1. Mr. NEGA (Ethiopia) said that he strongly supported the inclusion of aggression and that, given the political will and flexibility, a definition could be agreed upon, as a number of proposals could serve as a basis for discussion. {. . .}

5. Mr. BACYE (Burkina Faso) said that he associated himself with the remarks made by Lesotho on behalf of the African Group, as well as with the remarks made by South Africa and others. The Court's Statute should include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, although the latter was difficult to define. {. . .}

7. {. . .} His preference on aggression was for option 1, but a definition should be presented and the Cameroonian proposal should be examined.

8. Mr. MAHMOOD (Pakistan) {. . .}

10. Aggression should in principle be included in the Statute, but a proper definition was needed, and the inclusion of that crime should not be used to justify a role for the Security Council in the operation of the Court. He was prepared to examine the question of elements of crimes, provided they served only as guidelines and that the entry into force of the Statute was not delayed by any discussion on that subject. {. . .}

16. Mr. KUZMEMKOV (Russian Federation) said that his delegation had always been in favour of including aggression within the jurisdiction of the Court and hoped that it would be possible to agree on a definition. It should be understood that the Security Council would take the preliminary decision regarding determination of aggression. {. . .}