S/PV.10059 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Rwanda and Serbia to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals; and Mr. Serge Brammertz, Chief Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2025/491, which contains a note by the Secretary-General on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. I now give the floor to Judge Gatti Santana. Judge Gatti Santana: Allow me to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. I also wish to convey my sincere appreciation for the support provided by the Council to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and to recognize Slovenia and the other outgoing members — Algeria, Guyana, the Republic of Korea and Sierra Leone — for their valuable contributions to our work. Today is Human Rights Day. The occasion reminds us why the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia were established: to restore human dignity in the wake of mass atrocities. These Tribunals, followed by the Mechanism, did this by holding those most responsible to account for their crimes through judicial processes adhering to the highest standards of justice. This commitment remains at the foundation of our work, which is now focused on the responsible conclusion of the justice cycle. Today, the Mechanism’s mandate still bears real responsibilities for real people, obligations entrusted to us by the Council to ensure justice that is fair, effective and durable. These include judicial oversight of protective measures granted to approximately 3,200 victims and witnesses and ensuring due process and effective implementation of sentences for the 40 convicted persons incarcerated under the Mechanism’s authority. In addition, the Mechanism assists domestic authorities with national prosecutions and preserves and shares the legacy of the Tribunals’ work through the management of their archives and its own. I am honoured to present the Mechanism’s twenty-seventh progress report, which outlines the institution’s significant achievements in relation to all of this work over the past six months. As detailed in the report, the core of the Mechanism’s residual work continues unabated. The judges of the Mechanism issued nearly 80 decisions and orders during the reporting period, with approximately 9 out of every 10 pertaining to the Mechanism’s continuous judicial functions. Among them, I issued 26 decisions and orders relating to enforcement matters, including decisions granting release on humanitarian grounds and release based on a convincing demonstration of With care and diligence, the Mechanism ensures that international standards of imprisonment are fully respected. We are grateful for the independent inspection bodies that continue to verify this. Other judicial activity of note includes a decision issued on 7 November, when a single judge referred the final active contempt matter before the Mechanism to the United States. The amicus curiae prosecutor has appealed this decision. Our history shows that the Mechanism takes the integrity of its proceedings and the safety of its witnesses extremely seriously. However, where the interests of justice and expediency so dictate, the judges have avoided costly in-court proceedings and have deferred contempt jurisdiction. The Mechanism has referred the three most recent contempt matters to States and, in its 13-year history, has conducted only one contempt trial. This stands in stark contrast to the nearly 25 contempt proceedings conducted by its predecessors over a 20-year period. Other ad hoc judicial matters are also advancing. In the case against Mr. Fulgence Kayishema, which was referred to Rwanda in 2012, on 29 October the Trial Chamber issued a decision on his request to revoke the referral, dismissing three of the four grounds. The Trial Chamber can now adjudicate the final ground, having recently received relevant submissions from the Government of South Africa, where Mr. Kayishema remains incarcerated and subject to domestic proceedings. On 21 November, a single judge determined that, after 31 December 2026, the Mechanism will no longer have a legal or judicial obligation to provide further financial assistance to the acquitted and released persons who were relocated to the Niger four years ago. The single judge found that these individuals had not shown that they cannot safely return to Rwanda, their country of origin, should that become necessary, particularly given the possibility of safety guarantees and regular reporting from the Rwandan authorities. This decision could be the subject of an appeal. Finally, the Trial Chamber seized of the case against Mr. Félicien Kabuga has determined that he is not fit to fly to Rwanda, the one country that has offered to accept him for release following the indefinite stay of his trial. The Trial Chamber has asked the European States to which Mr. Kabuga has sought release to reconsider accepting him on their territories. The prosecution has appealed the decision. Turning to the remaining activities of the Mechanism, the focus today is plainly on their future. The Secretary-General has shared with the Council advance copies of the reports requested through resolution 2740 (2024) on the possible transfer of the Mechanism’s archives, assistance to national jurisdictions on prosecutions and the activities related to supervising the enforcement of sentences. I extend my profound appreciation to the Secretary-General, the Legal Counsel and their respective Offices for the comprehensive and insightful evaluation of these complex matters. Allow me to highlight the most salient features of these reports. First, the reports propose that the technical functions of the prosecution’s assistance to national jurisdictions and management of the archives can be transferred to the United Nations Secretariat. The Mechanism supports this assessment. While these functions are vital for closing the impunity gap and maintaining a reliable historical resource for research, education and countering revisionism and denial, they need not be embedded in a court. Their transfer will materially decrease the Mechanism’s activities and its resource requirements. The Secretary-General has also recommended that, under the appropriate circumstances, the day-to-day supervision of conditions of imprisonment can be transferred to States. The Mechanism also supports this position and will facilitate such transfer, should the Council implement the recommendation. However, two convicted persons remain at the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague. Until they can be By contrast, the Secretary-General has indicated that the power to order the transfer of prisoners, designate enforcement States and decide on applications for pardon, commutation of sentence or early release involves core judicial functions that should stay at the international level and retain the involvement of the President, the roster of Mechanism judges and limited, but essential, support staff. The Secretary-General has emphasized that retaining independent international judicial authority over these matters, which is not cost-intensive, ensures the most fair and uniform treatment of prisoners, regardless of where imprisonment takes place. The report cautions that transferring authority, for example, for pardon, commutation of sentence and early release to States presents credible risks of arbitrary, disparate and unequal treatment of prisoners. This is because States have varying early release and sentence remission practices, which are neither aligned with the Mechanism’s practice nor necessarily developed to address international criminality. The Mechanism supports this assessment. As the Secretary-General has noted, the continuation at the international level of core judicial functions related to sentence supervision should also be assessed, together with other continuous judicial functions not covered in the reports. I therefore urge the Council to carefully consider retaining, at the international level, judicial oversight of protection orders for victims and witnesses and judicial activities that guarantee due process rights for persons who remain under the Mechanism’s jurisdiction. This litigation, some of it occurring rarely, is not resource-intensive in view of our reliance on remote judges and minimal staff. Furthermore, such activity will reduce in the coming years. The costs associated with these critical judicial functions are accordingly low. Conversely, hastily terminating them risks disparate and arbitrary application of the law and irreparable damage to the legacy of the Tribunals. I highlight the importance of judicial oversight over witness protection as just one example. Article 20 of the Mechanism’s statute, enacted by the Council, allows the judges to order protective measures for victims and witnesses. These measures are for the benefit of the witness and not the party to the proceedings that called the witness, and currently apply to approximately 3,200 witnesses for the prosecution, the defence and the Chambers. The judges must determine whether varying protective measures and sharing confidential information with, for example, national prosecutors, is appropriate in view of the Mechanism’s parallel duty under article 28, paragraph 3, to assist national prosecutions. This judicial process involves an impartial balancing of a witness’s personal circumstances against an applicant’s interest in the protected information. Some witnesses fear that disclosure of their identity or past testimony will endanger their safety, while others who experience severe trauma worry that participation in domestic proceedings could retraumatize them and significantly destabilize their recovery. The judges have the discretion to deny requested variations when consent is not given by the witness. However, where applicants show, for example, that a miscarriage of justice would occur without the variation, protective measures have been varied, even without witness consent. Such an assessment ensures that protective measures remain effective but are varied under the appropriate circumstances, particularly where doing so is essential to the pursuit of justice. This impartial judicial process cannot be seen as a barrier to national prosecutions and, indeed, recent trends show that most requests to vary protective measures with a view to assisting domestic accountability processes have been granted in whole or in part. Moreover, the cost of the function is minimal when considering its importance to the commitment it upholds. Witnesses bravely confronted those powerful enough to orchestrate and commit mass atrocities or provided evidence that placed them at risk from those in power at the time of their testimony. While the Council will decide on the future of the Mechanism’s mandate, we are not passively waiting for guidance. The twenty-seventh progress report demonstrates that the Mechanism continues to reimagine and innovate the way it works to ensure alignment with the Council’s vision for a small and temporary institution. For example, the Mechanism’s judges, having carefully considered the interests of justice, amended the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in September to limit the prospect of resource-intensive investigations and in-court proceedings related to contempt, false testimony and requests for review. Through streamlining and prioritization, the Mechanism’s 2026 budget proposal reflects an approximate 20 per cent reduction in staff and 15 per cent reduction in overall resources compared to 2025, without any corresponding decrease in work. This amounts roughly to a 70 per cent cumulative reduction in staffing and a 50 per cent cumulative reduction in the budget over the past six years. Notwithstanding the ability to achieve efficiencies on our own, the Mechanism has also sought expert support from the United Nations Human Resources Services Division to identify appropriate staffing levels and reporting lines for the multiple scenarios that lie ahead for the Mechanism, following the Council’s sixth review of the progress of our work next year. In conclusion, the Mechanism remains committed to the responsible conclusion of the justice cycle. Whether long-term residual responsibilities are completed by a smaller Mechanism or other suitable institutions, the process will require an orderly transition. Our legacy and the Council’s legacy require transfer and closure so as not to undermine the more than three decades of groundbreaking advancements in human rights and international criminal justice. The Mechanism will continue to adapt its working methods and faithfully implement the Council’s decisions to ensure the efficient and just completion of its work.

I thank Judge Gatti Santana for her briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Brammertz. Mr. Brammertz: I thank the Security Council for the opportunity to again brief members on my Office’s activities and results; details have been presented in my written progress report. My remarks today will focus mainly on the Council’s upcoming review. In 2008, the Council entrusted me with leadership of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). I therefore remember very well when the Council adopted resolution 1966 (2010) and established the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. One key rationale for the Mechanism was to address the remaining fugitives of both Tribunals at that time. In May 2009, when the Secretary-General submitted his report (S/2009/258), there were still 15 fugitives at large. At that time, the pace of arrests had slowed, and it was unknown when, or even if, fugitives would be arrested and trials would commence. The need to prosecute fugitives decisively shaped the Mechanism. From its creation it had to be a criminal court, like the ad hoc Tribunals, with a full range of functions. There was a fugitive tracking team from day one, while a roster of investigators, prosecutors and judges was needed to conduct trials when arrests were made. When I also took over responsibility as the Mechanism’s Prosecutor in 2016, progress had been made. All ICTY fugitives and five International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) fugitives had been arrested. We had a full workload of trials and appeals in the cases of Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić and Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj et al. . As I said in The Mechanism had another vital mandate to support the national accountability process. The completion strategies began the transfer of responsibilities to national authorities. In 2010, this process was still only at the beginning. The ICTR and ICTY were in the process of referring cases to Member States; national investigations into other cases were commencing. To support these domestic efforts, the Council gave the Mechanism an important new mandate under article 28, paragraph 3, to respond to requests for assistance from national authorities. Accordingly, my Office significantly expanded the amount of evidence we shared with national prosecutors. We also prepared investigative dossiers for national authorities concerning notable suspects we had investigated but not indicted. We began working directly with partners on their active cases — what we call today direct case assistance. This work complemented domestic initiatives. In Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, significant reforms were made to prepare for trials of referred cases and to assume responsibility for the justice process. Special prosecution offices and courts were established, international law was domesticated and fair trial rights were strengthened. The impact of those international and national measures can be seen in our workload. In 2012, when the Mechanism commenced operations, my Office received approximately 100 requests per year. In recent years, we have been receiving nearly 400 requests annually, which are also of increasing complexity. In total, my Office has received, since the Mechanism was established, more than 4,000 requests for assistance from national authorities. As the completion strategies intended, our national partners have achieved significant results. Domestic authorities have successfully prosecuted the referred cases. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, between 2004 and 2023, courts adjudicated 742 war crimes cases involving more than 1,100 defendants. In Rwanda, investigations were conducted and indictments prepared for more than 1,200 persons. Third States also increased their efforts, with many war criminals and genocidaires extradited or prosecuted and a significant number of cases ongoing today. So again, if we compare the situation in 2010 with that today, the contrast is striking. As international justice was winding down, national justice took its place and continued to achieve accountability as the Council intended. Of course, more work remains to be done at the domestic level, and important challenges must be overcome. Many victims and survivors are still waiting for justice, while the families of the missing are still searching for their loved ones. The passage of time only makes the need to address their suffering more urgent. Rwandan authorities are still seeking more than 1,000 fugitive genocidaires. In the countries of the former Yugoslavia, more than 1,000 war crimes cases are still outstanding. Addressing these important accountability gaps will require swift and determined efforts by national authorities. International cooperation between prosecutors is essential. In the former Yugoslavia alone, there are more than 300 cases to be transferred from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia and Serbia. For Rwandan cases, it will be vital to continue strengthening cooperation between Rwandan authorities and prosecutors around the world. In this regard, I must note that two and a half years later, following his arrest in May As we look forward, the Council has requested the Secretary-General to submit reports on options for three important residual functions: assistance to national jurisdictions, enforcement of sentences and management of the archives (see S/PV.9805). My Office supports the Secretary-General’s views in these respects. With respect to our assistance role, national investigations and prosecutions will remain at a high level for a number of years to come. Our partners will need access to my Office’s evidence, expertise and support to meet their responsibilities. That is why we believe this mandate should be transferred to the Secretariat, so that the United Nations can continue to provide invaluable technical assistance to Member States. In terms of early release applications, my Office has detailed knowledge of the victims, crimes and convicted persons, so we will continue to have an important role to play in ensuring that all relevant information is presented in relation to these requests. The transfer of the archives to an appropriate body for long-term management is sensible at this point in time. Regarding the other residual functions not addressed by the Secretary-General, my Office has presented our observations to the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals. We have endeavoured to provide objective and transparent information to assist the Council in its review and deliberations. Our conclusion is that options are available to transfer or complete all of these other functions, including the issue of the protective measures for witnesses, as I have detailed in my report (see S/2025/491). In our view, the transfer of responsibilities to Member States should continue wherever possible. This is what the completion strategy is intended to achieve. We also believe that pragmatic solutions are available to wind down the Mechanism’s activities. At this stage of the accountability process, the need for an international judicial body has been greatly reduced, and only a few last tasks remain. This is now an opportunity to fundamentally reimagine the Mechanism and to implement creative and responsible changes. In conclusion, with the Council’s continued support and the dedicated efforts of the Mechanism’s staff, we can now say that the Mechanism has accomplished its most important mission. Finalizing the last trials of the ICTR and ICTY was of immense importance to the victims, affected societies and the international community. Looking forward, the future of accountability is now at the domestic level. Here too, the Council plays a decisive role in supporting the adoption of the completion strategies and the transfer of responsibilities to Member States. My Office stands ready to assist the Council in its deliberations and to provide any information that the Council may find helpful.

I thank Mr. Brammertz for his briefing. I now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements.

I thank Judge Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, and Prosecutor Brammertz of the Mechanism, for their comprehensive briefings on the activities of the Mechanism Sierra Leone acknowledges the Mechanism’s continued efforts to align its itself with the Security Council’s original vision of the Mechanism as a small, temporary and efficient structure while also exploring options for the future transfer of its residual functions in response to resolution 2740 (2024). In this regard, the staffing level of the Mechanism will be decreased to 102 staff members by the end of this year, even as further cuts are anticipated in 2026 in line with the UN80 Initiative. Amid this period of transition, the Mechanism has efficiently and effectively executed its residual functions. The Mechanism has monitored the prosecutions of international crimes referred to national jurisdictions and has provided assistance to national jurisdictions in the prosecution of war crimes. These two remain the paramount residual tasks of the Office of the Prosecutor, and it is clear that Member States place a lot of reliance on the expertise of Prosecutor Brammertz and his team. During the reporting period, the Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor received a total of 30 requests for assistance from eight Member States relating to crimes committed in relation to Rwanda. With regard to crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, during the reporting period, the Office of Prosecutor Brammertz received 106 requests for assistance from four Member States and one international organization. That is a reflection that both Member States and international organizations rely heavily on the expertise of the Office, and we thank the Office for providing that. The Office of the Prosecutor has pioneered a collaborative approach in which international and national prosecutors have been working together to advance justice so that it is domestically owned, State-led and State-owned. Also, during the period under review, from 16 May to 15 November, the Mechanism continued to supervise the enforcement of sentences of 38 convicted persons in eight different Member States. It continued conducting review and contempt proceedings; oversaw the protection of victims and witnesses, including addressing requests for the modification of protective measures; and managed the archives of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Mechanism itself. In view of the foregoing, Sierra Leone would like to make three points. First, we are of the view that empowering Member States to continue their accountability process in their domestic courts would be an important legacy for the Mechanism. This is particularly underscored by the fact that Rwandan authorities are still seeking to bring 1,000 fugitive génocidaires to justice. Secondly, despite the notable progress, there are unfortunately both persisting old and new challenges facing the Mechanism. The absence of sufficient enforcement States means that convicted persons continue to be housed at the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague, which prevents the Mechanism from closing down the detention centre or reducing its operational cost and footprint. At the same time, while the released persons in the Niger have enjoyed greater freedom of movement in the past year, their legal status is still uncertain, and they still have not received regular stay in that country. The Mechanism has also faced new challenges regarding the Office premises in The Hague. Thirdly and finally, with respect to missing persons, while the Mechanism assisted in clarifying the fate and whereabouts of 15 missing persons by contributing evidence that led to the location of grave sites, corrected misidentifications and also helped with the identification of bodies in mortuaries, the families of more than 12,000 missing persons in the former Yugoslavia still do not know the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. We reiterate, as we have on previous occasions, our call to all Member States to extend cooperation in addressing these challenges. In conclusion, Sierra Leone reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the fight against impunity and to the Council’s responsibility to bring justice for victims, I therefore take the opportunity to thank the Council for entrusting Sierra Leone with this important responsibility of chairing the Working Group, as it has had to navigate the Mechanism during perhaps its most important process of transition from a full-blown trial court to a truly residual mechanism. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Working Group for their constructive engagement over the past two years.

At the outset, I would like to thank Judge Graciela Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Serge Brammertz for their valuable briefings. We have taken note of the most recent report on the transfer of some residual functions of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals to national jurisdictions or other competent parties (see S/2025/491), transmitted by the Secretary- General. We welcome the participation of the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Rwanda and Serbia in this meeting. Algeria believes that the current phase requires that we accelerate the transition towards the gradual and orderly completion of the residual functions, without compromising the proper administration of justice or the fundamental guarantees of due process. In this regard, we emphasize that any arrangements pertaining to the location and management of the archives must be based on clear legal and administrative standards that guarantee the unity and integrity of the archives, their institutional continuity and their organized accessibility, particularly for the affected States. Furthermore, the enforcement of sentences must be carried out within an international cooperation framework based on the consent of States, ensuring respect for the rights of convicted persons and relevant international norms. We believe that the transfer or reorganization of this function should be undertaken through arrangements that ensure appropriate oversight and legal continuity, thereby enhancing effectiveness and alleviating institutional burdens. We also stress the need to continue aligning resources with the residual functions, including further downsizing structures, focusing on core functions and adopting cost- efficient solutions, all without undermining the indispensable mandates. We reaffirm that international jurisdiction is complementary to, and not a replacement for, the primary jurisdiction of States, reflecting the principle of sovereignty as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. On this basis, we support the transfer of residual functions to competent national jurisdictions, provided that standards are met, with the continued provision of legal assistance as necessary. This must be done in a manner that guarantees respect for international standards of fair trial and witness protection. We further emphasize that the residual functions must be concluded as soon as possible in a coordinated and responsible manner, in consultation with the Secretariat and as determined by the Security Council. This would enhance the credibility of the international criminal justice system and is in line with the Council’s resolutions, which affirm the temporary nature of the Mechanism. In conclusion, Algeria stresses the necessity for the Council to remain committed to supporting this transitional phase based on respect for international law, the sovereignty of States and the principle of complementarity and in a way that guarantees the completion of the Mechanism’s mandate in a manner that preserves the integrity of the judicial process and safeguards its legacy. The activities of the Mechanism during the current reporting period are a testament to the relevance of its work regarding its judicial activities on proceedings related to core crimes, to the enforcement of sentences or on issues of supervision of their enforcement. They also underscore the importance of its prosecutorial functions through the assistance of the Office of the Prosecutor to competent national authorities when providing evidence and legal, investigative or prosecutorial support thereto. In view of the afore mentioned, I would like to underline the following three points. First, regarding proceedings related to core crimes, we note the developments in the cases against Kabuga and Kayishema respectively. We also note that, according to the report, the execution of arrest warrants in the cases against Jojić and Radeta are still pending. Moreover, we underscore the judicial work of the Mechanism regarding the acquitted and released persons in the Niger. The efforts of the Mechanism in this respect should be underlined, since their freedom has yet to be guaranteed. Secondly, we underscore the assistance of the Mechanism to national jurisdictions regarding the obtaining of testimony of persons under its authority or requests for variation of protective measures. More importantly, the Office of the Prosecutor assists national authorities in their requests for the provision of evidence or expertise. The volume and complexity of the requests, as well as the accountability gap evidenced by the more than 1,000 fugitives in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia, respectively, demonstrate the large number of cases to be processed, but also the vital importance of the continued assistance of the Office of the Prosecutor to national prosecutorial authorities. We underline that the backlog of requests to the Office has been significantly reduced in the reporting period. This is of critical importance, as underlined in the report, to avoid risks in the success of national investigations and prosecutions. Yet, like other United Nations entities, the Mechanism has been asked to reduce its budget. However, this should not adversely affect its ability to ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes. Therefore, Greece supports the resource requests of the Office to meet its mandate. Thirdly, we would like to underscore the important role of the Mechanism in countering genocide denial, historical revisionism and the glorification of war criminals, as outlined in the report, in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia. In this regard, it is important to ensure access to judicial records and information on the legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals and the Mechanism, while promoting education and remembrance. In conclusion, the Security Council established that the Mechanism will diminish over time. It also requested from the Secretary-General a report, which was recently issued, on options for the transfer of its functions (S/2025/491). Greece welcomes the options recommended by the Mechanism regarding its functions aimed at concluding the justice cycle that started with the ad hoc criminal Tribunals in a manner that respects fundamental rights and safeguards the integrity of the judicial process, and with a view to supporting States in achieving justice in domestic courts. We are also grateful to the Secretary-General and, in particular to the Office of Legal Affairs, for its report on the matter, which is expected to assist Member States in contemplating options regarding the future of the Mechanism.

We thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Gatti Santana, and the Prosecutor, Mr. Serge Brammertz, for their detailed reports. We also welcome the delegations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Rwanda and Serbia, which honour us with their presence today. First, it is appropriate to reiterate that, for Panama, both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the We would like to express our gratitude for the honesty, transparency and rigour with which the Secretary-General, as well as the President and the Prosecutor of the Mechanism, have carried out this genuine review of functions. Panama will closely follow the options raised to optimize resources, including the possible transfer of archive management and the highly viable consolidation of offices. Only these elements would allow for a significant reduction in administrative and personnel expenses, which is so necessary in the liquidity crisis facing the Organization. We will also closely monitor the potential transfer of the function of support to national jurisdictions from the Office of the Prosecutor, and we agree that decisions on pardon, commutation and early release must be maintained in the international sphere. Panama reaffirms its commitment to effective and sustainable international criminal justice that preserves the legacy of the Mechanism and responds to current needs. We reiterate our readiness to continue collaborating constructively in the deliberations of the Security Council to guarantee that these essential functions continue to be fulfilled with the integrity with which they have been fulfilled to date and for the benefit of international justice.

I would like to thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, and the Prosecutor, Mr. Serge Brammertz, for their briefings. France commends the Mechanism’s efforts to carry out its mandate, whether in monitoring the enforcement of sentences, protecting victims and witnesses, assisting national courts or managing archives and remembrance. The Security Council must continue to support its work. In its resolution 1966 (2010), the Council emphasized that the Mechanism should be “a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and size will diminish over time, with a small number of staff commensurate with its reduced functions”. In this regard, France notes the publication of the Secretary-General’s report on the transfer of certain functions and the localization of archives (S/2025/491), which was prepared in the light of the recommendations of the President and the Prosecutor. This report reinforces and extends the Mechanism’s completion strategy, which is aimed at reducing its size while preserving the legal legacy of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Mechanism itself. This report proposes options for the transfer of the following residual functions: supervision of the enforcement of sentences, requests for clemency, commutation and early release, assistance to national courts and management of archives. Without prejudice to a more in-depth analysis of the various options proposed, a few observations already seem clear to us. First, there is no doubt that the Mechanism will have to preserve the judicial authority with regard to the enforcement of sentences, clemency, commutations and early release of persons convicted by the Tribunals. By its very nature, this power must be exercised at the international level, regardless of where the persons are detained, in order to ensure fair and uniform treatment in accordance with international standards. Consequently, the Mechanism will need to continue to function at a reduced scale until all judicial functions have been completed, with measures to consolidate the Secondly, day-to-day supervision of the enforcement of sentences could be transferred to the States in charge of their enforcement, in order to optimize resource management and reduce costs. It will nevertheless remain essential to ensure that prison conditions comply with international human rights standards, such as the Nelson Mandela Rules. Ultimately, oversight of the enforcement of sentences by an international judicial authority will therefore remain necessary, including the power to relocate prisoners if necessary. Solutions must also be found for the two convicted persons currently held in the United Nations Detention Facility in The Hague, Mr. Stanišić and Mr. Mladić, as well as for Félicien Kabuga. The costs incurred in this regard cannot continue indefinitely. Similarly, it is urgent to find a lasting solution for the six persons who have been released or acquitted and are currently in the Niger. Thirdly, we would like to emphasize that the Office of the Prosecutor’s role in assisting national jurisdictions with prosecutions will remain central to the fight against impunity in the future. In this regard, we note that this function could, under certain conditions, be transferred to the United Nations Secretariat with a dedicated mandate and budget. Fourthly and finally, we recognize the importance of preserving and providing access to archives as an essential component of the legacy of international criminal tribunals. These archives must remain the property of the United Nations and remain in its custody. However, we note with interest the expressions of interest by certain States in hosting these archives, given their importance to the national memory of those States. The implementation of the report’s recommendations will require careful consideration and a collective commitment by the Security Council. France will advocate for an effective and relevant reduction of the Mechanism’s administrative and judicial functions in order to prepare for its ultimate closure under the best possible conditions, while maintaining an adequate international legal framework for as long as necessary to ensure justice and fairness. Lastly, I cannot conclude without thanking Sierra Leone for its excellent work during its term as Chair of the Council’s Informal Working Group on International Tribunals.

I thank President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their briefings on the continuing efforts of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals to advance justice for atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. I thank them also for their contributions to the work under way to responsibly wind down the Mechanism’s functions. Looking back over this reporting period, we would like to commend the Mechanism’s facilitation of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s recent inspection of the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague, which reaffirmed the Unit’s compliance with international standards. We appreciated the opportunity for Security Council members to observe this compliance first-hand by touring the Unit and newly specialized hospital facilities. This is now an important moment for the Mechanism. Resolving key remaining issues for the Mechanism will require the collective efforts of Member States. We continue to encourage States to cooperate with the Mechanism to this end, including on the steps required to close the Detention Unit and address the situation of acquitted and released persons in the Niger. We note the Mechanism’s statement that resolving these issues would yield substantial cost savings and advance the shared objective of a principled, fair and efficient conclusion to the Mechanism’s mandate. As we look ahead to the decisions that will be before the Council next summer, we recall the Council’s emphasis in resolution 2740 (2024) that the Mechanism was The United States looks forward to the sixth review report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and to constructive discussions among all stakeholders over the coming months. We agree with the Secretary-General’s call for a significant reimagining of the Mechanism’s structure and operations as we look towards its completion and closure. We believe that this can and should be done expeditiously, while securing the commendable legacy of the Tribunals’ work to advance justice for victims and future generations.

China thanks President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their briefings and welcomes the Secretary-General’s report on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. We welcome the presence of the representatives of Serbia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia at today’s meeting. Pursuant to resolution 1966 (2010), the Mechanism is intended to be a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and size will gradually diminish over time. During the reporting period, the Mechanism has, as mandated by resolution 2740 (2024), advanced its remaining functions in an orderly manner and actively explored possible pathways for the transfer of its functions. China commends these efforts. Regarding the Mechanism’s next steps, China wishes to offer the following observations. First, the orderly transfer of the Mechanism’s functions must be promoted. The Secretary-General’s report recommends establishing a roster of judges to perform core judicial functions, including granting pardons, commuting sentences and granting early releases when necessary. It also proposes transferring the Mechanism’s remaining functions, such as monitoring the enforcement of sentences, providing assistance in proceedings and addressing contempt of court, to the relevant national authorities or Secretariat departments. China supports these recommendations and sees them as pragmatic steps towards the successful completion of the Mechanism’s mandate. Secondly, the archival preservation process must be steadily advanced. The archives of the Mechanism and its predecessors, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, constitute invaluable historical legacies. They hold particular cautionary significance for strengthening education, promoting reconciliation and preventing grave international crimes and should be properly preserved. China supports the Secretariat in continuing consultations with the relevant States to expedite the establishment of an archive preservation plan, thereby creating favourable conditions for the Mechanism to fulfil its mandate. Thirdly, rules-based safeguards for the Mechanism’s transition must be strengthened. The Secretary-General’s report notes that the transfer of the Mechanism’s functions entails revisions to its statute, rules of procedure and evidence and cooperation agreements with relevant States. China believes that where the Mechanism has largely fulfilled its mandate, consideration should be given to formulating new rules for the transfer of functions rather than remaining bound by the existing provisions. The Security Council should initiate consultations on this matter without delay to determine the future direction of work at the earliest opportunity. This year marks the eightieth anniversary of the victory of the anti-fascist world war. The Residual Mechanism and the two criminal tribunals share a common To conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sierra Leone, Chair of the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals, and the Office of Legal Affairs for their contributions in coordinating the work between the Security Council and the Residual Mechanism.

I would like to begin by extending my gratitude to President Gatti Santana and Chief Prosecutor Brammertz for their insightful briefings. I also welcome the participation of His Excellency Mr. Branislav Stojanović, Assistant Minister of Justice of Serbia, and the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda and Croatia. We have carefully reviewed the reports of the President (see S/2025/491) and the Prosecutor and also welcome the Secretary-General’s report pursuant to resolution 2740 (2024). Based on today’s briefings and the Secretary-General’s report, we wish to underline the following points. First, we commend the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) for the continued progress that it has made towards becoming a small, temporary and efficient organization, as envisioned in resolution 1966 (2010). Measures that have been taken to this end, such as the staffing review and downsizing and the streamlining of procedures and governance adjustments, reflect this commitment. Importantly, we also commend the Mechanism for having maintained its judicial activities and the Prosecutor’s work in the fulfilment of its mandate even amid the implementation of the early separation programme. These efforts illustrate the Mechanism’s commitment to implementing its completion strategy while safeguarding the integrity of its judicial responsibilities. Secondly, Member States’ consistent cooperation and their responsible actions are essential to ensuring the Mechanism’s effective functioning and the integrity of judicial processes at this important transitional juncture. Despite the commendable cooperation of many States, several ongoing challenges continue to impede the Mechanism’s effective functioning. These include delays in the transfer of accused persons, insufficient cooperation in fugitive tracking and decisions that hinder the effective handling of referred cases. Equally concerning is the Prosecutor’s warning about a rise in genocide denial, distortion of atrocities and the glorification of convicted war criminals. Such actions undermine reconciliation, retraumatize victims and jeopardize justice. We therefore urge all Member States to cooperate with the Mechanism and national jurisdictions and to take responsible action against denial and glorification in order to uphold the dignity of victims and the integrity of justice. Thirdly, based on the Secretary-General’s report, decisions on the future direction of the Mechanism must be determined in a rational and carefully considered manner. Regarding the transfer of functions, we believe that the IRMCT’s core judicial functions must continue to be exercised at an international level to preserve consistency. We also consider the option of transferring domestic jurisdiction support functions to the United Nations Secretariat to be a reasonable and appropriate approach towards orderly closure, given the need to safeguard confidentiality and specialized expertise. We also look forward to a decision on the location of the archives, consistent with the principles we have emphasized previously, that ensures accessibility and preserves their educational value for future generations.

We have studied the semi-annual report of the President and Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) on the work of this structure, as well as the report of the Secretary-General on options for transferring the functions of the IRMCT and storing its archives. We are disappointed by the fact that neither of the aforementioned reports contains information on whether residual functions are now ready for transfer, nor whether the necessary preparatory work has been carried out to that end, and if not, why. Moreover, the IRMCT President’s report once again leaves one with the impression that this is a permanent organ. Let us recall that this is not the case. The Mechanism was established as a purely temporary structure, which should have been closed down long ago. With its bloated staff and budget of $60 million, the Mechanism’s ongoing existence seems absurd when viewed against the backdrop of a completely empty judicial basket and the UN80 Initiative encompassing all United Nations divisions. One gains a similar impression from the planned cosmetic reductions in budget and staff mentioned in the reports. This is especially true given that the plans of the IRMCT leadership are often significantly divorced from reality. All we have seen so far, from a comparison with the data in last year’s report (S/2024/570), is a reduction of one post, from 234 to 233. Once again, we reject the practice of, for some reason, not including staff members engaged with the Office of Internal Oversight Services in the total of IRMCT posts, which is indicated in the relevant footnote of the report. The Council needs to be fully informed about the precise number of IRMCT staff members. We have noticed that the continued application of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations vis-à-vis the residual judicial functions is presented in the reports under consideration as something of a fait accompli. In this regard, we would like to stress that invoking the provisions of Chapter VII is the exclusive prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, not of the leadership of the Mechanism nor the Secretary-General. We firmly believe that the existence of the IRMCT has become too protracted and, at the current juncture, there is no objective need for it. All residual functions, including judicial ones, can and should be handed over to the national level, and there is no need for any Chapter VII application to ensure their subsequent implementation. If States require technical assistance through the Office of the Prosecutor, we can consider sensible options for transferring this function to competent United Nations agencies, together with a small number of experienced staff. We note the specific and detailed proposals in this regard, set out in the Prosecutor’s report. On a separate note, we would like to caution against attempts to develop a sort of a residual mechanism for the Residual Mechanism. For some reason, the Secretary- General’s report is persuading the members of the Security Council to consider this very concept. We would like to stress that such an option is unacceptable. The Mechanism was established by the Council as a purely temporary structure. It has fulfilled its main functions and should be closed. We recommend that the Mechanism begin to consider practical measures to prepare precisely for that scenario. We remember how hastily the commission on investigation in Iraq was closed. The Council spent years listening to well-dressed men talking about the importance of its work and proposing various scenarios for preserving its functions, but then it was closed, without a Council resolution, through the efforts of the Office of Legal Affairs. We would especially like to highlight the premise that only an international judicial The case of Serbian General Ratko Mladić, who is being held at the United Nations detention unit in The Hague, speaks volumes in this regard. In 2024, the IRMCT President rejected his application for early release on humanitarian grounds or with a provision to serve the remainder of his sentence in Serbia. At the same time, according to the General’s relatives and Serb doctors, as of November, the prisoner’s serious condition has worsened. He suffers from sharp fluctuations in blood pressure, constantly high blood sugar levels, atrophied muscle tissue in his lower limbs and impaired motor function in his hands and fingers. Mr. Mladić is hardly able to hold his head upright. He has pressure ulcers on both feet. He has osteomyelitis on his left ankle. As a result of low body weight and mandatory bed rest, the patient’s kidneys are overwhelmed by the medication. His cognitive functions are deteriorating. As a result, Ratko Mladić is not always able to recognize the presence and particulars of his own health problems and to promptly seek medical assistance. His dementia is progressing: he scored 4 out of 48 in memory tests; three years ago, he scored 15. At the same time, the prison hospital administration did not agree to magnetic resonance imaging, even though the most recent scan was performed in 2022 and already showed degeneration of the nerve tissue and some deterioration compared to 2018. A Serbian cardiologist who visited Ratko Mladić in October did not receive the crucial documents requested of the prison doctors, including those about the functioning of his pacemaker. She was given a mere 15 minutes for the examination — clearly insufficient for even a cursory appraisal of the situation. Does this litany of illnesses really not suffice to grant his request for early release or transfer to Serbia? In view of the foregoing facts, we demand that the Mechanism review its decision regarding Ratko Mladić and transfer the General to Serbia to serve out the remainder of his sentence or grant him early release on humanitarian grounds so that he can spend the rest of his life under full palliative care. Any other course of action would not only be blatantly inhumane but would also stand in sharp contrast to the treatment of, for example, Félicien Kabuga, whose case was stayed indefinitely on health grounds. We underscore that full responsibility for any adverse developments affecting Ratko Mladić will rest squarely with the Mechanism and its President personally. Among the so-called “judicial functions”, another residual function of the Mechanism in which the Mechanism has failed is that of the supervision of the enforcement of sentences. We are aware that the United Kingdom, where Radovan Karadžić is serving his sentence, continues to disregard even the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners — the Nelson Mandela Rules — when it comes to Serbian prisoners. According to the convict’s relatives and lawyers, his rights, including medical care, have been systematically restricted despite his chronic ill health. The prison authorities continue to use psychological pressure tactics on the convict: lights are left on in his cell at night, ostensibly for surveillance purposes. We reiterate that the use of light or sound to deprive prisoners of sleep constitutes torture. In September, Karadžić was denied a visit from Stokić, a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Civil society organizations regard this as physical and psychological terror on the part of London. According to his lawyers, the gamut of Furthermore, in November, British media outlets reported widely on Karadžić’s alleged involvement in arranging “sniper tourism” for foreigners during the siege of Sarajevo. At the same time, the prison administration is forcing Karadžić to wear a special uniform for inmates considered a flight risk, despite his age. His lawyers fear that these factors will attract the attention of other inmates, who may attack the former Bosnian Serb leader out of revenge. We brought Radovan Karadžić’s situation to the attention of the President of the Mechanism six months ago (see S/PV.9934), calling on her to duly perform her monitoring function, arrange a visit to the place where he is serving his sentence and have a face-to-face discussion with the convict. However, the President, again, preferred to confine herself to communicating with the prison authorities. If the Mechanism continues to take London at its word, then what at all is the point of such supervision? The situations we have described clearly illustrate what the so-called “guarantees”, which form part of the Mechanism’s judicial functions, really mean to persons under its supervision. Against this backdrop, the only option that can truly guarantee prisoners their most fundamental rights is their prompt transfer to the State of their citizenship to serve out the remainder of their sentences. And when it comes to the remainder of the residual functions, this specific option is the most realistic. As far as we understand, Rwanda, for example, stands fully prepared to accept individuals who are serving sentences or who have already been released. The Mechanism should enter into concrete negotiations with that State on that issue. The issue of the archives is no exception to this. Yet, we were dismayed at the proposal to fund the preservation of the archive from voluntary contributions. The question arises as to why the issue of donations was even raised and what prevented this work from being completed long ago with budgeted funding? The Mechanism continues to have a huge budget, and work on its archives is nothing new. Accordingly, we demand to know how much has already been spent on work on the archives of the Tribunals and the Mechanism and why this work remains unfinished. We stress that it cannot continue indefinitely, let alone justify extending the life span of the Mechanism itself. In view of the foregoing, the archives should be transferred in their current state to the relevant States or to the Secretariat. We are aware that there some States willing to accept and maintain all the archives at their own expense. As far as we understand, Rwanda could be one such State. For some reason, this information does not appear in the report. That, in our view, is the preferable option. We are convinced that all archives should be made public, just as those of the Nuremberg Tribunal were. The same should happen to the Mechanism’s archives. I hope that that body has nothing to hide. Next year, we will conduct another review of the Mechanism’s activities. This entity is nearing that milestone with questionable achievements, while continuing to sabotage the Council’s 2010 instructions for it to wind down its activities and engaging lethargically in a simulacrum of staff and budget cuts. The forthcoming review will not be another rubber-stamping of the bureaucratic entity’s continued existence. The Mechanism must be prepared to have completed its activities by the time of the review.

I thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, and Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz for their briefings. I also welcome the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Serbia and Croatia to today’s meeting. Guyana recognizes the continued importance of the Mechanism’s role and legacy in ensuring accountability for the atrocity crimes committed in the former We acknowledge the twenty-seventh report of the Mechanism, prepared pursuant to resolution 2740 (2024), and take note of the other reports submitted by the Mechanism for the reporting period. Guyana commends the Mechanism’s continuing efforts to align with the Council’s vision for a small, temporary and efficient structure. This transition must be managed efficiently and in an orderly manner. We welcome the Secretary-General’s report on the transfer of functions and take positive note of his recommendations, in particular, the recommendation that the day-to-day aspects of supervision of sentence enforcement could be transferred to those States that already have that responsibility. At the same time, we note the recommendation against transferring core judicial functions, including early release, the commutation of sentences and pardons, which remain essential to the Mechanism’s mandate. The ongoing requests for assistance from national jurisdictions are a testament to the vital role of the Mechanism. We commend the continued efforts made by the Mechanism to respond to requests pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, as set out in resolution 1966 (2010). In relation to the acquitted and released persons relocated to the Niger, we are concerned that this issue remains unresolved and recognize the President’s efforts to find a durable solution. In this vein, we underscore that cooperation and support from all States are imperative to the Mechanism’s effectiveness and reiterate our call for States to fully cooperate with the Mechanism and to provide it all necessary assistance in accordance with resolution 2637 (2022). Regarding the management of the archives and records, Guyana acknowledges the importance of preserving the long-term legacy of the court’s important work. We welcome the Secretary-General’s recommendations to facilitate the Council’s decision on the future location of the archives. We acknowledge the recommendations made by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) following its recent audit of the Mechanism’s records management and archiving processes. We commend the Mechanism’s proactive response to the OIOS recommendations and encourage continued prioritization of their full and timely implementation, especially the development of action plans for the proper transfer and safeguarding of non-judicial records. In closing, Guyana reaffirms its full support for the Mechanism and its unwavering commitment to fighting impunity and ensuring justice for the victims of atrocity crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. As this is the final time that my delegation will address the Council on this matter, I extend our sincere wishes for the Council’s continued progress in its deliberations on this vital issue.

Let me begin by welcoming the representatives of Serbia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to today’s Security Council meeting. I also thank President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their briefings to the Council today. In addition, we are grateful to the principals for the detailed assessment and progress report they have provided in relation to the current reporting period (see S/2025/491). Today’s briefing occurs at an important time for the Mechanism. In the first half of 2026, Council members will engage in detailed discussions on the future of the Mechanism. While the details of those discussions will take place over the months ahead, there are some general principles that, in our view, should guide the work of the Council. The United Kingdom is grateful for the work that the Mechanism and its principals have already undertaken in assessing how this could be achieved in practice. We are pleased that there appears to be a considerable degree of agreement between the Prosecutor, the President and the Secretary-General on this matter. This is welcome and provides a strong starting point for the work that lies ahead. There will, of course, be a range of proposals, and we stand ready to consider those. However, to comment briefly on a specific example, the United Kingdom can see a strong case for the transfer of work relating to the provision of assistance to national jurisdictions away from the Mechanism. Such work remains valuable, as is attested to by the ongoing demand for this assistance from States, but such a workstream may not need to be provided by the Mechanism, as currently structured. Nonetheless, it is also clear that some functions will, of necessity, need to remain at the international level. This includes certain judicial functions, for instance, where there is a need for consistency in decision-making. As we move ahead with this work, we look forward to receiving the upcoming reports from the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Secretary-General, which we are confident will prove of assistance to Council members. In relation to the archives, we agree with the principle that, where possible, these archives should be housed as close as possible to affected communities. We hope and expect that this will prove to be the case with respect to the archives of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994. We hope the same will also apply to the archives of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, and, at a minimum, we see a strong case for these to be located in Europe. Finally, on a different note, we wish to extend our gratitude to the Mechanism for facilitating a visit by representatives of Council members to the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague during this reporting period. This enabled Council members to see for themselves the fully satisfactory nature of the provision there. I had planned to end my remarks there but, with your indulgence, Mr. President, I will make some brief remarks in response to earlier comments relating directly to the United Kingdom in a previous intervention. In relation to that, let me begin by welcoming the Russian Federation’s newfound interest in the importance of humane prison conditions. For our part, the United Kingdom is proud to support international justice mechanisms by enforcing sentences of imprisonment, including in this instance, and we take the treatment of prisoners in our care very seriously. We do not accept certain characterizations set out in an earlier statement. This international oversight is in addition to the extensive prison inspection regime that already applies domestically in the United Kingdom. This includes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards, which are composed of external persons who have unrestricted access to all areas of the prison and to all prisoners at any time. Further checks and balances are ensured through the existence of different complaints processes open to prisoners, and we are confident that this system compares favourably to certain other prison systems elsewhere.

We thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), Judge Santana, and Prosecutor Brammertz for their valuable briefings. We appreciate the Secretary-General’s reports on the transfer of the functions of the IRMCT and on its administrative and budgetary aspects, including possible locations for the archives of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (ICTR) and the Mechanism. Pakistan acknowledges the vital role played by the Mechanism in preserving judicial continuity, upholding accountability and facilitating access to legal records and archives. The success of the Mechanism and its predecessors, the ICTY and ICTR, has helped to ensure accountability for perpetrators of atrocity crimes in these contexts. The valuable work of the tribunals can be applied to future accountability efforts, in particular for dealing with situations of prolonged illegal occupations involving the suppression of people’s right to self-determination by oppressive measures. Resolution 1966 (2010) envisaged that the Mechanism should be a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and size would diminish over time. We also take note of resolution 2740 (2024), which extended the mandate of the Mechanism for a period of two years until 30 June 2026 and reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to an efficient and structured conclusion of its responsibilities. In view of the previous Council resolutions and the considerably reduced nature of the residual functions of the Mechanism, it is important to continue discussions on the Mechanism’s operations and the transfer of its functions in an orderly manner. While doing so, it is important to protect the legal legacy of the ICTY, ICTR and the Mechanism. The ultimate judicial authority over those who have been convicted and imprisoned by the Tribunals, as the Security Council’s subsidiary organs, may continue to be exercised at the international level. This is key to ensure that their treatment is fair and uniform, consistent with applicable international standards. We therefore call for exploring innovative solutions for the transfer of the Mechanism’s functions in a way that does not create new administrative and financial problems and safeguards its legality and legitimacy. We also call for securing the archives of the Mechanism, which serve as the legacy for the victims and the affected populations of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and carry educational and Pakistan reaffirms its unwavering commitment to multilateralism, the rule of law, justice and accountability for serious international crimes. There must be no impunity for atrocities committed in any context or under any pretext. Pakistan will continue to engage constructively with the Council members to ensure that the work of the Mechanism is concluded in a responsible, structured and sustainable transition, its legacy preserved and the victims remembered.

I would like to thank President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their comprehensive briefings and their continued contribution and commitment to international criminal justice. I also welcome the representatives of Serbia, Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to today’s debate. Let me begin by reiterating Denmark’s continued support for the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Despite being in its truly residual phase, it continues to play a crucial role in ensuring accountability, ending impunity and preventing future atrocities. Allow me to underline three points in that regard. First, Denmark welcomes the reports presented by both briefers today (see S/2025/491). We appreciate that progress continues to be made in the Mechanism’s important residual work. We further welcome the efforts underway to align the Mechanism with the Council’s vision of a small, temporary and efficient institution. We commend the determination of the Mechanism’s leadership and strongly encourage it to continue to identify further concrete steps to significantly downsize its operational footprint and costs. We reiterate that such efforts must not be at the expense of justice. Continued proper fulfilment of the Mechanism’s mandated responsibilities must be ensured. Secondly, we welcome the Secretary-General’s recent reports on the future of the archives and options for the transfer of certain residual functions of the Mechanism. These reports represent an important contribution towards an eventual and orderly closure of the Mechanism. We will carefully consider the comprehensive recommendations and look forward to discussing them with Council members. As we look to the future, it is crucial that we ensure the preservation of the legacy of the Mechanism and its predecessor tribunals and find the best ways of transferring its residual functions. In this context, we agree with the Secretary-General that the archives are vital tools for educational purposes, reconciliation and memory, as well as prevention efforts. Thirdly, State cooperation with the Mechanism remains essential. Its ability to conclude its operations depends on this cooperation, including the transfer of suspects subject to arrest warrants. We therefore urge all States to fully cooperate with the Mechanism in accordance with their international obligations and to expedite their efforts to enable the Mechanism to fulfil its mandate. In closing, I reaffirm Denmark’s steadfast support for the work of the Mechanism and for the pursuit of international criminal justice. Our commitment to supporting the Council’s efforts to combat impunity, wherever it exists, remains unwavering, and we look forward to working with all Council members to this end.

At the outset, I would like to thank President Gatti Santana and Chief Prosecutor Brammertz for their comprehensive briefings. We take note of the Secretary-General’s report on the transfer of the functions of the Mechanism. We also welcome the representatives of Serbia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to this meeting. Somalia considers this report to be a critical step in the Security Council’s consideration of the Mechanism’s completion strategy. It provides the necessary options We note the report’s clear distinction between core judicial functions and residual activities. We take note of the assessment that the ultimate judicial authority regarding pardons, commutation of sentences and early release must remain at the international level. Retaining this authority is essential to ensure that all convicted persons are treated equally and in line with international standards, avoiding arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement. Regarding the supervision of the enforcement of sentences, we take note of the option to transfer day-to-day supervision to enforcement States. We are encouraged that some European States have indicated a willingness to assume these responsibilities, and we encourage further consultations with African States to ensure they have the necessary support to do the same. On the vital issue of assistance to national jurisdictions, we recognize that requests for assistance have increased exponentially and are crucial for domestic accountability efforts. We note the Secretary-General’s recommendation that, while this function cannot be transferred to Member States due to confidentiality requirements, it is feasible to transfer it to the Secretariat. This would preserve the Office of the Prosecutor’s invaluable evidentiary collection and expertise while advancing the Mechanism’s closure. In conclusion, Somalia reiterates its support for the orderly closure of the Mechanism. We look forward to the Security Council making the appropriate strategic decisions in the context of the 2026 review to implement these transfers. The continued pursuit of justice and the rule of law remain an essential element in achieving stability and maintaining international peace and security.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Slovenia. I would like to thank Judge Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for the reports submitted to the Council (see S/2025/491), as well as for their briefings today. I also thank them for their words of appreciation to my country and to four other outgoing members. We welcome the participation of Assistant Minister Stojanović of Serbia and the representatives of Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia and Rwanda in today’s meeting. Slovenia would like to make the following points. First, we would like to express our strong appreciation for the crucial contribution of the Mechanism and its predecessors — the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 — to the justice for victims of atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the global fight against impunity. They have been fulfilling the mandate given by the Security Council, which recognized the importance of justice for peace and reconciliation. This legacy will remain forever, long after the completion of the Mechanism. Moreover, each attempt at rewriting history, each case of glorification of convicted war criminals or denial of atrocities, proves how important it is to preserve this legacy. It is also one of the reasons why Slovenia expressed its interest in hosting the archives of the Mechanism and its predecessor Tribunals. Secondly, the work is still not finished. But the difference now is that it is the States that are primarily responsible for ensuring that those responsible for atrocities are Lastly, Slovenia will continue to strongly support the Mechanism and its work. This support is support for the fight against impunity; it is support for all efforts to ensure accountability and justice; it is a commitment to peace and security. The Mechanism will soon end, but the fight against impunity will continue. Accountability for crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression and genocide, even 80 years after the end of the Second World War and the Nuremberg Tribunal, remains as relevant as ever before, and with that, also the legacy of both Tribunals and the Mechanism. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I give the floor to the representative of Serbia.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the Security Council on behalf of the Republic of Serbia regarding the annual report on the work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (see S/2025/491). My statement is limited to those parts of the report that concern The Hague branch of the Mechanism. Allow me at the outset to recall that resolutions 1966 (2010) and 2637 (2022) envisaged the Mechanism as a small, temporary and efficient structure whose functions and size were to diminish over time. Regrettably, even 15 years after the adoption of the first resolution and three years after the second, the Mechanism has yet to demonstrate meaningful progress towards that objective. The report itself, unintentionally but clearly, provides grounds for this assessment. It states that the expeditious completion of the Mechanism’s residual functions constitutes the President’s top priority. Yet, in the same report, reference is also made to strategic planning for the future. This contradiction is substantive, not semantic. The strategic framework has already been established by the Security Council, and it is incumbent upon the Mechanism to implement it. In other words, the Mechanism is not expected to plan its future, but to complete its mandate in line with resolutions 1966 (2010) and 2740 (2024). Any emphasis on strengthening leadership and governance or on consolidating the legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals must therefore remain strictly confined to what is necessary for the orderly and time- bound completion of the Mechanism’s mandate. In this regard, we emphasize that the practice of periodically extending the Mechanism’s mandate cannot and should not serve as a basis for further prolongation. The tasks entrusted to the Mechanism under the relevant resolutions must be completed within the time frames established by the Security Council, and any extension should be contemplated only under truly exceptional circumstances. In the case of The Hague branch, no substantive obstacles appear to stand in the way of a prompt conclusion of its mandate. With respect to the activities of the Office of the Prosecutor, the report describes its principal focus as thinking and planning for the Mechanism’s future, consistent with Security Council resolution 2740 (2024). At the same time, the prosecution of crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia no longer falls within its mandate. Despite stated readiness to transfer residual functions, no tangible progress in this regard can be identified. Nothing I have said today differs in substance from Serbia’s previous statements Consequently, under the heading “Other judicial activities”, the report refers to the case against Petar Jojić and Vjerica Radeta. Once again, the Republic of Serbia reiterates its readiness to assume jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution in this matter and calls on the Mechanism to reconsider its decision not to refer the case to the competent judicial authorities of Serbia. Additionally, the Republic of Serbia once again affirms its readiness to enforce the remaining sentences under the supervision of the Mechanism or another body authorized by the Security Council. At present, only 15 individuals convicted by the ICTY remain in detention across eight countries. Despite the substantial resources at the Mechanism’s disposal, convicted persons do not enjoy adequate access to legal assistance or the means necessary to prepare increasingly complex applications for early or conditional release. In practice, they are expected to rely on pro bono professional legal services in order to exercise guaranteed rights. Any assessment of this matter must also take into account that more than 30 years have elapsed since the end of the armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, and 26 years since the end of the conflict in the territory of Serbia. Many convicted individuals are now of advanced age and suffer from serious and, in some cases, terminal illnesses. In practice, conditional release has been granted only at a very late stage, when life expectancy is extremely limited. The most recent example is the case of General Pavković, who passed away just 21 days after being conditionally released. In particular, I must emphasize the serious health condition of General Mladić and the refusal of the Mechanism to temporarily release him for treatment for humanitarian reasons, since he is obviously not receiving adequate treatment in the prison in The Hague. That is why Serbia is asking for and has given all the necessary guarantees for his early release. Given that this approach departs from the decades-long practice of treating similarly situated prisoners in a consistent manner, it raises a legitimate concern as to whether this restrictive policy serves other purposes, including the effective prolongation of the Mechanism’s existence. Another key issue relates to the future location of the archives. These archives comprise not only judgments, orders and decisions but also a vast body of documentation that was never admitted into evidence. The Republic of Serbia has formally expressed its readiness to host the archives, under arrangements to be defined by the Security Council. Their placement in Belgrade, the capital of the former Yugoslavia, would represent a natural and practical solution, ensuring that researchers and the public alike have access to comprehensive records in a single location. Serbia stands ready to provide appropriate facilities, security arrangements and working conditions, including privileges and immunities for United Nations personnel involved in this work. In conclusion, let me reiterate Serbia’s firm commitment to full cooperation with the Mechanism in fulfilling its mandate, while emphasizing that this mandate must be implemented strictly in accordance with the intent, timeline and limitations

I now give the floor to the representative of Rwanda.

Rwanda congratulates Slovenia on its presidency of the Council and wishes its delegation every success during the final month of its term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. We commend Slovenia’s constructive engagement and its valuable contribution to the Council’s work over the past two years and thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting. Rwanda also thanks the President and the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for their comprehensive report (see S/2025/491) presented to the Council. Rwanda values the continued cooperation between the Office of the Prosecutor and national jurisdictions, whose expertise remains indispensable in the pursuit, arrest and transfer of fugitives wanted for genocide. Their operational support, technical assistance and cooperation have contributed meaningfully to holding perpetrators accountable. Rwanda requests that this collaboration be strengthened until all remaining fugitives indicted by Rwanda are brought to justice. This requires genuine streamlining of the remaining functions, meaningful rationalization of structures and a responsible transition of tasks that no longer require an international tribunal. In this regard, Rwanda reiterates its full support for ensuring that the Mechanism receives all necessary resources as it fulfils its outstanding duties and responsibilities on the path toward its final closure. With respect to the archives, Rwanda welcomes the Secretary-General’s thorough assessment, which confirms that long-term preservation requires a host State with both modern archival infrastructure and a direct institutional and historical connection to the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Rwanda is uniquely positioned in this regard, with fully digitized archival systems, guaranteed funding commitments and secure, purpose-built facilities compliant with United Nations archival and data-protection standards. Rwanda stands ready to immediately engage with the Secretariat on modalities, timelines and technical verification missions required for the responsible transfer of the ICTR and Mechanism archives. The ICTR and Mechanism records constitute the authoritative historical account of the genocide against the Tutsi. Their long-term future must be secure, responsible and anchored in the country most directly concerned. Accessibility and confidentiality will remain fully guaranteed, and Rwanda will provide the resources needed. On the enforcement of sentences — one of the remaining core responsibilities of the Mechanism — Rwanda reiterates its full readiness to assume the enforcement of all remaining sentences on its territory. These individuals, whether completing their sentences or already released, have a place to call home in Rwanda, where they can live with dignity, security and legal certainty. Rwanda is an enforcement State, and Rwanda’s credibility is well established and independently verified. Since 2009, Rwanda has served as an enforcement State for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, hosting eight convicts, including senior figures, without a single security breach and under continuous international monitoring. Rwanda has implemented early-release decisions in full compliance with judicial orders, and I am particularly happy that I personally led the team that negotiated and concluded the legal framework for this arrangement. To date, 32 transferred cases, including ICTR cases, have been managed in Rwanda under ICTR, Mechanism and bilateral frameworks, all in full conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, or Nelson Rwanda’s correctional facilities, including the Nyanza, Mpanga and Nyarugenge establishments, were purpose-built to international standards with United Nations support. They ensure full access to medical services — including specialized and geriatric care — family visits, religious services and structured communication in line with international norms. Rwanda will assume all enforcement costs under the 2008 agreement. Rwanda stands ready to implement this responsibility immediately should the Mechanism and Council entrust this responsibility to Rwanda. On the matter of the individuals stranded in the Niger, Rwanda reiterates that these are free men, who should not continue to pose an unnecessary burden on the United Nations, particularly when they have a country and families ready to receive them. Rwanda stands prepared to welcome them home with all necessary guarantees. Rwanda also wishes to address the situation of Félicien Kabuga, who remains in The Hague pending a decision on his relocation. While Rwanda respects the Court’s determination, we reiterate that Rwanda remains fully prepared to receive Mr. Félicien Kabuga should he be transferred to his home country. Rwanda continues to stand as a strong and appropriate option for his relocation. Rwanda has submitted more than 1,000 indictments and extradition requests to foreign jurisdictions. Only a fraction has been executed. This sustained non- cooperation not only obstructs justice but also fuels genocide denial and revictimizes survivors. An issue of paramount importance remains the continued presence of fugitives indicted for genocide, who continue to live openly in some parts of the world, more than 30 years after the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. This is not owing to any lack of capacity or information. It results from categories of States that persistently refuse to cooperate, those that ignore warrants for decades, those that grant citizenship, residency or political protection to indicted fugitives, those that decline or indefinitely delay extradition despite complete documentation and those that question or politicize ICTR judgments to justify inaction. This reality undermines the global fight against impunity. Finally, Rwanda remains firmly committed to the legacy of accountability established by the ICTR and carried forward by the Mechanism. The Mechanism must move towards clear and irreversible closure. The continued impunity of fugitives must be addressed with honesty and resolve. The archives must be secured for future generations, and the remaining custodial responsibilities should be fulfilled without prolonging the Mechanism beyond necessity. Rwanda will continue to cooperate fully and constructively and to uphold justice, accountability and the preservation of historical truth. Rwanda is also ready to take on all responsibilities required to ensure an orderly and principled conclusion to the Mechanism’s mandate.

I thank the representative of Rwanda for the kind words addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I not only extend our best wishes to you, Mr. President, for a successful presidency of the Security Council for the month of December, but I also take this opportunity to congratulate you and your team on the outstanding execution of your entire mandate as an elected member of the Council — you have done an excellent job, demonstrating professionalism, grace and collegiality, which is greatly appreciated. I wish to thank the President and the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for their comprehensive reports (see S/2025/491) and for their continued commitment to the full and successful implementation of their respective mandates. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, the work of the Residual Mechanism and its predecessors is not an abstract legal undertaking; it is a matter of profound national importance. The crimes adjudicated by the Mechanism shaped the very core of our recent history. The judgments of the ICTY, now safeguarded and upheld by the Mechanism, have helped to establish the truth about the gravest violations of international law committed during the conflict in our region. These findings form the foundation of justice, ensuring the dignity of victims and survivors, and provide the only sustainable basis for advancing genuine reconciliation among our people. We therefore commend the Mechanism’s continued efforts to fulfil its mandate and advance the completion and/or transfer of its residual functions while maintaining efficient and very active cooperation with national jurisdictions. In addition to continued cooperation, the location of archives and the matter of supervising the enforcement of sentences as well as the pardon or commutation of sentences is a subject of the two reports pursuant to resolution 2740 (2024), and these matters are of particular importance to us. Consequently, I wish to make the following points. The fight against impunity does not end with the completion of the Mechanism’s mandate; our judicial institutions — State, entity and cantonal — rely on the continued support of and cooperation with the Mechanism to strengthen their capacity to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate complex war crime cases, ensuring that remaining perpetrators are held accountable through fair, credible proceedings. This cooperation is critical given that requests for assistance from Bosnia and Herzegovina account for 80 per cent of all regional requests. The Court and Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina continue their cooperation with the Residual Mechanism through regular contact with Mechanism officials. To proceed as efficiently as possible in implementing the State strategy for work on war crimes cases and processing priority cases, prosecutors and representatives of the Mechanism have maintained continuous cooperation with the Prosecutor’s Office through online meetings, exchanging information, collecting evidence and providing other forms of support. We are grateful for the support of the European Union for this process through the project on improving work on war crimes cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time, significant collaboration between the Mechanism’s Witness Support and Protection Unit mechanism and service and the Witness Support Department of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has contributed to raising the standards of our own witness support services. In terms of regional cooperation, we welcome the United Nations Development Programme’s regional project of European Union support to confidence-building in the Western Balkans, which strengthens regional cooperation in prosecuting war crimes by bringing together judicial institutions from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and North Macedonia. These efforts make a significant contribution to social cohesion, reconciliation and long-term stability throughout the region, to further enhance regional cooperation in processing war crimes cases and to identify new mechanisms of international legal assistance. It has been agreed that long-term cooperation should be established between the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Mechanism. Allow me to turn to the issue of archives, one we follow closely, together with the enforcement of sentences. While fully respecting that the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was not centred on or related solely to the territory of Bosnia and However, we are faced with daily attempts to deny, relativize and glorify atrocity crimes, particularly those committed in my country, as well as joint criminal enterprises against Bosnia and Herzegovina. They continue the vicious circle of harm, undermine the dignity of victims and survivors and deepen societal divisions. The denial or distortion of established judicial facts not only threatens the integrity of historical truth but also undermines the foundations of reconciliation, democratic values and lasting peace. The archives of the ICTY and the Mechanism constitute an indisputable record that preserves the memory and evidence of that recent history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The findings and adjudication of the ICTY and Mechanism remain a crucial barrier against revisionism and denial. Judgments, survivors’ testimonies and all documents and evidence collected in support of the prosecutions prevent these crimes from being forgotten, minimized or completely erased. The proper management and safeguarding of archives, along with their accessibility and role in disseminating information, ensure that such erasure is not possible. Therefore, if consideration is given to the location of the archives in the Western Balkans region, for the very reason noted above, we firmly believe that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be the only viable and acceptable option as a long-term host for the United Nations entity responsible for managing and preserving these historical archives. Once again, we reconfirm our readiness to do so. Regarding the supervision of sentence enforcement, we caution strongly against the prospect of transferring it to individual States. It is a long-term residual function of the Mechanism and, in our view, the Mechanism or another United Nations entity remains best placed to carry it out. It provides neutrality, insulation from local political pressures and uniform standards across cases and helps to safeguard against actions that undermine established judicial facts, including genocide denial, glorification of perpetrators or revisionist narratives and, ultimately, prevents convicted individuals from benefiting from political influence within their home States or States that may be sympathetic. Risks are especially acute when considering crimes that were committed within the region or when a State has political and ideological sympathies with the convicted criminals. In that regard, allow me just briefly to reflect on some of the statements made here. Time and again we are really taken aback by the insensitive and downright cruel interventions of some members of the Council. Excessive concerns over the alleged suffering of some serving their sentences for the worst imaginable crimes that they have committed is profoundly inhuman, not to mention hypocritical. It has been confirmed that all receive appropriate healthcare as needed and up to all applicable standards, a courtesy that these convicted criminals never extended to their victims. There is also continued advocacy for transfers to the country and the region or early release on humanitarian grounds, such as in the case of Ratko Mladić. Perhaps we should ask his victims and survivors how they feel about it. It is a widely accepted and most logical practice in these cases in legal systems around the world. One may argue perhaps that at some point he was a true humanitarian himself and deserves equal treatment. After all, he handed out chocolates and candy to the terrified people of Srebrenica, right before he ordered his death squads to mow them down and scattered their remains throughout eastern Bosnia. Do Council members think his act of goodwill before the cameras made for much sweeter killing? Cooperation, the location of archives and the matter of supervising the enforcement of sentences, as well as the pardoning or commutation of sentences, as key residual activities and functions should remain at the international level. They remain essential pillars for ensuring the integrity and completion of the cycle of international criminal justice, initiated 30 years ago. The preservation of archives safeguards historical truth while independent Together, these functions are indispensable to the full realization of justice and the long-term stability and reconciliation sought by the international community.

I express our appreciation for the very kind words addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of Croatia.

I would also like to thank the President of the Mechanism, Judge Gatti Santana, and Prosecutor Brammertz for their reports and today’s briefings. Croatia would like to reaffirm its strong support for the work of the Residual Mechanism in fulfilling its remaining residual operations. In the context of the wider completion strategy for all residual functions of the Mechanism, we would like to address the remaining question of the future location of the archives of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Mechanism. Croatia would like to emphasize that the overall archival materials derived from the work of the ICTY and the Mechanism constitute a unified body of records and, in accordance with internationally recognized principle of provenance, should not be divided. Accordingly, it is in the interest of the concerned States and the international community as a whole to ensure the integrity of the archives and to preserve the authenticity and credibility of both the materials and the information contained therein. Furthermore, Croatia wishes to express its interest and readiness to assume responsibility for the preservation of the archives of the ICTY and the Mechanism and to be considered as a potential long-term host of the United Nations entity responsible for their maintenance. To that end, suitable premises are already available in Croatia that meet all requirements necessary for the physical and digital preservation of such important archives. Croatia recognizes that the preservation of the extensive body of facts established by the Tribunals is essential in empowering regional stakeholders to effectively counter persistent attempts at historical revisionism. Croatia reiterates that the glorification of convicted war criminals and the denial of atrocity crimes are unacceptable. They are detrimental to the decades-long efforts for reconciliation as they distort historical facts and could still be used to destabilize the region. Regarding regional judicial cooperation in war crimes cases, Croatia reaffirms its commitment to constructive, professional, non-politicized and fact-based cooperation. To ensure that cases are handled efficiently and in a timely manner, it is essential that such cooperation be genuinely reciprocal, transparent and aligned with international legal standards and established good practices. These shared principles remain key to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of investigative and judicial proceedings. As the fate of the 1,740 missing Croatian citizens remains unresolved, Croatia must once again draw attention to the persistent shortfalls in Serbia’s cooperation in efforts to locate missing persons and their mortal remains. Establishing the truth about their whereabouts and ensuring dignified burials is and will remain a long-standing and deeply held priority for Croatia. Regrettably, the continued absence of genuine political will in Serbia to provide relevant information and grant access to archives remains the central obstacle to meaningful progress. These delays prolong the suffering of families who have waited for decades for closure. Croatia, therefore, urges the Mechanism to give priority to supporting the tracing of missing persons and advancing the resolution of these cases during the remainder of its mandate. Judge Gatti Santana: I thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to respond to some statements made by the representative of the Russian Federation. The Mechanism and I, as President, take the well-being of all persons serving their sentences under the Mechanism’s authority extremely seriously. In the interest of complete transparency, all permanent, current and incoming members of the Council were invited to examine our detention and medical facilities in the prison in The Hague in October. This was done to show the Council the facilities’ prisoner-oriented approach and assure them of the very high level of care available to detainees. During the reporting period, I carefully examined the conditions of imprisonment of all of our prisoners and can report that in none of the instances mentioned today have convicted persons, their counsel or the relevant prison authorities provided information to me raising any concerns that conditions are inconsistent with international standards for conditions of imprisonment and, as Council members will understand, I cannot make any comments in relation to the health situation of any convicted person.

I thank Judge Gatti Santana for the clarifications she has provided. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers.