On Tuesday, delegates from a 30-odd group of countries and others were filing in and out of the Canada Room, which Kirsch has adopted as headquarters for the Bureau negotiations, even as pressure was mounting from several quarters.

The document to be introduced Wednesday evening will be - in the word of one like-minded delegate - "positive" for the expectations of the majority and is likely, therefore, to generate even more heat.

The Canadian diplomat is trying to avoid the two most feared - but increasingly present- threats: an endless round of votes or a postponement. Both would represent a setback to the momentum painfully achieved so far.

Kirsch would much rather go for consensus as, he said, he has successfully done in the past. But several like-minded and non-aligned delegates said they were not frightened by the prospect of a vote to settle the ICC stalemate.

Kirsch told journalists Tuesday that the "main difficulty" in achieving consensus was the fact that "some states tend to forget the main objective" - a Court acceptable to all. These states would rather put the stress on their own national interest and national legal systems in the State. Of course, he refused to identify such states or to describe the minimum elements that a compromise would have to contain in order for him to present the package to delegations.

UN undersecretary general Hans Correll said that "delegates have to realise that it may not be possible to insist on their national positions, if there is to be an understanding."

Kirsch rejected - on technical grounds - the possibility of postponing the adoption of a Statute if he fails to reach understanding. In any case, this is an alternative that horrifies both non-governmental organisations and like-minded countries.

Undue pressure Bill Pace, the convenor of the NGO Coalition for an ICC, quoted reports that the United States has been using undue leverage on like-minded countries, including Germany and other European states, in order to force a change in their stand. He said some delegates had confidentially told him that if the proposal to be presented by Kirsch is not acceptable to Washington, they may then receive new orders from home. Those countries "expect a signal from the US," he said.

Other delegates have said that France and the US have resorted to financial and economic arguments to persuade smaller countries to soften their support for a strong and independent Court.

A US spokesman would neither confirm nor deny reports of such intense and bilateral lobbying and other assertions that have spread in the last few, tense days of the conference. "The US does not comment on bilateral discussions in the context of multilateral negotiations," he said.

"The US has an extraordinary working relationship with a wide variety of states, and any such relationship includes speaking frankly on a number of issues. The nature of the relationship makes it absolutely essential that such discussions remain confindential," he added.

Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, argued that "a deal is being orchestrated to have a protocol annexed (to the Statute) that would allow countries to opt out after signing the Statute."

This is equivalent to "a photo opportunity Court: they sign and then they opt out," he said. To others, this annex option was a typical diplomatic escape hatch for controversial agreements and one very likely to be adopted. With evident anxiety, CICC representatives are concentrating lobbying efforts on what considers the very essential issues - inherent jurisdiction, independence for the Prosecutor, coverage of internal conflicts and gender.

Pace said that the inclusion of aggression as a war crime was not a priority for the Coalition, because there is no consensus among NGOs on the matter.

As one dissident non-aligned movement delegate put it to TerraViva: "If you want aggression in (the Statute), then you will have the (United Nations) Security Council in, and we want it out." (See stor)

Italy

Responding to critical calls for Italy to show stronger leadership as the host country, Italian foreign minister Lamberto Dini personally addressed the Committee of the Whole Tuesday, with a strong appeal for "acceptable compromise while not destroying the substance" of the ICC.

"This has been the spirit in which we have defined the crimes falling within the scope of the Court, the complementarity between national courts and the International Court, the powers of the Prosecutor to institute proceedings at his own initiative, and the relationship between the Court and the Security Council," he said.

He insisted that a Statute, not a mere Final Act, must be solemnly signed "by the representatives of all the countries here in Rome" on Saturday at the city's historical Campidoglio square.

Reflecting the general state of mind of many delegations here, Dini stressed that the Conferece is at a crucial phase - "with success or failure hanging on a thread."

A club?

There is an enormous political abyss between the two conceptions of a Court, not counting those who don't believe in any Court whatsoever. NGOs claim that the US, France and the other Security Council members want a Court ruled by the UN's main political body, while the US claims that an ICC with the characteristics defined by the like-minded group would simply not attract a sufficient number of countries to be effective.

"The problem is that there are two Courts here," a like-minded delegate said. "One is the one we want - independent, strong and with universal jurisdiction - and there is the other one, controlled by the Security Council."

"In this search for consensus, we compromise on all issues, in order to achieve a consensus that then we are going to be the only ones to sign anyway," he said, implying that a vote would not be such a bad alternative under these circumstances.

Another delegate, however, argued that such a Court would be equivalent to a "small club," or as one journalist put it, "a Court that would try only the genocides, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by New Zealand or Germany."

According to Dicker, jurisdiction is the main issue at stake. The US proposal, he said, would mean that "the ICC (can) prosecute someone like (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein, only after getting his consent first."

Jelena Peric of the Lawyers for Human Rights, insisted that a Court without the United States is "absolutely" possible. But a European delegate called such an option unthinkable: "We are prepared to go the extra mile for an agreement (with the US). We're desperate for it." Alejandro Kirk/IPS