Bill Pace, the CICC convenor, found it "contradictory" that the US "associates itself with the populations of India and China," to defend its proposals about the ICC, commenting on Scheffer's remarks about the governments of "two-thirds" of humankind being opposed to the kind of Court proposed by the like-minded group.

He stressed that India had just introduced an amendment to the Statute, to prevent the United Nations Security Council from referring matters to the Court while "the only thing the US wants is to ensure the ability of the Security Council to refer matters to the Court."

"We are not now in any different situation as we were a few days ago, when the US and France were not able to agree with most of the world's democracies on principles, and sided with a number of countries whose goal is to have this Conference filibustered," he said.

However, he said the US tone in public has changed to a milder one, and that the "prospect of a catastrophic failure is very small."

Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch called Scheffer's statement "a threat, some bluster," and a "sign of weakness" in front of political isolation in the Conference. He said the US has not been able to twist the majority to their will, and is now trying to influence the chairman. "I don't think the US will walk out of this Court," he added.

Both Pace and Dicker found significant the timing chosen by the US chief delegate to hold a press conference for the first time in the Conference, but Leanza disagreed. The statement "is a very positive fact," because Scheffer "did not exclude the continuation of a dialogue" for a positive outcome of the meeting. "This statement shows that there are still many possibilities open," he said. 

He deemed "dangerous, damaging" the insistence of journalists in seeking reactions to Philippe Kirsch's draft document, which, he said, he had not yet seen. "We have to keep our feet on the ground. My message is not very different from the message I have just heard (from Scheffer)," he added.