Media Home
UN Web TV
UN Audiovisual Library
UN PhotoSecurity Council
7574th Security Council Meeting: International Criminal Tribunals
With the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda set to formally close at the end of December, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia striving to complete its work by the end of 2017, the Presidents and Prosecutors of both bodies, as well as the President of the International Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals briefed the Security Council today on their proceedings.
As the meeting unfolded, it was announced that one of the nine remaining fugitives being sought by the Rwanda Tribunal, Ladislas Ntaganzwa had been apprehended the night before in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he was being held in custody. Mr. Ntaganzwa would be handed over to Rwanda authorities, where he would be tried under monitoring arrangements to be carried out by the Mechanism.
Vagn Joensen, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said that court had significantly impacted the evolution of international law through issuing novel judgments, including the first conviction for rape and sexual violence as a form of genocide. Some of the milestones achieved over the past two decades included its forty-fifth and final judgment on appeal in the Nyiramasuhuko et al., also known as the Butare case. The Rwanda Tribunal had brought indictments against 93 individuals, issued 55 first-instance judgments and 45 appeal judgments and heard the “powerful accounts” of more than 3,000 witnesses who recounted some of the “most traumatic events imaginable”. It was also the first to pass a judgment against a Head of Government since the Nuremburg and Tokyo Tribunals.
He said the Tribunal’s referral programme as a whole had provided the international community with a model of how an international criminal court could cooperate with national authorities to rebuild justice sectors in conflict and post-conflict environments. The completion of its core judicial work with other programmes, such as the implementation of genocide awareness-raising campaigns, had strengthened the capacity of the Rwanda judiciary. Any success for the Tribunal was a success to the Security Council as it highlighted the possibilities, through justice, to fight impunity and to provide at least some comfort to the victims of heinous crimes.
Carmel Agius, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that body had been at the forefront in the fight against impunity for international crimes and was a symbol of the commitment to ensuring accountability for grave crimes. It continued to play a pivotal role in both setting global standards for international criminal law and justice, and strengthening the rule of law at the local level.
Yet, there were challenges which must be managed if the Tribunal was to meet its ultimate goal of closure in 2017, he said. Most critically was the perennial and endemic problem of staff attrition. The increasingly alarming drain of experienced staff was a serious threat to complete the mandate. However, cooperation with the International Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals would continue to ensure a smooth transition, in line with resolution 1966 (2010).
Theodor Meron, President of the International Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, said that the Mechanism had issued a number of judicial orders and decisions, including the enforcement of sentences, request for review of judgement, and applications for the variation of protective measures granted to vulnerable witnesses and victims. In place were a number of new policies and other regulatory instruments, ranging from legal aid to access to archives. Member States’ involvement and commitment was essential to ensure that the remaining fugitives were apprehended; the Council’s continued attention to that issue was vital.
The Mechanism would not only be a credit to the United Nations and to the Security Council, but would also serve as a vital and continued embodiment of the international community’s dedication to the fight to end impunity, he said. “In a world where armed conflicts still rage on continent upon continent, where atrocities against civilians continue unabated, and where international humanitarian law can still be violated with impunity […] we must not underestimate the need for, and the importance of, such symbols of our shared and continued commitment to accountability, to international law, and to respect for the rule of law,” he emphasized.
Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stressed that State cooperation remained essential to enable the completion of work on schedule. Although progress continued in national war crimes prosecutions, it was uneven and fragile. Further efforts would require strong political commitment, he said, adding that senior Serbian Government ministers welcoming General Vladimir Lazarević, a convicted war criminal, back to Serbia upon his release last week sent absolutely the wrong signal.
His Office had also completed a detailed assessment of its work on prosecuting conflict-related sexual violence crimes, to be published in April 2016. “We have taken an honest look at the challenges we faced, the strategies we adopted, the results we achieved and the things we could have done better,” he said. Still, the Completion Strategy was not simply a matter of winding down operations and transitioning responsibilities to national courts. In a few months, the trial judgment would be delivered in the case against Radovan Karadžić, former President of Republika Srpska. The significance of that moment should not be overlooked.
Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, said that on 1 December, the Rwanda Tribunal had held its official closing ceremony in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania to mark the conclusion of its work and mandate subject only to the delivery of judgment by the Appeals Chamber in the Butare case, scheduled for 14 December. “The ICTR will thus definitely close down by the end of this year,” he said, noting that it had been a long and challenging journey to ensure accountability for crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994.
He called the Tribunal “the premier judicial institution” in elaborating law on genocide, and in registering other jurisprudential landmarks in the definition of rape, the link between sexual violence and genocide, and principles of command and superior responsibility. Its closure, while a momentous event, was only the end of a chapter, as the global struggle for justice must be intensified, building on the legacies of both Tribunals. “We must continue to respond through appropriate accountability mechanisms to mass atrocity everywhere,” which - as the Council had emphasized 20 years ago - was the pathway to peace and reconciliation, he underscored.
In the ensuing debate, speakers hailed the Rwanda Tribunal’s considerable contributions not only to peace and reconciliation efforts in the Great Lakes region of Africa, but to establishing a framework for new tribunals in the future. The experiences and lessons of the Tribunal would be written into the annals of history, China’s representative said.
The arrest of Mr. Ntaganzwa was also noted, with the United States’ representative stressing said the remaining fugitives were at the fore of the Council’s focus until they stood to answer for their actions. Such commitment had led to today’s arrest of by Congolese authorities.
Welcoming efforts by the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal to complete its work in 2017, delegates noted with concern that delays might be caused by staff attrition, with most speakers supporting the request to extend the terms of the Tribunal’s judges.
However, the representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that the Council had met the Former Yugoslavia Tribunals’ requests for extensions and while steps had been taken to that end, they had not yielded results. He urged the Tribunal to cut time needed for case completion. Staffing issues could not be used as an excuse, as shortages were the result of the slow pace of trials
Delegates also urged States in the region to fully cooperate with the Tribunal and the Residual Mechanism, with the representative of Spain voicing concern at the lack of trials undertaken by national authorities, and noting that Serbia was lacking in executing arrest warrants.
Nonetheless, representatives welcomed the smooth transition from the Tribunals to the Residual Mechanism, noting there was good evidence it was functioning well. They urged Member States to continue their support for the Mechanism.
Rwanda’s representative invited those present to reflect on the international community’s common failure 20 years ago in her country, and to take stock and gage if any lesson had been learned from that reality. Human rights violations and abuses were becoming the norm and if that trend persisted, the enjoyment of human rights would remain an elusive reality, she said. Rwanda was determined to pursue the issue of the location of the repository of archives, as it should be of paramount importance they be preserved in Rwanda.
The representative of Serbia said the domestic prosecution of international crimes committed in the armed conflicts of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia had been among the most important steps in reconciliation. It was the collective duty of regional countries to investigate and prosecute those responsible, without any discrimination against the perpetrator or the victim on the basis of national, ethnic or religious origin. He noted that despite the fact that many civilians of Serb ethnicity in Operation Storm had been killed, the judiciary in Croatia had passed only one final conviction for the war crime of murder.
Croatia’s representative drew attention to the Šešelj case and the “toxic impact” of Vojislav Šešelj’s temporary release. The fact that that an indicted war criminal was allowed live appearances on Serbian reality television was regarded by his victims as a slap in the face of international criminal justice and humanity itself. He called on Serbia to comply fully with the Former Yugoslav Tribunal’s requests.
The representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina noted that his country had always fully cooperated with the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal and had implemented all its decisions and rulings. The completion of the court’s mandate did not mean the end of the fight against impunity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government would continue to strengthen the national justice system in order to bring perpetrators of atrocity crimes to justice.
Representatives of Chile, Chad, Malaysia, Nigeria, Jordan, Angola, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Venezuela, New Zealand, and France also spoke.
The meeting began at 10:16 a.m. and endedat 1:30 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met this morning to hold its semi-annual debate on the ad hoc international tribunals, and to consider several documents. Among them were: the report of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document S/2015/577); report of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document S/2015/585); a letter dated 16 November 2015 from the President of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document S/2015/874); a letter dated 17 November 2015 from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document S/2015/884); as well as two letters dated 17 November and 20 November 2015 from the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (documents S/2015/883 and S/2015/896, respectively). Those letters are addressed to the President of the Council.
