34. Mr. KATUREEBE (Uganda) {. . .} those crimes for which no agreed definition could be found should be left for further consideration, either by the Preparatory Commission or by the Assembly of States Parties. {. . .}

35. Mr. GÜNEY (Turkey) {. . .} He was fully aware of the problems of finding an acceptable definition of aggression, while keeping in mind the role of the Security Council as established under the Charter. {. . .}

37. Mr. WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that, since problems of definition persisted with regard to aggression and the related role of the Security Council, that crime should not initially be included in the jurisdiction of the Court. {. . .}

44. Mr. PAULAUSKAS (Lithuania) {. . .} He was fully in favour of including the three core crimes and strongly supported the inclusion of aggression, based on the definition in option 1. The role of the Security Council in determining the fact of aggression should be acknowledged. {. . .}

45. Mr. VERGNE SABOIA (Brazil) {. . .}

46. {. . .} He would be more in favour of the early inclusion of aggression if an acceptable definition of that crime could be found, bearing in mind the related role of the Security Council, but that was so far not the case. {. . .}

52. Mr. Kak-Soo SHIN (Republic of Korea) said that he strongly supported the inclusion of aggression in the Statute, and would accept the current option 1, including its reference to the role of the Security Council, but recalled his delegation’s proposed compromise between options 1 and 2 contained in article 10, paragraph 4, option 2 of the draft Statute. {. . .}