grouping of which a number of SADC states were members.

The non-retrospective provision of the ICC Statute was one which the SADC states agreed to, particularly South Africa that was concerned about the possibility of an international institution calling to question the amnesties granted to perpetrators of the crime of apartheid.¹²

Another instruction (respect for human rights) of the SADC ministers of Justice and attorneys-general meant that SADC legal experts had to ensure that the ICC Statute reflected principles which are in keeping with respect for human rights. Like most delegations, the document that informed the interventions by SADC on the rights of persons suspected or accused of a crime was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 1966. Despite the fact that some of the SADC states have the death penalty as one of the penalties for crimes committed in their national jurisdiction, SADC legal experts spoke with one voice in supporting a life sentence rather than the death penalty even when they were lobbied by colleagues from CARICOM (the Caribbean states) and the Arab states to support their call for the death penalty for crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. SADC states were also very supportive of the idea of reparation to victims. It was, in fact, with the view to ensure reparation to victims that SADC supported the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the Court to include legal persons as well. The concept that the Court shall establish a trust fund in order to pay reparation to victims and a victims unit for the protection of victims and witnesses is a proposal which can be attributed to the hard lobbying of the NGOs and one that SADC states were proud to support.

The instructions given by the SADC ministers of Justice and attorneys-general on state co-operation, and the fact that two SADC states (Lesotho and Malawi) were involved in co-ordinating the topic (Part 9 of the ICC Statute) meant that all SADC states put their weight behind ensuring that this part of the Statute reflected the responsibility of all states to co-operate fully with the ICC. The opening Article of Part 9 appropriately states the following:

"State Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court."

The Preparatory Committee draft statute that was submitted to the Rome conference as the basis for discussion had an option on grounds for refusal to co-operate. The grounds that were proposed, included among others:

"if execution of the request would seriously prejudice [the state’s] security, ordre public or other essential interests, the request concerns the production of any documents or disclosure of evidence which relates to its national [security] [defence]."

SADC states were totally against any grounds for refusal and succeeded in convincing other states to abandon the option. It does not appear in the ICC Statute. SADC states, in anticipation that the ICC, once it is established, will rely entirely on states to arrest persons and enforce sentences, held a conference on 5-9 June 1999 to look at the ratification process and study the state obligations that will arise out of ratifying the Statute.

SADC states take the issue of ratifying the Statute of the ICC seriously. The ICC will not have jails, it will not have a police force to effect arrests and enforce its sentences, it will have conservative funding, and it will rely squarely on the goodwill of states, particularly, states party. In order for such states to shoulder their obligations to co-operate with the ICC, legal mechanisms will be required that spell out how they will interact with the ICC. SADC states have been grappling with the legal mechanism for co-operation with the ICC and have developed a model enabling act as part of their process towards the ratification of the ICC Statute. The model seeks to provide answers to questions like the following.

Does the complementarity principle of the Statute require that states include the crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court as crimes in their national systems?

The model provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction, which simple means that a crime, such as those contemplated by the ICC Statute, will fall within the jurisdiction of the national courts as if it was committed in the national territory.



On what legal basis may the ICC exercise its functions in the territory of states?

The model suggests that the Statute of the ICC should be enacted into national law, thus affording the status to the ICC to exercise its functions according to national law (its own Statute).



On what legal basis may national administrative systems recognise and enforce the judgements and sentences of the ICC?

The model suggests an enactment into national law of the ICC Statute.



What immunities will be given to staff of the ICC within national systems?

The model suggests that the judges, the prosecutor and the registrar should be accorded similar immunities as those extended to heads of diplomatic missions.



What forms should co-operation with the ICC take?

The model contemplates that all forms of state co-operation envisaged in the ICC Statute will be given to the Court.

It is expected that SADC states, due to the contribution they made in the process to establish the ICC, will be among the first sixty states to ratify the Statute of the Court.

Mr Sivu Maqungo is a Principal State Law Advisor in the Office of the Legal Advisor to the minister of Foreign Affairs in South Africa, and was part of the country’s delegation that participated in the Rome conference on the establishment of the ICC.

Statement by Her Excellency, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, to the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 30 July 1999.



Article 126(1), Statute of the International Criminal Court.



Pretoria Statement of common understanding on the International Criminal Court, adopted by the delegates from the SADC States at the Conference on the International Criminal Court held in Pretoria, 5-9 July 1999.



See H Friman, The International Criminal Court: Negotiations and key issues, African Security Review, 8(6), 1999, pp 3-14, for a substantial contribution on the issue.



Article 1 of the ICC Statute states: "An International Criminal Court ("Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern., as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute."



See Article 17(2), ICC Statute.



Article 15(1) of the ICC Statute. grants the power to the prosecutor to initiate investigations proprio motu (i.e of his own accord).



Article 23(3) of the ILC draft provided: "No prosecution may be commenced under this Statute arising from a situation which is being dealt with by the Security Council as a threat to or breach of the peace or an act of aggression under Chapter VII of the Charter, unless the Security Council otherwise decides."



Option 2 of Article 11, entitled ‘Complaint by State’ of the Preparatory Committee draft Statute that was submitted to the Rome conference as a basis for negotiations stated that the following states may lodge complaints: "(a) a State on the territory of which the act (or omission) in question occurred; (b) a State of the custody; (c) a State of the nationality of a suspect; (d) a State of the nationality of victim."



See Article 7 of the Preparatory Committee draft Statute submission to the Rome conference.



Article 26: "The Court shall have no jurisdiction over any person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged commission of a crime."



See Article 24.



Possible additional paragraph:

"(iv) ?The Legal Counsel, witnesses and experts shall enjoy immunities from criminal or civil prosecution in relation to words spoken, written and things done or any other evidence given to the Court."

Consideration shall also be given to extending privileges and immunities to members of staff of the Court as envisaged under article 48 of the Statute.

SADC Workshop on Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Pretoria, July 1999 ICC Ratification Kit - Model Enabling Act A BILL ENTITLED [Long Title} An Act to provide for the prevention and punishment of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, to give effect to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court done at Rome on the Seventeenth Day of July, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Eight; and for purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the (Country) has ratified the Rome Convention of the International Criminal Court; WHEREAS the (Country) has ratified the Rome Convention of the International Criminal Court; AND WHEREAS it is necessary that the Statute of the International Criminal Court should have effect in (Country) NOW THEREFORE be enacted by the Parliament of (Country) as follows ENACTED by the Parliament of (Country) PART 1 Short Title 1. This Act may be cited as the International Criminal Court Act, 1999, and shall come into operation on such a date as the Minister may appoint by notice published in the Gazette. Interpretation 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - "Court" means the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; ["High Court"] means the [High Court] of the [Country] "Statue" means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court set forth in the Schedule. Extent of Application 3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court set out in the Schedule shall have effect in (Country). and/or [3bis. The ratification by the Government of (name of Country) of the Statute is hereby approved and ratified.] Sitting of the Court, privileges and immunities 4 (i) The Court may sit in (Country), in such place or places as may be determined by the designated authority in consultation with the Court. (ii) The Court shall enjoy such immunities and privileges as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes. (iii) The Judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutors and the Registrar shall be accorded immunities and privileges as accorded to the Head of a Diplomatic Mission in accordance with the [Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act]13. PART II NB: The provisions of this part may be dispensed with if amendments are effected to the Penal Laws or if the Statute is directly applicable (e.g., Namibia). Offences and Jurisdiction 5 (i) Any person who commits any of the crimes specified in Articles 6, 7 and 8, and the offences under Article 70 of the Statute shall be liable on conviction (a) in the case of crimes under Articles 6,7 and 8 to ((specify penalty); or (b) in the case of offences under Article 70 to (9specify penalty). (ii) Any person who commits any of the crimes specified in Articles 6, 7 and 8 outside (name of the Country) may be prosecuted and punished for that crime in (name of Country) as if the crime had been committed in (name of Country). (iii) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (iv) The Director of Public Prosecutions or any person acting on his/her behalf shall, consistent with the provisions of the Statute, inform the Court of any proceedings in (name of Country) undertaken pursuant to this Part. Jurisdiction 6 (i) Any person charged with a crime or an offence under this part shall be tried by (name of the designated national Courts]). (ii) Nothing under this Section shall be construed so as to exclude the jurisdiction of a [Court Martial] convened under the (name of relevant "Defence Legislation"). No Limitation of Action 7. Any crime referred to under Section 5 shall not be subject to the limitations under (give name of relevant Statute of Limitations). PART III: CO-OPERATION WITH THE COURT Areas of Co-operation 8. The relevant competent authorities shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute, render assistance to the Court - (a) in the identification and location of persons or items within the jurisdiction sought pursuant to the Statute; (b) in taking of evidence, including testimony under oath the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court; (c) in the questioning of persons being investigated or prosecuted; (d) in the arrest and surrender of a person in relation to whom the Court has issued a warrant of arrest or of provisional arrest; (e) in the service of documents; (f) in the facilitation of the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the Court; (g) in the temporary transfer of a person consistent with article 93 paragraph 7 of the Statute; (h) in the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites; (i) in the execution of searches and seizures; (j) in the provision of records and documents, including official records and documents; (k) in the protection of victims and witnesses and in the preservation of evidence; (l) in the identification, tracing an freezing of seizure of proceeds and assets and instrumentalities of crime for the purpose of eventual forfeiture; (m) in the execution of sentences imposed by the Court; (n) in arranging for the Court to sit in (Country); and (o) in the provision of any assistance, as the Court may request, necessary for the fulfilment of its functions under the Statute. Requests of the Court 9. Any request under this part shall be made to the [Attorney General] [Minister of Justice] or a person authorised by him. Requests to comply with Statute 10. (i) Requests for assistance pursuant to this part shall as appropriate be consistent with article 96 of the Statute and, unless otherwise prohibited by any written law, the execution of such requests shall be consistent with the provisions of Article 99 of the Statute. (ii) Where it is not feasible to comply with a request of the Court, (the Attorney General) or any person authorised by him shall consult the Court with the view to resolving the matter. ARREST AND SURRENDER OF PERSONS TO THE COURT Persons sought by Court 11.(i) Any person sought by the Court pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Statute shall be proceeded against in accordance with the Statute, that is to say, Articles 59, 89, 90, 91 and 92 of the Statute in respect of surrender and provisional arrest. (ii) Where (the person designated under this Act) receives a warrant issued under the provisions of the Statute, he shall make application to the competent court for the endorsement of that warrant for execution anywhere in (country). (iii) Where (the person designated under this Act) receives a request for provisional arrest under the provisions of the Statute, he shall make application to the competent court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. (iv) An application under subsections (ii) and (iii) shall be made by a notice in writing and shall be accompanied by all relevant documents received from the Court in accordance with the Statute. (v) Where the (national court) receives a warrant in accordance with subsection (ii) and is satisfied that subsection (i) is complied with, the (national court) shall endorse the warrant for execution in (Country). (vi) Any statement or documents submitted in support of a request for surrender shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings in (Country) provided the (specify competent Court) is satisfied that such statements or documents are properly made pursuant to the provisions of the Statute. A certificate by or on behalf of the [Attorney General] [Minister of Justice] shall be conclusive evidence of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Statute. Voluntary surrender 12. The provisions of this part shall not be interpreted as precluding any voluntary surrender of the person sought by the Court. PART IV: ENFORCEMENT (PART 10 OF THE STATUTE) Sentence of Court 13. (i) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 15, any sentence imposed by the Court shall be enforced in this Country as if such sentence was imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Country. (ii) The [relevant authority] shall give effect to fines or forfeitures ordered by the Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 109 of the Statute. Awards under Article 75 of the Statute 14. Without prejudice to the rights a person may have under any written law, where an order under Article 75 of the Statute is enforceable in (Country), such orders shall be treated as an order made by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Country. Supervision/revision of sentence 15. Supervision and review of the sentence shall be subject to the provisions of Articles 106 and 110 of the Statute. PART V: MISCELLANEOUS Transit of person in (Country) 16. (i) Any person entering or passing through (country) in custody by virtue of any warrant or order lawfully issued by the Court shall be deemed to be in lawful custody if the (relevant authority) has, at the request of the Court, authorised such passage in custody. (ii) A certificate by (relevant authority) that any such warrant or order was lawfully issued shall be conclusive proof of the fact. Regulations 17. The [relevant authority] may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the Statute, which may be necessary for giving effect to this Act and the Statute.