Sixth Committee Speakers Argue Over Codifying Crimes against Humanity Draft Texts, with Some Calling for Forming Ad Hoc Committee to Break Impasse

Delegates Conclude Debate on Rule of Law

As the Sixth Committee (Legal) commenced its consideration of crimes against humanity, speakers argued over the need to elaborate a convention based on the International Law Commission’s draft articles, with some pointing to three years of stalled progress, calling for an ad hoc committee that could facilitate a constructive exchange on the matter.

The representative of Morocco, speaking for the African Group, said that an open discussion aimed at achieving the necessary consensus could put in place an effective international legal framework — a universal convention to address crimes against humanity.  However, she also urged States to avoid imposing the views of any party, legal theory or definitions derived from some international agreements that do not enjoy universal acceptance during upcoming deliberations.

Slovakia’s representative also added his support for creating a process that allowed for substantive discussions, noting that the draft articles on crimes against humanity — many of which reflect customary international law — represent a carefully drafted, solid basis for codification.  In line with recent developments, he encouraged Member States to redouble their efforts in their fight against impunity on all fronts and ensure that justice prevails over violence.

Similarly, the representative of the Czech Republic recalled that the international community outlawed genocide and war crimes through conventions in 1948 and 1949, respectively.  Crimes against humanity were not less serious.  Because some delegations might not have the resources to hold a full discussion on the issue during busy periods, he suggested that an ad hoc committee would provide a forum to conduct such meetings during the less busy intersessional period.

Mexico’s representative, spotlighting the overwhelming desire in the Committee to advance substantive consideration on the topic, said his delegation was preparing a draft resolution along with other States with a goal of establishing an ad hoc committee in 2023, open to all Member States.  Remarking on the little progress made during negotiations, he said he regretted that consensus has been abused as a method of work in the Committee, becoming a “formula for paralysis”.

Echoing that stance, the representative of Sweden, also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, noted that inclusive, transparent intersessional discussions among experts were needed to achieve a breakthrough in the stalled negotiations.  To that end, she voiced her support for establishing an ad hoc committee, with a clear mandate and timeline, to provide a forum that would allow States to exchange views.

Italy's delegate, also expressing regret over scarce tangible results elaborating the draft texts into a convention, reported that his country is working on a code of international crimes, with the inclusion of a provision concerning immunity ratione materiae before national criminal tribunals.  A similar provision could be included in the domestic normative acts that could then be elaborated consistently with the draft articles.

Some delegations, however, shared their reservations not only about establishing an ad hoc committee and creating a universal resolution, but their concerns regarding procedural developments.

The representative of Venezuela, speaking for the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, said that the absence of consultations prior to presenting a draft resolution on the matter went against the Sixth Committee’s established work practice.  There was a growing resort to an activism-based approach, dominated by political pressure, as opposed to the constructive spirit, aimed at finding solutions suitable for all, he pointed out.

In this regard, the representative of Belarus referred to regional fragmentation of international law as “unacceptable”, spotlighting current divergence of views on the draft articles and outlining concerns of States about the risks of a selective and arbitrary application of the rules.  He also echoed serious concern over procedural changes and said that shifting away from consensus and voting on one agenda item would likely set an unfortunate precedent for similar actions on other items.

The representative of the Russian Federation emphasized the need for a consensus approach to be taken, which in the past helped ensure that products of the International Law Commission had a good chance of eventually becoming norms of international law, including generally accepted ones.  The “unprecedented violations” to the Committee’s working procedures, with certain States bypassing its usual methods of work, illustrated double standards, he said.

The Sixth Committee also concluded its debate on the rule of law, during which speakers discussed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Government policies, multilateralism and unilateral actions of some States. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3659.)

The representative of Gabon pointed out that since there is no sole model for strengthening the rule of law, ongoing dialogue is needed to foster ownership at the national level, while also ensuring rights of girls, women and widows, as well as greater protection to the environment.

Honduras’ delegate, recalling the coup that violated her country’s democracy in 2009, said that 12 years later, with international support, free and transparent elections were conducted.  The new Government, in its many measures to recover the rule of law, was establishing a mechanism to implement national strategies designed to counter corruption and attain the Sustainable Development Goals.

Mauritania’s representative, underscoring that the rule of law guarantees that international law applies to all States, said that in a State governed by the rule of law, “justice is a public service through which the State renders real its mission of jurisdictional protection” for its citizens.

Also speaking on the rule of law at the national and international levels were representatives of the Russian Federation, Oman, China, Peru, Morocco, Namibia and Venezuela.  Observers for the State of Palestine, International Anti-Corruption Academy, European Public Law Organization and the International Development Law Organization also spoke.

Also speaking on crimes against humanity were representatives of Canada (also for Australia and New Zealand), Singapore, Jordan, Iran, Philippines, Liechtenstein, Colombia, Hungary, United States, Austria, Germany, Egypt, El Salvador, Brazil, Guatemala, Slovakia, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Ireland, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Burkina Faso, United Kingdom, Portugal, India, Senegal, Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Viet Nam, South Africa, Ghana, Armenia, Ecuador, Argentina, Mozambique and Chile, along with a representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

The representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 October, to conclude its debate on crimes against humanity and begin consideration of administration of justice at the United Nations, the United Nations common system and the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Rule of Law at National and International Levels

ALEXANDER S. PROSKURYAKOV (Russian Federation) called the Secretary-General’s report on the rule of law “heavily imbalanced” due to disproportional coverage of national and international elements of the principle.  He underscored that the report was skewed toward the national component, imposing a “one size fits all model” of behaviour and “the right ways” of organizing State and social society.  He emphasized that any assistance provided by the Organization should be granted exclusively upon request from the country in question.  He also expressed concern about non-inclusion of any consideration of the national, cultural and religious circumstances of respective States.  He further expressed regret about significant gender and human rights-bent focus of the report, underscoring that other dedicated fora exist for such discussions.  He also noted that the report included details on cooperation with a non-United Nations, non-universal and non-specialized body, namely the International Criminal Court.  In that regard, he called for reports to include the activities of only those judicial bodies which enjoy universal support.

MOHAMMED AL-SHEHI (Oman), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that within the “Oman 2040 vision” plan a special importance was allocated to the issues of governance, oversight, principles of justice, transparency and integrity.  He underlined the importance his country allocated to accountability in a manner that increases trust in national economies.  He added that legislation, the judicial system and oversight were among the top priorities of Oman, with a view to establish an integrated legislative framework.  Commending cooperation within States, he underscored that deepening ties of cooperation should be done on the basis of mutual respect, common interests and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States.  He also noted that conflict resolution must be done in the spirit of tolerance and amity, emphasizing that national laws should be put in harmony with international standards and agreements in a manner that does not encroach upon their sovereignty and immunity.

LIU YANG (China) said that his country followed a people-centred philosophy and abided by the law in preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.  The national legislature enacted laws related to the prevention and treatment of infectious disease, which were then complemented by local authorities’ efforts, ensuring a response at all levels of Government.  Further, China’s judiciary combated criminal acts impeding efforts to control the pandemic, along with continuing to resolve civil and commercial disputes.  Noting that the Government worked to protect the public’s rights while enforcing pandemic-control measures, he said that the combined efforts of China’s legislative, judicial and law enforcement bodies served to guarantee the rule of law.  Since the outbreak of the COVID-19, pandemic mortality rates in China were the lowest in the world, and the country was able to maintain stable economic growth.  The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has been impacted by the pandemic, geopolitical conflicts and crises in food and energy, he observed, stressing that, as these are global challenges, China has chosen to work to benefit the world, rather than focus on its own interests.

YOLANNIE CERRATO (Honduras), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, recalled that, although many countries condemned the coup that violated Honduras’ democracy in 2009, this situation was not reversed until 12 years later.  With international support, however, free and transparent elections were conducted to recover the rule of law in Honduras, she said, adding that the new Government was aiming to restore transparency, accountability and the social fabric of the nation.  Among other measures, it established a mechanism to implement national strategies designed to counter corruption and attain the Sustainable Development Goals.  She went on to point out that women have catalysed other groups to build a strong social movement towards participatory democracy that guarantees better living conditions and gender justice.  Turning to the international level, she spotlighted her country’s active participation in negotiations relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.  She also stressed that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need for universal health instruments to meet new challenges.

Ms. OKUOMA (Gabon), associating herself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed out that there is no sole model for strengthening the rule of law; thus, ongoing dialogue is needed to foster ownership at the national level.  Her country has beefed up institutions through reforms aimed at improving governance and has made significant headway in judicial independence through offering better training for officials and enhancing budgetary allocation.  Gabon has also overhauled its criminal codes to take into account the rights of girls, women and widows, as well as ensured greater protection to the environment.  Further, Gabon has introduced provisions tackling terrorism and money laundering into its national legislation and a framework tackling correction was developed with the assistance of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).  Spotlighting a debate held at the Security Council, chaired by Gabon, on 6 October, on the theme of illicit trafficking in natural resources and its funding of armed groups in Africa, she called for measures to be taken to tackle transnational organized crime, which threatens security in the sub-region and scuppers development as a result.

ALESSANDRA FALCONI (Peru) noted that the Secretary-General’s report draws attention to unresolved difficulties faced by the world, including the undermining of judicial institutions, climate emergency and the persisting pandemic.  To that end, she welcomed the United Nations’ assistance in promoting the rule of law and expressed support for the notion of a new social compact.  Peru’s commitment to this is tied to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.  In this regard, she highlighted Peru’s social cohesion agenda, which promotes inclusion for the benefit of all, particularly the most vulnerable.  In the face of the devastation wrought by the pandemic, which exposed the country’s economic vulnerability, Peru has strengthened its vaccination programmes, trained health sector staff and offered subsidies to meet the basic needs of vulnerable Peruvians.  Further, it has provided alternatives to recidivism by enabling the reintegration of former convicts into the workplace.  Peru has an independent, transparent and predictable justice system, she said, adding that the Ministry of Justice offers comprehensive free legal assistance, which it has extended to defending the victims of rights violations.

Ms. LBADAOUI (Morocco), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic caused challenges of good governance.  In regards to measures taken by her country to support the economy and jobs, she highlighted legislation adopted in 2021 to ensure accessibility of public health services.  She also called attention to the increased independence of the judiciary branch as a result of constitutional reforms.  In addition, reforms were undertaken during the pandemic to enable a digital transition, she said, adding that States should take digitalization forward as a key steppingstone to improving justice services.  She expressed regret over the significant impact of the public health crisis on the status of women and girls and pointed to a decree her Government adopted establishing a national commission for gender equality and women’s advancement to strengthen the principle of equity.

NEVILLE MELVIN GERTZE (Namibia), associating himself with the African Group, noted that his country introduced a targeted acceleration plan based on the rule of law — the Harambee Prosperity Plan II — with effective governance at its core, allowing for participatory democracy and thus improving accountability and transparency.  On the social level, the country subjected itself to the Continental Governance Self-Assessment Tool by acceding to the African Peer Review Mechanism.  In addition, through the Legal Aid Act the country facilitated legal assistance access for the less privileged litigants by establishing a legal assistance centre that provides assistance free of charge in constitutional cases and cases of public interest.  Namibia, in efforts to tackle corruption, joined the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group and, through the concerted efforts of Namibia’s Anti-Corruption Commission and other organizations, is putting in place various mechanisms to ensure that cases of corruption are reported, investigated and prosecuted.

Mr. SOUMARE (Mauritania), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that, in a State governed by the rule of law, “justice is a public service through which the State renders real its mission of jurisdictional protection” for its citizens.  Further, the rule of law guarantees that international law applies to — and is respected by — all States, creating an environment conducive to accomplishing the objectives of the Charter of the United Nations.  Underscoring the need to respect freedom and dignity, he pointed out that his country’s development policy was rooted in the primacy of law and the protection of human rights.  The Government has implemented programmes designed to improve living conditions, eradicate poverty and promote, inter alia, health, literacy, women’s advancement and rural development.  He added that it has also worked to increase resources for national security forces, improve access to justice, combat gender-based violence, tackle corruption and enact decentralization to improve the delivery of public services.

JHON GUERRA SANSONETTI (Venezuela), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, expressed regret that multilateralism has been attacked by unilateral actions with increasing frequency in recent years.  He recalled that, while his country worked to guarantee the public’s rights to life and health during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was subjected to actions demonstrating how unilateralism undermines the validity of the rule of law at both the national and international levels.  Various national assets were illegally frozen abroad and handed over to unscrupulous people.  This harm exceeded $150 billion and will take generations to repair.  Further, Venezuela’s territory was illegally penetrated by non-State actors, he said.  In addition, limitations were imposed on Venezuela’s access to vaccines and medical equipment, he said, recalling the 2021 blocking by one particular financial institution of $110 million intended for procuring 11 million vaccine doses through the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) mechanism.

LOUREEN O. A. SAYEJ, observer for the State of Palestine, associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed that despite being deprived of the protection of the rule of law for decades, the Palestinian people still believe in the principle and continue to fight for its authority, she said, adding that the State of Palestine has joined international treaties, including human rights treaties.  She also noted that, for 75 years, rules were applied for some and suspended for others, adding:  “The fact is:  there is no rule of law if there is no will enforcing it on the ground, on our ground, in Palestine”.  The State of Palestine has therefore joined the International Criminal Court, seeking justice, instead of vengeance.  After the Advisory Opinion of the Court on the Wall made clear determinations regarding the illegality of Israeli policies, rather than reversing them, Israel, the occupying Power, has continued its plans to annex maximum Palestinian land and has confined the Palestinian people in enclaves, depriving them of rights, lands and resources”.

DIJANA DURIC, observer for the International Anti-Corruption Academy, said that a shadow financial infrastructure was currently being used by corrupt officials to take bribes and to subsequently engage in money laundering.  In addition, the perpetrators of corruption have been constantly evolving and exploring new technologies, including digital assets and alternative payment methods.  Through its programmes, the Academy addresses such challenges and helps States meet their obligations under United Nations Convention against Corruption, and provides anti-corruption practitioners with needed tools, including asset-tracing and recovery for illicit financial flows.  Underscoring the need to establish an effective anti-corruption framework to protect the global financial system, she outlined Academy programmes, including training for corruption compliance and anti-money-laundering which it extends to those from least developed countries through financial and linguistic assistance.  She also said that the Academy fully supported the recommendations of the High-level Panel on International Financial Accountability, Transparency and Integrity for Achieving the 2030 Agenda, as well as the Secretary-General’s ideas, which are paramount to tackling illicit financial flows.

LUCA MELCHIONNA, observer for the European Public Law Organization, said that his organization has established the Global Rule of Law Initiative in 2019.  The Initiative shall be composed of 17 representatives from all over the world according to the principle of geographic representation.  It shall have an objection to develop a comprehensive global concept of the rule of law and shall be available to all the nations of the world.  The Commission will be a forum for studies, proposals, resolutions and the global focal point for the rule of law.  The members shall not have political considerations or sanctions power of any kind.  He thus encouraged all the States to propose one focal point to act as liaison officer to the Global Rule of Law Initiative, noting that it will present an annual report of its activities to the General Assembly.

HENDRIK JAN BRINKMAN, Permanent Observer for the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), noted that his organization currently works in 34 countries pursuing integrated approaches to ensure mutual reinforcement between research, policy, advocacy and programming.  At the beginning of the pandemic, it published a policy paper on the rule of law and COVID-19 and organized the Crisis Governance Forum:  Rule Of Law-Based Policymaking For COVID-19 Response and Recovery.  In collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) it reviewed legal and regulatory frameworks for pandemic preparation response.  As well, with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), it did a global legal assessment of national laws to identify ways for in which legislation could support the right to safe, affordable and nutritious food.  In addition, together with the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), IDLO has undertaken comprehensive gender reviews of the legal systems of a number of African countries.

Right of Reply

The representative of Armenia, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, noted that his country’s unwavering compliance with its international obligations is reflected in numerous reports.  Further, Armenia has cooperated with the United Nations and regional organizations — particularly the Council of Europe — in advancing legal reforms, building State institutions and protecting human rights.  To resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia engaged in negotiations to reach a comprehensive, lasting settlement based on international law, and supported proposals by international mediators to strengthen the ceasefire and promote confidence-building.  However, instead of committing to the peace process in good faith, Azerbaijan resorted to an unabated military build-up in contravention of its arms-control obligations.  That country does not make its intent to resolve this conflict by force a secret and, in 2020, it unleashed aggression under the disguise of the pandemic.  Azerbaijani armed forces used prohibited weaponry to attack civilian infrastructure — trapping people between pandemic and conflict — and systematically destroyed Armenian cultural and religious heritage in the occupied parts of Nagorno-Karabakh.  There is no shortage of evidence of Azerbaijan’s anti-Armenian State policy, he added.

The representative of Azerbaijan said that it is ironic that the country bearing full responsibility for unleashing war against Azerbaijan and carrying out ethnic cleansing on a massive scale “has the cheek” to blame and lecture others.  Recalling the history of Armenia’s aggression against his country, he said that Armenia killed civilians, razed villages and destroyed Azerbaijani cultural heritage in order to permanently change the demographic composition of the areas it seized.  He went on to note that Armenia’s statement omitted four Security Council resolutions on the matter, and the reason therefore is simple:  in those resolutions, the Council condemned the use of force against Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of occupying Armenian forces.  However, Armenia ignored these demands, instead directing its efforts towards colonizing the occupied territory of Azerbaijan under the cover of the ceasefire and the peace process.  Azerbaijan did not unleash aggression against anyone, he stressed, and the legality of its resort to force is indisputable.  He added that Armenia should address its own track record on human rights and democracy, rather than groundlessly blaming others.

The representative of Armenia said it was hard to find a “diplomatic formulation to address the verbal diarrhoea” emitted by his colleague from Azerbaijan, which omits the reports of the international community chronicling its poor record on the rule of law domestically and internationally.  Turning to the Council resolutions referred to, he said their contents had been distorted, as were the causes of the conflict.  Further, Azerbaijan has been ignoring the requests of the Council to refrain from the use of force and commit to a peaceful settlement, he said, adding that the country has also refused to join the Secretary-General’s call for a global ceasefire in the context of the pandemic.  Responding to a comment about Armenia having several Governments, he stated that Azerbaijan has, over the past 40 years, consigned power to solely one family.

The representative of Azerbaijan characterized the comments made by the representative of Armenia as unsurprisingly “groundless and unethical”.  They ignore the concealment of hate crimes perpetrated by its Government.  He said his colleague had relied on standard fabrications and irrelevant out-of-context statements.  He further asserted that Armenia should first take care of its own track record before making such statements.  He went on to point out that Armenia projects itself as a proponent of human rights and democracy, while denying its responsibility for war crimes and refusing to prosecute those that perpetrated them.  “It is outrageous that a country where international war criminals and terrorists are national heroes considers itself democratic”, he emphasized, adding that he hoped that Armenia’s attempts to falsify history in order to conceal its own responsibility for serious crimes never succeed.

Crimes against Humanity

AAHDE LAHMIR (Morocco), speaking for the African Group, said that the Group will continue to examine proposals on the item, as it attaches high importance to the fight against impunities.  She welcomed ideas of open discussions aimed at achieving the necessary consensus towards putting in place an effective international legal framework for the purpose.  The success of collective efforts depends on the ability to live and act collectively respecting cultural specificities and geographical realities of States.  To that end, she highlighted the importance of giving due attention to the legitimate concerns of all Member States in elaborating a convention.

Moreover, the future discussions should not attempt in any way to impose the views of any party, legal theory or definitions derived from some international agreements that do not enjoy universal acceptance, she continued.  An efficient legal framework that enables the effective persecution of perpetrators is needed along with development and strengthening of national capacities in the fields of investigation and prosecution.  In this context, international cooperation and mutual legal assistance to developing countries upon their request remains a very essential element.  This can only be achieved by engaging in an inclusive, open and transparent debate using all the time necessary for proper appreciation of the draft articles, she added.

SIMONA POPAN, representative of the European Union, in its capacity as an observer, recalled that a large majority of States supported the elaboration of a conversion on the basis of the International Law Commission during the previous session of the Committee, while some spoke against such an instrument.  Thus, an ad hoc committee could an ideal framework for further deliberations, where more ambitious and more cautious approaches could be discussed in a balanced, constructive and efficient expert setting.  She reiterated the support of the bloc towards the elaboration of a convention, preferably by an international conference of plenipotentiaries, underscoring that this document will undoubtedly strengthen prevention and punishment at a national level, and will offer a new legal basis for inter-state cooperation.

Also adding that the ad hoc committee could serve the purpose of ensuring progress on this subject, she emphasized the importance of providing it with a clear mandate and a clear timeline for the completion of its work.  She further commended the draft proposal put forward by Mexico and a number of other delegations, which reflected the views of Member States and constituted a good basis for discussions.  She noted that no views will be imposed, nor any State compelled to sign up to a convention.  The work of the ad hoc committee would be conveyed without prejudice to States’ positions and participation in a future convention.

JULIA FIELDING (Sweden), also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, pointed out that there is no international instrument dedicated to crimes against humanity and — as civilians continue to fall victim to such crimes — this matter concerns the international community as a whole.  Supporting the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the related International Law Commission’s draft articles, she said that the same would strengthen national laws and jurisdiction in the fight against impunity for perpetrators of such crimes.  Further, such an instrument would be an important addition to the international legal framework and would promote inter-State cooperation and efficient investigation.

However, she noted that no progress towards such an instrument has been made in the past three years, stressing that such progress should not be delayed any longer.  The concerns raised by several States regarding clarifications to several draft articles can be addressed through inclusive, transparent inter-sessional discussions among experts.  She supported the establishment of an ad hoc committee, with a clear mandate and timeline, to provide a forum that would allow States to exchange views.  Adding that the Sixth Committee must demonstrate the willingness and ability to follow-up on the Commission’s recommendations, she said that the countries for which she speaks are ready to take the next steps.

KEVIN TIMOTHY MEAD (Canada), also speaking for Australia and New Zealand, noted that — while genocide and war crimes have long been addressed by multilateral treaties — there is currently no universal convention to address crimes against humanity.  This remains a significant gap in the international accountability framework, he said, voicing support for progress towards a convention on the prevention and punishment of such crimes.  Such an instrument would complement existing treaty law for international core crimes and would reinforce international efforts aimed at ensuring proper accountability.

He expressed concern, however, that the Sixth Committee has been unable to move this discussion beyond merely taking note of the related International Law Commission’s draft articles.  While Member States have different levels of comfort on proceeding directly to the elaboration of a convention, suitable frameworks to advance discussion exist.  Reiterating the need to create a structured process with a clear timetable, he said the same would allow the Committee the space needed to consider aspects requiring further precision and clarification through appropriate, dedicated dialogue.  He added support to Mexico’s proposal to establish an ad hoc committee to discuss this item and encouraged others to do the same.

YONG-ERN NATHANIEL KHNG (Singapore) said the Commission’s draft articles and commentaries can contribute to the strengthening of accountability by providing useful practical guidance to States on the topic of crimes against humanity.  However, he noted that the draft articles could be improved or clarified so as to resolve critical legal and practical issues that they leave unaddressed in their current form.   Detailing several such examples, he spotlighted draft article 7, which holds that multiple States may have national jurisdiction over a criminal offence and wish to exercise such jurisdiction, although it does not explain how such potential conflicts of jurisdiction can be resolved.  Addressing the many statements and submissions by other delegations, he said while they contained valuable ideas, they also demonstrated a divergence of views, and raised complex issues that can only be resolved through open and constructive discussions on the substance of the draft articles.

ALAA NAYEF ZAID AL-EDWAN (Jordan) said his country has led international efforts to promote the rule of law, and accountability for the most heinous crimes including crimes against humanity and is committed to holding perpetrators to account to prevent impunity.  He expressed support for the Commission, and called for Member States to uphold its recommendations seriously and faithfully.  He went on to underscore the importance of international cooperation to prevent and combat crimes against humanity and expressed support for the completion of an international convention on the basis of the draft articles.  Such an instrument would complement the international legal system and criminalize large-scale attacks against civilians, as well as articles comprehensively defining such crimes.  It would also provide the basis of jurisdiction by Member States to extradite and prosecute perpetrators.  He went on to express support for an ad hoc committee with a view to adopting an international convention in this regard as soon as possible.

JOAQUÍN ALBERTO PÉREZ AYESTARÁN (Venezuela), speaking for the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, raised a concern over recent procedural developments in the Sixth Committee, specifically to the draft resolution on crimes against humanity which was introduced by a group of States without holding any prior consultations and before the Bureau had a chance to appoint facilitators for the agenda item.  This goes against the established work practice of the Committee, he stressed, adding:  “There are practices and traditions in place, which have long existed and have, until very recently, been supported by the wide majority of the General Assembly”.  He expressed concern over the growing resort to an activism-based approach, dominated by political pressure and self-imposed deadlines arising from artificial senses of urgency as opposed to the constructive spirit, aimed at finding solutions suitable for all.

He also said that the manner in which a group of States have proceeded with regards to the draft resolution presented under the agenda item not only demonstrated a selective approach but would also open a pandora box that has the potential to ultimately change in a drastic manner the workflow of the Committee.  He further recalled that for decades the Committee has been unable to move forward on some other agenda items due to a clear lack of consensus and a desire to preserve procedural best practices.  He thus appealed on Member States to preserve traditions and practices, while respectfully calling on the Chair and his Bureau to urgently interpose their good offices to address this “unfortunate situation”.

MOHAMMAD GHORBANPOUR NAJAFABADI (Iran) said that the current fragmentation of views on the draft articles and the recommendation of the International Law Commission concerning the modalities on the fate of the draft prevent a united response to these crimes and their prevention.  He noted that attempts to incorporate definitions emanating from non-universal instruments, national laws and practices in the context of progressive development have prevented States from reaching consensus.  Acknowledging that the Sixth Committee was not able to formulate a method to work forward in addressing these draft articles in 2021 for various reasons, he expressed his country’s dissatisfaction with the selectivity of the Committee’s products.  Reiterating that the Committee constitutes an appropriate forum for discussions, he noted, however, that a number of articles for discussion have been pending for years before the submission of the draft articles on crimes against humanity.

ANTONIO MANUEL REVILLA LAGDAMEO (Philippines), while recognizing the necessity to prevent and punish the most serious crimes not covered by any existing international legal framework, said that the International Law Commission’s draft articles on crimes against humanity must be further studied.  He spotlighted national legislation that confers original, exclusive jurisdiction on Philippine regional trial courts over crimes against humanity, punishes persecution against individuals and groups based on their sexual orientation and provides for command responsibility “as a form of criminal complicity”.  Noting that mechanisms to safeguard human rights and protect against the grave crimes addressed by the draft articles are already in place in Philippine jurisdiction, he stated that the question of elaborating a convention on the basis of the draft articles needs further deliberation.  He added that the Sixth Committee is the primary forum for the consideration of legal questions and that, without the required consensus, “it cannot be pushed into handing over that mandate to a diplomatic conference”.

SINA ALAVI (Liechtenstein) observed that there is currently no standalone international treaty dedicated to preventing and punishing crimes against humanity, while there are relevant treaties for the other core international crimes of genocide, war crimes and the crime of aggression.  He therefore supported work to elaborate a convention governing crimes against humanity and urged the Sixth Committee to take concrete steps to that end after years of delay.  For its part, Liechtenstein is ready to engage in transparent, inclusive negotiations that account for the concerns of other delegations in a suitable format as soon as possible.  Noting the existence of established arrangements and precedents that can be used to advance the Committee’s work on the International Law Commission’s draft articles on this topic, he supported the establishment of an ad hoc committee — with a clear mandate and timeline — that allows for dedicated discussions between all delegations.

NATHALIA SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA (Colombia) commended the painstaking work of the Commission, as well as the Special Rapporteur’s dedication to the important cause of crimes against humanity.  She underlined the need to discuss a method of work that avoids a stalemate, particularly when it concerns the work product of the Commission.  Also needed was a discussion of the criteria that could enable the topic to progress.  A stalemate could be avoided through the right procedural recommendation, either through the formation of a working group or an ad hoc committee.  Noting that a legal binding instrument could strengthen international law, she said that the draft articles could nonetheless benefit from a few supplements.  She expressed support to the formation of an ad hoc committee to examine the Commission’s draft articles to codify international laws to ensure perpetrators do not go unpunished.  To that end, Colombia was ready to engage in dialogue and to cosponsor a draft along with a group of delegations that shares its concerns, she said.

MELINDA VITTAY (Hungary), associating herself with the European Union, said while it has been difficult to address all questions related to the draft articles over the past two years, partly due to challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the work of the Commission nonetheless forms a solid basis for further discussion.  Recalling that the Commission has included the prohibition of crimes against humanity in the list of peremptory norms of general international law, which should be respected in any circumstances, she stated that it is time to take further steps towards negotiating and adopting an international legally binding instrument based on the Commission’s draft articles.  To this end, Hungary is fully committed to establishing an ad hoc committee within the Sixth Committee, which should encompass the exchange of substantive views and work towards the elaboration of a convention by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries.

PAVEL EVSEENKO (Belarus) expressed regret that crimes against humanity tend to be politicized and underscored the importance of universality and cohesion.  He further noted that regional fragmentation of international law is unacceptable, as it provokes international legal collisions, disagreements and conflicts.  He also pointed to current divergence of views on the draft articles that confirm the lack of consensus, highlighting that States are concerned about the risks of a selective and arbitrary application of the rules.  He, thus, encouraged a detailed examination of the draft articles without a specific time frame, including analysis and comparison with national legislation and the provisions of international legal instruments in the field, given that not all States are parties to the Rome Statute.  He also expressed serious concern over procedural changes and said that shifting away from consensus and voting on one agenda item would likely set an unfortunate precedent for similar actions on other items.

ENRICO MILANO (Italy), aligning himself with the European Union, expressed support for the elaboration of a multilateral instrument that should set common rules aimed at preventing and punishing crimes against humanity, following the example of the existing international conventions on war crimes and genocide.  To achieve this purpose, at a national level Italy is working on the elaboration of a code of international crimes.  In this regard, it considers the inclusion of a provision concerning immunity ratione materiae before national criminal tribunals.  He recommended the inclusion of a similar provision in the domestic normative acts that could be elaborated consistently with the draft articles.  He further on expressed regret that the negotiations have not produced tangible results in the past years and urged all delegations to constructively engage in the process.  He reiterated support for appropriate procedural mechanisms to advance the goal of a convention during this year negotiations.

JULIAN SIMCOCK (United States of America) said that current events have only reinforced the importance of a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.  Highlighting his country’s long history of supporting justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators, he urged States to address the void in the international legal framework.  In this regard, the draft articles could provide an important opportunity for States to do so.  In addition, it was important that Member States establish structured mechanisms to exchange their substantive views.  Recognizing the wide range of views on the content of the draft texts, he noted that those articles can and should be modified in certain, key respects.  He, therefore, encouraged States to seek to address any concerns with the content of the drafts through constructive engagement and meaningful dialogue.  In this regard, he expressed a strong support for the establishment of the ad hoc committee with an appropriately robust mandate.

MAXIMILIAN GORKE (Austria), associating himself with the European Union, expressed his support for the elaboration and conclusion of an international convention, that would complement the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.  He also noted that codifying existing customary international law on the criminalization of widespread or systematic attacks directed against any civilian population would fill an existing gap in international treaty law.  He emphasized that Austria remains committed to multilateralism and the promotion and continuous development of international law and considers an ad hoc committee for the intersessional period as a suitable forum for open and constructive deliberations.  He further expressed hope that discussions can lead to the consolidation of agreement on certain points.  In order to achieve this objective, there must be a clear timeline for the work of the ad hoc committee, he noted.  He thus encouraged the Member States to continue debate and try to find consensus around the draft

JUAN GÓMEZ ROBLEDO VERDUZCO (Mexico) said that the Sixth Committee’s pattern of inaction on this topic is inconsistent with the way it treats other products from the International Law Commission.  He emphasized that the relationship between the Commission and the Committee, as well as the relevance of both bodies, is at stake.  For the past three years, Mexico has actively participated in negotiations towards elaborating a convention on this topic and will continue to do so.  However, despite this constructive spirit, consensus has been abused as a method of work in the Committee, becoming a “formula for paralysis” that does not respect the parliamentary spirit that prevails.  Spotlighting the overwhelming desire in the Committee to advance substantive consideration of this topic, he underscored that the General Assembly cannot — nor should not — be a hostage of its own practices.  In this context, Mexico and others have worked on a draft resolution aimed at establishing an ad hoc committee in 2023, open to all Member States, to substantively discuss the Commission’s draft articles on this topic.  He added a call for all delegations to support this text.

MICHAEL HASENAU (Germany), associating himself with the European Union, voiced his support for the elaboration of a convention governing the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.  These are among the most serious crimes known to humankind and, unlike for genocide and war crimes, no global convention currently exists pertaining to them.  Stressing the need to close this gap to strengthen accountability, he said that such a convention would complement existing treaty law and foster inter-State cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of such crimes.  Since Member States’ concerns and suggestions on this topic have been thoroughly evaluated and discussed, it is now time to move forward with elaborating a convention based on the International Law Commission’s draft articles on crimes against humanity.  Calling for the establishment of a structured process for negotiations, he said that the draft articles provide a solid basis for successful negotiations and that Germany will proactively contribute to the work of an ad hoc committee towards this end.

AHMED ABDELAZIZ AHMED ELGHARIB (Egypt), associating himself with the African Group, said that it is necessary to fill the vacuum to address humanitarian crimes, prevent impunity and guarantee criminal accountability.  In this regard, he called for a comprehensive approach to be adopted that encompasses crime prevention, justice and the care and protection of victims.  The Commission’s recommendations on prevention and punishment include useful elements that can be further elaborated in the discussions.  However, he expressed concern about problems previously articulated by Egypt in the past three sessions of the General Assembly, including repeated references to the Rome Statute and other controversial issues that do not command universality.  It is therefore too early for a discussion of an international convention, let alone a conference of plenipotentiaries, he said, stating that enough time should be provided for all Member States to study the draft articles and assess their compatibility with national legislation.  Further, the politicization of products and special treatment must be avoided, he added.

LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador) said while crimes against humanity reflect a complete disregard for human dignity, a convention on this important topic should be examined at a later date.  Noting that the preamble recalls that States have a duty to prevent crimes against humanity, she said the draft articles could help codify and customize international law in a way that is harmonized with national legislation and significantly contribute to the establishing of national jurisdiction of States on such crimes.  However, she reiterated the view, articulated in previous sessions, that there is a need to discuss substantive issues and to continue with procedural requirements to ensure observation of all States are included.  She also noted that an instrument could contribute to Member States’ strengthening of their national legal framework, including through facilitating mutual legal assistance to reduce impunity.  Therefore, El Salvador is ready to continue deliberations, she said, urging the Committee to take a more active, leading role on decisions regarding these articles.

VICTOR SILVEIRA BRAOIOS (Brazil) said that his country has supported the drafting process since its inception.  He underscored that draft articles should prioritize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court when the custody State has no nexus with the crime, the suspects or the victims.  Furthermore, the draft articles would benefit from the addition of safeguards to prevent the abuse of the universality principle, such as a provision giving jurisdictional priority to States with the closest links to the crimes.  He expressed belief that a global convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity might serve as an important additional piece in the current framework of international law.  However, he expressed concern that despite widespread support from States, progress on this topic has stalled in the Committee over the past three years, noting with regret that this has also been the case of other draft articles of the International Law Commission.

EDGAR DANIEL LEAL MATTA (Guatemala) noted that the duty of prevention and punishing of crimes against humanity falls on all Member States.  He, thus, encouraged States to act together to ensure that no crime remains unpunished and reminding them that they have a duty to implement their jurisdiction.  He noted that the work of the Commission was of particular importance, as it contributed to international criminal law and its early application.  As a State Party to the Rome Statute, he acknowledged the important role of the International Criminal Court as a nucleus of the international criminal system.  He also underscored that his delegation is happy to be a member of the group that presented a resolution adopted in 2011 on the responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  With the adoption of this document, the General Assembly guaranteed that it would do so and would inform Member States on its progress.

MICHAL MLYNÁR (Slovakia), associating himself with the European Union, stated that the International Law Commission’s 15 draft articles on crimes against humanity — many of which reflect customary international law — represent a carefully drafted, solid basis for codification.  As such, he supported the creation of a meaningful, predictable process allowing for dedicated, substantive discussions towards this end, adding that an ad hoc committee would provide the best platform for such discussions.  Crimes against humanity is not a theoretical topic, he stressed, nor is the work of the Sixth Committee a theoretical exercise.  The last seven months have demonstrated that such crimes are an unfortunate reality, neither exceptional nor rare.  This should incentivize all present to redouble their efforts to fight against impunity on all fronts and ensure that justice prevails over violence.  The least the international community owes to the victims of such crimes, he urged, is strengthening the prevention and punishment of these crimes.

MAREK ZUKAL (Czech Republic), associating himself with the European Union, stressed that this topic is not one of abstract legal categorization — crimes against humanity are real.  Murder, torture, rape and other inhumane acts are too often committed on a massive scale in different parts of the world, and all present must agree that the commission of such heinous crimes is unacceptable.  Recalling that the international community outlawed genocide and war crimes through conventions in 1948 and 1949, respectively, he underscored that crimes against humanity are not less serious.  The international community, therefore, must take the same approach and codify the existing customary prohibition of such crimes into an international treaty.  While the International Law Commission’s draft articles on this topic can be the basis for negotiation of such a treaty, States should have the opportunity for substantive discussion as they — not the Commission — are the legislators of international law.  Noting that some delegations do not have the resources to hold a full discussion on this issue during this busy time, he said that an ad hoc committee would provide a forum in which to meet during the less busy inter-sessional period.

JOSÉ EDUARDO PEREIRA SOSA (Paraguay) said the draft articles contain elements necessary to fill gaps and legal ambiguities in the international combat against impunity.  He expressed support for the report’s recommendation of an international legally binding convention on crimes against humanity, to be elaborated by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries on the basis of the Commission’s draft articles.  Noting that the Sixth Committee plays an important role in the progression of international law, he called for a well-structured process to help States consolidate common position and engage in a constructive discussion, adding that an ad hoc committee would help facilitate a constructive exchange in this regard.  A convention based on the draft articles put forth by the Commission will strengthen international law, he affirmed.

ALESSANDRA FALCONI (Peru) pointed out that crimes against humanity are not regulated by international conventions, unlike genocide and war crimes.  Therefore, a convention in this regard would strengthen the other existing legal instruments, including the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions, among others.  However, she expressed regret that the past three resolutions pertaining to the agenda item have been limited to taking notes of the draft articles, without examining a mechanism for follow-up on proceeding towards a future convention.  In that regard, an ad hoc committee could overcome the current stalemate and give States an opportunity to provide substantive input on the draft articles and participate in the Commission’s effort to elaborate on a convention.  She called on States to work flexibly and constructively on a roadmap to future convention.  While welcoming positive aspects of the draft articles, including its taking into account the rights of victims and the protection of witnesses, among other aspects, she called for attention to be paid to vulnerable groups of such crimes, including through a gender perspective.

Mr. KAWALOWSKI (Poland), associating himself with the European Union, spotlighted the question his delegation raised about the deficiency of international criminal law with an absence of a uniform convention.  He also recalled the report of the Moscow Mechanism of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe with regard to the crimes against humanity committed by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, noting that the report identified credible evidence of patterns of violent acts that have been repeatedly documented.  He underscored that such acts qualify as a systematic attack against the civilian population.  Under customary international law, all States have the obligation to prevent, prosecute and punish such acts.  For this purpose, necessary measures need to be taken to ensure that such crimes constitute offences under States’ criminal law and that their organs have jurisdiction over such crimes.  He further encouraged the States to take concrete steps during elaboration of the respective convention.

FERGAL TOMAS MYTHEN (Ireland), aligning with the European Union, voiced his strong support for the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention, adding that the draft articles provide a strong foundation thereto.  Noting that not all States were in a position to commit to that step, he reiterated his country’s support for the establishment of the ad hoc committee.  He noted that this represents a balanced and fair approach that allows the States the time and space to reflect on the draft articles, thereby honoring and progressing the important work of the Commission on this subject.  He noted that the end goal, however, lays in the creation of an international framework to prevent and persecute the crimes.  In addition, the draft articles are complemented by the international initiative for the development of a multilateral treaty for mutual legal assistance and extradition in domestic prosecution of atrocity crimes.

ALAN EBUN GEORGE (Sierra Leone), associating himself with the African Group, said that a convention on this topic would serve as a gap-filling treaty with an added obligation to prevent crimes against humanity, rather than just punish those who perpetrate them.  Further, with such an instrument, States would be able to develop national laws and judicial systems and cooperate with other States in investigating, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of these crimes.  The Sixth Committee must act; the best use of the Committee’s time in this regard — based on its working methods, recent practice and time constraints — is to focus on modalities for the way forward.  Member States must negotiate in good faith and refrain from using the Committee’s practice of consensus as a veto to effectively inhibit progress on a topic when Member States clearly wish to move forward.  He added that the international system to prevent and punish crimes against humanity cannot operate in isolation and, therefore, that the international legal order must be built on the principles of legitimacy and consistency.

PETRA LANGERHOLC (Slovenia), associating herself with the European Union, said that the Sixth Committee should heed the voices of people, communities and experts urging action on this topic, rather than just reaction.  Supporting the elaboration of a convention on crimes against humanity, she urged work towards a clear way forward, which must be done as soon as possible as “there are no excuses left”.  As almost all delegations underlined, there exists a gap in the current international treaty framework in this area, which the international community must address.  Consensus cannot be used to prevent opening a dialogue to further understanding and resolve differences between Member States’ positions on this issue.  Expressing hope that this year will provide a new window of opportunity for those present to find a way forward together, she also invited all Member States to participate in a diplomatic conference on mutual legal assistance to be held in Ljubljana in 2023.

RICCARDA CHRISTIANA CHANDA (Switzerland) said that, decades after the adoption of conventions dealing with genocide and war crimes, there is still no universal convention on crimes against humanity.  A convention based on the Commission’s draft articles would strengthen the international criminal justice system, promote interstate cooperation and assist States in assuming their primary responsibility in investigating these crimes.  Recalling that the Commission consulted Member States on its work in 2015 and presented the final draft articles in 2019, she stressed:  “It is now time to move forward”.  Differences of opinion must not lead to the sterile repetition of arguments already made nor cause the Commission to constantly postpone its decision.  She called for an end to the vicious circle of inaction to continue and welcomed, in this regard, the draft resolution introduced a few days ago by Mexico, Bangladesh and Colombia, among others.  A structured and inclusive process with a clear timetable is a minimum, she said, expressing support for an ad hoc committee to address any unresolved issues and establish a proper negotiation process.

ZACHARIE SERGE RAOUL NYANID (Cameroon) said that the kinds of “hair-raising crimes” under discussion must be prevented, banished and punished when appropriate.  Consensus must be ensured in the fight against such crimes, and precaution must be taken with respect to an accepted definition of such crimes.  He expressed concern that draft article 2 put forth by the Commission reproduces article 7 of the Rome Statute, which is “intrinsically questionable” as the International Criminal Court is not yet universally recognized.  He called for further reflection on the issue, and for the trivialization of such a serious offence to be avoided.  He also emphasized that a binding legal instrument in this regard is not appropriate, as there is no legal vacuum in this area.  Consensus is needed on discussions in this regard and politicization must be avoided, he said, calling on the strengthening of national capacity to investigate and prosecute such crimes.

MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUHITH (Bangladesh) noted that in 2010 his country was the first in South Asia to ratify the Rome Statute.  With the principle of “complementarity”, the Government established the International War Crimes Tribunal to try and punish the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity committed in their territory during their liberation war in 1971.  He cooperated with the International Court of Justice in its efforts to ensure justice to the Rohingya people and commended the independent investigative mechanism on Myanmar.  Expressing support to the work of the Commission, he noted that his country is one of the sponsors of this year’s draft resolution on the establishment of the ad hoc committee.  Noting that primary responsibility of protection of its people from crimes against humanity lies with the State itself, he encouraged them to cooperate with the relevant international justice mechanisms at all stages of investigation, trial and execution of verdicts.

Mr. HITTI (Lebanon) noted that since crimes against humanity are not governed by a specialized convention, unlike war crimes and genocide, a global treaty would represent a key step towards more accountability.  However, to be more effective, such a treaty would need to be widely accepted.  Recalling that respective negotiations have been ongoing for three years, he underscored the need for more discussions and exchange, in particular on some draft articles.  He emphasized that having a dedicated mechanism would allow States to engage on the topic more substantively, in an open, transparent and inclusive manner.  To that end, he saw merit in initiating an open process of consultations that could lead to meaningful progress in the consideration of the International Law Commitment product on crimes against humanity.  Progressive development of international law and its codification play an essential part, he added.

OUINIBANI KONATE (Burkina Faso) pointed out that crimes against humanity refer to a set of acts carried out against civilian populations on a large scale that “shock the collective conscience”.  In that regard, Burkina Faso enacted a law in 2009 providing for national courts to apply the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which affirms its commitment to combating such crimes.  He went on to say that, since 2015, his country — like its neighbours in the Sahel region — has been subject to terrorist attacks that jeopardize its peace and security.  To prevent action amounting to crimes against humanity, the Government established two zones of military interest.  In doing so, it moved the civilian population to more secure areas, both enabling security forces to conduct operations against armed terrorist groups and protecting civilians from attacks on their physical integrity.  Expressing regret that crimes against humanity are not subject to a universal convention, he said that such an instrument would “further humanize our society” and consolidate the international legal architecture in general.

CHANAKA LIAM WICKREMASINGHE (United Kingdom) pointed out that the International Law Commission has a long record of achievement in supporting international efforts to prevent and punish serious crimes.  Its work on crimes against humanity, however, shifts the spotlight towards ensuring effective prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity at the national level.  It is therefore difficult to understand why a convention based on the Commission’s draft articles — which focus on national, rather than international, prosecution — should cause difficulties for any State.  Such an instrument would strengthen accountability, reduce future occurrences of such crimes and contribute to addressing conflict-related sexual violence.  The Sixth Committee’s record on this topic — this being the fourth consecutive year in which it discusses the draft articles — has been disappointing so far, especially considering the gravity of the issue and the high quality of the Commission’s work.  Supporting the establishment of an ad hoc committee to enable a necessary, long-overdue substantive exchange of views, he urged all States to support this initiative.

ANA PAULA BAPTISTA GRADE ZACARIAS (Portugal), aligning herself with the European Union, reiterated that States should follow the recommendation of the Commission and convene a diplomatic conference to negotiate and adopt a convention on the basis of the draft articles.  She expressed regret that the Committee continues to fail progressing on this issue and expressed hope that the Committee will now be able to make substantive progress during the ongoing session.  While conscious of diverging opinions when it comes to the timing and format of the discussion that could lead to a convention, she called for such concerns to be addressed through an open, transparent and dedicated substantive discussion through a structured process with a clear timeframe.  In this regard, she welcomed the proposal put forward by Mexico and other countries to establish an ad hoc committee.  Turning to the work of the Mutual Legal Assistance Initiative, which is considering the possibility of concluding an international convention to enhance cooperation between States, she said that the existence of both projects should not be used as an excuse not to move forward on either of them.

KAJAL BHAT (India) said that States have the primary sovereign prerogative to exercise jurisdiction through their national courts over crimes, including crimes against humanity, that have been committed in their territory or by their nationals.  Therefore, it was in the interest of justice, the rights of the accused, with due consideration to the interests of victims, that territorial or national jurisdictions should be given primacy.  Turning to the draft articles on crimes against humanity put forth by the Commission in 2019, she said they are inspired by the Rome Statute, to which India is not a party; Member States that have not subscribed to the Rome Statute have extant national legislation in place to deal with such offenses.  Stating that the draft articles are “neither new nor universal”, she said she failed to see the urgency of an accelerated adoption of the draft without a prior exhaustive study of its contents through the methods traditionally employed by the Commission.  India is not in favour of any work on this topic that results in duplicating existing international legal mechanisms, she said.

ABDOU NDOYE (Senegal), associating himself with the African Group, recalled that his country was the first to ratify the Rome Statute, having always attached great importance to the prevention and punishment of crime.  The creation of the Extraordinary African Chambers following the decision of the International Court of Justice constitutes a perfect illustration.  Voicing support to the elaboration of the convention, he also underscored his commitment to developing a new multilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance and extradition for the national prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide in the framework of the mutual legal assistance initiative.  He expressed regret over the absence of a universal convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity and called on the Member States to engage in an inclusive, open and transparent debate, while placing greater emphasis on awareness-raising and capacity-building.

DONGKYU MOON (Republic of Korea), said that a convention to prevent and punish crimes against humanity will fill a major gap in international law.  In addition, such a convention will help in establishing domestic laws and regulations with regard to this type of crime.  In this vein, harmonization with existing international law will help contribute to the universal participation of States.  He further noted that his country has actively participated in the efforts of the international community to end impunity of international crimes.  Supporting a formal, structured, inclusive and transparent approach to discussion regarding this agenda, his country, with other likeminded countries, has jointly proposed the draft resolution establishing an ad hoc committee, which should present States with an opportunity to enhance their understanding of various opinions from each delegation and find a way forward regarding the draft articles and recommendation.  He expressed hope for constructive discussions and active engagement of States in forthcoming discussions.

KYAW MOE TUN (Myanmar) called on the international community to work together to end the culture of impunity for perpetrators of crimes against humanity.  The International Law Commission’s draft articles provide a solid foundation for negotiation.  A convention governing such crimes is needed across the international community, particularly for a country such as Myanmar, where the military has been perpetrating a systematic campaign of violence against its civilians since the 2021 coup.  Stressing that the international community cannot sit idle in the face of such abuse, he noted that international legal scholars agree that the military’s atrocities could constitute crimes against humanity.  The military has been committing such crimes against minorities — including the Rohingya — for decades, and he recalled that the military recently bombed a school.  This act killed at least seven children, who had no chance to learn that international legal protection even existed.  Now they will never know.  Calling for immediate action to end the violence, he underscored that, as domestic measures are exhausted, the international community must protect the people of Myanmar.

PEDRO LUIS PEDROSO CUESTA (Cuba) said that the International Law Commission’s draft articles are a valuable contribution to efforts to prevent and punish crimes against humanity and should further efforts to strengthen the international criminal justice system.  They can also serve as useful guidelines for States that have yet to adopt germane national legislation.  Expressing concern, however, over some of the language contained in the draft articles, he stressed that any convention on this topic must recognize that States have the sovereign prerogative to exercise national jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed on their territory or by their nationals.  Such States were best positioned to effectively prosecute perpetrators, and the application of other judicial mechanisms could only be considered when such States cannot — or will not — exercise jurisdiction.  He added that, given the substantive concerns raised by delegations, the Sixth Committee should continue considering this topic in a working group format during its main session.

THI PHUONG HA TRAN (Viet Nam) said the prevention and punishment of serious crimes is primarily the responsibility of States, adding that efforts toward this end must ensure respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic matters of Member States.  Resorting to international criminal mechanisms should take place as a complementary method, only after all national measures have been exhausted, she continued.  While international efforts in preventing such crimes are welcome, there is a need to carefully examine the need for a new convention on crimes against humanity and its formation.  This included in the context of challenges currently faced by international criminal institutions, she said, also underlining the need for comprehensive study of the draft articles to ensure they accord with principles of international law.  She called for continued discussion to be held on the issue on the basis of consensus.

MANTSHO ANNASTACIA MOTSEPE (South Africa), associating with the African Group, said that with its history of apartheid, her country understands the ramifications of crimes against humanity, which have a negative ripple effect felt by many generations.  Therefore, the finalizing of a convention in this regard is long overdue and must be prioritized, she said, adding that while the text itself will require consideration and amendment, there is a need to move the draft articles to the next stage where discussion on their content can take place.  As such, South Africa has agreed to co-sponsor the draft resolution to establish an ad hoc committee to examine the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.  She also said her delegation looked forward to bringing Member States together to ensure the finalization of a draft of the convention.

KHALILAH HACKMAN (Ghana), associating herself with the African Group, noted that crimes against humanity constitute serious threats to international peace and security and reiterated her support for the elaboration of a convention based on the draft articles adopted.  She noted that these articles reflect shared considerations for the prevention of such heinous acts anywhere and against any group of people, avoiding impunity and ensuring justice for victims.  She went on to say that the endeavours to codify the rules of international law in respect of crimes against humanity depends on the ability of States to foster an open and inclusive dialogue with a view of achieving consensus on the elements of an internationally binding convention and the modalities as recommended.  She encouraged States to advance the progress achieved to date, while keeping the interests and concerns of the people at the core of their joint endeavours.

TIGRAN GALSTYAN (Armenia) called on Member States to make every effort to prevent and punish all crimes against humanity.  He noted that the draft articles are reflective of the shared objective of combating impunity for the perpetrators and delivering justice to the victims.  Therefore, a new convention would be instrumental in filling a perceived gap by adding to the treaties on prevention and punishment of genocide and war crimes.  At the national level, it can offer an important legal tool to the Member States for prevention and punishment of crimes by facilitating national investigations, prosecutions and punishments and will play an important role in facilitating inter-state cooperation.  He also reiterated Armenia’s condemnation in the strongest of terms of policies of ethnic hatred, especially those led by State actors, including the collective commitment to prevent and punish crimes that “deeply shock the conscience of humanity”.

PABLO AGUSTÍN ESCOBAR ULLAURI (Ecuador) pointed out that the national legislature of his country, like others, has codified provisions relating to crimes against humanity, noting that no statute of limitations exists for such crimes in domestic law.  However, codification at the national level is insufficient, as the international community must send a clear message that committing such crimes is intolerable and that perpetrators will not enjoy impunity.  He therefore supported the adoption of a convention based on the International Law Commission’s draft articles but expressed regret that the topic has been bogged down in the Sixth Committee in recent years.  Urging agreement on an approach to advance deliberations on this issue, he highlighted the proposal presented by Mexico and others to establish an ad hoc committee in 2023, open to all States, to exchange substantive points of view on the draft articles and on elaborating a convention to prevent and punish crimes against humanity.

MARTÍN JUAN MAINERO (Argentina) said that the argument, given by a small group of States, that it was premature to advance a legally binding instrument on this topic, was unconvincing.  It was not premature to move towards a convention when the notion of crimes against humanity goes back to the beginning of the nineteenth century and has been the subject of gradual development in customary international law.  The Rome Statute made significant progress in the normative work of defining such crimes, but its standards are only applicable to cases presented to the International Criminal Court.  Noting that a convention governing such crimes is still a “pending debt” of the international community, he underscored that progress beyond technical updates must be made this session.  The Sixth Committee has before it the International Law Commission’s draft articles, which are a high-quality product on which deliberations can begin.  While different visions on the way forward exist, the Committee must, at least, agree on a roadmap to structure deliberations, he urged, adding that the Committee’s continued inaction is difficult to justify.

GERALDO SARANGA (Mozambique), aligning himself with the African Group, affirmed his support for the draft articles submitted in 2019 by the Commission on crimes against humanity, adding that they contain the necessary safeguards giving priority to the jurisdiction of States with closer links to the crimes, an issue which continues to be a concern to many States.  The broader international codification and progressive development of rules on crimes against humanity and the strengthening of international cooperation are necessary and complementary.  Outlining updated national legislation addressing those crimes, including Mozambique’s law on international legal and judicial cooperation and its extradition regime, he went on to call for the Committee to expedite an inclusive process to elaborate the convention on crimes against humanity with a view to its universal ratification.

EVGENY A. SKACHKOV (Russian Federation) emphasized the need for a consensus approach to be taken, which in the past helped ensure that products of the Commission had a good chance of eventually becoming norms of international law, including generally accepted ones.  The debates on the current topic over the past years have demonstrated the lack of consensus among delegations.  Further, the “unprecedented violations” to the Committee’s working procedures, through the bypassing of its usual methods of work by some Member States, who “sneaked in their own draft” reflecting their “readymade, maximalist approach” on the issue in question, needed to be addressed.  Good intentions cannot justify such a violation of the procedures of the Committee, he stressed, adding:  “[The text] is done and further negotiations are nothing, but fiction geared at legitimizing the product”.  Moreover, he said that such an approach reeked of double standards, as the same States that complain of stasis for the past few years have blocked other products of the Commission for decades, including one on attributing responsibility for wrongful acts by international organizations.

PAULA NARVÁEZ OJEDA (Chile), called for the establishment of a strong and effective system for the prevention and punishment of crimes to be established in parallel to national legislation.  The draft articles constituted a clear contribution to the development of international criminal law, while also reflecting consensus reached within the international community in this respect.  Moreover, the draft texts imposed on States a series of very concrete obligations to prevent and punish crime, encouraging them to adopt domestic legislation on criminalization of crimes against humanity.  The texts proposed norms regulating judicial cooperation between States and enhancing cooperation in the framework of the mutual legal assistance initiative.  She called for establishing a mechanism that would allow for an exchange on these topics.  Reiterating her support for the work of the Commission, she said she was in favour of convening a diplomatic conference on the adoption of the convention and called on the Member States to provide support in this regard.