TERENCE CHRISTOPHER O'BRIEN (New Zealand) congratulated the
Secretary-General for the lucidity of his report stressing the importance
of the Council's adoption of the statute for the Tribunal in toto. The
establishment of the Tribunal and the prosecution of violators of
humanitarian law were closely related to wider efforts to restore peace and
security to the territory of the former Yugoslavia.


     The Co-chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference
on the Former Yugoslavia had stated in February that the situation on the
ground there was not acceptable, he said, adding that the situation had not
improved. The work of the Tribunal and the implementation of the peace plan
must complement each other.


     SHUNJI MARUYAMA (Japan) said violations of international humanitarian law
in the former Yugoslavia were extraordinary in their scope, gravity and
persistence. The humanitarian implications were enormous, not only for the
present generation but also for generations to come. Stating that Japan was
fully aware of the extraordinary and complex nature of the effort to
establish an ad hoc tribunal, he said it was incumbent upon the Council to
ensure that the Tribunal was independent and neutral and that it reflected
the universal authority of the United Nations. The Council was also
required to work out a sound legal basis for the establishment and
functioning of the Tribunal, and to seek adequate resources. Those tasks
should be accomplished without delay.


     The Secretary-General's excellent report, struck a proper balance among a
variety of factors, he said. Perhaps more extensive legal studies could
have been undertaken on various aspects of the statute. From such a point
of view, Japan had kept in close consultation with the President as well as
with the Secretariat. He shared the determination of the international
community, which called for the exhaustion of all possible measures, to put
an end to the ongoing atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and restore
justice. That was the reason Japan supported the adoption of the resolution
and intended to cooperate in its implementation to the best of its ability.

     The commencement of activities by the Tribunal would in no way relieve the
parties concerned of their obligation to enforce international humanitarian
law, he said. Also, such legal remedies would in no way relieve the Council
of its enormous responsibility to address the Yugoslav crisis in its
entirety. Cooperation and assistance on the part of States concerned was
essential in guaranteeing smooth functioning of the Tribunal. "If there is
any politically misguided effort to hamper cooperation, our exercise could
be seriously hampered", he said. All States must exhaust all means to
cooperate in good faith.

     The Council was obliged to take the exceptional measures it was taking
today, he said. The very complexity of the threat and the gravity of crisis
had made the Council's action inevitable. Without a comprehensive strategy
on the part of the international community, the complex situation in the
former Yugoslavia could not be properly addressed. "We must respond to this
formidable problem immediately", he concluded.

(END OF TAKE 7)

     AHMED SNOUSSI (Morocco) said the resolution just adopted would breathe life
into past Council actions on the issue. The Bosnian Serbs had not responded
to past Council demands. On the contrary, they had intensified their
actions. The practice of "ethnic cleansing" must be halted and the
territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina restored. The Tribunal
would play a key role in that effort, punishing not only individuals, but
States. It would also address the need for reparations to the families of
victims. The Tribunal's establishment should offer hope to those afflicted.


     JOSE EDUARDO BARBOSA (Cape Verde) said the serious violations of
humanitarian law and human rights in the former Yugoslavia shocked the
conscience of the international community. For that reasons, Cape Verde had
been strongly in favour of the adoption of resolution 808 (1993). Since
then, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina had deteriorated and that
justified the adoption of the resolution before the Council today.


     The establishment of the Tribunal was an important first step in a long
process, he said. That step would only work if connected to a comprehensive
peace plan. The establishing of the Tribunal to judge and punish war
criminals was a matter related to international peace and security. He
hoped that the adoption of the resolution would help the Council to
confront the overall peace problems in that region, particularly those
related to the peace plan. He congratulated the Secretary-General for his
outstanding report.

     JAMSHEED K.A. MARKER (Pakistan) said "ethnic cleansing" and other crimes
had been carried out explicitly as part of the conquest of territory in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was hoped that the Tribunal's establishment
would lead to a restoration of territory acquired by force and the halting
of the breaches of international humanitarian law being carried out in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia. The resolution was a part of the peace
process, he said, emphasizing that the Vance-Owen plan must form the basis
for a settlement. The international community must not allow the
acquisition of territory by force to stand.


    LI ZHAOXING (China) said China had voted in favour of the draft in light of
the particular circumstances prevailing in the former Yugoslavia and the
urgency of restoring peace. That position, however, should not be construed
as endorsement of the legal approach. A prudent attitude must be adopted
with regard to the establishment of an international tribunal by means of
Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII of the Charter, to avoid the
precedent of abusing that provision.


     The Statute of the Tribunal, he continued, was a legal instrument with the
nature of an international treaty. It should become effective only after
having been concluded by sovereign States and ratified by their national
legislatures. To adopt by a Security Council resolution the Statute of the
International Tribunal, which gave it preferential and exclusive
jurisdiction, was not in compliance with the principle of State judicial
sovereignty. The adoption of the Statute of the International Tribunal by
the Security Council through a resolution by invoking Chapter VII obliged
Member States to implement it. That would bring difficulties both in theory
and in practice. The International Tribunal could only be an ad hoc
arrangement suited only to the special circumstances prevailing in the
former Yugoslavia.

     RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said the Tribunal had been established
under exceptionally grave circumstances that demanded exceptional action on
the part of the United Nations. The strongest words of reprobation would
not be strong enough to express the depth of Brazil's condemnation. The
most basic norms of humanity had been systematically trampled upon. That
had included widespread violence against women of all ages, including a
horrifying pattern of sexual assault against Muslim women. Religious
persecution and racially motivated crimes had been brought to a new level
of abhorrence, expressed in the unacceptable phrase "ethnic cleansing".

     Brazil had examined with great care the proposals for the establishment by
the Council of such an international tribunal, he said. Proposals submitted
involved important legal difficulties, many of which had not been resolved
to his satisfaction. Given the legal difficulties involved, it was only the
consideration of the unique and exceptionally serious circumstances in the
former Yugoslavia that had determined Brazil's positive vote on the
resolution.


     "Our positive vote is to be understood as a political expression of our
condemnation of the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and of our
heartfelt wish to contribute to bringing to justice, with the urgency that
is imposed on us by the facts, all persons responsible for such acts", he
said. It should not be construed as an overall endorsement of the legal
formula involved in the foundation or the Statute of the International
Tribunal.


     He would have preferred than an initiative which had such far-reaching
political and legal implications receive a much deeper examination, in a
context allowing a broader participation by all Member States. Brazil had
expressed the view in an earlier statement that the most appropriate and
effective method for establishing the International Tribunal would be the
conclusion of a convention setting up an ad hoc international criminal
jurisdiction and containing the terms of reference for its exercise.

     The option of establishing the Tribunal exclusively through a resolution of
the Council, which he did not favour, left unresolved a number of important
legal issues relating to the powers and competences attributed to the
Council by the Charter. That fact should not limit the effectiveness of the
Tribunal. However, it did limit the conclusions that could be drawn from
the adoption of that resolution, as regards the legal and political
framework for the work of the Security Council.


     He said the resolution was aimed at addressing a specific situation and
producing a specific result: bringing to justice the persons responsible
for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former
Yugoslavia. Both the resolution and the Statute were not meant to establish
new norms or precedents of international law.

     JUAN ANTONIO YANEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain) said the resolution just adopted was a
logical consequence of resolution 808 (1993). The report of the
Secretary-General and the statute for the Tribunal responded to the
concerns of his Government. The statute could be improved upon, however.
None the less, the Council had preferred to keep the proposal of the
Secretary-General in its entirety, since the ultimate goal was to restore
peace to the former Yugoslavia, which required prompt action. Discussion of
another statute could hamper that urgency.

     He stressed the independence of the Tribunal. Such independence, he said
was not incompatible with being a subsidiary body of the Council. In
addition, the Tribunal was an impartial body. He stressed that the Statute
ruled out the imposition of the death penalty and trial in absentia. Also,
the resolution just adopted had created an ad hoc body, not new
international law.


     He hoped the crucial step taken today by the Council would have a positive
effect in the work of the General Assembly concerning the establishment of
a permanent war crimes tribunal.


     DYSANE ABDALLAH DORANI (Djibouti) said the horrendous policy aimed at
dismembering a Member State and exterminating the Bosnian people persisted.
Those acts were being funded externally. It could not be characterized as a
civil war. The condemnation of criminals and the provision of reparations
for victims must be considered indivisible. Peace would only come when guns
were silenced, when refugees were allowed to return to their homes and when
the territorial integrity of Bosnia was secured.


     YULIY M. VORONTSOV (Russian Federation), speaking in his capacity as his
country's representative, said the need for the Tribunal was evidenced by
the adoption of the recent joint action play by the Governments of France,
the United Kingdom, the United States and the Russian Federation, which
addressed that point. Those guilty of crimes of genocide and the crimes
against humanity must be punished. The Tribunal had not been established by
victors in a war. It was the creation of all humanity.


     He supported the text of the Statute, which set out the tasks before the
Tribunal. Article 5 encompassed criminal acts committed on the territory of
the former Yugoslavia during a widespread and systematic conflict in the
region. The establishment of the Tribunal was an important political act,
which would contribute to peace efforts in the region.


     The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.