We are satisfied with a number of developments, especially after widely announced statements that these proceedings had been frustrated by the Congo v. Belgium decisions. The Attorney-General confirmed this morning his support for our position on the full jurisdiction of the Belgian courts under the Belgian 1993 Statute Law and rejected the interpretation of other judges in the Congo v. Belgium (Yerodia) case in Brussels.
On immunity, the Attorney-General, while recognising personal and temporal immunity for Mr. Sharon as a sitting prime minister, confirmed the need for the investigation to proceed in this case.
On our part, we insisted that immunities cannot be recognised for the crime of genocide, since the 1948 Genocide Convention expressly rules out such immunities. This issue was not raised in the Congo v. Belgium case, and therefore immunity could not be deemed relevant for the case lodged against Sharon and others in the matter of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre.
Secondly, we have insisted on the need to restrict immunity to the simple issuance and delivery of an arrest warrant, in accordance with the actual decision of the International Court of Justice in the Congo v. Belgium case.
On immunity, the Attorney-General, while recognising personal and temporal immunity for Mr. Sharon as a sitting prime minister, confirmed the need for the investigation to proceed in this case.
On our part, we insisted that immunities cannot be recognised for the crime of genocide, since the 1948 Genocide Convention expressly rules out such immunities. This issue was not raised in the Congo v. Belgium case, and therefore immunity could not be deemed relevant for the case lodged against Sharon and others in the matter of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre.
Secondly, we have insisted on the need to restrict immunity to the simple issuance and delivery of an arrest warrant, in accordance with the actual decision of the International Court of Justice in the Congo v. Belgium case.