¹ Stéphane Jeannet, “Recognition of the ICRC's long-standing rule of confidentiality: An important decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia”, IRRC, No. 838, 06 2000, pp. 403–425.Google Scholar

² The tasks incumbent upon the ICRC under the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (1986), Arts 5.2c) and g) include “to undertake the tasks incumbent upon it under the Geneva Conventions, to work for the faithful application of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to take cognizance of any complaints based on alleged breaches of that law” and “to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any developments thereof”. It should be noted that the Statutes have been unanimously adopted by the States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

³ Roberge, Marie-Claude, “The new International Criminal Court”, IRCC, No. 325, 12 1998, pp. 671–677.Google Scholar

⁴ Dörmann, Knut, “Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court: The Elements of War Crimes”, IRRC, No. 839, 09 2000, pp. 771–796.Google Scholar

⁵ See Jeannet, , op. cit. (note 1), pp. 406–408.Google Scholar

⁶ Doc. PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.1. p. 39.

⁷ See also Knut Dörmann and Claus Kress, “Verfahrens- und Beweisregeln sowie Verbrechenselemente zum Römischen Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs: Eine Zwischenbilanz nach den ersten zwei Sitzungen der Vorbereitungskommission für den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof”, Humanitäres Völkerrecht - Informationsschriften, Heft 4, 1999, p. 202.Google Scholar

⁸ The ICTY decision was taken on 27 July 1999. The fact that it recognized the ICRC an absolute right to nondisclosure based on customary international law would undoubtedly have been extremely helpful in convincing the diplomats who had doubts about the draft rule. However, it was not until 8 October 1999 that this decision was made public, that is several weeks after the end of the second session of the PrepCom. Therefore, the ICRC did not use this information until the next session (29 November–17 December 1999), during which discussion on the draft rule was not reopened.

⁹ See: Piragoff, Donald P., “Protection of National Security Information”, in Roy S. Lee (Editor), “The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute”, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1999, pp. 270–294.Google Scholar