Qeneral Assembly to indiaate whether the Commissiongo mandate extends to the preparation of the etatute of a competent international ariminal juriadiation for individuals,” U/ 96. The question concerning implementation of the draft Code, including the possible establishment of an international oriminal jurisdiction, also same up in the Commissior~*s discussions at its thirty-eighth (19861, 4p/ thirty-ninth (1987), a/ fortieth (1988) p2/ and forty-first eesrrions (1989) a/ and the Commission reiterated the above-wntioned inquiry to the Qeneral Assembly at its thirty-eighth (1986) QPI and thirty-ninth ssssions (1987). 451 261 See pare. 105 below. wReport of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-fifth session, Qfficial of msThirrfv?ei<lhthw S-w&Q (A/38/10), para. 69 (c) (i). $Q/ m., ~ty-~~~ No. 1Q (A/41/10), paras* 146 to 148. ui ma, ~pyt+-~JQ (A/42mL p-as. 29 to 36. 421 IpIo., a (A/43/10), para. 280, commentary to srticlo 4. ~1 fpiQ., Baaaaioe, SJQ (A/44/10), paraa. 211 to 216. 491 u., &U&-S- No. lQ (A/41/10), pars. 185, footnote 100, 49 Ipfp., saeaaion.Suement.Mo.AQ (A/42/10), pars. 67 (c), footnote 28, - 37 -97.In particular, when provisionally adopting on first reading, at its fortieth aeesic.% draft artiole 4 of the draft Code, concerning the @‘obligation to try or extradite”, the Commission included in this provision a paragraph 3 stating that “the provieioncs of paragraph6 1 and 2 of this artiole do not prejudge the establishment and the juriediotion of an international or iminal aour to’. Furthermore, in paragraph (5) of the relevant commentary, the Commission indicated that paragraph 3 of draft article 4 “deals with the possible establishment of an international criminal court” and “it ehowa that the jurisdictional solution adopted in draft article 4 would not prevent the Commission from dealing, in due eourae, with the formulation of the statute of an international criminal court”. a/