Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1998

Vol. 490 No. 3

International War Crimes Tribunals Bill, 1997 Second Stage.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to implement United Nations resolutions establishing war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The function of the tribunals is to put on trial and punish as appropriate, persons who are guilty of war crimes in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I am sure Deputies will welcome this legislation. We have all been appalled by the reports we have had of the atrocities committed in these territories. The depth and scale of the savagery visited on innocent men, women and children which these reports revealed almost passes human comprehension and cried out for vigorous action by the international community. The Government fully supports the efforts to bring to justice those guilty of war crimes and the purpose of this Bill is to equip the appropriate authorities here with the legal means to arrest, detain and surrender persons found in the State who are wanted by the tribunals.

In 1992 the UN Security Council became alarmed at continuing reports of violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A commission of experts, established to investigate the reports, concluded that grave breaches and other violations of international humanitarian law had been committed, including mass killings, ethnic cleansing, torture, rape, pillage and arbitrary arrests. The Security Council decided that the situation constituted a threat to international peace and security and expressed its determination to put an end to such crimes and to take effective measures to bring to justice those responsible for them.

In 1993 the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established by Security Council resolutions for the prosecution of persons responsible for crimes against humanity committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The tribunal sits in the Hague, has two trial chambers, one appeal chamber and 11 judges elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The establishment of the tribunal under these resolutions entails for all member states of the United Nations a binding obligation to comply with the resolutions and to take whatever action is required to give effect to that obligation. This obligation is further specified in Article 29 of the Statute of the Tribunal, contained in the Third Schedule to the Bill, which provides that all states shall co-operate with the tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of crimes within its jurisdiction and comply without undue delay with any request for assistance issued by it, including the surrender of the accused at its request. There is a similar obligation imposed by Article 28 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal.

So far, of the 74 persons who have been indicted by the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 26 are in custody. I understand that two have been convicted of serious crimes and are serving prison sentences, eight persons are currently on trial and pre-trial proceedings are continuing in relation to the remaining 16. The tribunal used 200 witnesses in 1997 and expects to use 340 in 1998 and operates a witness protection and relocation programme.

The expenses of the tribunal are borne by the UN which levies contributions from member states. Ireland's assessed contribution this year is expected to be something over $100,000. In addition, Ireland has made a contribution of $120,000 to a voluntary fund to which states may contribute.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established under a resolution of the Security Council in 1994 for the purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for acts of genocide or other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring states between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. The seat of the tribunal is in Arusha, Tanzania, where it conducts trials and holds suspects. Like the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, it has two trial chambers and an appeals chamber and is exploring the establishment of a third trial chamber to expedite hearings. Both tribunals share the same prosecutor. The statutes and rules of procedure of the tribunals are similar. They are both subsidiary organs of the Security Council but are not subject to its authority or control in the performance of their judicial functions and they are independent of any state or group of states.

The investigations of the Rwandan tribunal have focused mainly on 400 identified suspects and are being conducted both inside and outside Rwanda, notably in other African countries, Europe and America, where the principal planners of the genocide are thought to be located. So far, of the 35 persons who have been indicted by the Rwandan tribunal, I understand that 23 are in custody in Arusha and the others are in custody elsewhere, including one detained in the United States. Four trials as well as other preliminary case hearings are under way and two of the trials are at an advanced stage. A tribunal victims' and witnesses' protection unit has operated since November 1996. Some 109 witnesses were used by the tribunal in 1997 and something like 330 are expected to be used in 1998. There was some dissatisfaction last year with the working of this tribunal, but steps taken by the UN, including the appointment of a new registrar and a new deputy prosecutor, have helped to restore confidence. Sadly, genocidal violence has not ceased yet in Rwanda. Ireland's assessed contribution to the cost of the Rwanda tribunal for this year is expected to be in the region of $107,000. It is interesting to note that these tribunals are the first international fora established to try war crimes in the 50 years since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials at the end of the Second World War.

While the Bill deals specifically with the two tribunals I mentioned, section 37 contains provisions to enable regulations to be made to apply the provisions of the Bill to any other war crimes tribunal or court that may be established by the United Nations in the future. The crimes over which the tribunals have jurisdiction are all serious crimes against humanity and are listed in articles 2 to 5 of the statute of the former Yugoslavia tribunal, set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill, and in articles 2 to 4 of the statute of the Rwanda tribunal, set out in the Fourth Schedule. Throughout the Bill these crimes are referred to as international tribunal crimes. Section 4 provides that none of these crimes can be regarded as a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence. Most, if not all, these offences could not be regarded as political offences under our general extradition law. The penalties the tribunals may impose are limited to imprisonment and orders for the return to their rightful owners of any property and proceeds acquired by criminal conduct. Capital punishment is not an option.

The persons whose surrender may be sought under the Bill are persons who have been accused or convicted of international tribunal crimes and in respect of whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by the relevant tribunal. The purpose of surrender will be either to have the person brought before the tribunal for trial or brought to a place where he or she is to undergo imprisonment under a sentence imposed by the tribunal. That place may be in any one of the countries which have indicated to the Security Council of the United Nations their willingness to accept and imprison persons sentenced by the tribunals.

The arrangements the Bill proposes to put in place for the surrender of war criminals or alleged war criminals found in the State are modelled on and similar to the arrangements for the extradition of persons under our general extradition law and contain similar safeguards for constitutional rights. There are, however, some differences. The arrangements in the Bill are limited to international tribunal crimes. While applications for extradition are made to the District Court, it was considered, given the novel nature and scope of the tribunals, that applications for surrender under the Bill should go to the High Court. The Bill provides for the arrest and detention — for a maximum of 18 days — of suspects, which is not a feature of general extradition law. While a suspect may be detained, the Bill does not permit surrender until an arrest warrant, showing that the person is wanted for trial, has been received from the tribunal. There are a number of provisions in the Bill to ensure that applications by the tribunals for surrender are accorded priority and precedence over other matters. This reflects articles in the statutes of the tribunals and marks the seriousness which States attach to the pursuit and punishment of persons who commit the heinous crimes with which we are concerned.

A request by an international tribunal for the surrender of a person will, under section 5, be made to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The person must have been accused or convicted by the tribunal of an international tribunal crime and there must be in existence a warrant of arrest for the purpose of bringing him or her before the tribunal or to a place where he or she is to undergo imprisonment under a sentence imposed by the tribunal. The request will be in writing with an accurate description of the person wanted and information helping to establish his or her identity. It will include a statement of each international tribunal crime with which he or she is charged, specifying the date and place of commission of each crime, the legal description of the crime and the provision of the tribunal's statute which applies. It will also be accompanied by the original or certified copy of the warrant of arrest issued by the tribunal with an indication of the purpose of the arrest.

When the Minister is satisfied the request complies with the requirements of section 5, if necessary by seeking further information from the tribunal, the Minister will certify under section 8 that a request for the surrender of the person has been made by the tribunal. When that certificate is produced to the High Court, the court is required by section 9 to issue a warrant for the arrest of the person, unless of course the person is already under arrest under the provisions dealing with provisional arrest.

As in our extradition law, provisions are included for the provisional arrest, on grounds of urgency, of persons wanted by an international tribunal — these are chiefly sections 10, 11 and 13. An international tribunal may make a request for the provisional arrest of a person who has been accused by the tribunal of having committed an international tribunal crime, who has been convicted by it of such a crime or who is suspected by it of having committed such a crime. The request will be in writing and, besides containing information necessary to identify the person, will also contain a statement of the international tribunal crimes in question specifying time and place of commission of each crime.

Provisional arrest warrants may be issued by the High Court on the sworn information of a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector that an international tribunal has made a request for the person's provisional arrest on grounds of urgency and that the person is accused of having committed an international tribunal crime, has been convicted by the tribunal of such a crime or is suspected by the tribunal of having committed such a crime. The inspector will also indicate that the purpose of the arrest is to detain the person pending receipt by the Minister from the tribunal of a warrant of arrest issued by the tribunal in respect of the person.

If it subsequently appears to the Minister that a warrant for arrest will not be received from the tribunal in respect of the person named in the provisional arrest warrant or that proceedings will not be commenced against the person by the tribunal, the Minister may cancel the provisional arrest warrant and, if the warrant has been executed, direct that the person be released. If the tribunal's warrant of arrest and other necessary information is not received in time to enable the Minister's certificate, that a request for surrender has been made, to be produced to the High Court within 18 days after the date of the provisional arrest, the person arrested will be released.

When, after receipt of a request for provisional arrest on the ground of urgency, the Minister subsequently receives from the tribunal the original or certified copy of a warrant of arrest indicating that the person has been accused or convicted by that tribunal of an international tribunal crime and the purpose of the arrest, with other information required in connection with requests for surrender, the matter will be treated as a request for the surrender of the person and the procedures relating to such requests will then apply.

When the High Court is satisfied the person has been accused or convicted of an international tribunal crime, that a request for the surrender of the person has been duly made and that a warrant which complies with the requirements of section 5 has been produced, the court will, under section 14, commit the person to prison to await the order of the Minister for his or her surrender. Before committing the person, the court will inform him or her that he or she will not be surrendered except with his or her consent before 15 days have elapsed and inform him or her of the provisions of Article 40.4.2º of the Constitution relating to making a complaint to the High Court that a person is unlawfully detained.

A person committed to await surrender may be released as a result of a successful application under Article 40.4.2º of the Constitution, an appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court, if the surrender and conveyance out of the State of the person is unduly delayed, as indicated in section 21 — this is usual in extradition law — or if subsequent information satisfies the Minister that the person's surrender is prohibited by the Act. If the person is not released he or she will, under section 14, be surrendered to a person authorised to receive him or her by the international tribunal that requested his or her surrender or by the State in which the person is to undergo imprisonment for an international tribunal crime. There are a number of provisions to accord precedence for requests from an international tribunal. A request from an international tribunal for the surrender of a person will have primacy over requests for the extradition or arrest and delivery of the person under the 1965 Extradition Act whether or not the offence in question in the extradition request constitutes an international tribunal crime. Section 7 of the Bill so provides. Section 4 provides that an application for asylum in the State by a person being sought by a tribunal will not prevent or postpone the surrender of the person under the Bill.

If a request is received for the surrender of a person who is serving a sentence imposed by a court here he or she may be surrendered on the Minister receiving adequate undertakings that the person will be returned here in due course to serve or complete the sentence imposed by the Irish court. Section 25 also provides that such a person will continue to be liable to complete any term of imprisonment here when he or she has been returned.

Section 27 requires the Director of Public Prosecutions, before deciding to commence any proceedings under the State's extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of conduct constituting an international tribunal crime, to take into account the jurisdiction of any international tribunal. Where an international tribunal makes a request to the Minister that a court or military tribunal here defer to the jurisdiction of the tribunal by discontinuing proceedings, section 28 provides that the Minister shall transmit that request to the High Court and if the proceedings are being taken under the State's extra-territorial jurisdiction in relation to conduct which constitutes an international tribunal crime, the High Court may order the proceedings to be discontinued.

It may be that a person who is in the State and is the subject of a request for his or her surrender made by an international tribunal has committed crimes in the State that do not amount to crimes within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. If that happens, the Minister may postpone under section 20 the period for the making of a surrender order to enable criminal proceedings in the State to be instituted against the person. In deciding whether to postpone surrender in these circumstances the Minister will take into account the seriousness of the crimes committed here. If such a person is tried here, found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, it would of course be open to the Minister to order his or her surrender under the Bill on an undertaking that he or she would be returned here in due course to serve the sentence imposed by the Irish court.

The Bill contains the usual provision, in section 26, found in general extradition law, forbidding surrender where final judgment in respect of an offence has been passed here or in another state on the person sought by a tribunal and the conduct constituting the offence also constitutes the international tribunal crime for which his or her surrender is sought. Unlike our general extradition law, this prohibition will not apply where the tribunal satisfies the Minister that the proceedings in the other state were, in effect, a sham, designed to shield the person from international criminal responsibility.

Part IV of the Bill provides for various forms of assistance in aid of a tribunal's investigation and prosecution of war crimes. Section 29 provides that section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, shall have effect as if references in that section to drug trafficking included references to conduct constituting an international tribunal crime. Thus a member of the Garda Síochána may apply to the District Court for an order for the production to a member of the Garda Síochána of material by the person who appears to the judge to be in possession of the material. Broadly, the application may be made where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has been guilty of an international tribunal crime and that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of the crime and that it is in the public interest that the material should be produced.

Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is in any place evidence in relation to the commission of the international tribunal crime, section 30 provides for the issue of search warrants by the District Court authorising entry, search and seizure. Section 31 provides, following the receipt by the Minister of an order from an international tribunal, for the making by the High Court of orders for the preservation and protection of property or for the restitution of property unlawfully taken by a person convicted of an international tribunal crime. In effect, the section applies various provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, with necessary modifications.

Section 32 enables privileges, immunities, exemptions etc. to be accorded to the personnel of a tribunal and to witnesses and counsel appearing before a tribunal and section 33 deals with the transit through the State of a person who is being transported in custody from one state to another for the purposes of an international tribunal.

Part V of the Bill creates an offence of interfering with or intimidating an international tribunal witness and, as I have mentioned already, enables regulations to be made applying the arrangements set out in the Bill with necessary modifications to any other tribunal or court established by the United Nations for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed outside the State. I may explain here that the idea of establishing an International Court of Justice exercising criminal jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity of exceptional gravity and heinousness has been mooted in the United Nations for almost 50 years. The establishment by the Security Council of two ad hoc tribunals to deal with those responsible for atrocities in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda had the effect of reviving interest in a permanent international criminal court and of galvanising the international legal community into undertaking serious work towards its establishment. A first draft of a statute of such a court was produced by a working group of the International Law Commission in 1993 and the matter has been under discussion since. The UN General Assembly decided last year that a diplomatic conference will be held in Rome in June and July of this year with a view to finalising and adopting a convention on an international court. It seems that the climate for the establishment of an international criminal court is now more positive than it has ever been. This country has been a consistent supporter of the proposal to establish such a court.

I am proud to bring this Bill before the House. It fulfils an important international humanitarian obligation and is a positive mark of the repugnance we feel at the genocidal atrocities that were inflicted on countless innocent men, women and children in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and a mark also of our determination to do all we can to help to bring to justice the depraved human beings who were responsible. I am sure all Deputies will agree with the general purpose and thrust of the Bill. I will listen carefully to and take account of all contributions to the debate and if amendments are needed they will be made. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I welcome this Bill as a means of ensuring that Ireland does not become a haven for those guilty of war crimes in former Yugoslavia since 1991. Unfortunately, it comes after the massacre of at least 200,000 innocent victims in former Yugoslavia and at least 800,000 innocent victims in Rwanda. The bulk of these unfortunate people met their deaths as a result of as appalling and sadistic atrocities as those of any previous century. The sad reality is that a total of one million people died in this instance because the international community was rich in rhetoric but slow to act.

While I have no problem with the thrust of the Bill the process of dealing with the criminals who perpetrated these crimes against humanity in both countries is not operating with the efficiency one would have wished. In former Yugoslavia Judge Goldstone, former chief prosecutor of the tribunal being dealt with in this Bill, the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, abandoned his prosecutor's office because of the pathetic failure of western leaders to act. He left in disillusionment because "A great injustice was done to the victims of genocide in Bosnia".

Manfred Nowak, former chairman of the UN working group on enforced disappearances, also resigned. Explaining his decision he said: "My resignation is based on the experience that there is not sufficient political will to establish the faith [the destiny] of the missing people by all political means". One of the main platforms on which the Dayton agreement was based and the key to getting the Bosnian Government to agree to the painful partition of the country was the clear unequivocal undertaking that war criminals would be hunted down, arrested and brought to justice. This promise has not been kept. While British troops seized a Bosnian Serb and killed another in Prijedor last July and Dutch troops, who are members of the NATO-led SFOR forces, followed this by capturing two Bosnian Croat prime suspects, the reality is that there has been little by way of proactive pursuit of war criminals and few arrests.

The tribunal we are dealing with today was set up by the United Nations Security Council in May 1993. Yet it took exactly four years before European newspaper headlines told us on 8 May 1997, in banner headlines, "Guilty Verdict in Bosnian War Case makes First since Nuremberg". Four years after its establishment only one person was convicted and seven other suspects detained in the 24 cell detention centre. The Minister has provided updated figures and referred to 26 people in custody, two convictions, eight people currently on trial and pre-trial proceedings in the case of 16. The figures are not impressive.

For example, ten were added to the list of suspects when in October last year ten Bosnian Croat war criminals gave themselves up voluntarily and were duly whisked through the streets of The Hague in high profile fashion to face proceedings of the tribunal.

The other major plank of the Dayton Accord, the promise that dispossessed refugees would be returned to their lands — also mentioned in the Bill — has been allowed to languish.

In spite of the rhetoric that war criminals would be dealt with effectively, it is worth noting that on the day that the NATO General Secretary warned in the sternest terms that indicted Bosnian war criminals would be delivered to the international tribunal in The Hague if they refused to give themselves up, three of the ten Bosnian Croats who gave themselves up in October were freed by the tribunal because of lack of hard evidence. The Secretary General's line is that it is the responsibility of the political parties to turn in their indicted war criminals. If the parties do not collaborate with the international tribunal SFOR will do the job themselves. The reality is much different. In essence, 200,000 people have died in former Yugoslavia. Many people were responsible for the plotting, planning and the murder of these people and yet only a handful of the war criminals responsible have been delivered to the tribunal to face the consequences of their actions.

Nobody can excuse the execution of the 22 Rwandans last Friday on charges of their involvement in the mass genocide of 800,000 Tutsis. These were executed on convictions handed down by the Rwandan courts under the terms of their genocide law, adopted in 1996. A total of 330 people have been tried by the courts under this law. One third of these have been convicted and sentenced to death. Another one third have been convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Others have been convicted of lesser offences. Only 17 have been found not guilty.

What seems to have been totally ignored by the international community is that there are 130,000 persons detained in jails in Rwanda accused of genocide awaiting their turn for Rwandan justice. At the present snails pace of progress it will take several hundred years before their cases will be heard by a system where legal training is minimal and objective judgment suspect. There would seem to be a well founded suspicion that the authorities in Rwanda are using the pretext of genocide crimes to lock up, without trial, anybody it considers undesirable.

One has only to examine the admittedly horrendous figure of 800,000 dead against the 130,000 detainees to see that there is widespread dragnet in operation. The conditions are hell-like. Prisons are dungeon-like. Prisoners are stacked like sardines on bunks. In Giterama prison, according to The Irish Times journalist, Paul Cullen, for the past four years 7,000 men have been sleeping, standing, washing, defecating and dying beside each other in a jail built to hold 700 people. He said: “In windowless dungeons emaciated prisoners lie on their bunks all day. The stench of faeces fills the air. There is no room to move about. The sick — malaria, TB, AIDS — sleep cheek by jowl in the same room as the healthy”.

While these people are accused on terrible crimes against humanity their treatment and the delay in delivering justice is an abomination. While all this is going on and 130,000 persons are incarcerated in such hell-like conditions the Irish parliament spends its day enacting legislation to ensure that if some of this hopeless horde should per chance escape and make their way across the Sahara, the Mediterranean, mainland Europe and arrive here, they will be returned to face proceedings under the UN tribunal. I referred to the time factor earlier, given that only 330 of the 130,000 detainees have had their cases heard to date in Rwandan courts. Even that record looks impressive when one considers that the legislation with which we are dealing today, supporting the UN's international criminal tribunal on Rwanda and which sits in Tanzania, has been dogged by corruption and incompetence and has just three genocide trials in progress. To date it has not secured a single conviction.

What are we doing as a member of the UN to ensure that an efficient, effective, objective and properly resourced tribunal is put in place to take control of the situation? Surely we should lead the way or demand that the UN and the EU insist that a timescale and a timetable for deciding who is innocent and who is guilty is put in place and then ensure that people are treated and dealt with according to the judgment handed down. We certainly cannot stand idly by and allow even more people to be added to this mass of humanity without putting proper procedures in place.

I do not want to underestimate the scale of the difficulty of dealing with the paranoia of the Tutsi-led minority regime in Rwanda whose fellow tribespeople formed the bulk of those killed by the Hutus. This country takes a particular pride in the unflinching support for human rights of the UN High Commissioner, Mrs. Mary Robinson. She has rightly condemned the Rwandan authorities — face to face in Kigali — for arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions and serious overcrowding resulting in inhumane conditions. We acknowledge her condemnation of the Rwandan authorities for failing to promote ethnic reconciliation by bringing Hutus and Tutsis together. In the absence of such a policy ethnic war is inevitable and the slaughter will continue.

However, the UN is only as good as the collective determination of its composite member states, so it is up to us to be the advocates within the UN of the conscience of the international community and to lead on issues. We are in a unique position to do so — we are neutral, we do not have vested economic interests and since our success over the last decade has placed us in the top 20 of world economies we are in an even better position to exert influence on international thinking. Sadly, irrespective of individual expressions of compassion or decrying of human rights infringements or violations, major economic or political considerations have invariably won the day over human rights in virtually every country where conflict has arisen: the mining of Nicaraguan territorial waters; the Scott report's findings on British Government arms sales to Iraq, while its own sanctions were in place; Australia's refusal to condemn Indonesia's illegal invasion of East Timor; and the illegal occupation of Tibet by China.

Both tribunals we are discussing are focused entirely on those responsible for the war crimes — the unfortunate 1 million victims have been relegated to the obituary pages of history. What is being done to establish exactly how many people died? What is being done to find the missing bodies and restore them to their next of kin? Who is responsible for restoring the dispossessed and those dislocated or dislodged from their lands? The UN should be active on all these fronts but it is not.

In the past ten years, as in previous decades, countless thousands of innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of power hungry, feuding factions. In all cases there was a build up period in which there were ominous indications that conflict was looming. In many cases the international community saw the inevitable unfolding and did little if anything to head it off; in a minority of cases the conflict was under way before the outside world realised. An early warning system is needed so that all resources are used to head off conflict and to intervene before it becomes unstoppable. We need an effective UN advance conflict monitoring committee.

I welcome both tribunals and Ireland's co-operation with them but, despite the best intentions, their organisation, effectiveness and administration leaves a lot to be desired. While all this goes on, Algeria suffers unspeakable barbarity — throats are cut, babies are thrown into cauldrons of boiling water. These ad hoc tribunals are not the answer.

What is needed, as the Minister said, is an international criminal court. The idea has been around since the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes tribunal after the Second World War. There is no doubt that the absence of a permanent international criminal court made it impossible to try Pol Pot for the genocide of 1 million Cambodians. The absence of an independent prosecution system made it impossible to try Saddam Hussein for using poison gas and ordering the mass execution of rebellious Kurds in 1988. One hopes the political will now exists and the four countries who have held out against such a court will see it is essential if we are to put in place an international criminal prosecution system and end the ad hoc system of which this measure is a part.

Dr. Upton

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this Bill, which allows Ireland to co-operate fully with the international tribunals established by the UN to prosecute war criminals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Bill was initiated by the last Government which, under the influence of Deputy Spring and Ms Joan Burton, had an excellent record of implementing legislation arising from UN conventions. I welcome this Government's commitment in bringing the Bill speedily to the House.

Under the terms of the Bill Ireland will fulfil its obligations to international tribunals. It recognises that individuals wanted by the tribunal could come to Ireland. It allows for the arrest and extradition of persons sought by either tribunal and prevents suspected war criminals from applying for asylum in Ireland or describing their offences as political.

International tribunals will play an important part in promoting peace in the future by securing justice and human rights. I hope they will ensure the perpetrators of genocide — especially the high profile leaders of such movements — cannot escape justice. This continues to apply to certain high profile individuals who continue to walk free in the former Yugoslavia.

It is disappointing that the Government has stalled on the Criminal Law (UN Convention Against Torture) Bill, which is on the list of promised legislation but has not been given priority. It is not a complex Bill but has been left outstanding for nearly two decades. I hope the Government moves on that Bill as soon as possible because Ireland must also be active in the efforts to curb torture.

The establishment of two international tribunals to investigate the genocide in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda is welcome. It is a positive move by the international community to foster justice following years of bloodshed and destruction. The Labour Party feels, however, there is a strong argument for the UN to establish a tribunal on a permanent footing, which could quickly investigate future incidences of genocide. This has been a bloody decade in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia — in 1994 alone, it was reported that over one million people were massacred in Rwanda. The reaction of the international community was slow and in some cases not helpful. A permanent tribunal would guarantee that future incidences of genocide elsewhere in the world would be investigated rapidly. Potential perpetrators of genocide would know in advance that a mechanism exists to bring them to justice. It would allow the international community an accessible device to which to refer future conflicts. The case for a permanent tribunal is strong and I call on the Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs to articulate that case at the UN.

I am disappointed at the lack of medical and support facilities available to victims of torture. Over recent decades Ireland has received a number of programme refugees from countries like Vietnam and Bosnia, parts of the world torn by conflict. Many of the refugees suffered torture and other human rights abuses. The same can also be said of some of the asylum seekers now in Ireland. Not only has the Minister consistently failed to provide fair, transparent and efficient means to treat asylum seekers, he does not appear to recognise that many of them have suffered torture and human rights abuses. He has provided no assistance to them to deal comprehensively with their difficulties.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Not true.

Dr. Upton

As a nation we can no longer afford to sit back and allow innocent people to suffer during times of war and oppression. The problem is a real one — Ireland is a home for asylum seekers and the immediate enactment of the torture Bill and efforts to make provision for the establishment of a permanent international tribunal are vital.

The Bill fulfils Ireland's obligation to ensure that those who engage in genocide cannot be comfortable in the knowledge that the international community will not pursue them. The deterrent and preventive effects of this Bill and the international convention from which it is derived may inhibit at least some of those contemplating genocide. Ireland will not be a safe refuge for those who may wish to escape answering for their crimes. I welcome the Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

I welcome the Bill. It is extremely important that we put legislation in place that will enable us to co-operate with the United Nations in pursuing those who are wanted for war crimes. It is true that the Bill, when enacted, will rarely be used, although its absence would probably encourage those who are being pursued by the United Nations for war crimes to find refuge here. From that point of view, it is welcome.

I welcome in particular section 37 which will enable us to make regulations to apply the provisions of the Bill to other tribunals which may be established as a result of decisions of the United Nations. The Bill, as it stands, will apply only to the tribunals established to deal with war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

The Minister referred to the efforts made over 50 years to establish an international court of justice. Tribunals were held in the late 1940s and early 1950s to bring Nazi criminals to justice and, to some extent, states have pursued war criminals within their own borders but the failure of the international community to establish an international court of justice which would be a permanent feature of international law is unacceptable.

We tend to pursue these matters on the basis of the more powerful countries taking cases against those which are less powerful. The Nuremberg trials were derided by Germans of the day as victor's law. They claimed that, because the Allies had won the war, they were in a position to pursue Nazi war criminals, as they were fully entitled to do.

It is a sad fact that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was never questioned by an international body or subjected to judicial review. It constituted a war crime, was totally unnecessary and went far beyond what was required to defeat Japan and the Nazi machine in Germany. The consequences were appalling. If there is to be an international court of justice, any crime committed in the course of war should be subject to review, regardless of whether the perpetrators were the losers or victors. War is a crime against humanity. It is, generally, a failure of politics.

We should ensure, in so far as we can, that conflicts do not emerge. We are far better equipped internationally to do that now than at any time in the past. It is extraordinary that many conflicts now take place over issues of national identity and attempts by various states to extend their borders to establish their homeland incorporating other peoples who do not want to be ruled by a particular ethnic majority.

We should consider what happened in the former Yugoslavia and compare it to the solution on this island to a similar kind of ethnic allegiance conflict. The conflict in Northern Ireland between Irish and British nationalists is on the point of being resolved. I hope the Agreement which has been negotiated will not alone be carried but successfully put in place and operated. That is the kind of solution to which we, as politicians, not alone have an obligation but the skills to put in place. There is nothing to be gained from conflicts between peoples over territory and seeking to ensure the territory coincides with what they consider to be the extent of their nation.

We should look at the Bill in the context of our attitude to refugees and immigrants. It is conceivable that a number of the people who are regarded as undesirable refugees or immigrants are in the process of escaping the war criminals the Bill is supposed to deal with. It would be extremely ironic if we fail to deal with them in a humane way. In general, I welcome the Bill but there is an inconsistency at the heart of the Government's policy on refugees.

There is a need to ensure refugees are enabled to make a contribution while here. Under the procedures in place they are obliged for months and perhaps years to remain idle. They are not enabled to work or make a contribution to the society in which they are seeking refuge while the process is being completed. There has been criticism in the media and some political circles that refugees are costing the State money. It does not make sense to maintain the legal position whereby refugees are obliged to remain unemployed and idle when they are anxious and want to make a contribution to society.

The Bill is long overdue. The tribunals with which we seek to deal with in this Bill were established four or five years ago. However, although it is somewhat late, the legislation is welcome.

Will the Minister indicate how far advanced is the legislation he promised some months ago to criminalise trafficking in refugees? When my party, Democratic Left, brought forward a Bill to provide an amnesty for refugees in this State the Minister indicated he was bringing in, as a matter of urgency, a Bill which would make it illegal to traffic in refugees. The Taoiseach indicated on the Order of Business that the legislation is being worked on but he had no information on how far advanced it is. It is listed as No. 61 in the list of legislation circulated two weeks ago by the Chief Whip.

There is an urgent need for this legislation. There is international evidence that trafficking in refugees is big business and I have no doubt that some refugees have arrived on our shores as a result. That is not to suggest that the refugees concerned should not seek asylum or help here, but that procedures should be in place to ensure such people can seek refuge in the normal way without having to engage in a criminal conspiracy. Will the Minister indicate how soon we can expect to see that urgent legislation?

Mr. M. Kitt

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. We often hear about events in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda on the news. There are reports in today's newspapers about an Irishwoman, Corporal Lorraine Coss, who was injured while on peacekeeping duties overseas and recuperating in a Sarajevo hospital. Thankfully, she is making a speedy recovery. She is the first Irish woman to have been injured while on peacekeeping duties.

Over 20 people were tied to posts and executed by firing squad in a sports stadium in Rwanda in recent days, despite pleas from the international community, which is an appalling indictment of the Rwandan Government.

While this legislation is welcome, it reminds us we are citizens of our respective countries and also bound together by a common humanity. Certain crimes are so offensive to the world's conscience that the international community can hold individuals responsible for them, even when the states to which they belong are unwilling or unable to prosecute them. Most people agree in principle that the international criminal court should be able to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and widespread abuses of human rights. Many nations and groups of legal experts and citizens also want to include aggression among such crimes, as it was in Nuremberg, thus allowing leaders who engage in unprovoked international aggression to be tried.

Many NGOs have pointed to the fact that most crimes against humanity and genocide committed in violent conflicts around the globe remain unpunished. The European parliamentarian and human rights campaigner, Gianfranco dell'Alba, has said that although there is strong support for the principle of setting up an international court, there is disagreement among some UN members on its scope and establishment procedures. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the delay in setting up an international court.

Amnesty International believes states have a primary duty to bring persons responsible for genocide and other crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian law to justice in their own courts or to extradite suspects to courts in another state. I welcome that statement.

The background to this Bill is what has been happening in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. There have been long time tensions between the minority Tutsi population and the Hutus, the largest ethnic group in Rwanda. Genocide began on the night of 6 April 1994 when a plane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian Presidents crashed or was shot down at Kigali Airport, killing both Presidents. Both men were Hutus, the majority ethnic community in Rwanda and Burundi. These deaths were the pretext for a well orchestrated and predetermined genocide of the Rwandan Tutsi population. In the space of a little over three months, almost 800,000 of Rwanda's 900,000 Tutsi population were massacred.

The African Rights Organisation undertook a detailed examination of the genocide committed in Rwanda. Its report notes that "huge numbers of civilian administrators, journalists, businessmen, civil servants, academics, school-teachers, students, housewives, doctors, nurses, peasants, traders, judges, priests, nuns, staff of local NGOs were involved, both directly and indirectly, in the killings". The Rwandan tribunal recently told of a hymn sung by assassins as they carried out acts of mass murder on the Tutsi population which stated:

Is it a sin to kill a Tutsi? No. Let's exterminate them, exterminate them, kill them and bury them in the forests.

That is the appalling situation in Rwanda.

After the death of Tito in 1980 in the former Yugoslavia, labour unrest grew and there was much dissatisfaction with the quality of life. In 1987 the national leader, Slobodon Milosevic, came to power in Serbia. Other republics became increasingly alarmed by the possibility of Serbian attempts to dominate them. In July 1991 Slovenia declared independence. Ten days of conflict ensued as the federal army tried to prevent secession. The European Community recognised Slovenia in January 1992.

The referendum in Croatia in May 1991 in favour of independence led to the outbreak of hostilities between the Serb minority in Croatia and the ethnic Croatian majority. There was extensive destruction and many casualties throughout Croatia. Following savage fighting during 1991, the Croat Government and the Croat-Serb minority agreed to accept UN peacekeepers. The level of violence fell as a result but there were still numerous killings.

A tribunal in the former Yugoslavia was necessary due to the type of atrocities committed there, which had not been seen in Europe since the era of Hitler and Stalin. For example, the discovery of a mass grave around Srebenica in eastern Bosnia, where up to 8,000 Muslim men are believed to have been executed by Serb separatists in July 1995, is akin to the horror felt when the mass grave of 12,000 Polish soldiers executed by the Soviets was excavated in 1943. The stench of fascism emanating from former Yugoslavia must be investigated. In January 1998 US troops arrested Goran Jelisic, who proudly dubbed himself the "Serb Adolf" and boasted to the world media about the number of Muslims and Croats he had butchered during the 1992-95 war.

The names of the centres of mass human destruction in World War Two, such as Belsen, Auschwitz and Treblinka, are synonymous with evil. Who would have thought that in the Europe of the 1990s we would ever see again such emporiums of death? The Serb-run Luka concentration camp was one such heinous place. In their list of indictments, UN prosecutors say that hundreds of Muslims and Croats were systematically killed at the Luka camp in an organised programme of ethnic cleansing.

In February 1992 an independence referendum was held in Bosnia. The majority of Bosnian Muslims and Croats voted for independence while most Bosnian Serbs staged a boycott. The declaration and recognition by the international community of Bosnian independence was followed by a rapid outbreak of violence throughout the republic. With an ethnically diverse population spread throughout Bosnia, composed of 44 per cent Muslim, 31 per cent Serb and 17 per cent Croat, there was no single front line. Instead, many pockets of fighting divided towns, villages and streets.

There are many reasons why we should welcome this legislation. Under UN Resolutions 827 of 1993 and 955 of 1994, we are obliged to co-operate with these tribunals. This Bill introduces the measures necessary under our domestic law to implement the provisions of these resolutions and the statutes of the tribunals. The provisions in the Bill contain practical measures, for example, in dealing with arrest warrants, requests for extradition, surrender or rendition and committal or release of the arrested person. This is necessary for our co-operation with the tribunals in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law and to comply with requests for assistance.

During our EU Presidency, Ireland played an honourable role in encouraging the process of the tribunals. In this regard I compliment the work of the then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the then Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for development co-operation, Ms Joan Burton, on their work. We must continue this tradition and ensure that there can be no sanctuary for war criminals. Every effort must be made to bring those responsible to justice.

To be an effective member of the UN we cannot confine our actions to passing resolutions and motions at the UN Assembly. We must also introduce legislation into our domestic law and co-operate with the work of the UN. In this regard, I congratulate the Minister on his initiative.

The war tribunals dealing with the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are the first international tribunals for half a century since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of 1946. They are viewed by many as a major test of the UN. By introducing this legislation we are underlining our commitment to the role of the UN. These tribunals need unequivocal support to establish the role of justice more generally in defending human rights and strengthening the UN's authority to deal with violations. By passing this legislation, we recognise the UN's right of arbitration in matters amounting to crimes against humanity.

In the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda it is important that these tribunals are seen to work and have the support of the international community. Without justice being seen to be done, it is impossible to envisage a return to any kind of political normality. True reconciliation is impossible until justice is seen to be done.

As a result of the programmes of systematic genocide undertaken in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, there are hundreds of thousands of war refugees from these countries scattered across the EU, including Ireland. Successful prosecution of the war criminals will give them the confidence to return home. While the scale of the genocide was such that it is impossible to bring everybody involved to justice, it is important to bring as many people as possible to justice. Each time, for example, an individual Bosnian Serb is found guilty, he or she will be judged as a representative of thousands of other Bosnian Serbs involved in the extermination of entire communities of Bosnian Muslims in a horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing. The evidence against such individuals will doubtless help to document the course of that vicious action.

Just as the Nuremberg trials documented the Holocaust and ensured its victims' suffering will never be forgotten, these tribunals are significant because while the justice may not be perfect, while all the guilty may never be identified and punished and while no punishment can bring back the victims, they expose crimes against humanity which, henceforth, no one can deny. As recently as 8 April, in a ceremony to commemorate the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan President, Pasteur Bizimungu, called on the EU and Canada to extradite to justice known war criminals living in their countries.

As a member of the international community, Ireland has a responsibility to bring the perpetrators of the mass killings in Yugoslavia and Rwanda to justice. While the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is unaware of any war criminals living in this jurisdiction, this Bill is important because it provides for such an eventuality. Should any of the butchers of Rwanda or Yugoslavia be found in this country the Government has provided legislation to ensure that no international tribunal crime can be regarded as a political offence and no application for asylum in this State will result in the prevention or postponement of the surrender of a person.

This Bill will ensure that the likes of Dr. Radovan Karadzic, who spoke in terms of a war of extermination, or Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minister who is strongly implicated in the mass murder of almost 200,000 Tutsis, can never claim in this State that their crimes were political, nor can they seek asylum. The Bill ensures that this State will never be a safe haven for war criminals.

The Bill is also praiseworthy in so far as it moves beyond the remit of Yugoslavia and provides for similar co-operation with any other tribunal or court which may be established by the UN with a similar remit and which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may, by way of regulation, declare to be a tribunal for the purposes of this Bill. I look forward to the day when an international tribunal sits in judgment of Ta Mok, Pol Pot's commander, and a number of the other architects of the killing fields of Cambodia.

Pol Pot's final disservice to the people of Cambodia was to die before he was made accountable for the two million lives lost during the Khmer Rouge reign of terror from 1975-79. I am pleased to note that the Cambodian Genocide Programme, based at Yale University, says it has enough evidence to clearly implicate a number of Pol Pot's closest associates in these heinous crimes against humanity. Other tyrants and dictators who have committed the most appalling crimes against humanity could also be mentioned.

I welcome this legislation, which demonstrates the commitment of the Government to the UN. I am pleased that, at last, there appears to be agreement among member states.

Mr. Kenny

I wish to share my time with Deputies Stanton and Perry.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny

This is important legislation. Credit is due to the Minister and his staff and the parliamentary draftsman. It represents an important element of modern Ireland. It is past time we played our part in the area of human rights, both at home and internationally.

Some time ago I viewed the television programmes on the Nuremberg trials. The extent of footage on World War II and Nazism shows that the behaviour of Hitler and his generals was appalling. The EU was established to prevent the recurrence of wars between former enemy countries, such as Germany and France.

When I was in the former Yugoslavia a number of years ago before war broke out, I had a conversation with a postman. It was evident that he, an ordinary citizen of a modern country, was very aware of the political disruption that was about to happen there. He could signal clearly there would be serious trouble once Tito passed on and that proved to be the case. This country has an international reputation. While it is small it is powerful on the international stage. For generations and centuries we have fought the wars of the world and I hope our difficulty at home is in the process of finally being sorted out. Generally speaking we have a good record on human rights, but serious breaches occur occasionally. The rape of a young girl in broad daylight in Cork last week is an example of that. It is very difficult to legislate for human nature and to keep countries in such a stable position that these outbreaks of violence do not occur.

I remember attending a lecture given by P. R. Salinger, the former press secretary for the late President Kennedy. He made a point that with satellite technology and all the information available in military circles, it was perfectly obvious to the US at the start of the Gulf War that Saddam Hussein was about to invade Kuwait. It could see his troops approaching the border and his divisions moving into place. That was clearly signalled. He asked why did the then President Bush not telephone Sadam Hussein and tell him that if he crossed the line the US would move in? We then had the invasion of Kuwait, followed by the Gulf War and a massive increase in arms sales. No speaker has mentioned Algeria. I read reports in Irish and English newspapers of the inhabitants of entire villages who had their throats cut. That is an example of the savagery of man to fellow man.

Our reputation internationally is one on which we could build. We have a good reputation as a human rights country and in international diplomatic relations. Calls have been made for a permanent judicial commission to deal with human rights. A number of countries are opposed to that, for their own reasons, but there is no reason we should not launch a diplomatic push for that. There are always lead-in times to outbreaks of violence. The postman in the former Yugoslavia could forecast the outbreak of violence there and the Americans could see Saddam Hussein's troops approaching the Kuwaiti border. In African countries, be it Algeria, Rwanda or Mozambique, information is always available to indicate that explosions of violence are about to take place. There should be some type of prevention mechanism.

The UN Commissioner for Human Rights, our former esteemed President Mary Robinson, has gone to Africa on a number of occasions and spoken directly to the people concerned, but they have more or less told her to get lost. Passing this legislation to assist our work in what the UN is doing is important. However, it is critically important that the United Nations is not only seen to be in place but that each country plays its full part in making it work. If regulations are seen to be implemented, people, by and large, tend to obey them and, if they do not, there is recourse to legal remedies. If all the member countries of the UN do not pay their way or play their parts, there tends to be violations of human rights in various places around the world.

In Rwanda 130,000 people, including those suffering from AIDS, hepatitis C, malaria and every kind of ailment that afflicts humanity, are jailed in concentration camps. The justice process there is very slow and there is scant regard for diplomatic advances by UN officials and the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. We should have an international permanent human rights commission, body or authority to deal with these cases. There should be far greater analyses and action on information coming to countries like ours and to the UN from trouble spots around the world and clearly signalled places that will be trouble spots. It will then be a matter of being in a position to take action before these explosions against humanity take place, as in the case of Algeria. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was lambasted for a comment he made about the Algerian Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have read accounts of the horror of atrocities where all the inhabitants of villages had their throats cut and were found lying on roadsides, ditches and hills, but nobody is doing anything about that. What is the UN for? Where are the powers that can prevent these atrocities or deal with those who lead them. Circling the exterior of these atrocities are people who design and manufacture arms and the countries that sell them. In many cases countries have trained armies to exterminate others and then they have to go in and sort out the whole situation again, as the US has done in many instances.

I welcome this important legislation, but we should have a permanent human rights commission that other countries would know is in place and ready to act in such cases. Given that information is now coming to countries through the UN and the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, preventive action should be taken to stop many of these things happening.

Mr. Stanton

On behalf of Fine Gael I welcome this legislation. It is important that war criminals should know they have nowhere to hide. We have seen and read accounts of Nazi war criminals taking refuge in South American countries, Britain and elsewhere after the war. We have all read and seen accounts of the horrific exterminations that has taken place in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. For the most part these horrific crimes are committed by bullies. It is frightening that in ordinary life those bullies are quite ordinary people. Studies carried out after the holocaust in Germany indicated that the bullies surfaced when they got power and thought they could not be touched or caught. A bully is a coward and it is important that those bullies should not find refuge anywhere. Not only is this legislation punitive, it is also preventative. "Bully" is too soft a word to describe those people. The words "murderer" or "international criminal" might be more appropriate. It is important they are not given refuge in any country.

For that reason I welcome the Bill. It means Ireland will join the civilised world. As we saw in the former Yugoslavia, the veneer of civilisation is very thin and can be ripped away very quickly. We cannot be complacent about that. The former Yugoslavia is a European country. People were horrified that such crimes could occur in Europe, but we must not forget that 50 years ago such crimes occurred in Germany.

Two tribunals have been set up by a UN resolution. One deals with war crimes in Rwanda and the other with war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. However, how effective are the tribunals? Can Ireland do anything to increase their effectiveness? Over 200,000 people died in the former Yugoslavia, yet I understand only 26 people have been indicted to date and two have been found guilty. How effective are the tribunals? People committed murders and engaged in mass extermination in what was known as ethnic cleansing. Are these people being hunted down and arrested? It appears that is not the case. I ask the Minister and the Government to bring all their moral authority and influence to bear on the United Nations to encourage it to engage in hot pursuit of these murderers, thugs and criminals. This is most important. Otherwise, the only conclusion will be that the criminals are being offered safe havens somewhere. More can be done outside Ireland because many of these people are still at large.

I welcome the Bill because it contains safeguards and measures which ensure that the Minister must be satisfied with requests for the arrest, surrender or extradition of such people. It also contains elements which will ensure people cannot hide behind the veil of political asylum. The Bill is well formulated and I congratulate the parliamentary draftsman and all those who worked on it.

Ireland has a direct interest in some of the activities in other countries and I wish a speedy recovery to the soldier who was injured in the former Yugoslavia recently. Irish soldiers, men and women, go overseas to maintain peace for ordinary people in many countries in which there is conflict. In the interests of their safety we must ensure that the criminals, murderers and thugs are brought to justice. As long as they are at large, our people are also in danger. I congratulate the Government on the Bill which the Fine Gael Party backs wholeheartedly.

Mr. Perry

The primary purpose for which the United Nations was established was to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war by deterring aggression between states and by maintaining international peace and security. The issue is whether the UN is equipped to meet the current day challenges, most of which involve conflict within rather than between states. The position in Rwanda is a typical example.

The number of UN troops has increased almost sixfold while over the same period the bill for peace-keeping increased from £400 million to £3.5 billion. The operation in Cambodia alone cost £1.1 billion. While these figures are small relative to the spending on defence throughout the world, assessment of each peace-keeping operation represents more money and this must be identified. Unfortunately, many countries owe the UN a great deal of money. Russian arrears continue to rise while the US now owes the UN over £1 million. It is most important that the countries which are committed to peace-keeping ensure the ongoing payment of debts. This is an important factor. As a member state which has played a huge role, Ireland should promote that concept.

The Bill, which covers the arrest and surrender of persons, is most important. There is much work to be done regarding the formation of the court. The UN Security Council backed the idea of an international criminal court and the most interesting point is whether the political will exists to bring the court into being. While five permanent members of the UN Security Council backed the idea of hearing cases against individuals accused of war crimes and genocide, they are divided on how such a court should work. Four of the five countries, the US, France, Russia and China, consider that the 50 member council should have to give its approval before a case dealing with a major conflict can go to trial. As each of the five countries have the power to veto proposals, any one of them could block the establishment of the court. Britain has indicated it wants the court to be more independent of the council and it has backed a proposal that only all five countries acting together could prevent a prosecutor from investigating a case.

Human rights activists state that the absence of a permanent court made it impossible to try Pol Pot who headed the Cambodian Government which killed one million of its own people in the 1970s and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein who used poison gas against rebellious Kurds in 1988.

The Canadian general who headed the UN peace-keeping operation in Rwanda wept as he recalled the horror of the 1994 genocide. The real problem facing the world is that many people appear to get away with such crimes. There is wisdom after the event and people who carry out atrocities should be brought to trial. The political will of the world should ensure that they pay the price for their crimes. The Canadian general, giving evidence to the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda, almost broke down as he related his frustration at his inability to stop the slaughter due to lack of resources for his UN assistance mission in Rwanda.

The Bill is hugely important and the Fine Gael Party supports it. Ireland has played a major role in UN peace-keeping operations and will continue to do so in the next millennium.

Ms Hanafin

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Kennedy.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Hanafin

Is tír saor, daonlathach síochánta í Éire agus ba chóir dúinn mar sin cearta daonna a chosaint in ár gcuid oibre go léir. Thar aon cheart eile is í an bheatha an ceart is tábhachtaí agus ba chóir dúinn smaoineamh ar sin. Tá mé ag ceapadh go raibh na daoine a chuir an Bille seo le chéile ag smaoineamh ar chearta daonna ar fud an domhain a chosaint seachas i dtír amhain.

It has been said it is a crime against humanity when somebody is killed on the pretext that he is born. The most important word in the description of the Bill is "obligation" because it recognises what Amnesty International recommends foreign governments should do vis-a -vis Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, which is to take an active part in condemning human rights violations and abuses in these countries. A UN tribunal has already convicted a Bosnian Croat of murdering hundreds of unarmed Muslims in the UN safe haven of Srebrenica during the Yugoslav conflict. Such cases prove that the tribunals can bring justice to the victims of the crimes listed. Therefore, this gives logical weight to the case for Ireland to participate fully in aiding in any way these judicial proceedings. However, it is disheartening to see reports that Serb mercenaries have been accused of being involved in the torture of civilians in Rwanda and have escaped the clutches of the law in their native countries for the same offences.

We should remember that the mandate of the multinational stabilisation force for Bosnia-Her-cegovina will terminate in June. This will enable many of those accused of mass executions to go free. Immediate action is required if history is not to document our lack of resolve in bringing the guilty parties to justice. In July 1997, British troops snatched two Bosnian Serbs who between them had run prison camps in which Muslim and Croats were tortured and murdered. This successful action which must be encouraged and sustained followed the trial in June of the first defendant under the war crimes tribunal, a man who was the former head of the Bosnian Croat army in central Bosnia.

To date the tribunal's biggest embarrassment has been that alleged war criminals are enjoying refuge in Croatia, Serbia and the Serbian portions of Bosnia. Under section 7 those Governments are obliged to fulfil a request by an international tribunal for the surrender of a person, whether or not the offence constitutes an international tribunal crime. In October last year ten Bosnian Croats were handed over to the tribunal by their Government, but I suspect this is not enough.

It must be appreciated that all six republics of the former Yugoslavia have to cope with first the movement from a socially-owned communist system to one based upon markets, private ownership and decentralised decision-making and second with shifting from a war economy to a peacetime economy. This obviously leads to difficulties in dealing with the demands of western governments that still see these states as having slack economies.

Under the Bill many parallels have been drawn between the Yugoslav crisis and that of Rwanda. Resolution 955 was proposed in 1994 to deal with those accused of crimes as in the former Yugoslavia. More than one million people died in the Rwandan genocide, which has continued until today. Throughout the end of last year Amnesty International received almost daily reports of killings of unarmed civilians in Rwanda, in particular extrajudicial executions by soldiers of the Tutsi-dominated Rwandese Patriotic Army. On average one family a day was killed, and crops and houses were burnt.

The UN tribunal in Arusha to bring the organisers of the 1994 genocide to justice is said to be the biggest criminal investigation ever. Unfortunately, an internal UN investigation in February of last year revealed it has been a shambles, with most of the prosecutors and judges having little training and some of the trials lasting only a few hours. This is further proof that the implementation of this Bill is necessary. Despite our distance from East Africa we in Ireland have not always had recourse to justice and we have a deep understanding of the importance of the protection of human rights. The forced repatriation of Rwandan refugees should not be an option open to governments, particularly those that have borders with Rwanda. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania are two countries that must be aided in order that they can sustain the flow of refugees for whom a return to Rwanda would possibly expose them to human rights violations.

Rwanda should allow unrestricted and safe access to sights of reported killings to human rights investigators. The Rwandan authorities should be encouraged to bring accused soldiers to trial and foreign Governments should be encouraged to condemn the killings. Amnesty International recommends that the Rwandan Government should prohibit extrajudicial executions, publicly condemn unlawful killings and ensure strict control over its security forces.

This Bill is specific in dating when crimes are to be considered possible to pursue under the tribunal. For Yugoslavia it says "since 1991", but for Rwanda it says "between 1 January, 1994 and 31 December, 1994". This may cause problems as the crimes in Rwanda appear to be ongoing. It is noteworthy that "no international tribunal crime may be regarded as a political offence". The reference to section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, means that the Government is repealing the ability by regulation to modify the Act so as to co-operate with international war crimes tribunals. Article 22 refers to the process used in America whereby cameras can be used to protect the victim's identity. This may encourage people to come forward. Article 15 states that the prosecutor of the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia shall also serve as the prosecutor of the international tribunal for Rwanda. There are advantages in that but I question whether two separate prosecutors working in close proximity would provide greater attention to each country.

Despite those small points, this Bill is the most positive way forward in dealing with the problems in the two respective cases from Ireland's point of view. Past tribunals generally have not been very successful due in large part to disinterest or lack of co-operation from national governments. The horrors of war are as evident today as they have been in our history. Lest our future generations berate us for not helping to find a solution, Ireland should actively participate in the enforcement of the resolutions of this Bill for the sake of world justice. There may be guilty parties from the former Yugoslavia in our midst and, if so, we must be prepared to deal effectively with them as required by the articles of this Act. We cannot stand aside and allow genocide, rape, torture, ethnic cleansing, pillage and murder to take place in any part of the world. If we do, we will have learned nothing from our history.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Ba mhaith liom fáilte faoi leith a chur roimh an Bille seo agus aontaím le gach atá ráite ag an Teachta Máire Ní Ainifín faoi. Is ceart agus is cóir go mbeadh an tír seo lán-pháirteach sna hiarrachtaí chun deireadh a chur leis na coireanna uafásacha seo ar fud an domhain.

I welcome the Bill, as all speakers before me have done, and particularly the manner in which my colleague, Deputy Hanafin, has underlined our responsibility. I welcome it as evidence of common action on the part of the international community to deal effectively with awful violations of human rights, particularly in the form of genocide. In that connection I would like to see common action among the international community in cutting off the supply of armaments and weapons of death to those who perpetrate those awful actions. We are not as consistent in that as we are in setting up a war crimes tribunal, albeit for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.

Many regional conflicts, as they are called, could not commence much less last for as long as they have, with awful suffering visited on innocent people in those countries, were it not that some of our partners in Europe or elsewhere, respected members of the international community, supply from their armaments industry weaponry of war and destruction. Now that we are talking about dealing with international criminals, it is appropriate that in all our discussions, be it at Western European Union or any other level, we remind our partners that we want no part in the supply of weaponry of death to international criminals. In many cases conflicts would not have lasted as long as they did if the international community did not turn a blind eye, give tacit support or supply weaponry to criminals.

Understandably, we have tended to talk in terms of the horrific sufferings and perpetration of violence in camps, be it in Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia or wherever, much as we tend to focus on the camps and the mass genocide of the most horrific regime of all, Nazi Germany. People can be killed in their thousands not only in camps but in bombings of the kind we have seen over the years in Vietnam and such places. When we support actions of this kind it should not go unsaid that we totally repudiate and reject actions that seem to have the cloak of the international community, the killings from the air with mass bombings as distinct from poison gas in concentration camps. Ireland, in particular, must consistently underline and point this out, especially when any of our European partners are involved in the supply of that awful weaponry. That is one of the most important contributions we can make. None of us should be reluctant to point this out to them because as partners in these communities we are entitled to do so. We should also do so at the United Nations.

There is another inconsistency, which was properly stated in the House. We are not only talking about Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. It has been pointed out, particularly in light of the recent death of the awful criminal, Pol Pot, that the international community and the United Nations recognised Pol Pot as the legitimate leader of the Cambodian people at a time when it was clear he was conducting mass genocide in the killing fields. Was there a reason? Perhaps it was because Vietnam was a combatant with Cambodia/Kampuchea and they did want to acknowledge Vietnam, which was not within what one might call the glory circle of the European Community or America. We tacitly acknowledged the regime in Cambodia/Kampuchea. The most beautiful and kindest people in the eastern world, the lovely Kampucheans, were subjected to the most horrific torture because we, the international community, acknowledged that regime.

I welcome these moves to bring to justice the perpetrators. However, we have an obligation to point out that mass bombings, no matter what euphemisms are used to describe them, as in Vietnam where terms such as "strategic" or other such nonsense were used, are equally reprehensible. It is time we looked at whether those who order and implement mass bombings should be made amenable to international war crimes trials and the test of this international tribunal.

Because of our membership of the European Union and our consistent role in the United Nations, we are uniquely placed to play a vigorous and consistent role in all this and to point out those inconsistencies. Who can question the need for a tribunal to deal with the horrific atrocities in Rwanda, former Yugoslavia or the safe havens, such as Srebenica, to which Deputy Hanafin referred? Who will question those who supply the capacity to perpetrate those awful crimes — our partners in Europe and sometimes our good friends in America? That must be exposed and we must start in the United Nations and at every opportunity.

We are also uniquely placed to support this proposal and to incorporate it in our law for another reason. We have a tradition in the common law, which is also the basic law of many African countries, or at least a development or inheritance of the common law. We are also involved in the courts at European level. The tradition of European law, dating back to Roman law, generally embraces both these traditions in the proper procedures for the trial of criminals. For that reason, Ireland is uniquely placed to play a vigorous and active role in the international war crimes tribunal.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Minister and others who said it was time we had a permanent international criminal court and not only an ad hoc tribunal set up to deal with Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina or elsewhere. We require an international criminal court with all the expertise, precedents and sanctions such an international criminal court can call upon. If some of our partners in the United Nations are not ready to adopt it, we should constantly and vigorously point out the anomaly or inconsistency of their position.

Irish personnel, who are experienced in the practice of these laws and the administration of justice in the courts are uniquely equipped to play a vigorous and constant role. As we now have the privilege of an Irish person holding the position of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, whatever Government is in place should vigorously pursue an active role by making available to these tribunals our personnel, researchers and advice in whatever way possible.

I presume the proposal to surrender people who have been charged or convicted to the tribunal for the purpose of trial implies that we will not surrender people for questioning. I would like confirmation from the Minister on that point. It is not specifically stated but it appears clear that when we surrender people to a tribunal, it is purely and properly for the purpose of trial and not for questioning because that is an honoured tradition in our attitude to extradition. When we surrender people from this jurisdiction, where we have our rights, protections and obligations, we do so only on the basis that we are guaranteed that the procedures to which we surrender them will follow the same traditions.

I welcome the fact that the punishments authorised under this international tribunal are those of imprisonment, not capital punishment. That is vitally important at a time when we must constantly underline the fact that capital punishment is nearly a crime against humanity in that it demeans all those concerned with it. We acknowledge we have no right to take a life while we condemn others for so doing. I welcome the Bill and the development of the international laws as a consequence.

Mr. J. Bruton

I welcome the enactment of this legislation. The move towards the setting up of an international criminal court to deal with crimes against humanity and genocide, wherever they occur, is important. It is significant that the only international tribunals we have had to date have, in effect, been imposed by the victors in particular wars. The only people brought to trial have been those who served in the forces of those who lost the wars in question. This certainly applied to the tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo after the Second World War. It could also be said that were it not for the victory of the rebels in Rwanda, the perpetrators of genocide would not be brought to trial but would still be running that country. Were it not for the military action taken by the rebels in overturning that Government, there would be no basis for having war crimes tribunals. The same applies to Bosnia where intervention to supply arms to the Bosnians and to support the Croats enabled the Croat-Bosnian coalition to eject Serbian forces from places where they were located. That in turn enabled a degree of order to be established and people to be brought to justice.

It is important that we in this House are not unduly naive. It is not enough just to try people after the event. We have to ensure that a situation is established in which a trial is possible and that frequently requires military intervention. People from various aid agencies working here say that the international community must do something to stop particular events which involve killing people. Invariably, what they are looking for is a military intervention of some kind to stop the killing. Only one power in the world has the capacity to do anything of this nature, and that is the United States. It is not that other countries are not armed, but the United States is the only one that has the power of projection to airlift troops in sufficient numbers to any part of the world to stop genocide.

One of the reasons is that in Europe there is no common European defence policy. This is an idea that is frequently criticised in this House. Members profess themselves to be opposed to a European defence policy. However, the reality of not having a European defence policy is that each country develops its own individual defence policy. That in turn means that none of them can assemble enough resources to do anything other than provide an adequate armament to defend their own territory or an area within, say, 100 miles of their own borders. Despite its greater wealth, Europe has not developed any capacity to move troops to another part of the world, so when people call for the international community to intervene in Somalia, the Congo or elsewhere to prevent genocide, they are in effect calling on the United States to do so.

What I find somewhat anomalous is that the people who are most vocal in calling on the international community to intervene in a particular conflict to prevent genocide in another part of the world are also the people who are most vocal in saying that Ireland should remain neutral in all circumstances. There is an inherent conflict here.

We cannot say that we want the international community to do something, and at the same time say that all we will do is engage in peacekeeping after the event but will not intervene to stop a fight that is already war. We have a slightly anomalous idea in our minds about this which we need to think through. Europe does need to develop a capacity to prevent war, and that means not peacekeeping but peace restoration, and peace restoration does mean putting in troops on the ground who are ready to stop people killing other people, by force if necessary. Peacekeeping is different; it is coming in when matters have settled down and providing a policing function. There cannot be peacekeeping unless peace is first established. Ireland has taken the view that it is willing to be involved in peacekeeping but not in peacemaking if military intervention is necessary to contribute to that. This is an attitude we need to think through.

It is worth analysing the Rwandan crisis in particular. In Rwanda, one million people were killed in 100 days on a genocidal basis. In terms of rate of extermination, even Hitler did not equal the efficiency of the genocide in Rwanda. That is the fastest rate of killing of people through genocide in human history. Yet Europe in its response to that matter was divided. France, in particular, had supported the government of Major-General Habyarimana. Other countries, including Ireland, were against him and supported the Tutsi position, to some degree at least, against the Hutu, who were responsible for the genocide. Europe was divided and could do nothing.

One of the strong arguments for the Amsterdam Treaty, which I hope Ireland will approve, is that it will set up a common analytical competence to develop a European common foreign and security policy. In other words, if there is to be another Rwanda in five years' time, it will not be just left to the Quai d'Orsay to decide the French foreign policy, to Whitehall to decide British foreign policy and to Iveagh House to decide Irish foreign policy, and so on, so that we will have 15, 20 or 22 different foreign policies in Europe with 22 different analyses of the situation. If we can, through the Amsterdam Treaty, establish a common European analytical centre for looking at international events, and if there is a single analysis being presented to Ministers whenever they meet in a crisis, which single analysis has been developed over time in a coherent way by a European civil service that is looking at all international events, it is much more likely that, five years from now, France, Germany and Italy will not go off in different directions but in the same direction, and there will be some possibility that Europe will be able to intervene meaningfully to prevent genocide.

What we are talking about in this Bill is not preventing genocide but punishing people, long after the event in some cases, and the longer after the event it is, the more comfortable it is to punish them. The French have got around now to punishing Maurice Papon 50 years after the events that occurred in Bordeaux for which he was responsible. He would not have been prosecuted 20 years ago. Obviously, the further away one is in time, and the simpler one is able to paint the picture in terms of bad guys and good guys, the easier it is to do this sort of thing.

I have no doubt that this legislation, if it is established as an international tribunal covering all war crimes everywhere in the world, will have some deterrent effect and that is good. However, it does not take away from the fact that this is still dealing only with the problem after the event, not before it. It does not prevent genocide. It punishes war criminals after the event. We need to develop a system of European defence co-operation that will enable Europe to intervene in a meaningful and well organised way to prevent genocide. The United States will not be able to act as the world's policeman for ever. Fundamentally the US economy is rather fragile. It is very prosperous at the moment because the dollar is the only world currency that is able to draw in the savings of the rest of the world to finance consumption and the development of services in the United States, but fundamentally the US economy is not all that strong in global terms. I do not believe that 20 years from now the United States will be willing to carry the burden of being the world's policeman and many of those who were very hostile to American interventions in the past may well be regretting that America is not around any more to intervene. There is something economically inevitable about that. We have to find another way of maintaining peace on a co-operative basis involving others, and one of the players that has to be involved in maintaining peace is the European Union.

People will say we do not need power blocs, that we should hand all these matters over to the United Nations, and let the United Nations be the world's policeman with no other intermediaries. I do not believe that is practical. I certainly agree with the approach of the United Nations being the authorising agency and that Security Council resolutions should be the basis for any intervention that member states make. That is necessary for a degree of international order and law, but I do not believe the United Nations will ever develop a standing army with the capacity to intervene quickly.

The United Nations procedures, because they involve intergovernmental co-operation and the agreement of all participants, are so slow that the genocide would be long over before the United Nations could intervene. We need other means of intervention which are reasonably quick. That is why Europe needs to develop a capacity in this area. This goes completely against the general opinion here that Europe should not have anything to do with defence. The reality is that Europe is developing into a federal state which has tremendous benefits but which also has responsibilities, one of which is defence. There is a large degree of hypocrisy in the calls from people in this country for the international community to do something when we are not prepared to make any contribution towards the development of a European capacity to do something to prevent genocide.

We should not think that genocide is something which only happens in Bosnia or Rwanda where they speak some strange language and that it is not something which could happen here. If one adopts the definition of genocide in Article 4 of the Statute of the former Yugoslavia tribunal, it can be safely said that there has been genocide in this country in recent times. Genocide is defined as killing people because they belong to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The killing of most Catholics in Northern Ireland by the Loyalist Volunteer Force is genocide within the meaning of Article 4. I also believe the killing by the IRA of retired UDR members was nothing short of genocide. They were not killed because they were a threat to anyone but because they were Protestant. That is genocide within the meaning of Article 4. Genocide has occurred in this country, perhaps not on a grand scale in terms of numbers, but it is nonetheless genocide within the meaning of the legislation. We should not feel we are somehow superior and that these sort of things do not happen on this island because they do and have. It is important we show a willingness to deal with them. One of the great things about the peace Agreement is that we are showing a way of preventing genocide in future by finding a political solution.

We should, as much as possible, try to anticipate where problems of this nature might arise. It is, unfortunately, the case that genocidal tendencies tend to occur wherever there is some form of economic crisis or where some major change or collapse removes previously existing restraints. The tensions may have been there for generations but some new event can trigger latent genocidal tendencies. We should look at those parts of the world where the greatest problems are likely to occur in the next five years. I point the finger in regard to two areas. Since the beginning of this year oil prices have fallen by 20 per cent and are now at $13 a barrel as against $17 a barrel in January. They continue to fall. This will have a drastic effect on the economies of some oil-producing countries. We should be wary of the potential political repercussions of that in countries which are dependent on oil exports. Algeria is one and we have already seen that there are serious problems there which will be aggravated by the fall in oil prices. Other countries face similar difficulties.

Another big change in the world in the past months has been the collapse in east Asia where there has been a huge drop in income, especially in Indonesia and also in Thailand. Genocide was committed on the Chinese community in Indonesia 30 years ago around the time Sukarno was replaced by Suharto. There are real grounds for fear that genocide could happen again in Indonesia. We have seen the way the Catholics in East Timor have been the victims of what could be described as genocidal pressure in the sense that the Indonesians want to at least eliminate the ethnic group, if not every individual. With the added pressure of the economic crisis faced by Indonesia, I believe there will be a tendency for minorities to be blamed as things go badly. That is what happens whenever an economic crisis occurs. People want to blame someone identifiable. It is not enough to blame the market or finance or some such abstraction. Some individual or group must be to blame so that the frustration of the people can be vented on them. I am fearful that the combination of the collapse in the financial system in east Asia and in oil prices in the past months could create situations of potential genocide in a number of countries.

While this Bill is most welcome and very important, we must develop a capacity to prevent genocide. That means the international community must have the means to intervene militarily. At the moment, the only country with that power is the United States. Europe does not have it. If Europe wants to play its part in preventing genocide, it must develop a capacity to intervene. It must also develop a capacity to regulate its own arms exports. At the moment, it is contributing to genocide by searching and competing for orders in countries where there is potential for the arms to be used in genocide. That must stop but it will happen only if Europe develops a common approach to defence. It is not possible to say that we want Europe to stop being an armaments supplier while at the same time saying we do not want it to develop its own common defence. The development of the latter is the best way of underpinning a common approach to armaments to rule out competitive exports of arms to countries in which genocide might be the result of the use to which those arms are put.

Unfortunately, nothing comes for nothing in this world. When it comes to foreign policy, we seem to believe that everything comes for nothing and that no political or moral price need be paid for anything we want. There is a price to be paid for preventing genocide and Ireland must be prepared to take on its international responsibilities in a serious way. Ireland is no longer the poor man of Europe; it is now, per capita, a richer country than Britain. Whereas five years ago our per capita income was the same as Spain's, we are now 30 per cent to 40 per cent ahead. We have overtaken Finland and are about to overtake Sweden in terms of income per head. That is unbelievable to anyone who remembers what it was like before it happened. We are now a wealthy country and we must exercise responsibility commensurate with our prosperity. We cannot allow that burden to be borne exclusively by others.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Miss M. Wallace)

I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate. There was general agreement on all sides that it is important Ireland is seen to fully honour its international commitment to bring forward this legislation. In doing so, we are showing our abhorrence of the human misery and savagery visited on countless innocent men, women and children in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Government applauds the efforts to bring to justice those who are responsible for the atrocities which words cannot adequately describe.

When the Bill is enacted, the appropriate authorities here will have the necessary legal mechanism to arrest, detain and hand over persons found in the State who are wanted by either the former Yugoslavia or Rwandan tribunals. It is important the Bill also makes provision to enable regulations to be made to apply the terms of this Bill to any other war crimes tribunal or court which may be established by the United Nations in future. We all hope this will not be necessary in the years to come but, sadly, it is possible that whatever happened in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda could happen again. Setting up a permanent international criminal court would probably make redundant the establishment of special ad hoc war crimes tribunals of the type with which we are now concerned.

I am pleased that efforts to establish the international criminal court are now moving ahead apace. It is hoped that a diplomatic conference in which we will all fully participate, scheduled to begin in Rome on 15 June next and go on for five weeks, will reach agreement on setting up an international criminal court.

As the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, Ireland has been a strong supporter of such a court for many years. We are hopeful we will see an international criminal court sooner rather than later. Setting up such a court would be a powerful tool in bringing to justice, irrespective of their location, the most serious perpetrators of vicious crime on the world stage. It would also serve as a permanent and salutary reminder to those contemplating genocidal actions or other such criminal activity that retribution will follow if they go ahead with their evil designs.

I want to refer to some questions raised by Members. Deputy O'Kennedy asked for confirmation that persons will not be surrendered for questioning. Under the Bill, suspected persons may be detained but not surrendered. Persons will be surrendered to be put on trial or put in prison to serve a sentence imposed by a tribunal and for no other purpose.

Deputy De Rossa raised the question of trafficking in refugees and asked about the legislation to criminalise such activity. Work has started on the preparation of this legislation and the work has been accorded priority in the Department.

Deputy Jim Higgins referred to the fact that few persons are arrested and brought before the Yugoslav tribunal. The Government position on this issue has remained constant since the tribunal was established. All indicted war crime suspects should appear before the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague to face the charges against them. With our EU partners, full co-operation by all parties with the tribunal in the effort to bring war criminals to justice is a fundamental obligation which must be honoured if genuine stability and lasting peace is to be consolidated.

With our international partners we will continue to urge the governments of the region to honour commitments in this area, in particular, the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, who signed the Dayton Agreement on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs. Economic reconstruction assistance to the parties is closely linked to their co-operation in this area.

In regard to non-Serb indictees, significant progress has been made in the past year in bringing suspects before the tribunal. Economic pressure has resulted in an increase in co-operation by some authorities in the region and more can be achieved in this way.

Deputy Higgins raised another query about the recent executions in Rwanda and the unsatisfactory nature of the Rwandan system of justice. The Government remains concerned about the execution of 22 persons convicted of genocide in Rwanda which took place on 24 April. Our concerns were expressed directly to the Rwandan Ambassador in Ireland two days earlier, on 22 April, when he made an official visit to Dublin. He was asked to convey those concerns to his government and the day before the executions, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, issued a statement urging the government of Rwanda to exercise the utmost restraint regarding the imposition of the death penalty with a view to its total abolition and expressing concern at these public executions.

In view of our ongoing concerns about this matter, I assure the House that the Government will continue to make every appropriate effort, bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners, to minimise the use of capital punishment as a response to genocide in the Great Lakes region. We are also continuing our efforts towards ensuring that due legal process is followed in all genocide cases, particularly where conviction carries the death penalty.

As evidenced by the Bill under consideration, the Government will continue to give its strong support to the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which does not impose the death penalty. We will do so with a view to making the tribunal a more visible, effective and judicious means of dealing with those guilty of perpetrating genocide in that country.

I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate and who were so supportive of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.