General Assembly Debates Legitimacy of International Mechanism for Investigating, Prosecuting Crimes in Syria, Also Adopts Fifth Committee Draft Texts
More than seven years after it created a mechanism to analyse evidence of human rights abuses in Syria, the General Assembly today considered the work of this body and heard from its Head that additional funding is needed in order to continue assisting national investigations of these crimes, before adopting several draft texts recommended by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).
Catherine Marchi-Uhel, Assistant Secretary-General and Head of the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, noted that 2024 marked the thirteenth year of death, displacement and grave violations of human rights in Syria as she presented the Mechanism’s tenth report (document A/78/772).
“Thirteen years of a reality that appears ever more bleak, as no end to the suffering is in sight,” she said, stressing that a clear, impartial and persistent focus on accountability is having a positive impact in these dark times. The Mechanism’s work nurtures hope for justice through accountability, she said, observing: “Justice takes time. But, we see, in more and more instances, that the time is coming.”
She reported that, to date, the Mechanism has received 367 requests for assistance from 16 jurisdictions, relating to 271 distinct investigations into core international crimes committed in Syria. The Mechanism has already supported 254 of these requests, relating to 185 distinct investigations. It also shares relevant information, evidence and analysis proactively with jurisdictions. In 2024, the Mechanism reported an unprecedented number of concrete contributions to justice developments relating to Syria.
For example, in France, the Mechanism supported the investigation leading to the upcoming May trial in Paris of three senior Syrian intelligence officials. Arrest warrants have been issued against others, including the Syrian President, his brother and two generals, on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes stemming from their responsibility in chemical-weapon attacks against civilians in Douma and Ghouta in August 2013. The Mechanism has also worked with authorities in Germany, Sweden and Belgium, and she noted: “In all these instances, we see that justice is more than a simple verdict on right and wrong. It is a process. A process with many stakeholders.”
But, in addition to time, justice requires adequate, sustained resources, she said. The report shows that the Mechanism is operating in an increasingly challenging financial environment, and beyond the UN’s current liquidity situation — which prevents the Mechanism from filling key vacant posts — the Mechanism’s existing regular budget is insufficient to maintain the scope of its work and respond to the growing demand for its services. Stating that the Mechanism’s achievements have exceeded the expectations of many of those who voted to establish it in 2016, she called on the Assembly to enhance funding for the Mechanism so it can maintain its staffing capacity and expertise.
In the debate that followed, many delegates expressed strong support for the Mechanism’s work to assist national investigations of wide-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against Syrians.
Among them was the representative of Latvia — also speaking for Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden — who cited 13 years of wide-scale atrocities, human rights violations and abuses against Syrians. As a result, more than 200,000 people from Syria now live in the Nordic and Baltic regions, many of whom carry unresolved trauma. She therefore emphasized the Mechanism’s vital role in the international community’s efforts towards justice and accountability and expressed regret that Syria refuses to cooperate. While stating that the Syrian Government bears primary responsibility for the situation, she stressed: “There are no clean hands in Syria”.
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, reported that prosecutions have moved ahead and final judgements have been obtained against perpetrators in several European Union countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands. These ongoing efforts are crucial, as accountability and justice for victims and survivors remain essential for a stable, peaceful Syria. Türkiye’s representative concurred, stressing that accountability is necessary for justice and national reconciliation and affirming that her country will continue supporting the Mechanism’s work to document serious crimes committed in Syria.
Sustainable peace in Syria will only be possible if perpetrators of those crimes are held accountable and victims obtain justice, said the representative of the Netherlands. To that end, she welcomed the order by the International Court of Justice — at her country’s request — for provisional measures requiring Syria to prevent acts of torture and to preserve evidence in this context. Germany’s representative welcomed the steady increase of cases assisted by the Mechanism, including that of a Syrian national accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office in August 2023. The Mechanism supported this investigation with information and critical evidence, which helped add war crimes to the charge.
Also underlining the importance of justice and accountability was Japan’s representative, who said that the Mechanism’s work remains indispensable in this regard. In addition, clarifying the fate and whereabouts of missing persons remains a crucial issue, and while the Mechanism’s establishment was a significant step forward, it must work towards this end. Belgium’s representative, spotlighting the many national jurisdictions — including his — that have benefitted from the Mechanism’s assistance, he called on all countries to support it.
On that, Qatar’s representative noted that her country is one of the most prominent donors to the Mechanism, with voluntary contributions totalling $2.3 million since its establishment. Affirming her delegation’s support for Mechanism’s continued financing through the regular programme budget — which ensures predictable funding and enhances the Mechanism’s credibility and independence — she also called for the allocation of additional funding.
Yet, other delegates vehemently opposed the Mechanism’s operations, stating that body’s establishment violates the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respect for national sovereignty.
Venezuela’s representative rejected any attempts to legitimize or finance this structure from the Organization’s regular budget, which is supposedly facing liquidity problems. The Mechanism is an example of selectivity and double standards that undermines the Organization’s credibility and impartiality, he stressed. Nicaragua’s delegate, echoing that, also stated that the General Assembly acted beyond its purview when it established the Mechanism, which exists in violation of the principle of sovereign equality. Agreeing, the representative of Iran stressed that couching the Mechanism’s title in neutral terms — such as international, impartial or independent — does not make it so.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, for his part, said that legal technical assistance by the United Nations to any Member State should be provided in accordance with a request by that State. Achieving justice and fighting impunity requires building just, comprehensive peace through nationally owned solutions — without foreign interference — stressed the representative of Sudan. He also said that establishing unilateral mechanisms has proven unsuccessful — a point echoed by Eritrea’s representative, who said that country-specific mandates have not worked in the past, and will not work in the future.
The representative of the Russian Federation, meanwhile, stressed that the Mechanism is an instrument that the West uses to interfere in the internal affairs of States, badmouth Syrians and attempt to justify the imposition of legitimate unilateral sanctions on that country. Syria’s delegate — speaking in exercise of the right of reply at the end of the meeting — said that statements by Western delegations were exaggerating and misleading on the Mechanism’s importance and role, giving the impression that stability in Syria, the region and even the world hinge on its illegitimate mandate. Today’s meeting featured a “high dose of hypocrisy and lies”, he stressed.
In other business, the General Assembly considered a number of draft resolutions and decisions that the Fifth Committee recommended for adoption.
The first — a draft resolution titled “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction” (document A/78/L.41) — was introduced by the representative of Singapore. Noting its procedural nature, he said it aims to take the next steps towards establishing a preparatory commission, the work of which will be open, inclusive and transparent. He also noted that several amendments to be proposed diminish the collective efforts made to reach agreement, are contrary to the draft resolution’s spirit and undermine what it seeks to achieve.
The representative of the Russian Federation then proposed two draft amendments (documents A/78/L.43 and A/78/L.44), stating that the draft presented for consideration “is patently something that does not enjoy consensus”. For a document that is supposedly “purely technical”, it contains completely unnecessary political views. She also said that it is likely to set a negative precedent for the entire UN system, where Member States will have varying quantities of rights.
The representative of Vanuatu, speaking for the Pacific small island developing States, expressed regret over the introduction of amendments not discussed during informal talks that would undermine the delicate balance achieved. Belize’s representative, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), pointed out that the Agreement enjoyed global consensus and opens a new chapter for a sustainable ocean, and therefore, should be hastened into force. The representatives of Belgium, speaking for the European Union, and Samoa, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, also expressed disappointment over the proposal of amendments that seek to undermine the draft resolution.
The Assembly then rejected both amendments by recorded votes of 5 in favour (Belarus, Congo, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria) to 120 against, with 32 abstentions; and 6 in favour (Algeria, Belarus, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria) to 116 against, with 34 abstentions, respectively.
Next, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 2 against (Russian Federation, Syria), with 2 abstentions (Angola, Togo).
After the vote, the representative of Uganda, speaking for the Group of 77 developing countries and China, welcomed the adoption of a draft resolution that was the result of careful negotiations. Nicaragua’s representative voiced regret that the draft was not adopted without a vote, calling for the spirit of negotiations and inclusivity that led to the Agreement to continue.
The Assembly next adopted, without a vote, the draft decision titled “Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes (document A/78/L.46). It then turned to several Fifth Committee reports, as introduced by Rapporteur Laurens Thomas den Hartog (Netherlands).
The first concerned the programme budget for 2024 (document A/78/662/Add.1), and the Committee took up “Draft resolution I: Revised estimates relating to the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in the Syrian Arab Republic”, contained in that report, on which the representative of Syria presented an oral amendment that would not approve any resources for the Institution. Speaking for a group of countries, he noted that the resolution that established the Institution was adopted without consulting Syria. He also stressed that his Government has taken the issue of missing persons seriously because “we have an obligation to do that”, and — rejecting the Institution’s financing from the UN budget — he called on all countries to support the amendment.
The Assembly then rejected the oral amendment by a recorded vote of 12 in favour to 73 against, with 43 abstentions, before adopting the draft resolution itself by a recorded vote of 80 in favour to 12 against, with 37 abstentions. Next, the Assembly adopted, without a vote, the other draft resolution relating to the programme budget for 2024 — “Draft resolution II: Revised estimates relating to the programme budget for 2024 under section 3, Political affairs, and section 36, Staff assessment: special political missions — thematic cluster III: regional offices, offices in support of political processes and other missions — United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in the Sudan (UNITAMS)”.
Speaking after those votes, the representatives of the Russian Federation, Iran, Nicaragua and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea dissociated from draft resolution I.
The Assembly then adopted, without a vote, the draft resolutions titled “Amendments to the Staff Regulations and Rules” (contained in document A/78/825); “Joint Inspection Unit” (contained in document A/78/826); and “Questions deferred for future consideration” (contained in document A/78/664/Add.1).