5. Mr. AGBETOMEY (Togo) {. . .} On the role of the Security Council, option 1 for article 10, paragraph 1, would be very important if the crime of aggression were included in the list of crimes, {. . .}

6. Mr. DOUDECH (Tunisia) {. . .} The Court should not be prevented by the Security Council from exercising jurisdiction over situations involving the crime of aggression. {. . .}

7. Mr. MIKULKA (Czech Republic) {. . .}

8. {. . .} and his delegation thus supported {. . .} and option 1 in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 10.

9. Mr. MORSHED (Bangladesh) {. . .} The regime of the Charter under Chapter VII must at all costs be preserved, but the language of option 1 in article 10, paragraph 1, was perhaps unduly wide-ranging. {. . .}

12. Ms. WYROZUMSKA (Poland) {. . .}While the Security Council should have some role, there should be a proper balance between the competence of the Council and the independence of the Court. That balance was reflected in option 1 for article 10, paragraph 1.

13. Ms. PERALBA GARCIA (Andorra) {. . .} A balance between the Security Council’s powers and those of the Court was essential. Her delegation thus supported article 6, paragraph (b), and the retention of article 10, paragraph 1.

15. Mr. AL-SA’AIDI (Kuwait) {. . .} With respect to article 10, he affirmed the need to guarantee the independence of the Court. Nevertheless, the role of the Security Council with respect to the crime of aggression under Chapter VII of the Charter needed to be clearly spelled out. {. . .}