Mr. President, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Let me start by saying that the Netherlands fully aligns itself with the statement just made on behalf of the European Union by Portugal. Please allow me to make some additional remarks, both as a committed member state and as host nation.

I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his address this morning, as well as the President and the Prosecutor for the clear messages they sent to the Assembly on Friday. Let me also tell you, Mr President, that we wish you all the best for this session and let you know that you can count on the support of this delegation.

In this context, I would like to call your attention to three issues of particular importance to us. Our first point concerns our firm conviction that there will be no peace without justice, and that in order to play its important role in this respect, the International Criminal Court depends very much on the cooperation extended by states. Secondly, I should like to point out that the Rome Statute is still incomplete, as long as the discussions on the crime of aggression have not been successful. Lastly, I would like to address some items directly related to the position of the Netherlands as host nation to the ICC.

Mr. President,

On cooperation, let me state the following. As noted by the Presidency of the European Union and also by The Netherlands’ Prime Minister during his address to the UN General Assembly in September of this year, the Court needs cooperation by both States Parties and non- States Parties in general and more in particular with regard to the execution of arrest warrants. Without the cooperation of States, the Court cannot fulfil its mission to serve justice as a foundation for lasting peace.

The example that best illustrates this is Darfur. With Security Council Resolution 1593, the situation in Darfur was referred to the Prosecutor of the ICC. That very same resolution stipulates that “the Government of Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur, shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution”. While the Report of the Prosecutor to the Security Council is still a few days away, it is apparent that the Government of Sudan has not met its obligations under this resolution. The Prosecutor stated as much in his address to this Assembly last Friday.It has not executed the arrest warrants issued by the Court against Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kushayb, as required by the resolution and as requested by the UN Secretary-General during his recent visit to Sudan. As a matter of fact, the Sudanese government has even appointed Ahmed Haroun as co-chair of the Human Rights Committee and released Ali Kushayb from detention. This is not only a slap in the face of the International Criminal Court, but also an insult to the UN Security Council itself. The evident refusal of Sudan to cooperate with Security Council resolution 1593 therefore is an issue that goes beyond the framework of the ICC. The upcoming sixth report of the Prosecutor to the UN Security Council, we hope, will lead to a discussion on concrete steps that can be taken to address this situation. We call on the States Parties to the Rome Statute that are also member of the UN Security Council, to keep this issue high on its agenda. In addition, we should be unrelenting in our determination to raise this issue with the Government of Sudan in our bilateral contacts. We also welcome the announcement of the Prosecutor that he will come with new cases in the Darfur situation in 2008.

Mr. President,

The second item I would like to discuss with you is the Crime of Aggression. The Netherlands thanks Ambassador Wenaweser and the Liechtenstein Institute on Self Determination for their excellent work on this topic over the last few years. The Netherlands has contributed financially to the important informal meetings held in Princeton. Even though no agreement has been reached on the outstanding issues, these meetings have succeeded in bringing the process one step further. From the outset, we had little hope that in Princeton full agreement could be found, this in view of the complexity of the matter and the different interests at stake. However, it is safe to say that a 'Princeton spirit' has developed, which has helped the Special Working Group to move forward.

The Netherlands will contribute actively to the negotiations in the Special Working Group this week, as we have done in previous negotiations. We, Parties to the Rome Statute, are under an obligation to do so. In 1998 in Rome we agreed, as laid down in Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Statute, that the crime of aggression is amongst the most serious international crimes and that the Court should have jurisdiction over it. In other words, as long as we have not been able to define this crime for the purposes of the Court, the Rome Statute remains incomplete. We therefore should come to an agreement on the definition of this crime and on the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime by the Court as soon as possible.

Mr. President,

This brings me to my last points, related to the position of the Netherlands as host nation to the ICC.

On the issue of the interim premises of the Court, I want to emphasize that we are painfully aware of the need for extra workspace for the Court in view of its ongoing expansion. We applaud the intentions of the Court to speed up the process of hiring all the staff that the budget provides for, but we also realize that this will only tend to further aggravate the already tight housing situation they are in right now.

This is not a financial issue for the Netherlands, as we would be happy to make the funds available to hire additional workspace for the Court. However, there is a practical problem of finding suitable office space in the vicinity of the court premises. We have unfortunately not yet been able to find workspace that fulfils all the security and other requirements of the Court. In close cooperation with the Court, we will continue to search for an interim solution until construction work on the Haagse Veste is finished. This extra facility for the Court, just around the corner from its main building, will be completed by October 2008. Once the Haagse Veste is operational, we hope that the Court will have sufficient space until the completion of its permanent facilities. There has been some misunderstanding as to the costs the Netherlands is prepared to pay for security facilities in the Haagse Veste. Let me be absolutely clear about this. We are fully prepared to pay for all the hardware associated with security and protection for this building, along the same line as we did for the Arc Building.

In spite of all our efforts to provide the Court with suitable temporary facilities, we realize that the situation is not perfect. Therefore, we hope that the construction of the permanent facilities for the Court can start without any undue delay. To this end, this Assembly of States Parties will have to agree on a package of proposals that was prepared by The Hague Working Group this year, under the guidance of its very able facilitator, Mr. Masud Husein of Canada.

The draft resolution that came out of the Hague Working Group is a balanced piece of work; one that will give the Court its due role as end user, the host state its role as advisor, and the ASP the final authority over the whole project. In order not to lose time and money, it is essential that the architectural competition will be conducted within the timeframe of one year, and that it can commence as foreseen at the very beginning of 2008.

The draft resolution mentioned above is rather long, somewhat technical by nature, and detailed in its provisions. We realize not all delegations present in this room have been able to participate in the deliberations in The Hague that produced this draft resolution. My Delegation will therefore be at your disposal to give further explanations at any time.

Thank you, Mr. President.