Date 31 March 2005 Code S/RES/1593 (Document) | Meeting no. 5,158 Result Adopted | |
 | ||
Subject The situation concerning Sudan Voting summary 11 voted for
None voted against
4 abstained | ||
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593, adopted on 31 March 2005, after receiving a report by the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, the Council referred the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and required all states to co-operate fully. It marked the first time the Council had referred a situation to the Court, and also compelled a country to co-operate with it.
Contents
Sudan, which is not a permanent member of the ICC under the Rome Statute, refuses to recognise the court's jurisdiction, stated that "the International Criminal Court has no place in this crisis at all."
Adoption
The resolution was adopted by 11 votes to none against and four abstentions from Algeria, Brazil, China and the United States. The Algerian representative preferred an African Union-devised solution to the problem, Brazil agreed with the resolution but objected to the U.S. view on selective jurisdiction of the Court, the Chinese representative disagreed with some elements of the ICC Statute and argued for the perpatrators to be tried in Sudanese courts, and the United States objected to some provisions of the Court but overall supported humanitarian interests and the fight against impunity.
Resolution
Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council referred the situation since 1 July 2002 to the ICC and urged all states to co-operate with the Court, whether or not it was party to the Rome Statute. The ICC and African Union were invited to discuss the practicalities of proceedings relating to the conflict, while the ICC was encouraged to promote the rule of law, human rights and combat impunity in Darfur.
The resolution also emphasised the importance of reconciliation, through the creation of truth commissions for example. Nationals from a state other than Sudan which did not recognise the jurisdiction of the Court would instead be subject to the jurisdiction of that state for acts related to Sudan.