1. Mr. FIFE (Norway) said that automatic jurisdiction and a uniform jurisdictional regime for the three core crimes were essential for the credibility of the Court. His delegation was still not persuaded that the crime of aggression or any of the treaty crimes could be inserted at the present stage, but thought they could be addressed in some other manner at a later stage. {. . .}

6. Ms. SHAHEN (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said the proposal before the Committee took into account only one point of view and did not represent a balanced approach. The crime of aggression must be included in the Statute. {. . .}

9. Mr. R. P. DOMINGOS (Angola) said that, although the Bureau proposal was commendable, his delegation regretted that it did not take into account the definition of aggression proposed in document A/CONF.183/C.1/L.56. {. . .}

11. Mr. OKOULATSONGO (Congo) said his delegation was surprised to note that, disregarding the views of the majority, the Bureau had not included the crime of aggression as a core crime within the jurisdiction of the Court, instead setting a deadline for agreement on a definition. Failure to meet that deadline would mean, however, not – as the Bureau apparently hoped – that the interest in addressing that crime would have to be reflected in some other way, but that the crime of aggression would have to be included in the Statute and the question of its definition deferred to some future date. {. . .}