12 Apr 2023
Thank you, Mdm Chairperson.
1 Singapore has comments on draft articles 6 and 7.
2 In relation to draft article 6, my delegation agrees with the clarification in paragraph 31 of the Commentary that draft article 6 paragraph 5 has no effect on the procedural immunity that a foreign State official may enjoy before a national criminal jurisdiction, which continues to be governed by conventional and customary international law. This is how Singapore will interpret draft article 6 paragraph 5. We also note that this reflects the views that have been expressed by other delegations. For legal certainty, this important clarification should be incorporated into the text of the draft article itself.
3 In relation to draft article 7, my delegation, as well as others, have observed that multiple States may have jurisdiction over an offence under draft article 7, and the need to clarify how potential conflicts of jurisdiction should be resolved. My delegation believes that where conflicts of jurisdiction arise, the draft articles should accord primacy to the State that can exercise jurisdiction under draft article 7 paragraph 1. Such a State would have greater interest in prosecuting the offence in question, than a custodial State that can only exercise jurisdiction based on paragraph 2 alone. We also note with interest the suggestions of other delegations, such as to include a provision for States claiming jurisdiction to coordinate their actions appropriately, and to elaborate in the Commentary relevant factors that should be considered in resolving conflicts of jurisdiction. My delegation would be happy to further explore these valuable ideas with other delegations.
4 My delegation also wishes to state that we understand that draft article 7 paragraph 2 is intended to provide an additional treaty-based jurisdictional link, on the basis of the alleged offender’s presence on a State’s territory, when none of the jurisdictional links in paragraph 1 exist. Thus, jurisdiction under draft article 7 paragraph 2 can only be exercised in respect of nationals of States Parties to a future treaty. The Special Rapporteur has said, in his fourth report, that he understands this paragraph in the same way. For legal certainty, my delegation continues to believe that this important understanding should be incorporated into the text of the draft article.
5 We have already made our position on capital punishment clear in the mini debate. I would just add that the European Convention on Human Rights, which was cited by one delegation, does not constitute international law that is binding on all States. It certainly does not reflect any customary international law prohibition on the use of the death penalty.
6 Thank you for your attention.
. . . . .