International Criminal Tribunals Made ‘Enormous Contribution’ to Ending Impunity, General Assembly Hears in Briefings on Handover of Work to Residual Mechanism
By building an extraordinary legal edifice of international criminal accountability, the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia had helped lay the groundwork for future generations to prosecute international law violations more efficiently and with a better understanding of the law, the General Assembly heard today as it took up the latest reports on the courts.
Presenting the twentieth and final report on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Judge Vagn Joensen, its President, said that, while the Tribunal would close shortly, the records generated over the past two decades not only provided an account of the genocide, but also told the story of the Tribunal.
Judge Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and of the Residual Mechanism for the two Tribunals, introduced the body’s report. The Mechanism, he said, had demonstrated that it was at the forefront of international justice, and that, with the appropriate organization, infrastructure and leadership, it was possible to operate efficiently and cost-effectively.
Having lived through the Second World War and witnessed some of its horrors first-hand as a child, he said it had been a privilege to help guide the first of the modern era’s international criminal tribunals. The Tribunals were inspirational examples of the international community’s commitment to ending impunity and promoting the rule of law.
When the floor was opened to delegations, the representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, said the impact of the Rwanda Tribunal, which was in its final months of functioning, had been profound. In providing a definition of rape and recognizing it as an act of genocide, the court had been at the forefront of the development of international criminal law, a point also noted by the delegation of Rwanda.
The European Union’s representative said that both Tribunals, since their establishment, had embodied the need to fight impunity. Completing the justice process for crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia was an essential contribution to lasting peace, accountability and rule of law, he added.
Aligning with the European Union, the representative of Croatia agreed that the Tribunals represented a breakthrough in the development of international criminal law. He provided details of the case of Vojislav Šešelj, indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and said he had been released for humanitarian reasons, which was unacceptable and insulting. While the Tribunal’s legacy was not without flaws, that matter should in no way tarnish its historical record, but should serve as a lesson for the pursuit of international justice.
Serbia’s representative, on the other hand, said that Mr. Šešelj, a Serbian citizen, had been accused of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in events at the beginning of the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. He had not been sentenced and had spent more than 11 years in United Nations detention. Although the accused had been provisionally released and transferred to Serbia, where he was being treated for a life-threatening disease, his case constituted a “failure of the international criminal judiciary”.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania also focused on the temporal aspect of the Tribunals, but took a longer view, thanking the international community for the trust placed in his country as host. The speaker said the Tribunal should be a reminder that “never again” must mean just that, and not “again and again”.
Also participating in today’s meeting were representatives of Canada (also speaking on behalf of New Zealand and Australia), Guatemala, United States, Chile, and the Russian Federation.
The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on 14 October, to consider the report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization.
Background
The General Assembly met this morning to take up three reports related to the International Criminal Tribunals, for which it had before it a note of the Secretary-General entitled Report of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/70/218).
It further planned to take up another note of the Secretary-General entitled Report of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/70/226).
Finally, it would consider a note of the Secretary-General entitled International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (document A/70/225).
Briefings
Judge VAGN JOENSEN, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994, presented the court’s twentieth and final report. Noting that its functions would be passed on to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, he presented an overview of the work undertaken by the court from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015. Among its notable accomplishments was the completion by the Appeals Chamber of its work in all but one case — that of Nyiramasuhuko et al. or “Butare”. The judgement was expected in December, and, thereafter, the Tribunal would comprise only a small team to complete the liquidation activities projected to conclude early in 2016.
The Tribunal, he went on, had completed its work at the trial level for the 93 accused since January 2013, while its remaining judicial work had been in the Appeals Chamber. The Tribunal had issued three appeal judgements regarding four people in the Karemera and Ngirumpatse, Nizeyimana, and Nzabonimana cases, bringing the number of cases of people whose judgement had been completed at the appellate level to 55. Regarding cases transferred from the Tribunal to national jurisdictions, he said there were four cases pending — two in Rwanda and two in France. The monitoring of those cases now rested with the Mechanism.
He said that despite staffing challenges, the Tribunal had made substantial progress in the transfer of records to the Mechanism for preservation. As of 1 October, the Mechanism had received approximately 78 per cent of the physical Tribunal records, which would be housed in that body’s archives. While the Tribunal would close shortly, the records generated over the past two decades not only provided an account of the genocide, but also told the story of the Tribunal.
Turning to the work of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Mechanism, he said that during the reporting period, it had focused on the remaining appeals and on providing assistance with ongoing litigation, in support of its core work. It was compiling various lessons learned and best practice manuals. There had been few developments in relocating acquitted persons and on those released after serving their sentences. While the Mechanism had assumed responsibility for relocation as of 1 January, the Tribunal remained committed to assisting it in its relocation efforts until its closure.
He noted, finally, plans for an event marking the Tribunal’s closure, on 1 December in Arusha. He hoped for broad participation by the Member States.
Judge THEODOR MERON, President of the Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals and of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, introduced the Mechanism’s report. The past year, he said, had underscored that the Mechanism stood at the forefront of international justice, demonstrating that, with the appropriate organization, infrastructure and leadership, it was possible to operate efficiently and cost-effectively. The Mechanism’s first appeal judgement had been a successful process without delays. He was confident that the success could be replicated in future trials and appeals.
He said that, over the next year, the Mechanism would be focused on three challenges, namely, the construction of a new home for the Mechanism in Arusha, the apprehension of the last remaining individuals — currently fugitives — indicted by the court, and the relocation of those individuals who had been acquitted or released but were unable or afraid to return to their country of citizenship. While addressing those specific challenges, the Mechanism focused on best practices, and had recently adopted a judicial code spelling out the ethical responsibilities of judges and the high standards to which it held itself.
Turning to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, he said it was expected to complete its work in about two years. Noting that today was the last time he would brief the General Assembly as President of that Tribunal, he said that having lived through the Second World War and witnessing some of its horrors first-hand as a child, it had been a particular privilege for him to help guide the first of the modern era’s international criminal tribunals. Those courts stood as inspirational examples of the international community’s commitment to ending impunity and promoting the rule of law.
Statements
GILLES MARHIC of the European Union welcomed the Mechanism’s increasing assumption of responsibility for all aspects of the Tribunals’ work. Since their establishment, both courts had embodied the need to fight impunity and they had paved the way for the International Criminal Court. The smooth handover of functions to the Mechanism was important for both its branches to carry on and protect the work of the Tribunals.
With respect to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, he noted that the failure to arrest nine accused at-large individuals was a matter of great concern. With regard to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, he said that completing the justice process for crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia was an essential contribution to lasting peace, accountability and rule of law. In its Stabilization and Association Process for the Western Balkans, the European Union underlined the importance of local ownership for handling war crimes cases, in line with the need to fight impunity. The Union would continue to support both the principle and system of international criminal justice and its essential role towards lasting peace, accountability and rule of law, and he called on all States to do the same.
GILES NORMAN (Canada), also speaking on behalf of New Zealand and Australia, reaffirmed strong support for the International Criminal Tribunals of the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Mechanism. During the more than 20 years since their establishment, the Tribunals had added breadth and depth to international criminal jurisprudence. Their many achievements and “enormous contribution” towards ending impunity could not be overstated.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand, known as CANZ, also noted that States had a central role to play as facilitators of the Tribunals’ work, he said. Final apprehension of outstanding fugitives for the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was due in large part to the cooperation of States and the Tribunal’s Prosecutor. The group called for similar cooperation with the Mechanism regarding the nine outstanding fugitives of the Rwanda Tribunal. He welcomed the Tribunals’ commitment to ensuring the effective transfer of their remaining activities to the Mechanism, and looked forward to the results of that body’s 2016 review.
MAY-ELIN STENER (Norway), also speaking on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, said that both Tribunals deserved praise for their work in the area of addressing sexual and gender-based crimes. The impact of the Rwanda Tribunal, which was in its final months of functioning, had been profound. In providing a definition of rape and recognizing it as an act of genocide, the court had been at the forefront of the development of international criminal law. Cooperation with national jurisdictions on the court’s remaining work was important. The Residual Mechanism depended on that cooperation to arrest three of the nine fugitives still at large, who would be tried before the Mechanism.
GABRIEL O. ZABALZA (Guatemala) welcomed important progress made in the past year regarding appeals and transition to the Residual Mechanism, which was a success for the entire international community. The United Nations Security Council had to resolve the matter of those who had served their sentences, and it seemed practical that it be in the hands of the Mechanism. Congratulating the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for implementing a concluding strategy, he noted that it had been 20 years since Srebrenica. The gradual transition towards the Mechanism was a model for institutions of international criminal justice. A central aspect of the Tribunals had been their role in the promotion of peace and reconciliation.
CASSANDRA Q. BUTTS (United States) said that because of the Tribunals, the victims of horrific atrocities had received a meaningful measure of justice, and the international community had greatly advanced peace and security via justice and accountability for atrocities committed during the past 20 years. “Grim events” across the world, from Syria to the Central African Republic, South Sudan to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, were a reminder that the challenge of ending mass atrocities was greater than ever. By building an extraordinary legal edifice of international criminal accountability, the Tribunals had helped lay the groundwork for future generations to prosecute international law violations more efficiently, and with a better understanding of the law.
SAŠA OBRADOVIĆ (Serbia), associating with the European Union, said his country had grave concerns regarding the failure to determine the date of rendering of the trial judgement in the Vojislav Šešelj case. Šešelj, a Serbian citizen, had been accused of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in events at the beginning of the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. He had not been sentenced and had spent more than 11 years in United Nations detention. Although the accused had been provisionally released and transferred to Serbia, where he was being treated for a life-threatening disease, his case constituted a “failure of the international criminal judiciary”.
On the domestic front, Serbia continued to investigate, prosecute and try persons suspected of committing the worst atrocities of the 1990s, he said, adding that it was the duty of all countries in the region to do so. Proceedings must be conducted without any discrimination on the basis of the national, ethnic or religious affiliation of the perpetrator or victim. However, Serbia was not satisfied with the way the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was handling that matter, adding that in almost all of its major cases where the victims had been of Serb ethnicity, the accused had been acquitted. He also expressed concern about the humanitarian status of Serbian citizens convicted by the Tribunal who were serving sentences in other countries. Many of the accused were in penitentiaries thousands of kilometres away from their country or society, and they did not understand the language of their prison community, making them doubly isolated. Failure to address those issues had had a negative effect on the attitude of Serbian society towards the work of the Tribunal and its legacy.
TUVAKO N. MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania) said that, while the transition to the Residual Mechanism was going well, some critical work remained. As the closure of the Rwanda Tribunal approached, the plight of the persons released or acquitted who deserved relocation should be kept in mind. As the host country for the Tribunal, the United Republic of Tanzania recognized the great legacy it had left to international criminal law in the region and the world at large. It was commendable that as the Tribunals completed their work and progressively downsized their operations, the Mechanism was establishing its own administration. Thanking the international community for the trust placed in his country as host, he said the Tribunal should be a reminder that “never again” must mean just that and not “again and again”.
JAVIER GOROSTEGUI OBANOZ (Chile) acknowledged the work of the International Criminal Tribunals and commended their significant contribution to international jurisprudence and the development of international law. Chile welcomed the news that the Rwanda Tribunal would soon conclude its work, noting that nine indictees were still at large, six of whom were under Rwanda’s jurisdiction, and three of whom were under the jurisdiction of the Mechanism. He noted the scheduled closing of the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2017 and was confident that all members of the international community would provide support for its mandate. He encouraged best practices in international criminal justice.
VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia), associating with the European Union, said both Tribunals represented a breakthrough in the development of international criminal law. Turning to matters of national concern, he provided details of the case of Vojislav Šešelj, indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and said he had been released for humanitarian reasons, which was unacceptable and insulting. His country encouraged Serbia to introduce into its legislation universal jurisdiction for core international crimes. While the legacy of the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was not entirely without flaws, that should in no way tarnish its historical record, but should serve as an important lesson for the benefit of international criminal justice overall.
MAXIM V. MUSIKHIN (Russian Federation) said his country was grateful for the reports on the International Criminal Tribunals and on the Residual Mechanism. Neither court had been able to complete its work in accordance with the timelines set by Security Council resolution 1966 (2010). Nevertheless, he commended the closing, however late, of the Rwanda Tribunal. The Russian Federation believed that the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia should redouble its efforts to reduce the duration of its proceedings, as per Council resolution 2193 (2014). Noting that some of the accused had serious health problems, he called on the Tribunal to take into account humanitarian considerations. The Russian Federation hoped that the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia would avoid further delays in completion of its work. Progress on that would have to be assessed in the coming months by the Council. His country viewed with “cautious optimism” the work of the Mechanism, and hoped that it would be effective in its work, taking into account the limited nature of its mandate.
MABONEZA SANA (Rwanda) said that the Tribunal had established that the genocide in Rwanda had been against the Tutsi as a group, and that rape could be an act of genocide. Going through the current status of cases still under consideration, he commended Germany for continuing to prosecute genocide leaders. The Tribunal’s archives should be relocated to Rwanda upon the completion of its work, because they were an integral part of that country’s history. Thanking both International Criminal Tribunals for endeavouring to bring justice for the most serious crimes, he expressed hope that the Mechanism would be able to arrest the remaining fugitives and bring them to justice as well.
Acting without a vote, the General Assembly took note of all three reports before them.