International Criminal Court Bill; Interception and Monitoring Bill

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

24 May 2002
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

24 May 2002

Chairperson: Adv De Lange (ANC)

Relevant documents:
Report by the Portfolio Committee on the International Criminal Court Bill (Appendix 1)
Objects of the Implementation ….International Criminal Court Bill (Appendix 2)
Interception and Monitoring Bill as at 24/05/2002
Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Bill [B-2002]

The Committee completed going through the International Criminal Court Bill. The Interception and Monitoring Bill will be discussed next week but the latest version of the Bill was handed out. The committee did not deal with the Crossing of the Floor legislation because the political process had not been finalised.

International Criminal Court Bill
Chapter 2 Jurisdiction of South African Courts in Respect of Crimes and Institution of Prosecutions in South African Courts

Clause 5 Institution of prosecutions in South African courts
The Chair reminded the committee that the previous Clause 4 had been split up, and that part of it had been incorporated into Clause 5.

Mr Basset stated that Clause 5(2) used to be part of 5(1). This meant that Clause 5(1) had now been split into two separate provisions.

The Chair wanted to know why it would be necessary to stipulate that the Act would apply with regards to acts committed as of 1 July 2002.

Mr Basset explained that their information was that the Rome Statute would be coming into effect on 1 July 2002. This meant that South African courts would become bound at that stage to co-operate with the ICC in terms of Article 4 of the Rome Statute, regardless of the status of the ICC Act within South Africa.

The Chair pointed out the importance of the fact that the Act would not operate retrospectively, and that the committee would have to stipulate the date upon which the Act would become operative for that reason.

Clause 5(3)
Mr Basset stated that the provision had been included at the request of the committee.

The Chair remembered that he had advocated the inclusion of the provision. However, he felt that it should rather be Clause 5(1).

Mr Basset noted that the subsection had been correctly positioned in light of the provisions preceding it. Adv De Lange then confirmed that it had been correctly placed because the provision would not be obligatory.

Clause 5(4)
Mr Basset asked him whether it would be necessary to use the wording that had been used in the previous sections.

The Chair affirmed that position. He stated that it would be consequentially necessary to change the wording of Clause 5(4).

Mr Mzizi (ANC) was unhappy with the use of the phrase "this Chapter".

The Chair explained that the words would be replaced by the phrase "this crime".

Clause 5(5)
Ms Camerer (NNP) felt that the full disclosure of reasons in 5(a) was a legal requirement. In light of that, she stated that the provision seemed to be odd.

The Chair accepted her suggestion. The provision would have to provide that " S/he must provide the central authority with the full reasons for his/her decision".

Mr Basset reminded the committee that they had asked for 5(5)(b) to be moved from 5(6) to 5(5).

The Chair wanted to know whether there would be any duplication between Clause 5(3) and Clause 5(5)(b).

Mr Basset responded that it was a possibility. However, he was not ready to call it duplication. Nevertheless, he wondered whether Clause 5(6) would cure the problem.

The Chair stated that Clause 5(6) (b) would be absolutely unnecessary. The floor fully agreed. The Chair felt that 5(3) would be very important. However, in light of 5(3), Clause 5(5) (b) seemed to be superfluous. He stated that Clause 5(5) (b) would have to be deleted, and the complementarity issue would have to be worked in to 5(3).

Adv Masutha stated that he felt excluded because he was having a very difficult time reading the Working draft of the Bill. He suggested that the department find another way of highlighting the amendments, and proposed the use of italics.

Mr Basset apologized that the document was not reader friendly. The Chair added that he understood the problem. Persons without eye problems would also have a difficult time reading the document. He would ensure that the final draft would be free of such problems.

Mr Jeffery (ANC) was not pleased with the use of the words "bearing in mind". He proposed that the words " having considered" would be more appropriate. It was agreed to change this.

Mr Mzizi (ANC) questioned whether there would be different sentencing approaches, in light of the fact that the ICC and the RSA courts were intended to co-operate with each other.

The Chair was not sure. He pointed out that although the possibility existed for the ICC to use similar principles as the RSA courts, it would be difficult to say conclusively. Nevertheless, he pointed out that the ICC had: a pre-trial chamber; a trial chamber and an appeal chamber

Mr Basset added that the Rome Statute did envisage life imprisonment.

In summary, the Chair stated that Clause 5(5)(b) would have to be deleted, a bit of it would have to be worked into Clause 5(3) and Clause 5(6)(b) would be deleted.

The Chair noted that Chapter 2 had probably been the most important Chapter to be drafted by the committee. The Committee indicated it was satisfied with Chapter 2.

Chapter 3
The Committee had already dealt with it the previous day with the assistance of Adv Maqungo.

Chapter 4
The Chair commented that this chapter would obviously be very technical. He pointed out that the department had already made an amendment to it.

Clause 8
Mr Basset explained that they had removed the over-prescriptive provisions upon the request of Ms Camerer.

The Chair explained that Clause 8(1)(a)(i) & (ii) had been removed. There were no other changes to Clause 8. He added that there was nothing superfluous in Clause 8(b).

The Committee were satisfied with Clause 8.

Clause 9

Mr Basset did not have any amendments for Clause 9. He explained that what was Clause 8 in the previous draft was now Clause 9.

Clause 10
The Chair stated that problems had been raised in relation to this clause. One issue was related to Article 27 of the Rome Statute. The other issue was whether the clause was not too cumbersome. In that regard, he noted that part of Clause 10 (4) had already been deleted.

Mr Basset added that the provision had quite correctly been deleted. He stated that the committee had also raised concerns with the wording of the three criteria in Clause 10 (1), and explained that the criteria were the requirements as stipulated in Article 59 of the Rome Statute.

Adv De Lange stated that "this Act" would have to be changed to "this law", and that Clause 10 (4) would clearly be unnecessary.

The Chair realized that a deletion had been made from Clause 10 (6).

Adv Pienaar (Department) explained that this had been consequential to the deletion of Clause 10 (4).

The Chair wanted an explanation regarding Clause 10 (10).

Mr Basset explained that the provision was in accordance with Article 27 (2) of the Rome Statute.

The Chair remembered the problem. He reminded the committee that the defence issue in Clause 4(2)(a) & (b), they had realized that it would be neither a defence nor a ground for mitigation or refusal.

Mr Jeffery (ANC) suggested that the first "a" be changed to "the" to indicate that they were not dealing only with one person.

There were no more suggestions for changes.

Clauses 11 - 17
No amendments were proposed by the Committee. The Chair pointed out that the provisions were all technical.

Clause 18
The Chair noted that the 12 months had been changed to 5 years. There were no additional points.

Clauses 19 - 21
The Committee was satisfied with the provisions.

Clauses 22 - 25
The Chair noted the usual amendment of sifting from an Article in the Rome Statute which had been made in Clause 22. The Committee did not have any problems with the provisions.

Clause 26
Mr Mzizi (ANC) stated that the compensation factor implied that the ICC would be able to hear civil cases.

The Chair responded that Mr Mzizi had incorrectly understood the provision. He explained that the court would hear criminal matters. However, like the system followed within South Africa, the criminal court would also have the right to make a compensatory order. He stated that a compensatory order made by the ICC would then become a civil judgement in the RSA, and that the RSA courts would be able to execute the order. He emphasized the fact that the Act would become effective on 1 July 2002.

Clause 27 - 29
The Chair pointed out that Clause 27 was also an expansion. The Committee did not have any problems with these clauses.

Clause 30
The Chair wanted to know whether the provision had been drafted in line with the previous Acts dealing with search and seizure that had been dealt with by the Committee.

Adv Pienaar responded that the provision was in line with the Constitution and with the case law on the point.

The Chair emphasized the fact that the Committee had drafted many Acts dealing with search and seizure. He suggested that the department would have to look at previous Bills in order to establish a basis upon which to compare the law. He added that he definitely recognized the wording employed within Clause 30(8) and it was possibly based on something the Committee had previously drafted in this area of law. The provision would be acceptable if it could be proven to be compatible with the previous Acts dealt with by this Committee. He referred to the Hyundai judgement and added that Langa J had made a good point.

Ms Camerer referred to the sentence imposed on page 7 of ICC 9, and was worried with the inclusion of the phrase "mitigating circumstances". She wanted to know whether this would be awkward in terms of the rules applicable in other jurisdictions.

The Chair responded that the wording had been lifted directly from the Rome Statute.

Ms Camerer added that it was an act of compliance.

Mr Jeffery stated that it was an obligation.

Adv Masutha was concerned with Clause 25 dealing with the execution of an order in South Africa. He explained that the heading referred to the registration of a sentence. However, he did not feel that the section actually dealt with the execution of the sentence.

The Chair suggested that it was the courts that would have to execute the orders. He wanted to know whether the Rome Statute did make specific provision for the execution of court orders.

Adv Masutha emphasized that Clause 25 would deal only with the registration of orders. Provision would have to be made for the authority to execute the order within South Africa.

The Chair questioned whether the solution could not be found in Clause 25(2).

Adv Masutha stated that it would be an anomaly for a Cabinet member to be the executing authority because it would then be necessary to create the appropriate machinery. He pointed out that the sheriff possessed the requisite machinery in terms of the Act. Nevertheless, he said that the wording of Clause 25 was ambiguous.

The Chair referred to Article 103 of the Rome Statute dealing with the role of states in enforcement. He explained that a sentence would have to be served in a state designated by the court.

Adv Masutha explained that although the international instrument would have the ability to create the framework, the executory instrument would have to come from within the RSA.

In answer to Mr Basset asking if the answer could not be found in Clause 26, the Chair responded that Clause 26 dealt only with compensation. He directed the department to look into the problem, and stated that the problem could possibly mean that provision would have to be made to regulate the domestic execution.

The Chair asked if the proposal made by Mr Masutha would be possible because the potential for arising problems existed. Adv Masutha suggested that it would be helpful to look into the roots of the Supreme Court of Appeal to solve the problem. Mr Basset stated that he would look into it.

Clause 31
Mr Jeffery (ANC) wanted to know whether the designation by the ICC would be specific or general.

Mr Basset explained that the statute made reference only to specific designation.

Mr Jeffery stated that the position would have to be made clear. He pointed out that general designation would be inappropriate, and suggested that it would be necessary to look into 31(1).

The Chair added that the wording indicated that the designation would only be with regards to specific cases, and he referred to "a person" in terms of Clause 31(1).

Mr Jeffery explained that his problem lay in the fact that "a person" could be any person.

The Chair wondered whether Clause 31 would not solve the problem raised by Adv Masutha. He explained that Clause 31 dealt only with sentencing, and that the only issue remaining would then be the one raised by Mr Jeffery (ANC) as to whether Clause 31 was clear.

Adv Masutha explained that fines and compensation would require different compensatory orders in comparison to imprisonment.

The Chair was worried whether Clause 31 was not in line with the Article. He explained that Clause 31(2) left the court with no option other than to accept the designation by the ICC. However, Article 103 made it clear that the RSA could refuse the designation.

Mr Jeffery responded that Clause 31 imposed discretion through the use of the word "may". Nevertheless, he read the provision as being general rather than specific, and felt that more work would be necessary in that regard.

The Chair wondered whether Clause 31 (2) resolved the matter. Article 103 provided that the sentence would be designated upon a court from a list of states that would be willing to have the designation insisted upon them.

Mr Basset stated that Article 103 would only apply to specific cases.

Mr Jeffery wanted clarification regarding what the "other laws" and the "conditions that the central authority deems fit" of Clause 31(2) referred to. He stated that the problems lay in the fact that the central authority would have the power to veto the Minister of Correctional Services, although the matter would really have to be a Cabinet matter.

The Chair stated that the DG had been designated as the central authority in terms if the statute. Nevertheless, he felt that the safer position would be to delete the provision. He asked the department whether there were any reasons why the provision should be left unchanged.
Mr Basset explained that there were no compelling reasons.

The Chair stated that it would also be necessary to regulate the list in terms of Art 103. He added that the regulation would have to be the first provision in the section, and explained that it would have to be made clear that Parliament would have to approve the decision by Cabinet to place itself on the list. He pointed out that Clause 31 worked on the assumption that the Republic would already be on the list.

Mr Landers enquired into the financial implications of such a decision.

Mr Jeffery added that they would have to expect the possibility of receiving non-South African prisoners.

The Chair explained that the USA had not signed the statute. He commented that Afghanistan and Iraq would gladly allow American criminals to be imprisoned within their borders, and referred to it as the ultimate pay-back!

The Chair directed the department to add a mechanism to deal with the list in terms of Art 103(1). He added that such regulation would also deal with the issue raised by Adv Masutha.

Adv Masutha proposed that the listing would have to be regulated within a separate sub-heading in order to illustrate the prominence thereof. This would also impact on Clause 31(3).

The Chair agreed and stated that such a provision would have to be created if this could be done without upsetting the Bill as a whole. He stated that the matter had been resolved, and noted that the mechanisms would probably work themselves out in any event.

Chapter 5 Miscellaneous matters
Mr Basset said that the amendments had been highlighted within the document.

Clause 36
The Chair explained that Clause 36 (4) required an amendment similar to the changes that had been made earlier.

Adv Masutha wondered whether the whole mechanism of Justice should not also be involved in the agreement entered into by the President and the ICC. He noted that his question referred to the issues raised by Mr Jeffery in relation to Clause 31(1).

The Chair explained that the section dealt with a different issue. He stated that the section merely gave the President the power to make further changes. Mr Basset agreed.

Ms Camerer stated that Clause 36 (3) would have to be changed.

The Chair directed the department to amend Clause 36(3), (4) and (5) in line with changes that had already been made.

Schedule 1
The Chair stated that it had already been agreed that this schedule would be incorporated into the definitions section.

Mr Basset asked for the position to be clarified.

The Chair reminded the committee that a suggestion had been made to delete Clause 4(1)(b) and to delete Schedule 1, and to include the provisions within the definitions section.

Mr Basset wanted to know whether Schedule 1 would remain.

The Chair explained that his understanding had been that all the wording would be moved to the definitions section.

Mr Basset responded that in the aim of producing a neat Act, it would be necessary for the Schedule to remain as a point of reference.

The Chair stated that keeping the Schedule in light of what had been suggested would not be a problem. However, he pointed out that Clause 4 (1) (b) would be deleted.

Adv Masutha proposed that the opening sentences of the Schedule would have to be brought into the definitions section in order to ensure that only the list of crimes would remain in the Schedule.

The Chair replied that such an amendment would be difficult to make. He said that it would mean that the whole Bill would have to be revisited.

Adv Masutha referred to Clause 37 (1) (c) and pointed out that such an open-ended provision, although being a traditional form of drafting, would have to be looked at.

The Chair stated that they would have to be careful with the provision.

Adv Masutha added that it would possibly be necessary to standardize the terms of the provision.

The Chair said that the word "or" would have to be inserted.

Mr Jeffery asked whether the committee hoped for Parliament to pass the Bill before recess.

The Chair affirmed that position and said that the Bill should be passed by 11 June 2002. The Committee would vote on the Bill in June, and that the Act would have to be law by 1 July 2002, the date upon which the Rome Statute comes into operation.

Mr Jeffery suggested that the committee should vote on the Bill earlier than proposed.

The Chair replied that it would be possible to vote on the Bill by 4 June 2002.

Mr Jeffery wondered whether the voting could not occur on Friday 31 May 2002.

The Chair explained that Friday 31 May had been set aside for the Crossing of the Floor legislation. However, he said that should the political processes not be completed at that stage, the committee could possibly vote on the ICC Bill on that date.

Mr Jeffery added that he thought that there would be an opening in the week starting 3 June 2002. He highlighted the fact that 11 June 2002 would be full of matters relating to the Crossing of the Floor.

The Chair stated that the matter was not as simple as Mr Jeffery was trying to make it seem. He explained that the major problem lay in the fact that there would not be a single meeting until 31 May 2002 within which to deal with legislation.

Mr Basset referred to the Memo of Objects and indicated the amendments that had been made:
The first change had been in the middle of the first paragraph. The last sentence of that paragraph had also been an amendment. Paragraph 2, there had been the addition of the second section in order to provide greater clarity within the Bill. The only changes in the specific objects were in line with the wording of the Bill. Paragraph 3 was in line with the original memo, and that this meant that they would only be dealing with 5 Chapters. The wording of paragraph 4 had been adapted to the Bill as amended, and Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 remained unchanged.

The Chair stated that it would be necessary to add the list issue, and pointed out that this would be the only addition made by the Committee. He then read the resolution. He wanted to know why foreign affairs had been inserted, and he asked for the reference to be deleted. He pointed out that the department had drafted a very good resolution, and went on to say that subsection 2 would have to deal with the list. He questioned why the Act should not become operative upon signing by the President because he was weary about granting a discretion over the matter. He added that the department would have to stipulate that the Committee was aware that the Rome Statute would be coming into effect on 1 July 2002, and that in light of that, they would recommend that the Minister attempts to have the Act in operation by that date.

The Chair pointed out that there would be three parts to the resolution. He added that the next Bill to come before the Committee should be in its complete form.

Interception and Monitoring Bill
Mr Labuchange (Department drafter) provided the Committee with the latest version of the document. He noted that the members had complained during previous meetings that the working document of this Bill had been difficult to read. He pointed out that the Committee had not finalized the Bill and the footnotes in the working document contained very relevant information. As a result, it would be necessary to work with such a document at this stage. Nevertheless, he would provide the committee with a clean document by 27 May 2002.

The Chair responded that the comments made were fair. He added that the Committee would have to finalise the Bill in the next meeting on the Bill and they would not deliberate on it now. He asked if Mr Labuchange had any points to highlight.

Mr Labuchange said he did not have any additional points at this stage. He would make his input when the process was due to begin.

The Chair asked him whether he had consulted other persons concerning the Bill.

Mr Labuchange explained that he had consulted relevant bodies such as the South African Police Services and the Scorpions Unit. He noted that some of the bodies had indicated that they wished to submit proposals before the committee.

The Chair firmly stated that nobody would be making any oral submissions before the committee. Mr Labuchange would have to tell the DG and others that they would have to submit proposals in writing.

The Chair noted that the Committee had refused to deal with the last two chapters of the Bill in the absence of the himself. Thus he called for the Committee to bear this in mind.

Committee programme
The Chair stated that the committee was aware of the agenda for Monday 27 May 2002: Budget. Tuesday's meeting would be the whole day, and that the DG was on the agenda. He had informed the DG that he wished only to hear from Mr McKenzie, Mr Jiyani and Mr Chichonga, and that the proceedings would continue through to Thursday. Although they would mainly be dealing with the demarcation process, he was unable to say at that stage what other issues would be on the agenda. He noted that the committee would not be sitting on Wednesday afternoon because they would have to available for the President's questions.

Appendix 1:
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the
International Criminal Court Bill [B42-2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) dated 23
May 2002:

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development having considered the subject of the International Criminal Court Bill [B42-2001] (National Assembly -sec 75) referred to it and classified h\ the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill with amendments [B42A - 2001], and endorses the classification of the Bill as a Section 75 Bill.

The Committee wishes to report further. as follows:

Clause 4 of the International Criminal Court Bill deals with the jurisdiction of South African courts in respect of the crimes of genocide. crimes against humanity and war crimes which are created in the proposed legislation. Clause 4(3) more specifically sets out the circumstances in which the South African courts will have jurisdiction to hear cases against persons who are alleged to have committed one of the Crimes in question if the crimes are alleged to have been committed outside the territory of the Republic, namely-
if the perpetrator is a South African citizen;
if the perpetrator is not a South African citizen but ordinarily resident in the Republic;
if the perpetrator is present in the Republic after the commission of the crime; and
if the perpetrator has committed a crime against a South African citizen or against a person who is ordinarily resident in the Republic.

The approach adopted in the by giving South African courts extended jurisdiction to deal with crimes which were committed outside the territory of the Republic is similar to the Canadian legislation dealing with the International Criminal Court.

It is understood that Belgium is the only country which, to date, has gone even beyond what South Africa and Canada have clone in respect of jurisdiction, namely by giving the Belgian courts universal jurisdiction to deal with prosecutions instituted against persons who are alleged to have committed one of the above crimes. This, in effect, means that the Belgian courts ca deal with cases in which the crimes in question have been committed by any person anywhere in the world.

The Committee expressed the view that the possibility of giving the South African courts universal jurisdiction to deal with the prosecutions under discussion, should be explored. It consequently requested the Departments of Justice and Constitutional Development and Foreign Affairs to-
(i) undertake the necessary research in this regard, taking all the implications of such an approach into consideration, particularly those of a financial nature and the difficulties which may arise as a result of competing requests from different countries; and
(ii) report back to the Committee within six months after the adoption of this report.

Report to he considered.

Appendix 2:


1. On 17 July 1998 the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, ("the Court") at which South Africa was represented, adopted the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court ("the Statute"). This was the first important step towards the establishment of a permanent international criminal justice system which will complement national laws of States Parties to the Statute in the prosecution of individuals for crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Efforts are still being made to finalise an acceptable definition relating to the crime of aggression, which will then be included in the Statute. South Africa has already signed the Statute and ratified it on 10 November 2000. In terms of Article 126 of the Statute, the Statute enters into force only after the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification with the Secretary of the United Nations. Sixty instruments of ratification have already been deposited and the Statute is to come into operation on 1 July 2002.

2. As the long title suggests, the Bill is intended to provide for the implementation of the Statute in South Africa, cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the arrest of persons and their surrender to the International Criminal Court. Greater clarity as to what the Bill intends to achieve, is to be found in clause 3 thereof, dealing with the objects of the proposed legislation, namely:

(i) To create a framework to ensure that the Statute is effectively implemented in the Republic;

(ii) to ensure that anything done in terms of the proposed legislation conforms with the obligations of the Republic in terms of the Statute;

(iii) to enable the Republic's High Courts, in the first instance, and as far as possible and in accordance with the principle of complementarity as contemplated in Article 1 of the Statute, to hear cases against persons accused of having committed the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, crimes which have been created in the Bill; and

(iv) where the national prosecuting authority declines to institute a prosecution against a person contemplated in paragraph (iii) above, to enable the Republic to cooperate with the Court in the investigation and prosecution of the persons accused of having committed crimes or offences referred to in the Statute, and in particular to -

* enable the Court to make requests for assistance;

* provide mechanisms for the surrender to the Court of persons accused of having committed a crime referred to in the Statute;

* enable the Court to sit in the Republic; and

* enforce any sentence imposed or order made by the Court.

3. The Bill is divided into five chapters. The first chapter contains provisions of an introductory nature, eg. definitions, the law to be applied in the application of the Bill and the objects thereof. The second chapter deals with the jurisdiction of the South African courts in respect of the crimes referred to in paragraph 2 above and the institution of prosecutions in South African courts in respect of those crimes. Chapter 3 deals with the functioning, privileges and immunities of the Court and its members and personnel when it sits in the Republic. Chapter 4, dealing with co-operation with and assistance to the Court in or outside South Africa, consists of two parts, the first part dealing with the arrest of persons and their surrender to the Court and the second dealing with judicial assistance to the Court. Chapter 5 deals with matters of a general nature, including the power of the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to make regulations.

4. The Bill seeks to provide that any person who commits one of the crimes referred to above in the Republic is liable on conviction thereof to a fine or imprisonment, including imprisonment for life. A person who commits such a crime outside the Republic is deemed to have committed that crime inside the Republic if he or she is a South African citizen or is ordinarily resident in the Republic, if he or she is in the Republic after the commission of the crime or if the crime has been committed against a South African citizen or resident. No criminal prosecution may, however, be instituted in the Republic without the consent of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development must, in consultation with the Chief Justice of South Africa and after consultation with the National Director of Public Prosecutions, designate an appropriate High Court in which prosecutions against persons accused of having committed one of the crimes under discussion must be prosecuted. If the National Director of Public Prosecutions for any reason declines to institute a prosecution, after having given due recognition to South Africa's international obligation and responsibility to bring persons accused of having committed the crimes in question to justice in its own courts, in line with the principle of complementarity, the Central Authority (the Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development) must be informed, who, in turn, must inform the Court. The person concerned must then be surrendered to the Court if the Court so requests.


No financial implications are foreseen regarding the seat of the Court in South Africa since the expenses relating to the Court judges, eg their salaries, accommodation and subsistence and travel are to made from the budget of the Court itself. South Africa may use existing court buildings if the Court sits in the Republic. South Africa will, however, be expected to pay assessed contributions made by States Parties as required in Part 12 of the Statute. This assessment will be made in terms of the United Nations scale for its regular budget and adjustment. If the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is used as a basis, in respect of which South Africa is required to pay an annual amount of approximately R298 000, it is suggested that an annual amount of R300 000 be set aside for the Court. It is understood that the Department of Foreign Affairs is usually responsible for expenses of this nature.


A multi-sectoral committee was established to facilitate South Africa's ratification of the Statute and to prepare and promote the required legislation for purposes of implementing the Statute in South Africa. This committee consisted of representatives of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the magistracy, the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the Presidency, the South African Police Service, the South African National Defence Force and Intelligence Service and the Departments of Home Affairs, Correctional Services, Foreign Affairs and Justice and Constitutional Development.


In the opinion of the Department and the State Law Advisers, this Bill should be dealt with in terms of section 75 of the Constitution, since it contains no provisions to which the procedures set out in section 74 or 76 of the Constitution applies.




No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: