1. Mr. EL MASRY (Egypt) noted with regret the proposal made in document A/CONF.183/C.1/L.59 that, if no generally accepted provisions were developed that day, the crime of aggression should not be included in the Statute. The group of countries belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement had decided to continue the quest for a simplified definition of aggression, referring to armed aggression against the political independence or territorial integrity of States, occupation of territories or annexation, which might enable the Conference to come up with a text acceptable to all. {. . .}

5. As to the role of the Security Council, Egypt preferred option 3, but would be prepared to review its position if the crime of aggression was included in the Statute and an equal role conferred on the General Assembly, subject, however, to three conditions. First, a time limit – preferably non-renewable, and in any case not indefinitely renewable – must be fixed for any suspension requested by the Security Council; secondly, such request must take the form of a Security Council resolution; thirdly, the Court must have the right to request the Security Council to look into a situation of aggression if the Council had not done so of its own motion. {. . .}