WINTER 1999 - VOLUME 10, NUMBER 1 THE REPORT OF THE CHAIR ARMENBAR MEETS IN STYLE IN THE CITY OF LIGHTS INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT STATUTE PIRAG CENTER OPENS IN YEREVAN 1999 LEADERSHIP TRIBUTE THIRD ANNUAL ABA PICNIC  MEMBERS IN THE NEWS AND ON THE MOVE THE REPORT OF THE CHAIR by TAMAR HAJIAN, Esq. Chair of the Board of Governors Back to Top At this writing, Armenbar's annual meeting committee is putting the final touches on our Las Vegas Annual Meeting on February 12-14, 1999. I extend the Board's personal invitation to each of you and your guests to come and launch the Armenian Bar Association's 10th Anniversary Cele-bration!  Our special guests will be two top investment experts from Armenia, Viktoria Ter Nikoghosyan and Vatche Kirakossian, who will be on hand to guide us through the maze of post soviet legal and economic opportunities.  There will be a variety of topics covered at sessions, plus lots of socializing, networking and partying for all. Don't be left out! You never know whom you'll meet at the MGM Grand... I once received a dues notice from another bar association which stated, ..."unless your dues are paid by December 31, you will be dismembered..." Now we at Armenbar are not believers in such drastic action.  But, in order to continue to receive quarterly newsletters, membership directories, special mailings to members only (e.g., Prof. Vahakn Dadrian's 1998 Yale Journal of International Law article), and have voice and vote at meetings, please do re-enlist in this unique and wonderful organization. Following our grand Mid-Year Meeting weekend in Paris in September, I had the opportunity of spending six weeks in Yerevan in order to put into motion the Public Interest Research and Advocacy Project (PIRAG). This enormous undertaking was begun in cooperation with the Eurasia Foundation in Washington, DC and the Avangard Humanitarian Organization in Yerevan. Today, PIRAG works with numerous local organizations and individuals, has opened regional offices in the Armenian provinces and runs training programs, seminars, workshops, briefings and discussions.  The numbers of enthusiastic participants and the breadth of local initiatives is so heartening that I am working on a second "mini-sabbatical" to be able to return in the spring. Each of you can take pride in having a hand in a long-term commitment to developing a civil society in our homeland. If you happen to be in Yerevan, stop by the PIRAG office at 15 Grigor Lusavorich Street, where you will see a sparkling white office with bright blue and green furnishings, smiling faces, and a humming fax machine, on the first floor, across the hall from the A1+ TV station. You will see lots of familiar Armenbar faces -- Tom Samuelian's firm is housed nearby and his volunteer services at PIRAG are enormous, Gahmk Markarian works across town, Tigran Sahakian, Hovig Asrian and Edward Mamikonian stop in nearly every day, Aida Iskoyan provides environmental advice, and Armine and Raffi Hovannesian share helpful advice (Armine is writing a civics testbook). This is an organization of volunteers, and on behalf of the Board, I thank our Executive Director, Lucy Varpetian, for her generous allocation of time and talent to meetings, activities, directories and administrative duties during the year.  Thanks also to Zaven Sinanian for organizing the nominating committee for 1999. SEE YOU IN VEGAS FEBRUARY 12 - 14! ARMENBAR MEETS IN STYLE IN THE CITY OF LIGHTS Back to Top The Armenian Bar Association held its mid-year meeting in Paris, France, during the weekend of September 17-19, 1998.  Over 25 members and friends from the U.S., Canada, France, Cyprus and Armenia attended, staying at the Orion Bastille and Concorde Lafayette Hotels. The festivities began on Friday evening, with a Near Eastern dinner at Les Diamantieres, one of several fine Armenian restaurants in Paris. Our wonderful Paris hosts and meeting organizers, Raymond Yezguelian of Mont Ararat on the Champs Elysees and Thelma Loshkajian of DeutscheBank, made arrangements for a family-style Armenian feast, complete with Armenian music and camaraderie. On Saturday, a beautiful fall day in Paris, we met in the 14th arrondissement, at The Yans Club, the Armenian community's own treasure. Our meeting itself centered upon brief committee reports and projections for the future. An announcement by Justice Armand Arabian that he would spearhead a major fund-raising drive for our tenth anniversary in 1999 was greeted with cheers. The meeting enthusiastically endorsed holding a gala tenth-anniversary annual meeting in Las Vegas in February 12-14, 1999. A sumptuous Franco-Armenian luncheon was served, after traditional aperetives, which featured shish kebab, wine and a cornucopia of sweets.  Meanwhile, members discussed some of the significant issues of the day: the French government's highly publicized recognition of the Genocide, constitutional reform in Armenia, and dual-citizenship. Since the Armenian constitution currently forbids dual-citizenship, it was particularly interesting to hear from Tom Samuelian of Arlex International Ltd., now a private lawyer resident in Yerevan and an advisor to the constitutional reform commission, who reported on the various changes under consideration. Armenbar members were treated to a reunion with old friends such as trusts and estates attorney Nora Mirzoyan Ayvayan, as well as the wonderful opportunity of getting to know the accomplished Nairy Der Arakelian Merheje of Cyprus.  Parisian lawyers Alexandre Couyoumdjian, Olivier Roumelian, Rose Marie Frangulian-LePriol,  and students Anoush Yezeguelian, Sevag Torossian and Rostom Hanedanian were introduced to the circle of Armenbar friends.  Aram Kevorkian dropped by to extend his best regards and to wish us well.  Our Canadian, Californian, Mid-western, and East Coast constituencies were well represented too. The meeting adjourned late in the afternoon, allowing the members present to spend the remainder of the weekend exploring Paris with family members, colleagues and friends. Armenbar groups kept appearing throughout Paris' sights, cafes and restaurants for several days! Although this was the fourth time that ArmenBar has held its mid-year meeting outside the U.S., it was the first time we have met in Europe. ArmenBar thus exercised its prerogative of being a truly international bar association. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT STATUTE Back to Top I.  Introduction On July 17, 1998 at a UN conference in Rome, delegates from almost 150 countries adopted the Statute that establishes a permanent international criminal court.  By a vote of 120 to 7 with 21 abstentions, the delegates created a permanent court that can try individuals for the most serious crimes under international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. Among those countries supporting the Statute was Armenia.  Armenia's delegation at the conference was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Armen Baiburtian.  During his remarks, the Deputy Foreign Minster noted that the Statute rests upon the foundation of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Furthermore, he added that with this Statute, "the international community will no longer tolerate the commission of crimes against humanity and genocide without holding those individuals responsible accountable for their actions and punishing them." Like many countries present, Armenia's current geopolitical situation shaped aspects of its perspective regarding the Court.  One of these is the concern over the future definition of the crime of aggression.  The concern expressed by the Deputy Foreign Minister was that the definition must be very clear and precise so as to avoid potential misinterpretations and conflicts with other treaties.  Another concern, Mr. Baiburtian noted was that when the "right of self-determination is asserted within the territory of a state" that a state could "characterize such an assertion...as an act of aggression."  He also added that Armenia would like to see the inclusion of blockade as an act constituting aggression.  Finally, he mentioned that the definition of blockade should be broad so that it covers the blockade of "ports, coasts, territory and air routes of a state by the armed forces of another state." Notable among those voting against was the United States.  Concerns over the jurisdiction of the Court and lack of close UN Security Council supervision over the Court were among the reasons for the United States dissent.  Joining the United States in dissenting was Israel.  A concern of Israel was the inclusion of the transfer of population into occupied territory in the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes. Among those countries that abstained was Turkey.  Its abstention was based on a number of concerns including: (a) the failure to include terrorism as part of the definition of crimes against humanity; and (b) for war crimes, failing to state that the Court will have nothing to do with the internal matters of states. Though the statute is a very significant first step, there are several unresolved issues that must be addressed before the court becomes a functioning one.  First among these is ratification.  The statute will enter into force only upon the ratification by 60 nations by the end of 2000.  In other words, though the United States dissented it can still, conceivably, become a party to the Statute.  Other pending issues include defining the crime of aggression and specific elements of crimes and developing the rules of procedure and evidence for the court. These issues will be addressed in the future by a preparatory commission. II.  Summary of the Statute A.  Structure of the Court The court will be composed of the following organs: (a) the Presidency; (b) Appeals, trial and pre-trial divisions; (c) Office of the Prosecutor; and (d) the Registry. The Presidency The Presidency will consist of three judges, elected by their counterparts, who serve for a three year term.  They will be responsible for the administration of the Court, except for the Office of the Prosecutor. Appeals, Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions The Court will organize itself into the relevant divisions.  The appeals division will consist of five judges.  The trial and pre-trial divisions will be comprised of no fewer than six judges each. Judges There will be 18 judges of the Court, and all elected by the assembly of State parties.  Their terms will be staggered, and they will serve full time. Candidates to the Court can be nominated by any state party.  No two judges may be nationals of the same state. Regarding their qualifications, judges must be people "...of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices."  Additionally, the candidates for election to the Court are required to have either "competence and experience in criminal law and procedure" or "competence in relevant areas of international law...and the law of human rights, and extensive experience in a professional legal capacity which is of relevance to the judicial work of the Court." Once nominated, at least nine judges elected to the Court must have the necessary criminal law background and at least five the relevant international law and human rights experience.  In electing the judges, the state parties are to consider the need for representation of the following: (i) legal systems of the world; (ii) geography; and (iii) gender. Office of the Prosecutor The Office of the Prosecutor will be independent of the Court.  It will be responsible for, among other things, conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court.  The Office will be headed by a Prosecutor, who will have full authority over the Office.  Additionally, the Prosecutor will be assisted by one or more deputies, who will all serve on a full-time basis.  Finally, the Prosecutor and the deputies shall be of different nationalities. The Prosecutor will be elected by an absolute majority of the Assembly of States Parties.  The deputies will also be elected by the Assembly of States Parties from a list of candidates provided by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor and deputies shall hold office for nine years, unless a shorter term is decided upon their election, and not be eligible for re-election. The Registry The Registry shall be responsible for the non-judicial administrative aspects of the Court.  The Registrar will be elected by the judges and hold office for a term of five years. C.  Jurisdiction and Admissibility Jurisdiction - Key Highlights: 1. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to "the most serious crimes of international concern:"  the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. 2. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the Statute enters into force.  Additionally, the Court can exercise jurisdiction only over crimes committed after a State becomes a party to the Statute.   In other words, the Court will not hear cases involving the Armenian Genocide.  Furthermore, the perpetrators of the Sumgait and Baku pogroms will not be called to appear before this Court either. 3. The Court's jurisdiction is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. 4. Where a State Party refers a case to the Prosecutor or where the Prosecutor initiates an investigation on his/her own, one of the following states must have accepted the Court's jurisdiction: (a) the state where the crime occurred; or (b) the state of which the accused is a national.  However, the UN Security Council can refer cases to the Prosecutor without any jurisdictional preconditions. Admissibility - Key Highlights 1. The following can challenge the admissibility of a case: (a) the Court; (b) an accused or person for whom an arrest warrant has been issued; (c) a State that has jurisdiction over a case; or (d) a State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under Article 12.  If a challenge to admissibility is made, the Prosecutor must suspend the investigation. 2. A case is inadmissible where: (a) the case is investigated or prosecuted by a State that has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate; (b) the State that has jurisdiction over the case has decided not to prosecute, unless the decision resulted form the unwillingness of the State to genuinely prosecute; (c) the person has already been tried for the conduct; (d) the case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further Court action. D.  Genocide The definition of genocide is taken from the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  Genocide is "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." E.  Crimes Against Humanity This definition is same that was used in the Nuremberg Trials with a savings clause about other crimes.  Crimes against humanity is defined as acts that are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.  Some of the acts that are within the definition include: (a) murder; (b) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of international law; (c) deportation or forcible transfer of population; (d) torture; (e) rape; (f) persecution against any identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds. F.  War Crimes This definition is taken from the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  War crimes are defined as: 1. "Grave breaches" of the 12 August 1949 Geneva Conventions; 2. "...Other serious violations of laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict; 3. Serious violations of article 3 of the 12 August 1949 Geneva Conventions, in situations of armed conflict not of an international nature; or 4. "Other serious violations of laws and customs applicable in armed conflict not of an international character, within the framework of international law. Acts that would fall within the definition include: (a) "willfully causing great suffering, serious bodily injury or death"; (b) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement"; (c) intentional attacks against civilian population who are neither taking part in the conflict nor are military targets; and (d) intentionally attacking civilians with the knowledge that it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. The Statute stipulates that "violations in armed conflict not of an international nature" does not apply to domestic disturbances and tensions, like riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or  similar acts.  Additionally, other serious violations that occur in "conflicts not of an international character" applies to "armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is a protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups." F.  Individual Responsibility 1. A person is criminally responsible and liable if that person: (a) commits the crime either individually, jointly, or through another person regardless of the other person's criminal responsibility; (b) orders, solicits, or induces the commission of a crime that in fact occurs or is attempted; (c) aids, abets or otherwise assists the commission or attempted commission of a crime; (d) contributes in any other way to the commission or attempted commission of a crime by a group or persons acting with a common purpose.  This contribution must be intentional and shall be made either with: (i) the aim of furthering the criminal activity of the group; (ii) the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime; or (iii) in respect to genocide, directly and publicly inciting others to commit genocide. 2. The Statute applies equally to all persons, without distinctions based on official capacity. 3. An individual is responsible only if the elements of the crime are committed with intent and knowledge.  "Intent" means either that the person means to engage in the conduct, or means to cause the consequence or is aware it will occur.  "Knowledge" means an awareness that a circumstance exists or consequence will occur. 4. Defenses to criminal responsibility include: (a) mental incapacity; (b) intoxication; (c) self-defense; (d) duress; and (e) mistake of fact.  It will be no defense that a person acted under orders from either a governmental or military superior, unless: (i) the person was legally obligated to follow the orders; (ii) the person did not know the order was unlawful; or (iii) the order was not manifestly unlawful, however orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful. E.  Investigations An investigation can be initiated where: (a) a State Party requests an investigation; (b) the UN Security Council refers a case to the Prosecutor; or (c) the Prosecutor commences an investigation upon his/her own initiative. Upon receipt of information of alleged crimes, the Prosecutor must first determine whether there is a reasonable basis to launch an investigation.  If so, then he/she must request authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber.  To grant the request, the Pre-Trial Chamber must affirm that there is a reasonable basis and that the crime is within the Court's jurisdiction.  The Court, however, can review the jurisdictional and admissibility bases of the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision.  If the request is denied, the Prosecutor can present another request based upon new facts and evidence. Once the Prosecutor commences an investigation, he/she must then notify all State Parties, including the State(s) that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes.  A State then has one month from receipt of notice to inform the Court that it is conducting its own investigation.  At this State's request, the Prosecutor can defer to the State's investigation, unless the Pre-Trial Chamber decides otherwise. The Prosecutor's deferral is subject to his/her review, six months after the date of deferral or if there have been a significant change of circumstances based upon the State's unwillingness to carry out an investigation.  The UN Security Council can defer an investigation or prosecution up to 12 months. Once an investigation is launched, the Prosecutor's duty is to investigate all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of whether there is criminal responsibility. During the investigation, some of an individual's rights include: (a) not to be compelled to incriminate himself/herself; and (b) not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, nor to be deprived of his/her liberty.  If a person is believed to have committed a crime, that person has the following additional rights and must be informed prior to questioning: (a) there are grounds to believe he/she has committed the crime; (b) to remain silent; (c) to have legal assistance or if the person cannot afford it, to have it provided; and (d) to be questioned in the presence of counsel, unless this has been voluntarily waived. The Pre-Trial Chamber, upon the Prosecutor's request, shall issue an arrest warrant only after examining the request and evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.  Once it receives the request, the Pre-Trial Chamber must conclude that: (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is criminally responsible; and (b) the arrest is necessary to (i) ensure the person's appearance at trial; (ii) ensure the person does not obstruct the investigation; or (iii) to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime. Once issued, the arrest warrant will be transmitted to a State Party, which must immediately take steps to arrest the individual in question. Upon arrest, the individual will be brought before competent judicial authority in that State to determine that the warrant applies to that person and his/her rights respected.  A person under arrest will have the right to apply for interim release pending surrender.  Once ordered surrendered, the custodial State must deliver the person to the Court immediately. G.  Pre-Trial Proceedings Within a reasonable time after the person's surrender before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber will hold a hearing to confirm the charges.  Prior to the hearing the accused will be provided with the document containing the charges and be informed of the evidence against him/her.  Each charge must be supported by evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the person committed the crime(s) charged. The hearing will be in the presence of the Prosecutor, accused and his/her counsel.  If the accused has waived the right to be present or has fled, the hearing will take place in his/her absence.  At the hearing, the accused can object to the charges, challenge the evidence, and present evidence. The Pre-Trial Chamber must then: (a) confirm the charges, if there is sufficient evidence, and in this case commit the person to a Trial Chamber for trial; (b) decline to confirm the charges; or (c) adjourn the hearing so that the Prosecutor consider provide further evidence or conduct further investigation relating to a particular charge. Where the Pre-Trial Chamber declines to confirm the charges, the Prosecutor can, at a later time, request confirmation of the charges if it is supported by additional evidence.  On the other hand, if the charges are confirmed and prior to trial, the Prosecutor can, with the Pre-Trial Chamber's consent, amend the charges; however, a new hearing on these charges must be held. H.  Trial The place of trial will be the Court, unless otherwise decided.  The trial must be held in public, unless circumstances require otherwise. The Trial Chamber will ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and expeditiously with full respect for the rights of the accused and regard for the protection of victims and witnesses.  Every person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  The burden is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.  To convict, the Court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The rights of the accused include: (a) to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charges against him/her in a language he/she understands; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense; (c) to be tried without undue delay; (d) not to be compelled to testify; (e) not to be compelled to confess guilt; and (f) to remain silent without this silence being considered in the determination of guilt or innocence. The Court has jurisdiction over intentional offenses involving the administration of justice, including: (a) giving false testimony; (b) presenting false evidence; and (c) "corruptly" influencing a witness. An individual can be convicted for up to five years or fined for committing one of these offenses. In the event of a possible disclosure of information relating to the national security of a State, this State will have the right to take reasonable steps to the resolve the matter, working cooperatively with the Prosecutor, the defense, the Pre-Trial Chamber or the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chambers' deliberations are to remain secret.  The judges should attempt to reach unanimous decisions.  However, if the judges fail to do so, then the decision must be taken by a majority .  The decision will be delivered in open court. The Court will establish principles relating to reparations to victims. Reparations will include restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. Before making a judgment for reparations, the Court may consider testimony from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims or other interested persons or interested States. Where an individual has been convicted, the Court can hold an additional hearing to hear any further evidence relevant to the sentence.  The sentence will be pronounced in public and in the presence of the accused. I.  Penalties A person convicted of a crime is subject to one of the following penalties: (a) imprisonment for a specified number of years, not to exceed 30 years; or (b) life imprisonment, when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the circumstances of the convicted person. Additionally, the Court may order: (a) a fine; or (b) a forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime. The Assembly of State Parties can establish a trust fund for the benefit of victims of crimes and their families.  The Court may then order money and property collected through fines and forfeiture to be transferred to the trust fund.  The trust fund will be managed according to criteria determined by the Assembly of State Parties. J.  Appeals The Prosecutor may appeal a decision on the following grounds: (a) procedural error; (b) error of fact; (c) error of law.  Additionally, a convicted person or the Prosecutor on that person's behalf may also appeal the decision on any other ground that affects the fairness or reliability of the proceedings or decision.  A sentence may be appealed by a convicted person on the ground of disproportion between the crime and the sentence. Other decisions that can be appealed by either party include: (a) a decision regarding jurisdiction or admissibility; (b) a decision granting or denying release of the person being investigated or prosecuted; (c) a decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber. The convicted person may apply to revise the conviction or sentence on the grounds that: (a) new evidence has been discovered that was not available at time of trial and is sufficiently important that it would have likely led to a different verdict; (b) decisive evidence at trial was false, forged or falsified; or (c) one or more of the judges committed  an act of serious misconduct or serious breach of duty. If the application has merit, the Appeals Chamber may; (a) reconvene the original Trial Chamber; (b) call a new Trial Chamber; (c) retain jurisdiction over the matter and determine whether the judgment should be revised. K.  International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance The Court will have the authority to make requests to States Parties for cooperation.  The Court may also request a State not a party to the Statute and intergovernmental organizations for assistance.  If a State Party fails to comply, the Court will refer the matter to the Assembly of State Parties.  The forms of cooperation include: (a) taking evidence; (b) assisting to locate individuals or items; and (c) protecting victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence. The Court will also have the authority to request the arrest and surrender of a person to any State where that person is located and may request the cooperation of that State in the arrest of that individual. L.  Enforcement A convicted individual will serve his/her sentence in a State designated by the Court from a list of States that have indicated a willingness to accept sentenced persons.  The Court, at any time, may transfer a sentenced person to a prison in another State.  Additionally, an imprisoned individual, at any time, may apply to the Court for a transfer. M.  Assembly of States Parties Each State Party shall have one representative in the Assembly and one vote.  Those States which have signed the Statute or the Final Act may be observers over the Assembly. Functions of the Assembly include: (a) overseeing the Presidency, the Prosecutor and the Registrar regarding administration of the Court; and (b) deciding the budget for the Court. N.  Final Clauses Any dispute regarding the judicial function of the Court will be settled by the Court.  Disputes between two or more States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of the Statute will attempted to be resolved through negotiations.  If after three months the dispute is still unresolved, then the matter will be referred to the Assembly. After seven years from the entry into force of the Statute, any State Party may propose amendments.  They will be submitted to the Secretary-General of the UN, who will then distribute it to all States Parties.  Three months hence, a majority of the Assembly present will decide whether to consider the proposal.  A 2/3 majority is required to accept an amendment.  The amendment will enter into force for all States Parties one year after 7/8 of these States have deposited instruments of ratification with the Secretary-General.  If a State Party has not accepted an amendment, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party's national or on its territory. Seven years after the entry into force of the Statue, the Secretary-General of the UN will convene a Review Conference to consider any amendments to this Statute.  The conference will be open to those participating in the Assembly of States Parties. A State, after becoming a party to the Statute, may declare that for a period of seven years after the entry into force of the Statue, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes, when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its national or on its territory. A State may by written notification to the Secretary-General of the UN, withdraw from the Statute.  The withdrawal will take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless it specifies a later date.  A State cannot withdraw from its obligations arising under the Statue while it was a Party to the Statute. III.  Conclusions The foregoing is a simple, straightforward summary of the UN International Criminal Court Statute.  There has been no attempt to analyze the provisions or to predict how the statute will work.  Even though the United States refused to vote for the statute, the statute may come into effect in a few years.  Moreover, even a country that is not a state party may find itself part of the activities of the International Criminal Court. PIRAG CENTER OPENS IN YEREVAN  WITH FUNDING FROM ARMENBAR & EURASIA FOUNDATION Back to Top On October 29, after several weeks of preparation by staff and friends, the headquarters of the Public Interest Research and Advocacy Project (PIRAG) opened its doors on the first floor of 15 Grigor Lusavorich Street in Yerevan. Housed in a building together with the local "A1+" TV station, Garoon literary journal, the Self- Determination Union, the non-profit division of the Ministry of Justice, the Parentless Children's Fund, and several other offices, PIRAG will oversee branches in the regions all over Armenia in three areas of inquiry and action: --legal reform --training interviewers and preparers of human rights petitions for the Ombudsman --public interest polling and pilot projects in grassroots citizen organizing. PIRAG was made possible by the vision gleaned from the past decade's experience of the Armenian Bar Association's "Armenia Projects" initiatives, its ongoing cooperation with the Avangard Humanitarian Association, and funding from the Eurasia Foundation in Washington, DC. Lawyers from Armenbar will provide continuous pro bono supervision of the project, while local Armenian lawyers, teachers, social workers, statisticians, and students will form the core of the workforce.  In addition, other volunteer experts in Armenia and from the diaspora have generously agreed to provide consulting resources. The Armenian Bar Association is proud to be part of this remarkable effort to further the growth of a civil society under the rule of law in Armenia. 1999 LEADERSHIP TRIBNUTE Back to Top The Association thanks the following Board Members for completing their terms of service. Their selfless leadership and contributions of time, energy and ideas have strengthened the Association and contributed to its success. LISA BARSOOMIAN is an Assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.  Ms. Barsoomian defends the United States in civil suits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  She also handles appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ms. Barsoomian was in private practice for five years and served as a judicial law clerk to a federal district court judge in Los Angeles for two years. Ms. Barsoomian has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Armenian Bar Association since 1993.  She has served on the Executive Committee as Secretary  (1993-94) and Vice-Chair (1995-96), and currently is the Editor of the Association's Newsletter.  Ms. Barsoomian has been instrumental in organizing numerous Association programs in the D.C. area. In addition to her service to the Association, Ms. Barsoomian serves as Co-Chair of the Women's Bar Association Judicial Endorsements Committee and Vice-Chair of the American Bar Association, Professionals' Officers' & Directors' Liability Committee. Ms. Barsoomian and her husband Rod J. Rosenstein, who is a federal prosecutor, participated in the Association's first Mid-Year meeting in Yerevan, Armenia in 1994. DENISE G. DARMANIAN has been a member of the Armenian Bar Association since its inception in 1989.  During her tenure, she has been involved in the Membership Development and Armenian Rights Watch Committees of ArmenBar. A native New Yorker, Ms. Darmanian is a graduate of St. John's University School of Law and currently practices international corporate law as General Counsel to FCS Laboratories, Inc.  and as a partner in the New York City law firm of Gallo & Darmanian. Ms. Darmanian considers one of the most rewarding aspects of her career in the law to be her involvement with ArmenBar.  "When established in 1989, under the capable leadership of Raffi Hovannisian, the organization was one whose time had come.  The convergence of a variety of global influences, including the establishment of a free Armenia and the growing prominence of attorneys of Armenian descent in the United States and around the world, made the organization ripe for formation. Its success in recent years is an attestation to the wisdom of its founding leaders." It is Ms. Darmanian's hope that ArmenBar will endure forever with the foresight, and in the spirit, it was first created. TAMAR HAJIAN is Vice President and General Counsel of Brandeis University, where she has worked for the past 11 years following private practice in Boston.  She majored in political science at Wellesley College, received a J.D. from Boston College Law School and an LL.M. in taxation from Boston University School of Law.  A leader in the Armenian community and numerous organizations throughout her life, Ms. Hajian loves music, literature, politics and wit.  Together with her husband Berge, a mathematician, she has visited  Armenia frequently since 1967. She is a founding member of the Armenian Bar Association.  Most recently, she spent six weeks teaching a course for graduate lawyers and organizing the Armenbar PIRAG project in Yerevan during the fall of 1998. She is a past Chair of the American Bar Association's General Practice Section Committee on Charitable & Non-Profit Law, author of commentaries and a speaker on legal and political affairs. The Hajians are the parents of three adult children and are long-time residents of Needham, MA. SARO KERKONIAN has been a member of the Armenian Bar Association since its inception in 1989.  During that time, he has served as chairperson of the Pro Bono Committee for three years, Newsletter Editor for three years and two terms as a member of the Association's Board of Governors. A member of the California State Bar since 1988, Kerkonian has been in private practice for the past four years in Pasadena, California.  His primary area of practice is workers' compensation and general civil litigation.  He is also a member of the California State Bar's Workers' Compensation section. In 1992, while co-chairperson of the Association's Pro Bono Committee, Kerkonian was presented with a "Certificate of Appreciation" by the Mutual Assistance Association Coalition of the County of Los Angeles for his work in organizing and presenting "Know Your Rights" legal education lectures. Third Annual ABA Picnic Back to Top Nearly two hundred members and friends of the Armenian Bar Association gathered at Pasadena's Victory Park on the afternoon of October 11, 1998, for the Association's third annual picnic. Organized by the inspiration of United States District Court Judge and Association member,  the Honorable Dickran Tevrizian, the picnic has quickly become one of the most popular and well-attended of the Association's activities.  This year's event was no exception.  Law students,  practicing attorneys, and state and federal judges had the opportunity to see old friends and meet new colleagues amidst the spacious surroundings of the park.  Special guests of the Association who attended included Judge Tevrizian, Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Richard Kolostian and Ronald M. Sohigian, in addition to Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Alice Altoon. Those in attendance enjoyed a delicious kebab luncheon catered by one of Pasadena's most popular restaurants, Armenian-owned Burger Continental. All proceeds from the event went to support the Association's activities, including the Pro Bono,  Armenian Rights Watch, Armenia Programs and Law Student Committees, among others. MEMBERS IN THE NEWS AND ON THE MOVE Back to Top Khoren Bandazian II spoke at the Institute for APParalegal Education's seminar entitled "The Paralegal's Role in the Real Estate Transaction in New Jersey."  The focus of the seminar was the practical role the paralegal plays in handling real estate files from contract to closing, including document preparation, reading title reports, preparing settlements and post-closing matters. Mr. Bandazian is an associate with the Hackensack, NJ law firm of Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, P.C.  He received his B.S. degree from Northeastern University and his J.D. degree from Pace University Law School. Mr. Bandazian is admitted in New Jersey and New York, and is a member of the New Jersey, New York, American, Armenian and Bergen County Bar Associations. He resides in Fort Lee with his wife Lucie and daughter Ana. Lisa A. Stephanian Burton was elected as a Junior Partner of Hale and Dorr LLP.  Ms. Burton's practice focuses on labor and employment law. Harry Dikranian, business litigation lawyer at Sternthal Katznelson Montigny in Montreal, has filed a class action on behalf of all Quebec students who graduated or completed their post-secondary studies before May 1998.  The complaint is based on the retroactive application of a law that saw interest charges debited from student loan accounts without notice and notwithstanding clear stipulations to the contrary.  Given the nature and scope of the file - estimated value in the range of $30 million Cdn. - The Canadian mainstream and university press are paying close attention and have already extensively covered this action. Mr. Dikranian and his wife Norma Alepian are expecting a baby in late June 1999. Amy Hoogasian is serving as the Chair of the Environmental Committee of the Chicago Bar Association for 1998-1999.  Ms. Hoogasian currently is an attorney to the chairman of the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Karineh Khachatourian has joined the San Francisco office of Coudert Brothers.  Ms. Khachatourian's practice focuses on  intellectual property litigation. Van Z. Krikorian has joined the New York office of Vedder, Price, Kaufman, Kannholz & Day.  Mr. Krikorian's practice focuses on corporate and international law.  Among his many professional activities, Mr. Krikorian is the Chairman of the Committee on Armenia Programs, American Bar Association and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Armenian Assembly. Thomas J. Samuelian has moved to Yerevan, Armenia and has formed  a public interest law firm in downtown Yerevan and Arlex International Ltd, 15 Grigor Lusavorich, Yerevan, Armenia (tel.) 0113742588786; E-mail: "arlex@arminco.com" Mr. Samuelian also serves as an advisor to the constitutional reform commission in Armenia. David Sargsian is working as a Program Officer with the Eurasia Foundation. Mr. Sargsian is responsible for the grants in the fields of rule of law, public administration, media and NGOs. Gabrielle R. Wolohojian was elected as a Senior Partner of Hale and Dorr LLP. Ms. Wolohojian's practice focuses on complex civil litigation and criminal defense work.  She has handled contract disputes, class action suits, employment litigation and general litigation arising out of business transactions.  She also has served as the court-appointed receiver of a charitable organization.  From 1994 o 1995, Ms. Wolohojian served as Associate Counsel on the Whitewater investigation under Robert Fiske and the Hon. Kenneth Starr.