S/PV.9934 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. On behalf of the Council, I welcome His Excellency Mr. Nenad Vujić, Minister of Justice of Serbia. 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 give the floor to Judge Gatti Santana. Judge Gatti Santana: Allow me to congratulate you, Madam President, and your country on assuming the presidency of the Security Council. This morning, I am pleased to present the Mechanism’s twenty-sixth report on the progress of its work and to address for the first time the Council’s newest members. For the Mechanism, engagement with the Council and hearing its views on our ongoing work remain paramount to ensuring that we properly fulfil our mandate. Before updating the Council on our recent activity, I note that today’s debate is one month from a moment of historical and moral significance: the thirtieth commemoration of the 1995 genocide in Srebrenica. In July 1995, up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically executed, targeted solely for their identity. Approximately 30,000 women, children and elderly persons were removed from the enclave by force. The very mention of Srebrenica evokes forced displacement, mass execution, and enduring grief — a grief carried by the survivors, including the mothers, wives, sisters and daughters who continue to seek justice, truth and remembrance. Through landmark rulings, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and subsequently the Mechanism, confirmed that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica. Likewise, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda determined that the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda was a historical fact beyond reasonable dispute. With the Council’s support, the Mechanism and its predecessors have made clear that holding the highest political offices or military ranks does not shield perpetrators from accountability for the gravest crimes. With the adoption of resolution 1966 (2010), the Council initiated a principled transition from the Rwandan and Yugoslav Tribunals to a cost-effective and temporary structure that was no less committed to justice and accountability. The Mechanism continues to embody this vision, executing its mandate with focus, fairness and efficiency. To illustrate, in November 2024, at the beginning of the reporting period, the Mechanism’s Appeals Chamber heard evidence and arguments, deliberated and pronounced its judgement in the review proceedings initiated by Mr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, all within the course of one week. Although his request to reverse While all active core crimes cases have concluded, the Mechanism’s continuous judicial activities proceeded apace. During the reporting period, the Judges of the Mechanism issued more than 100 decisions and orders, nearly 90 of them pertaining to the Mechanism’s continuous judicial functions. Thirty of those decisions and orders related to access to confidential information and requests for the variation of protective measures, demonstrating the Mechanism’s critical role in safeguarding witnesses while also contributing to national prosecution efforts to close the impunity gap. Turning to contempt of court, in February 2025, a single judge charged a defence counsel for violating judicial orders while representing Mr. Augustin Ngirabatware in relation to potential review proceedings. Another single judge is currently considering whether the matter should be referred to national authorities. The threat of contempt for violating judicial orders remains essential to guaranteeing the integrity of proceedings and witness protection. For example, the current contempt matter is connected to a prior case involving a broad scheme of improper payments to witnesses and violations of judicial orders that were aimed at overturning Mr. Ngirabatware’s convictions. Nevertheless, the Mechanism has narrowly exercised its contempt jurisdiction, and, in line with the Statute, the last two contempt cases have been referred to States. In the context of sentence enforcement, as members may know, Mr. Ratko Mladić has recently sought release on humanitarian grounds owing to his health. I cannot say much, as the matter is pending adjudication. However, I am mindful of the importance the Council has placed on ensuring that those detained under the authority of the Mechanism are afforded care in accordance with international standards. I can assure members that those standards are fully met and that Mr. Mladić, who remains in the Mechanism’s Detention Unit in The Hague, is receiving high- level multidisciplinary care. Moreover, he is being closely and frequently monitored, including by various medical specialists. As regards the Mechanism’s judicial roster, one judge resigned in May, following her conviction and sentencing in the United Kingdom. Once the Mechanism learned of the pending criminal investigation, the Secretary-General was promptly informed, and he waived her immunity. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, I also acted to protect the integrity and the efficient functioning of the Mechanism, including by discontinuing the judge’s participation in the business of the Mechanism. The issue of State cooperation remains pivotal not only to the Mechanism’s efforts to reduce costs and complete key functions but also to fulfilling the humanitarian principles upon which international criminal justice is founded. One example is the ongoing situation of Mr. Félicien Kabuga. Although his trial has been indefinitely stayed, he remains detained in the Mechanism’s Detention Unit in The Hague, in the absence of a State for his provisional release. Of note is that in April, an independent medical expert determined that Mr. Kabuga was generally not fit to fly, including to Rwanda — the one country willing to receive him to date. The Trial Chamber has already put additional questions to the expert and is awaiting responses before deciding what weight to give to his report. However, Mr. Kabuga’s continued detention entails due-process principles that the Mechanism is duty-bound to uphold. A solution cannot be found in the absence of a suitable State to which he can be safely transferred. The same Detention Unit also continues to house three convicted persons, Mr. Ratko Mladić, as I already mentioned, along with Mr. Jovica Stanišić and Lastly, the contempt case against Mr. Jojić and Ms. Radeta remains unresolved. Serbia continues to refuse to execute the outstanding arrest warrants for those accused persons, despite its legal obligations and the repeated referrals of the matter to the Council. Looking ahead, I wish to highlight key developments in our future planning. As Council members know, resolution 2740 (2024) tasks the Secretary-General with providing, by 31 December 2025, an updated report on the administrative and budgetary aspects of the options for possible locations of the archives. The resolution also asks the Secretary-General to report on options for the transfer of the functions of supervision of sentence enforcement and assistance to national jurisdictions on prosecutions. The Mechanism’s leadership has worked across all organs and both branches to gather the relevant information and produce a thorough analysis of concrete options for the transfer of those functions in order to share it with the Secretary-General. While the assessment of the Secretary-General is pending, allow me to briefly set out some of my own preliminary reflections, in particular regarding the potential transfer of the supervision of the sentence enforcement function, which falls squarely within my remit as President of the Mechanism. It might be feasible to transfer certain administrative aspects to States, such as the day-to-day supervision of conditions of imprisonment. By contrast, the adjudication of applications for pardon, commutation of sentence or early release entails considerations of fundamental importance to the justice cycle that could be jeopardized if dispersed across various national jurisdictions. Transferring that activity would result in unequal treatment of the Mechanism’s more than 40 convicted persons, given the significant disparities in domestic regulations. In many cases, it could lead to release far earlier than may be anticipated in any sentence of the Chambers, were domestic release provisions designed for ordinary crimes to be applied. Transfer to States would also eliminate the judicial consultation process, which benefits from the views of the international judges who imposed the original sentences or who possess unique insight into the relevant cases. In my view, that specific activity should remain at the international level. When all fugitives are accounted for and core crime trials and appeals are completed, deciding whether convicted persons should be released is of central importance to the justice cycle. Undermining that decision-making process will undo decades of work, which, thus far, has held impunity in check. Moreover, keeping that at the international level is standard practice. Notably, the United Nations and Cambodia affirmed that the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia should continue their supervisory role in sentence enforcement. The Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone also continues to supervise the enforcement of the sentences within its jurisdiction. For now, the Mechanism will continue to fulfil its mandated responsibilities and I, as President, remain committed to streamlining our work in line with the Council’s vision. To that end, in May, I submitted to the Mechanism’s Rules Committee proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which are aimed at limiting the prospect of resource-intensive proceedings, in particular in-court hearings. Building on prior revisions to our sentence enforcement practice and, following consultation with the Registrar and the Prosecutor, I also issued a revised practice direction to streamline the designation process and expand opportunities to engage with potential enforcement States so as to find prisons for the convicted persons. As we near the thirtieth commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide, we are reminded that justice is not a finite endeavour; it is a continuous commitment. The Mechanism stands as a guardian of that commitment by preserving the legal truth established by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ensuring accountability in line with due process and affirming the dignity of victims and survivors. Our work honours the loss and resilience of those who endured unimaginable suffering and reflects the international community’s resolve to confront impunity with principle and perseverance. In these times of global challenges and limited resources, we remain dedicated to fulfilling our mandate but acknowledge that changes are necessary so that our remaining contributions to the justice cycle are delivered at a cost that the international community can support. We will therefore partner with the Council as it seeks to preserve the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in a further reduced Mechanism and, ultimately, beyond its operational lifespan. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Council and I look forward to hearing members’ views on our work.

I thank Judge Gatti Santana for her briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Brammertz. Mr. Brammertz: I thank the Council for the opportunity to again brief it on my Office’s activities and results. Details about our work are in the written progress report. There are three issues I would like to highlight today from the past, the present and the future. In recent years, my Office arrested some of the last fugitives from the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals: Félicien Kabuga and Fulgence Kayishema. Although neither will be tried by the Mechanism, both cases remain pending. Turning to Kayishema, two years after his arrest, he remains in South Africa. In that time, a stalemate has developed. A Mechanism judge decided that Kayishema should be transferred from South Africa to the Mechanism’s custody in Arusha. He would then be transferred to Rwanda to stand trial pursuant to the referral decision. Kayishema is opposing his transfer in the South African courts. However, a national court does not have the authority to review or challenge the Mechanism’s decisions. While he has announced his intention to request the Mechanism to revoke the decision to refer his case to Rwanda, he has not formally filed a motion seeking that relief. In South Africa, matters remain much the same as they were two years ago. Since his first appearance in court in August 2023, the case has been repeatedly postponed, most recently until July of this year. From my Office’s perspective, what is imperative is that Kayishema stand trial for his alleged crimes. The victims and survivors have been waiting for more than 31 years now. They should not have to wait any longer. South Africa should immediately execute the Mechanism’s arrest warrant and transfer Kayishema to the Mechanism’s custody. If it is unable to do so, it is obliged under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to prosecute Kayishema in its courts. In both cases, my Office believes that the time has come for decisions to be made. The status quo is not sustainable. Those matters need to be expeditiously brought to a conclusion. My Office remains fully committed to the implementation of the completion strategies for the ICTR and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In particular, we recognize that responsibility for continuing the accountability process has been successfully transferred to Member States. That is why our primary activity is to implement our mandate of providing assistance to national prosecutions under Article 28, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Mechanism. In just the past six months, 11 Member States submitted 177 requests to my Office. The requests are increasingly complex, as Member States are asking for our investigative, analytical and legal expertise to assist them with resolving challenges in their cases. I would like to highlight three notable developments in that regard. First, after we concluded our fugitive-tracking work, the Government of Rwanda requested my Office to provide more support to its efforts to account for the more than 1,000 fugitive génocidaires still at large. I am pleased to report that that work is already making significant progress. Earlier this week, we announced, with the Prosecutor General of Rwanda, that our joint efforts have resulted in an additional 65 fugitive files being closed. That notably includes a number of fugitives whom we successfully located in third countries. We were also able to identify fugitives whose cases have been processed, whether through extradition or prosecutions in the countries where they reside. Lastly, we were able to determine that some fugitives are deceased. Looking forward, we will continue efforts to locate more fugitives, focusing particularly on priority cases of perpetrators who bear significant criminal Secondly, with respect to the former Yugoslavia, two months ago we handed over to the Chief Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina a detailed investigative dossier concerning persons suspected of particularly notorious crimes against humanity. At his request, our Offices have established a joint team to conduct further investigations, with the aim of preparing an indictment as soon as possible. That joint team will have its first meetings this week. Similarly, our joint task force with Montenegrin prosecutors continues to achieve progress on the investigative dossier that we provided to them concerning Montenegrin nationals suspected of committing war crimes, in particular grave crimes of sexual violence. Thirdly, we are also applying the same methodology with other countries. I would highlight in particular the continuing excellent cooperation that we are enjoying from the French Parquet national antiterroriste, the British Counter Terrorism Command and the American Department of Homeland Security. In response to 29 requests for assistance from those three countries alone in the past six months, we have shared valuable evidence, provided our knowledge of the crimes and offered advice on concrete investigative steps. Through that and other work, we are helping to ensure that suspected war criminals and génocidaires do not enjoy safe haven in countries where they have falsely claimed refugee status. All our partners report that they continue to have large caseloads to process and are working as quickly as possible. That is why Member States are asking my Office to maintain the assistance that we provide and strengthen our cooperation. As was planned, national authorities are now in the driver’s seat. Ensuring that they receive the support that they need will be critical to achieving more results in the accountability process and to ensuring that the investment in accountability continues to provide value. Lastly, in response to the Council’s requests, my written report includes some of my Office’s thoughts, following our review of the future of the Mechanism and the options for the transfer of functions. As my Office has explained, in our view, one option is to transfer our assistance to national jurisdictions to another United Nations office. Such a transfer would address the Council’s desire for completion of the Mechanism’s functions, while ensuring that Member States will continue to receive the assistance that they need. My Office will continue developing information and plans to inform the Council’s deliberations. More generally, my Office has had the unique privilege, for many years, of working hand in hand with national authorities from around the world, in particular in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. We have also maintained close relationships with victims and witnesses. From the very beginning of the completion strategies, we were involved in building domestic institutions, transferring cases and assessing developments. We have seen first-hand how much has changed. From our perspective, the plans envisaged by the completion strategies to bolster national justice efforts have been successfully realized in large part. That is why we support the principle that, where possible, residual responsibilities can be transferred to Member States. In our view, over the past two decades, Member States have delivered justice in accordance with international standards, and the Mechanism has always been temporary, while national ownership of accountability is the norm. Careful and pragmatic consideration can be given to how to distribute the remaining activities between the national and the international levels. My Office will work closely with the Secretary-General to prepare the reports that the Council has requested before the end of the year, and we will also continue to participate in cross-organ Mechanism planning. In the coming year, we look forward to actively engaging with the Council and are committed to providing all the information that

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

I thank Judge Gatti Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, and Mr. Brammertz, the Prosecutor, for their comprehensive briefings on the activities of the Mechanism covering the period from 16 November 2024 to 15 March 2025. Sierra Leone acknowledges the Mechanism’s continued efforts to implement the recommendations of the Security Council contained in resolution 2740 (2024) of 27 June 2024 and those outlined in the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report entitled “Evaluation of the methods and work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals”, dated 29 February 2024 (S/2024/199). We take note of the Mechanism’s work to realign its operations with the Council’s original vision in establishing it in 2010. Through several efficiency measures, including streamlined court procedures, remote judicial engagement, the use of national judges in the United Republic of Tanzania, adjudication by written submissions and inter-agency cost-sharing, the Mechanism has succeeded in reducing its operational costs. We further note that the Mechanism’s staffing level, currently at 234, is projected to decrease to 112 by 31 December 2025, reflecting its progressive downsizing in line with its residual mandate. In the area of internal governance, we acknowledge the establishment of a cross-organ working group across the Mechanism’s three organs and two branches, the enhanced dialogue with the Joint Negotiating Committee and the improved communication with staff regarding restructuring and budget matters, all contributing to greater transparency, accountability and inclusivity in decision-making. During the reporting period, the Mechanism also began compiling information to support the Secretary-General’s report, as requested by the Council in paragraphs 11 and 12 of resolution 2740 (2024), while continuing to deliver effectively on its core residual functions. The Mechanism’s role in the enforcement of sentences has included four applications for early release, one decision on sentence remission and one order for the temporary transfer of a convicted person to the United Nations Detention Unit. As reported, the Office of the Prosecutor continued its assistance to national jurisdictions, supporting 65 cases in Rwanda and 128 in the former Yugoslavia, and promoted regional judicial cooperation in the Balkans. The Mechanism also actively monitored referred cases in two national jurisdictions and reported progress in archival management. We took note of the Mechanism’s ongoing work to implement the recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services. In addressing the critical issue of released and acquitted persons, we welcome the Mechanism’s development of an advocacy plan aimed at mobilizing the wider United Nations system towards a durable solution, particularly as concerns the situation in the Niger. We encourage the Mechanism to continue reporting to the Council on progress made in that regard and on the implementation of the two remaining recommendations from the 2024 OIOS report in its next reporting cycle. Despite noticeable progress, we remain concerned about the persistent challenges facing the Mechanism, in particular the absence of enforcement States and the return of convicted persons to the United Nations Detention Unit by certain States, citing domestic legal constraints and other considerations. We reiterate our call upon In conclusion, Sierra Leone reaffirms its full support for the work of the Mechanism and reiterates its unwavering commitment to the fight against impunity, wherever it is found and whoever the perpetrators are. We note that the Mechanism’s continued work is not only vital to concluding the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals but is also instrumental to safeguarding the credibility of the Security Council’s role in the administration of international criminal justice. Above all, it upholds the promise of justice for the victims — the women, the men and the children who have suffered the gravest crimes known to humanity and whose dignity demands accountability.

I thank President Gatti Santana and Chief Prosecutor Brammertz. I also welcome the participation of His Excellency Mr. Nenad Vujić, Minister of Justice of Serbia, and the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda and Croatia. Three decades after the perpetration of the genocide and the atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, we are reminded of those heinous crimes with repercussions for international peace and security and of our solemn duty to ensure the accountability of all perpetrators. In registering our full support for the continued efforts of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, let me highlight the following three points. First, we welcome the Mechanism’s ongoing efforts to carry out its residual functions amid the challenges of downsizing. We take positive note of the Mechanism’s completion of the review proceedings in the Ntakirutimana case, its ongoing monitoring of the contempt case in national jurisdictions and its continued efforts to resolve the Kabuga and the Kayishema cases. We also commend the Mechanism’s continued efforts to streamline and downsize its operations while effectively carrying out its core residual judicial functions, including review proceedings, sentence enforcement and witness protection. We trust that the Mechanism will remain aligned with the Council’s vision of a small, temporary and efficient institution through the continued implementation of its completion strategy. Secondly, all the relevant members should refrain from hindering the Mechanism’s efforts to assist national jurisdictions. We commend the Mechanism’s continued efforts to cooperate with Rwanda and the States of the former Yugoslavia in assisting national investigations and prosecutions. Those efforts have been notably reinforced by the laudable cooperation of many Member States throughout that process. However, we remain concerned that the relocation of the listed individuals, in particular to the Niger, the delays in the transfer of the accused persons and the limited cooperation in fugitive-tracking continue to effectively hinder the Mechanism in its function of assisting national jurisdictions. As the report rightly underscores, the successful completion of the justice cycle is not possible without the active cooperation of Member States. In that regard, we call on all Member States to fully comply with resolution 2740 (2024) and provide the Mechanism with the appropriate assistance. Thirdly, the restoration of justice must be guided by a victim-centred approach. We are deeply concerned about the continued glorification of war criminals and genocide denial that are taking place in some countries, which pose a serious risk to victims and witnesses and jeopardize the integrity of justice. We commend the Mechanism’s ongoing efforts for the judicial protection of witnesses and victims, In conclusion, the Council is expected to receive a report from the Secretary- General regarding the way forward for the Mechanism at the next briefing in December, in accordance with resolution 2740 (2024). We believe that that report will provide comprehensive recommendations to ensure the preservation of the Mechanism’s legacy and to enable us to find the best ways of transferring its residual functions.

I would like to thank President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their comprehensive briefings, and I welcome the participation of His Excellency Mr. Vujić, Minister of Justice of Serbia, and the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda and Croatia in this meeting. We wish to underline the following points. First, during the reporting period and the entirety of 2024, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals conducted its activities by rendering, as underlined in the report, one of the highest numbers of decisions and orders in its history, many of them related to judicial functions and the enforcement of sentences — a figure reflecting the importance of its role. While the international trials for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been completed, the support provided to States to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice the more than 1,000 fugitive génocidaires in the case of Rwanda and an equal number of fugitive war criminals in the former Yugoslavia is further evidence of the importance of the Mechanism. Two cases reflect the significance of the work of the Mechanism in pursuing justice. With respect to both cases, the Jojić and Radeta case and the Kayishema case, the arrest warrants have not been executed. In that regard, Greece shares the concerns of the Mechanism and underscores the obligation of the relevant States to proceed accordingly. Secondly, regarding the enforcement of sentences, we wish to highlight the guarantees relating to conditions of imprisonment that stem from the President’s supervisory powers, international standards and the relevant rules of the Mechanism. We underscore in that regard, as underlined in the report, that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment regularly monitor the conditions of imprisonment. This is to ensure that international standards are met and that the relevant recommendations are addressed by both the Mechanism and the national authorities of the enforcement States. Thirdly, Greece underscores, as highlighted in the report, that national prosecutions remain essential to achieving justice and to holding the perpetrators of serious international crimes accountable. Those crimes were committed either during the Rwandan genocide or in the former Yugoslavia. We underline in that regard the strong support of the authorities of Rwanda to the Office of the Prosecutor in its work to assist prosecutors in the country and other States in locating fugitives, completing investigations and bringing perpetrators to justice. Equally, the report underscores that judicial cooperation in the form of transfer of investigations and indictments among the countries of the former Yugoslavia is essential to ensuring the accountability of war criminals and to addressing the significant existing gap Against that backdrop and the substantially reduced nature of the residual functions of the Mechanism following the conclusion of all core crime cases and all fugitive-tracking, resolution 2740 (2024) sets out the elements of its future activities, namely its small, temporary and efficient structure, with a small number of staff, in line with its reduced functions. Resolution 2740 (2024) requested the Secretary- General to present an updated report on options for the transfer of the Mechanism’s functions relating to the supervision of the enforcement of sentences, assistance to national jurisdictions on prosecutions and the administrative and budgetary aspects of possible locations for the archives. We note in that respect the readiness of the Mechanism to provide its assistance and views. Equally, we wish to note that the report underscores that the volume and complexity of the requests received from national jurisdictions for assistance and the wide range of authorities submitting requests highlight the important role of international assistance, either through the Office of the Prosecutor or through a future United Nations office, in securing the accountability of perpetrators of international crimes. In conclusion, Greece considers it essential that the Mechanism provide comprehensive input in view of the forthcoming report of the Secretary-General on potential options for the future transfer of its functions, to achieve justice for the crimes committed and to strengthen the rule of law.

I thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Gatti Santana, and the Prosecutor of the Mechanism, Mr. Brammertz, for their valuable briefings. We also welcome the participation of the representatives of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda and Croatia in today’s meeting. Pakistan acknowledges the vital role played by the Mechanism in preserving judicial continuity, upholding accountability and facilitating access to legal records and archives from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We note resolution 2740 (2024), which extended the mandate of the Mechanism for a period of two years until 30 June 2026, reaffirming the Council’s commitment to an efficient and structured conclusion of its responsibilities. The resolution recognizes the importance of the Mechanism completing its work in a timely, transparent and cooperative manner. The most recent reports by the President and the Prosecutor offer valuable insights into workforce planning, institutional downsizing and proposed scenarios for the eventual transfer of the remaining responsibilities. Those are important for ensuring that the Mechanism’s drawdown is carried out responsibly and with due regard to legacy functions. The reports also highlight progress in key areas such as the supervision of sentences, the provision of assistance to national jurisdictions and the safeguarding and digitization of archives. Those efforts speak to the professionalism and institutional commitment of the Mechanism’s leadership and staff. Pakistan values the importance of transparency and cost efficiency. We support continued six-monthly reporting on the Mechanism, which keeps the Council informed of the evolving workload, staffing levels and exit-planning benchmarks. While the Mechanism’s mandate is limited and transitional, its contributions to the international criminal justice system remain significant, building on the historic work of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the clarification and further development of international criminal law. Pakistan calls for continued cooperation from Member States, in particular in facilitating enforcement, supporting national prosecutions and upholding the integrity of legal records. Over the years, four Pakistani nationals served as judges on the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and one Pakistan reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, the rule of law, the promotion of justice and ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes. There must be no impunity for atrocities committed in any context or under any pretext. The work of the two tribunals is also groundbreaking in that it may relate to future accountability efforts, in particular in situations of prolonged illegal occupation involving the brutal suppression of a people’s right to self-determination and the perpetration of mass atrocities. The legal templates, the political precedents, the jurisdictional models, documentation and evidence-gathering, together with victim’s participations, are all important and relevant aspects which manifest that international justice is viable with the necessary political will, credible documentation and concerted international attention and advocacy. Pakistan will continue to engage constructively with the Council and other stakeholders to ensure that the work of the Mechanism is concluded in a responsible, structured and sustainable transition.

Panama extends its appreciation to the President of the Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, Ms. Graciela Gatti Santana, as well as to the Prosecutor, Mr. Serge Brammertz, for their detailed briefings. We also welcome the delegations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Rwanda and Croatia, who are accompanying and distinguishing us today. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia were undoubtedly two of the most important institutions for international criminal justice in recent decades. Their work laid the foundations for combating impunity for atrocity crimes and honoured a fundamental principle: that victims, and especially their families, had, and continue to have, an irrevocable right to obtain justice for the atrocities committed against their loved ones. Today that invaluable legacy rests with the Residual Mechanism. Although not at the pace that the international community would have wished, owing to the nature and complexity of the cases, we recognize that the Mechanism has made steady progress in reducing its functions. Specifically, considering the current worrisome context of liquidity and funding constraints in important multilateral forums, we recognize the Mechanism’s efforts to reduce its physical infrastructure, including the closure of offices such as the External Relations Office, as well as the rationalization of staff and the planning of budget reductions. We encourage a further expansion of those efforts. On the other hand, while the main trials have now concluded, the Mechanism’s report shows that it continues to carry out important tasks, concerning which an orderly transfer should be analysed. Those include supervision of the enforcement of sentences, attending review hearings, protection of victims, management and custody of judicial archives and support from the Office of the Prosecutor for national jurisdictions. The Office’s assistance to Member States in national investigations and prosecutions is an important tool in continuing to ensure that all, and in particular those responsible for the most serious crimes, are brought to justice. Such technical support, which includes forensic analysis, information-sharing, access to the Mechanism’s archives and sharing of institutional experiences, reinforces the principle of complementarity that underpins the international criminal justice architecture. For Panama, that type of cooperation fills a significant gap in the Therefore, after the end of the Mechanism’s mandate, Panama believes that the possibility of expanding the model should be explored. In that regard, we are confident that the United Nations is in a unique position to fill the existing gap in international criminal justice, including in cases that go beyond those covered by the Residual Mechanism. In conclusion, while Panama recognizes the importance of the work still carried out by the Mechanism, it also calls for a continued redoubling of efforts for a progressive, orderly and efficient reduction and transfer of its operations, with a view to its definitive closure.

I thank President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their briefings on their ongoing work to advance justice on behalf of the victims of atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia during the conflicts of the 1990s. We appreciate President Gatti Santana and her leadership as the Mechanism continues to streamline and downsize its functions. Over 30 years ago, reports of civilian massacres, rapes and torture in detention sites, along with city attacks, led to the creation of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. A year later, the Rwandan genocide prompted the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Those tribunals have brought hundreds of perpetrators to justice, established a factual record of the crimes and challenged the impunity of political and military leaders. However, the advancing age and health of defendants, victims and witnesses make resolving outstanding cases more urgent. For instance, the Mechanism must address Félicien Kabuga’s release owing to his health, and Ratko Mladić’s need for palliative care. We hope the judicial proceedings in South Africa involving Fulgence Kayishema conclude swiftly, allowing him to face trial for genocide and crimes against humanity and providing justice for the victims. Lastly, we note the contempt proceedings that have followed the Ngirabatware case review process. Justice requires that victims and witnesses remain free from interference, and we expect the Mechanism likewise to uphold the due process rights for defendants, ensuring a just resolution. We value the Mechanism’s support for national authorities in addressing atrocity crimes within their domestic systems. By providing legal, evidentiary and strategic assistance, the Mechanism strengthens the rule of law. In the Western Balkans, the Office of the Prosecutor has provided direct case support and resolved cross-border issues. We welcome the collaboration between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro with the Office of the Prosecutor, and urge the Office to make continued efforts to resolve case backlogs and deliver justice to victims. The Prosecutor’s report on Rwanda highlights the ongoing and completed proceedings in France and Belgium, and the recent arrest of Faustin Nsabumukunzi in the United States. Those examples show a shared commitment to accountability prevents perpetrators from finding safe haven. We appreciate States supporting investigations, prosecutions and hosting convicted persons, as enforcing sentences is crucial to the Mechanism’s work. As investigations and prosecutions wind down, preserving the legacy of the Mechanism and its predecessor tribunals is crucial. We appreciate President Gatti’s focus on making public records available and the commitment to preserving and digitizing physical records. We strongly support the Mechanism’s efforts to engage the public through information centres, workshops and social media. We value the European Union’s support for programmes in the Western Balkans, which have enabled the Mechanism to engage schoolteachers and bring youth together. Educating the public is essential to combat genocide denial and historical revisionism, especially for the young people who must understand the impact and legacy of past events. Next month, the international community will commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. That is a time to recommit to reconciliation and a peaceful future grounded in justice and the rule of law. We honour victims, survivors and their loved ones, who should be at the heart of our efforts to promote justice and accountability. The United States will continue to advocate for justice as the foundation for peace and stability.

I thank President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their comprehensive briefings today and for their continued contribution to achieving international criminal justice. I also wish to welcome the presence of His Excellency Mr. Vujić, Minister of Justice of Serbia, as well as the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Rwanda at today’s debate. Last year we marked the thirtieth anniversary of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, and this year will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. It is their work, in the national jurisdictions in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, that is key to providing justice to the victims and survivors today. As this is Denmark’s first time participating in a Council debate on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, let me start by expressing Denmark’s full support to the Mechanism and its important work. The Mechanism has made significant accomplishments and continues to play a crucial role in ensuring accountability, ending impunity and preventing future atrocities. Allow me to make three points. First, I wish to welcome the progress reports presented by President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz. We especially want to highlight that the Mechanism has now accounted for all fugitives and completed all trials and appeals. That is a major milestone in our fight against impunity and for honouring the victims and survivors of those devastating atrocities. As the briefers make clear, the work is not over yet. The Mechanism’s assistance to national jurisdictions, including the Prosecutor General of Rwanda and national prosecutors in the former Yugoslavia, continues to be vital for their efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for serious violations of international law. As stated in the report, a staggering number of suspected war criminals are still to be brought to justice. In addition, the Mechanism continues to play an important role in the protection of victims and witnesses, supervising the enforcement of sentences, preserving court records and fighting denial of the genocide and other atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, we welcome the Mechanism’s continued efforts to realize the Security Council’s vision of a small, temporary and efficient organization and to provide assistance to the Secretary-General on the reports on the future of the archives and options for the transfer of the Mechanism’s functions. We encourage the Mechanism to identify further concrete steps to realize the Council’s vision and welcome the My third point relates to the preservation of the Mechanism’s archives. That is crucial, and we look forward to receiving the Secretary-General’s report on options in that regard. The archives are not only essential for the ongoing investigation and prosecution efforts of national authorities, but also to ensure that the crimes of the past are neither forgotten, distorted or repeated. The archives will serve as a testament to the legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals and as an essential resource for education and the prevention of atrocities. We underscore that the future location of the archives must be one that secures that objective. Let me conclude by reiterating Denmark’s steadfast support for international criminal justice and unwavering commitment to supporting the Council’s efforts to combat impunity wherever it exits.

China thanks President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their briefings. We welcome the Minister of Justice of Serbia and the representatives of Bosnia Herzegovina and Rwanda to today’s meeting. During the reporting period, as mandated by resolution 2740 (2024), the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals made progress in supervising the enforcement of sentences, relocating released persons and promoting the work of the Mechanism, among its other residual functions, in an orderly manner, which China acknowledges. With regard to the Mechanism’s work going forward, China would like to make the following points. First, the Mechanism should, pursuant to resolution 1966 (2010), stick to its original positioning as a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and scale progressively diminish over time, actively implement the recommendations of the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals and the Office of Internal Oversight Services, continue to optimize its allocation of resources and reduce its functions and size until its Security Council mandate has been fully implemented. Secondly, according to the report of the President of the Mechanism, the Mechanism has completed all core judicial cases. However, there is still redundancy in the relevant institutional arrangements and staffing. Therefore, the three main organs of the Mechanism should be further streamlined, in particular the Registry should close unnecessary offices and downsize unnecessary staff. Thirdly, as an organ established by the Security Council, the Mechanism should leverage the UN80 Initiative to press ahead with its own reform, come up with pragmatic and reasonable recommendations on monitoring the enforcement of sentences, providing assistance to national jurisdictions and preserving relevant archives, among others functions, and create the conditions for the transfer of functions to States or United Nations entities. Last but not least, China supports the Mechanism’s completion of its unfinished work and the fulfilment of its historical mission as soon as possible. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sierra Leone, Chair of the informal Working Group, and the Office of Legal Affairs for their work in coordinating the work of the Security Council and the Mechanism. We take note of what was achieved during the reporting period, including in the areas of sentence enforcement, witness protection and assistance provided to national jurisdictions. We also note the efforts undertaken by the Mechanism and its President to streamline resources and reduce the size of the Mechanism. We would like to reiterate that, when it was established, the Mechanism was intended to be exceptional and temporary. Resolution 1966 (2010) stressed that it should be a small, temporary and efficient residual mechanism, whose functions and size would gradually diminish over time, in accordance with a specific and reasonable time frame. Today, more than a decade since its establishment and with the conclusion of the core cases, we are of the view that the conditions are conducive to transition to the final phase of the Mechanism’s functions in a responsible manner, namely, the gradual and orderly closure of the Mechanism. In that context, Algeria would like to underscore the following points. First, we must respect the fundamental principle of international law, namely, the inherent competence of States to prosecute crimes committed on their territory or by their nationals, reflecting the principle of sovereignty as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, we stress that universal jurisdictions cannot replace national judicial authorities but should complement and support them in cases of inability or impossibility and within the framework of clear requests and voluntary cooperation. Thirdly, we must promote the principle of complementarity with national jurisdiction systems through supporting States’ abilities to try international serious crimes punishable under international law as part of national jurisdiction. Fourthly, we stress the need for the Mechanism to intensify efforts to conclude its residual functions as soon as possible, in coordination with the Secretariat, without prejudice to due process, and to support the transfer of some residual functions, including monitoring the enforcement of sentences, providing assistance to national judiciaries, managing archives and cooperating with affected States to establish national and regional information centres, as set forth in resolution 2740 (2024). Fifthly, we stress that cooperation with the Mechanism must continue to be governed by international law and the principle of State consent, without imposing judiciary arrangements that are not accepted by the States concerned. Sixthly, we must ensure continued access to international justice archives through maintaining the archives of the two courts and providing access to concerned authorities in affected States. That would preserve our collective memory for the benefit of future generations, as well as combat impunity and address attempts to deny serious crimes or glorify the perpetrators of such crimes. In conclusion, in accordance with its principled commitment to ensuring justice and accountability and combating impunity, Algeria stresses that mutual respect and complementarity between international mechanisms and national jurisdictions

Let me begin by thanking President Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their reports to the Council today. We also take this opportunity to thank the staff of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for their ongoing commitment to the work of the institution. I would also like to welcome His Excellency Mr. Vujić, Minister of Justice of Serbia, as well as the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda and Croatia to today’s Council meeting. I will make four points today. First, as the President of the Mechanism rightly noted in her remarks today, the upcoming thirtieth anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica reminds us of the significance of the work that the Mechanism has undertaken. And important work continues, with the Mechanism continuing to perform important judicial, prosecutorial and operational functions as part of its ongoing work. Secondly, State cooperation with Mechanism remains essential and we welcome the support that States continue to provide. The United Kingdom will continue to play its part, including through the enforcement of a number of sentences of imprisonment of persons convicted by the Mechanism or its predecessor institutions. We echo the President’s request for States to give serious consideration to enforcing the sentences of imprisonment of persons currently housed in the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague. We also call once again on Serbia to ensure the arrest and transfer of Petar Jojić and Vjerica Radeta to the Mechanism. Thirdly, the President made reference in her remarks today to a case in the United Kingdom relating to a judge from the Mechanism roster. The United Kingdom would like to thank the Secretary-General for the prompt action taken to waive immunity and for the close cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United Nations officials in order to keep each other updated on the case. Fourthly and finally, as we look to the future, it is important to consider the broader context. That includes both the Mechanism’s status as a residual institution and the financial challenges facing the United Nations, more broadly. There will therefore continue to be a need for rigorous budgeting and efficiency in all United Nations bodies, including the Mechanism. In that context, we welcome the measures that the Mechanism has taken to maximize efficiency, as outlined in the reports. We are also pleased to hear of the ongoing cross-organ consultation on options for the location of the archives and for the transfer of certain other functions. We encourage the Mechanism to continue and to deepen such work over the period ahead. We look forward to seeing more detailed proposals in the Secretary-General’s reports later this year. These will be helpful as we work to deliver the vision of the Mechanism a small, temporary and efficient institution. In conclusion, the United Kingdom remains a steadfast supporter of the Mechanism’s work and of its role in delivering justice.

The regular reports by the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) to the Security Council are one of the issues that divert the Council’s attention from genuinely important matters on its agenda. Today’s meeting should have served as a platform for discussing practical issues related to the closure of the Mechanism, which has already completed its judicial Let us recall that the Mechanism was established by the Council 15 years ago as a small, purely temporary structure with a small staff. That is the language of the relevant resolution (resolution 1966 (2010)). Let us consider a point of comparison. For example, the International Maritime Organization has 300 international staff members, while the International Court of Justice — a principal judicial organ of the United Nations, with more than 20 cases on its docket, in addition to advisory opinions — has approximately 100 staff members. At the same time, no one has ever decided that the above-mentioned organizations are supposed to be small or temporary. Thus, by submitting reports to the Council, the IRMCT is simply making a mockery of the instructions of the organ that established it. We would like to note that the 234 positions at the Residual Mechanism are not an exhaustive list: the report contains a strange postscript stating that this figure does not include a number of positions, such as staff members tasked with engaging with the Office of Internal Oversight Services. We therefore do not know fully how many employees the Mechanism has, which shows its blatant intention to mislead the Security Council. We do not agree with such an approach. Given the liquidity crisis in the United Nations and the Secretary-General’s initiative for a 20 per cent cut in personnel and budget in all active — not residual — areas of the Organization’s work, this temporary and residual structure should be closed in order to free up resources for the Organization’s priority objectives, first and foremost, the maintenance of international peace and security. That objective is easily achievable. The Council must take a decision to distribute the small number of residual functions that the Mechanism has been carrying out exceedingly poorly among the existing United Nations departments and Member States. The Prosecutor’s report contains some similar proposals that warrant our close consideration. We recognize, separately, that the function of victim and witness protection has de facto been handed over to States, which is an issue we have long discussed. We expect greater details and specifics about this in the next report. However, the President’s report does not even hint at concrete options for transferring the functions, nor does it mention the intention to complete the work, in principle. Instead, it is proposed that Council members extend the existence of the Mechanism for it to supervise the enforcement of sentences, that is, even after 2040. That is an unacceptable approach, especially given the Mechanism’s utter inability to carry out its monitoring functions. States where sentences are being served, such as the United Kingdom and Estonia, have continued to ignore even the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners — the Nelson Mandela Rules — when it comes to Serb prisoners. They are not allowed to see their relatives, nor can they see their lawyers, because those States are denying them entry visas. They cannot communicate by telephone or use the Internet, their bank transfers are blocked and the necessary medical care is not being provided. Their applications for early release after serving two thirds of their sentence are denied, and they are subjected to acts of psychological and physical violence. The rights of Milan Lukić, who is serving a sentence in Estonia, continue to be violated. He has filed complaints with the Mechanism. Those complaints have not been addressed. Moreover, in April of this year, another convict, Radislav Krstić, who survived an attack by his cellmates in a British prison and the amputation of his leg, was transferred to Estonia to serve his sentence. Of note is that, as we know, both convicts are being held in the Estonian prison in Tartu, to which 600 convicts from Sweden are to be transferred to serve their sentences, under a bilateral agreement. Estonia, it appears, has decided to make a name for itself as the prison capital of the world. Local human rights activists are sounding the alarm about the impact that such a massive influx into the prison could have on the conditions of those serving their sentences. Whether the Mechanism knows anything about that problem remains unknown. Not a word is said about it in the report. That is how the supervisory function is being performed. Turning now to what is happening in the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague, which is under the immediate oversight of the Mechanism, Serb General Ratko Mladić, who is detained there, is almost unable to move and suffering from heart and kidney failure, inflammation of the heel bone and infected bedsores. He has lost up to 51 kg in body weight. The bedsores, I must stress, are indicative of a lack of proper care. There is a high risk of cardiac arrest, thromboembolism and sepsis from the bedsores. The medical staff do not speak Serbian and are unable to provide day-to-day care or timely medical assistance. According to his relatives, treatment in his current condition is already almost impossible, as it is a matter of palliative care, which he is not receiving. According to Mladić’s son, since September 2024, medical staff have pressed him to consent to a do-not-resuscitate order should his life be in danger and are now claiming that the General has given consent. Given that Mladić has been diagnosed with dementia, his relatives believe that medical staff are taking advantage of his vulnerability. In the light of the above, we regard the President of the Mechanism’s decision in 2024 to deny the application for his early release on humanitarian grounds and for him to serve the remainder of his sentence in Serbia as exceedingly inhumane. That approach contrasts sharply with the treatment of Kabuga, whose case was indefinitely stayed on health grounds. We demand that the Mechanism immediately reconsider the decision regarding Mladić and transfer the General to Serbia for the remainder of his sentence. We underscore that all responsibility for any adverse developments will rest with the Mechanism and its President. The convicted persons As to the remaining functions, the most realistic option is as follows. We call on the leadership of the Mechanism, in its next report to the Council and in its input into the Secretary-General’s reports, to provide appropriate, detailed, practical and feasible proposals for the transfer of all residual functions to allow the Mechanism’s operations to be wrapped up definitively. There is no need to include options in the report that have already been rejected, such as the creation of an omnibus residual mechanism for all the ad hoc tribunals or for the referral of cases to the so-called “International Criminal Court”. We wish again to caution against attempts to artificially extend the life span of that body by instituting new so-called “contempt of court” proceedings. The Mechanism is following in the inglorious footsteps of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which has gone down in history for its iniquity, double standards and politicization. In March, we were surprised to learn that one of the Mechanism’s judges was convicted in the United Kingdom for modern-day slavery and sentenced to six years and four months of imprisonment. We would also note that informing the Council about such matters after the fact, after everything has already transpired, is not only an extremely unprofessional approach but also amounts to a deliberate cover-up of the judge’s participation in the crime. In general, this state of affairs only goes to confirm that the Mechanism’s claims as to some kind of “legacy” and lofty standards are baseless. It should be clear to all Council members that the Mechanism cannot continue to exist and must be closed down.

I would like to thank Judge Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for the detailed progress reports submitted to the Council and for their briefings today. I also welcome the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Rwanda and Serbia to the meeting. Let me begin by reiterating Slovenia’s continued support for the Mechanism. Despite being in its residual phase, its work remains crucial for the fight against impunity. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were established by the Council because Council members understood and agreed on the importance of that fight. Today thousands of victims and survivors, and their families, wait for justice in many conflict and post- conflict situations. The States concerned must deliver and the fight against impunity has to continue. The Mechanism is nearing its completion and has been in a truly residual phase for two years. We welcome all the efforts made by its leadership and the systematic approach to identifying key remaining tasks, downsizing and streamlining the Mechanism’s functions while still fulfilling its residual work. The responsibility now lies with States to continue the fight against impunity at the national level. We commend all efforts undertaken to deliver justice and ensure the perpetrators are held accountable. In that regard we cannot stress enough how important cooperation among States is. In addition, we note the increasing number of requests for assistance made by States to the Mechanism and the Prosecutor and we welcome the continued support both of them extend to requesting States. That residual function needs to continue even after the termination of the Mechanism. That includes ongoing support for regional cooperation, which remains vital for ensuring effective judicial proceedings in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. We expect the report of the Secretary-General at the end of this year to adequately address both of those core functions, along with all other residual functions that must continue. I wish I could say that crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression and genocide are things of the past. They are not. And because of that, the legacy of both the ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism are extremely important. Their legacy stands as a powerful symbol of what the international community can achieve when political will aligns with the understanding that justice is essential for reconciliation and lasting peace. It sends the strongest possible message — that no one is above the law, regardless of their power or position. It is also a symbol, and a sliver of hope for all victims, everywhere — the hope that we will not forget. Next month it will be 30 years since the Srebrenica genocide, and we do remember. War crimes and crimes against humanity were committed. Genocide was committed. Denying it while glorifying criminals is both reprehensible and unacceptable. Nothing can change those facts and nothing can erase that history. We will never forget. And for that, we owe a deep gratitude to the Mechanism, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

At the outset, I would like to thank President Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their comprehensive and insightful briefing on the activities of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. We also welcome the distinguished representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Rwanda and Serbia to this meeting. Somalia considers this debate to be of paramount importance as it provides the Security Council with the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding the function and the future direction of the Mechanism. We commend the Mechanism’s diligent efforts in implementing resolution 1966 (2010) and for finally assuming its fully residual functions as originally envisioned in resolution 1966 (2010) and resolution 2637 (2022). We note the significant progress made in the Mechanism’s work, especially the conclusion of all core crimes and the successful tracking of all indicted individuals. That marks a definitive transition towards its residual phase. We also appreciate the efforts to eliminate the duplication of functions among the Mechanism’s organs, leading to reductions in expenditure. The enforcement and review of sentences are crucial components of accountability efforts and must be carried out in accordance with international standards. We acknowledge the Mechanism’s ongoing challenges in fulfilling its mandate, particularly concerning the enforcement of sentences and the relocation of acquitted and released persons. Cooperation among the Mechanism and Member States is fundamental for the proper understanding of its function, especially in the areas of supervision, enforcement of sentences and the relocation of acquitted and released persons. The residual functions are as crucial as the ad hoc functions of the Tribunals that preceded the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. In that context, we take note of the comprehensive draft framework document submitted by In conclusion, Somalia reiterates its support for the work of the Mechanism and its tireless efforts to achieve justice for victims. The establishment of justice and the rule of law, based on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, is an essential element in providing accountability under international law and achieving stability and reconciliation at the national level in a manner that promotes international peace and security.

I would like to begin by thanking the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, President Gatti Santana, for the introduction of the twenty-sixth biannual report submitted in accordance with resolution 1966 (2010), as well as the Prosecutor, Mr. Serge Brammertz, for his briefing. The orderly conclusion of the activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the preservation of their legacy and the fight against impunity that they have ensured and continue to ensure involves a three-pronged responsibility — that of the Council, that of the Mechanism and that of Member States. I will refer to each of them in turn. First, it is the responsibility of the Council to live up to the decisions taken 30 years ago to establish the ICTR and ICTY as instruments to combat impunity. Those decisions imply long-term responsibilities towards victims, to those accountable and future generations. It is those responsibilities that the Mechanism addresses by ensuring the residual functions of the Tribunals that preceded it. Secondly, it is the Mechanism’s responsibility to meet the Security Council’s expectations regarding its operating modalities and to prepare for the transfer of some of its functions. Although there are no longer any fugitives accused of major crimes, the Mechanism has now entered the second year of its fully residual phase. It has acted accordingly by reducing its staff by 50 per cent and its budget by $21 million between January 2023 and January 2025. We expect those efforts to continue in the preparation of its budget for 2026. We also note with satisfaction that the three organs of the Mechanism are prepared to contribute to drafting the report of the Secretary-General expected by the end of the year. Important decisions will indeed need to be taken on several issues, regarding such key functions as assistance to national jurisdictions, protection of victims and witnesses, supervision of the enforcement of sentences, archive management and ensuring memory. In that regard, France will be guided by a basic principle — it is the functions that must continue, not the administrative structures. Among those functions, we would like to highlight the assistance provided to national jurisdictions, as underscored by the Prosecutor, given the numerous proceedings still under way at the national level for crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICTR and ICTY. We also welcome the launch in March of a new assessment by the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the results of which should be known in early 2026. It will shed useful light on the decisions to be taken by the Council, in the framework of the sixth review of the progress in the Mechanism’s work, with a view to renewing its mandate in 2026. Thirdly, France recalls the responsibility of Member States to cooperate with the Mechanism, in accordance with their international obligations. We regret that some States still refuse to do so, despite repeated appeals from the President, the Prosecutor and many Member States, made within the Security Council. Conversely, we welcome the commitment of the States in which the convicted persons are serving their sentences, notably Estonia which, with the transfer of Radislav Krstić in April, assumed responsibility for four convicted persons, under the responsibility of the Mechanism. We also welcome the arrest, two years ago, of Fulgence Kayishema, Finally, we welcome the Mechanism’s efforts to establish, in and with the countries concerned, information centres which are essential for perpetuating the legacy of the tribunals and combating genocide denial, historical revisionism and the glorification of convicted war criminals.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Guyana. I thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, and Prosecutor Serge Brammertz for their briefings. I also welcome the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Rwanda and Serbia to today’s meeting. Guyana takes positive note of the twenty-sixth report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and reiterates its support for the continuing work of the Mechanism in carrying out essential residual functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We welcome the further steps taken by the Mechanism during the reporting period to reduce its functions. We are also encouraged by the President’s refinement of her key priorities, following the adoption of resolution 2740 (2024). We note in particular the significant reduction of staffing levels, budget and operational footprint, as part of efforts to expeditiously complete the remaining functions of the Mechanism. Guyana reiterates its concern that the situation of the persons relocated from Arusha to the Niger in December 2022 remains unresolved. We note the continued efforts of the Mechanism towards finding a solution and urge States to cooperate and render all necessary assistance to the Mechanism pursuant to resolution 2637 (2022). The management of the archives and records of the Court are of great importance to preserving the legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals and the Mechanism. We look forward to the recommendations, in that regard, to be presented by the Secretary-General at the end of 2025. We take positive note of the progress achieved by the Mechanism in implementing the outstanding recommendations made by the Office of Internal Oversight Services and look forward to the completion of the implementation of the final two recommendations. Guyana commends the efforts of the Mechanism to respond to requests for assistance from national jurisdictions, thereby enabling them to advance justice and hold perpetrators to account. In conclusion, my delegation reaffirms its full support for the work of the Mechanism and efforts to combat impunity and achieve justice for the victims of the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. The representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

I would like to respond briefly to say that there is no truth in the accusations made earlier in the debate of mistreatment of any prisoners in our care.

I now give the floor to the Minister of Justice of Serbia.

It is my honour to have this opportunity to address the Security Council on behalf of the Republic of Serbia regarding the six-month report on the work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and to present the positions of the Republic of Serbia. Since the conclusion of the two-decades-long proceedings in the case of Stanišić and Simatović, The Hague branch of the Mechanism has been positioned to perform exclusively residual functions. There is no justification for avoiding the fulfilment of the goal established more than 15 years ago by resolution 1966 (2010), which intended the Mechanism to be a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and size would diminish over time. Unfortunately, the report, as is the case of previous reports, does not demonstrate significant progress towards achieving that goal, reaffirmed by resolution 2637 (2022). The current report does not differ substantially from previous reports; the same issues are raised, and the same matters, which Serbia has long pointed out, are absent from the reports of the President of the Mechanism and the Prosecutor. With the conclusion of the trials concerning the serious violations of international humanitarian law, the mandate of the Mechanism is, in practice, completed. In accordance with the views of the Security Council, the conduct of relevant judicial proceedings should be entrusted to national jurisdictions. In that context, we also recall the obligations set forth in resolution 2637 (2022), which clearly states that the Security Council calls upon the Mechanism, as a part of its completion strategy, to provide options regarding the transfer of its remaining activities in due course. In that context, allegations are once again being made against Serbia for failing to cooperate with the Mechanism due to the non-transfer of Jojić and Radeta. There is no need to repeat here the details presented at previous Security Council meetings or the reasons why the annulment of the Mechanism’s decision to refer the case to the judiciary of the Republic of Serbia is unacceptable. Serbia’s conduct regarding that case does not constitute a violation of its international obligations, as claimed by the President of the Mechanism, but rather represents an effort to act in accordance with resolution 1966 (2010). The Mechanism’s decision is based on unfounded findings, of which both the Security Council and the Mechanism have been informed. That is further supported by the testimony of a witness concerning the events of 29 September 2021, when representatives of the Mechanism subjected the witness to verbal attacks and intimidation in an attempt to force their appearance as a witness before the Mechanism. Such conduct by persons acting on behalf of the Mechanism, in that instance, as amicus curiae assistants, should not be tolerated. We are not aware of any action taken by the Mechanism regarding the conduct of its representatives, despite having raised those concerns multiple times during Security Council meetings reviewing previous periodic reports of the Mechanism. The fact that the annulment of the decision to transfer the case of Jojić and Radeta to the jurisdiction of the judiciary of Serbia is unfounded is also shown by the fact that a much more serious case, that of Vojislav Šešelj, was referred to the Republic of Serbia, and the trial is being conducted in a proper and lawful manner. Furthermore, we have noted from the report that the competent authorities of the United States were requested to provide an appropriate position regarding the trial for contempt of court against Peter Robinson, one of the defence counsels before the Mechanism. This case directly concerns the Mechanism and the interpretation of The Republic of Serbia is willing to assume jurisdiction over cases concerning contempt of court and false testimony. At the same time, it points out that numerous prosecution witnesses have abused their status as witnesses or provided false testimony, which has not resulted in the initiation of any proceedings for contempt of court or the provision of false testimony. One of the functions of the President of the Mechanism is to decide on requests for pardon or commutation of sentences in accordance with Article 26 of the Statute of the Mechanism. The former President of the Mechanism, Judge Agius, fundamentally altered the long-standing practice of both the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Mechanism, advancing the Prosecutor’s position — despite the fact that the Prosecutor’s role is not to intervene in decisions on these matters. The significant tightening of the conditions for early release and the establishment of provisional release during the period in office of Judge Agius have been subject to sharp criticism. According to one of the previous reports by the Prosecutor of the Mechanism, these stricter conditions for early release and provisional release resulted from the Prosecutor’s efforts, even though the Prosecutor’s role in the decision-making process should be extremely limited — consisting only of the provision of relevant information on the convicted person’s cooperation with the Prosecutor’s Office. As a result of these change in practice, the Mechanism has gone from around 82 per cent approval rate for early release for the period of 1999–2018, to less than 12 per cent for the period of 2019–2025, where releases were justified with humanitarian reasons and, in one case, occurred just three days before the death of the released. In other words, convicts who reached the threshold of serving two-thirds of their sentence before 2019 could potentially be released, while that same threshold no can no longer be expected to generate the minimum chance of release today. Such an abrupt reversal is not the result of an amendment to the Statute or of a Security Council resolution; it is the result of an internal, arbitral reinterpretation of article 26 of the Statute by the Mechanism. Without transitional measures, it created a double standard among persons who are, in concreto, comparable cases within the meaning of rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, on the treatment of similarly situated prisoners. That is a violation of the principle of equality, under article 26 of the Statute, rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and articles 2, 4, 87 and 108 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, which require non-discrimination and a gradual return to society, including post-sentence logistics. Nevertheless, despite all that, we can provide assurances that the conditions for early release or provisional release, for which Serbia issues guarantees, will be fully respected. For over a decade, the Republic of Serbia has expressed before the Security Council its willingness to accept convicted persons from the ICTY or the Mechanism to serve their sentences in the Republic of Serbia. Unfortunately, neither the President of the Mechanism nor the Prosecutor have considered it appropriate to address Serbia’s request in their extensive reports or statements before the Security Council. They have neither accepted said request or provided reasons for its rejection. On this occasion, we repeat that request and express the readiness of the Republic of Serbia to enforce prison sentences imposed by the ICTY and the Mechanism within the Republic of Serbia, under the supervision of the Mechanism. I would also like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the particularly difficult situation of convicted persons serving their prison sentences in Estonia, the United Kingdom and The Hague. In particular, I must emphasize the serious health condition of General Mladić and the ongoing request before 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. I therefore ask the Security Council to take into consideration the serious health condition of General Mladić and to take actions  — as the highest organ of the international community — towards his humanitarian release. The position of the Security Council is not in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Due to health issues, language barriers and the remote location where the sentences are being served, access to family members is significantly hindered, as is communication between the sentenced individuals and the prison administration and staff, thereby making difficult the provision of adequate medical and legal assistance. The Mechanism has concluded trials concerning serious violations of international humanitarian law and is well-positioned to provide substantial support to national judiciaries, given its extensive documentation and numerous testimonies. However, the Mechanism must duly recognize that prosecutors and judges operating within national judicial systems exercise full independence in their work, and their decisions must not be influenced by political considerations or other demands from the Mechanism’s Prosecutor’s Office, which holds no authority over national judicial institutions, regardless of its political satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their performance. The Prosecutor’s Office, as noted in a previous report, mentions examples of certain individuals located in the Republic of Serbia against whom proceedings have been or are being conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina. With regard to Novak Đukić, the process of recognizing and enforcing the foreign judicial decision in the Republic of Serbia is ongoing. The High Court in Belgrade has requested case files from Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to establish whether a fair trial was conducted. To date, Bosnia and Herzegovina has not provided the requested documentation. On the other hand, Novak Đukić’s condition is such that, in November 2024, a panel of experts determined that he is incapable of following the trial proceedings. With regard to Milomir Savčić, the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Serbia has initiated a case, which is currently in the pre-investigation phase. Since the case has been initiated, it cannot be concluded that his presence in the Republic of Serbia constitutes evasion of criminal prosecution. In the Republic of Serbia, no person who has perpetrated a criminal act shall be granted asylum or shelter. However, in the absence of sufficient evidence to indicate a reasonable suspicion of such an act, criminal proceedings shall not be initiated. Furthermore, regarding other issues raised in the Prosecutor’s report that fall outside of its jurisdiction, we cannot overlook the fact that war criminals responsible for numerous atrocities committed during the conflicts of the 1990s have been glorified by having airports, squares and streets named after them, but not in Serbia. The main airport in Croatia bears the name Franjo Tuđman, while numerous locations in Bosnia and Herzegovina are named after Alija Izetbegović. The situation in Kosovo and Metohija, including the glorification of terrorists and perpetrators responsible for the persecution of the Serb population, goes without saying, despite it being a territory under United Nations administration. The Prosecutor’s Office has never condemned that practice. The Prosecutor, in his report, highlights the work of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor as a foundation for further trials. However, the Prosecutor’s Office is largely responsible The legacy of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor is such as to greatly hinder the realization of justice. The shortcomings in the Prosecutor’s work over the past decades cannot be resolved by programmes promoting the so-called “achievements” of the Mechanism. Had the Tribunal’s Office of the Prosecutor acted in the interests of justice, these matters would not be discussed before the Security Council. No one is above the law, but it does not seem to matter when the Serbs are victims. That is the message from the Mechanism. The extensive case files of the Serbian prosecutorial and judicial authorities demonstrate Serbia’s seriousness and dedication regarding the prosecution of serious violations of international humanitarian law. On the other hand, professionally and academically grounded and sharp criticism of the Mechanism and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in particular the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in those Tribunals, must not be suppressed.

I now give the floor to the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I wish you, Madam President, a successful presidency of the Council for the month of June. I also thank the President of the Mechanism, Judge Gatti Santana, and the Prosecutor, Mr. Brammertz, for their briefings delivered today on the progress of their work and the assessments and projections related to it. We remain committed to supporting the ongoing work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, in particular those functions that are essential for the entire enterprise to come full circle, and we find it crucial to ensure that its credibility and legacy are properly upheld and preserved and to ensure continued engagement on the enforcement of sentences and on the matter of archives and the status of their full digitalization. Most importantly, we continue to rely on the Mechanism for further assistance in national prosecutions. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in both the previous and the current year, has had successful communication with the Mechanism regarding the resolution of various procedural dilemmas. In addition, regular operational discussions and consultations between the Office of the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Office of the Prosecutor’s continuous case assistance to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina remain essential in securing justice for all victims of crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The latter is particularly important, bearing in mind that requests for assistance from Bosnia and Herzegovina account for approximately 80 per cent of regional requests. Given the backlog of cases concerning suspects known to be residing outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the aim of removing the procedural obstacles to ultimately prosecuting them, the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a conclusion recently, in February, in which it found to be justified the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s initiative to transfer war crimes cases against inaccessible persons to States in the region or to the States where those To that effect, we commend the United Nations Development Programme’s regional project, entitled “European Union support to confidence-building in the Western Balkans”, which is currently working on implementing activities aimed at strengthening regional cooperation among judicial institutions of Western Balkan countries, namely, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, in the prosecution of war crimes cases in order to contribute to social cohesion, reconciliation and long-term peace and stability in Western Balkan countries. However, much more than the empty assurances of a commitment to accepting and processing such cases is needed to achieve justice and strengthen regional cooperation and reconciliation, simply for the fact that unavailable suspects remain unavailable for a reason. They are being shielded, protected, celebrated, rewarded and honoured for the crimes that they committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Crimes are still being denied. Victims and their families have been humiliated, day in day out, for the past 30 years. Furthermore, the denial of crimes, revisionism and the glorification of war criminals continue unabated and are even worsening over time. Anniversaries, as many Council members have mentioned, come and go. Some serve to reflect on positive aspects, things achieved, challenges we faced and progress we made. Some, more sombre, are there for remembrance, for commemoration and for honouring in dignity, respect and honesty. So, 30 years after the horrific crimes committed in my country in the name of a vile ideology, will that be the case? Today’s meeting falls right in between two painful anniversaries in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the thirtieth anniversary of the horrific crime committed in Tuzla on 25 May 1995 and the thirtieth anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, committed in July 1995. The day of 25 May was once celebrated as Youth Day in our country. Ironically, on that very day in 1995, a grenade was fired from the aggressor’s position on Mount Ozren, killing 71 young people and wounding more than 200 at a youth gathering in Tuzla. Novak Đukić — we just heard his name in one of the statements — an officer in the Republika Srpska army, was found guilty of ordering, as the Commander of the Ozren Tactical Group, an artillery platoon to shell Tuzla with cannons on 25 May 1995 and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. After escaping from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Serbia, he became inaccessible to our country’s judicial institutions. He found refuge in Belgrade, but neighbouring Serbia refuses to extradite him. To this day, there has been no reckoning for the Srebrenica genocide. Denial is rewarded, convicted murderers celebrated, judicially established facts and history distorted and violated, and victims dehumanized. Coming to terms with the past and accepting the truth are far from being a reality, both in parts of my country and in neighbouring Serbia. Time and again, opportunities to come to terms with the past and offer an honest hand of reconciliation are being missed. The adoption of the resolution aimed at honouring the victims of crimes adjudicated before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice should have been one such opportunity for common action, not a shameful nationalist narrative and revision of history. Instead of working so hard to make martyrs out of those cowardly killers of unarmed men, women and children — rapists and altogether human scum — they should invest in the future of their country and our region by finally shaking off the burden and legacy of the past regimes and embrace justice, truth and true reckoning. Instead of vocal appeals and pleading on behalf of convicted criminals, such as Mladić or Karadžić, on humanitarian At least today, in the Security Council, less than a month before the official thirtieth commemoration and reflection of the Srebrenica genocide, a year after the General Assembly established the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Srebrenica Genocide, I expected to hear words of respect for the victims and survivors of the genocide in Srebrenica, not calls for genocide deniers, persecutors and war criminals sentenced for the most serious crimes — acts of genocide — to be released. Let me remind Council members that it was 12 years ago that a well-known, sentenced war criminal, Vojislav Šešelj, was released early from prison, as he was serving a sentence for war crimes, as an act of mercy because, he claimed, backed by Serbia, he was terminally ill. That was 12 years ago. Now, for more than 12 years, he has continued to talk about what he did and to deny the work of the Tribunal and, ultimately, the verdicts of genocide. Approximately six years ago, General Mladić asked to be released because of terminal illness, despite his life sentence for having been convicted of genocide. Of course, we cannot offer the right to life to their victims, being terminally dead, but we can work to keep justice and the memory of the victims alive, as preconditions for reconciliation, and to prevent such crimes from happening again, to anyone, anywhere and at any time in the future. Concerning the holocausts in Rwanda and Srebrenica, we truly regret that none of those lessons did much to prevent the repetition of pain, suffering and death — to prevent the unimaginable levels of cruelty that one human being can inflict on another. We truly regret that the killing continues today before our eyes, in different parts of the world. In our case, at least, it is not by arms but by words. With their denial, utter lack of remorse, willingness to face the truth and vitriolic outbursts that promote future violence, they also kill an opportunity to finally put to rest a painful and horrific past for the sake of healthy relations, trust and cooperation for the future. Despite all that, we still firmly believe in the strength and power of truth, confirmed and preserved in judicial proceedings, and in the power of accountability, but mostly in delivering justice for crimes committed. Without trials and judgments and without the survivors telling their harrowing stories, crimes would fade into oblivion, minimized and erased, and unpunished. But in our firm stance and insistence on justice, that is no longer possible. It is essential to accountability, to warning and to prevention. The Council was innovative and courageous in taking unprecedented steps that forever transformed the landscape of international justice and enabled the advancement of international law through a substantial body of jurisprudence on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There is no turning back on that decisive moment for justice. If anything, in view of the very fact that at this moment, at the core of almost all the issues on the Council’s docket there are massive violations against human life, women, children and innocent people turn their eyes to this Chamber in the hope of protection, salvation and justice. We heard here some names improperly mentioned. We heard here, out of the blue, the naming of President Alija Izetbegović, the first President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was never convicted by any international court. Putting him in the context of Karadžić, Mladić and others is absolutely unacceptable. On the other hand, when I heard, for the second time today, the person who was naming President Izetbegović, repeat something that I thought was improper cynicism, especially for this setting  — putting Mandela and Mladić in the same context — I thought it is no wonder that we hear such brutal offences as naming For the record, the Minister’s name is not Vuchich, as you keep calling him. His name is Vujić. I just want to correct that the Minister’s name is pronounced Vujić, regardless of the fact that I thought that I heard Vuchich.

I apologize to the Minister for mispronouncing his name. I will ensure I say it correctly if there is another opportunity. I now give the floor to the representative of Rwanda.

First of all, I congratulate you, Madam President, for assuming the presidency of the Council for the month of June. Allow me to start on this note: I am addressing the Council for the first time in my capacity as the Permanent Representative of Rwanda. I am happy that it is happening when the subject of discussion is the work of the ad hoc tribunals, so dear to myself and to my country. I started appearing before the Council in the year 2000. By then I was a rising diplomat, coordinating the cooperation framework between the Government of Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Between the year 2003 and the year 2013, I was the Prosecutor General of Rwanda, still working very closely with the leadership of the Tribunal. I am a witness to the profound progress that the Tribunals have achieved, the Tribunal for Rwanda in particular, and I wanted to commend the success of the leadership of the Tribunal, since its inception to this date, for its commendable accomplishments, both in terms of jurisprudence that should continue to inform not only our judicial systems but also the political positions we take when we address issues of conflict, and in that way the leadership is managing the completion strategy of the Tribunals. I wanted to start on that note and to thank the Judge and Prosecutor Serge. The creation of the ICTR in the year 1994 marked a turning point in international criminal justice, sending a clear message that genocide will not go unpunished and, although delayed, justice can and must be served. Rwanda welcomes the Mechanism’s accomplishments, particularly the successful accounting for every individual indicted by the ICTR. In assessing the continuing legacy of the Mechanism, I wish to highlight several priorities that remain essential to both justice and memory. First, Rwanda renews its call for the relocation of the ICTR archives to Kigali and remains firmly committed to the preservation of its genocide history. Those archives hold profound historical significance and must be readily accessible to the Rwandan people, particularly survivors and their families, as well as to researchers and practitioners involved in ongoing cases related to the genocide against the Tutsi and other international crimes. The overall importance of access to archives in supporting national investigative and prosecutorial processes that are still under way cannot be undermined. Just as the international community once entrusted Rwanda with the protection of witnesses, we now seek the same trust in safeguarding their invaluable testimonies. Rwanda is prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure the proper preservation and security of the archives. Should the United Nations wish to retain custodianship, Rwanda would welcome the construction of a dedicated facility in Kigali for that purpose. Secondly, Rwanda would like to highlight that the pursuit of justice for more than 1,000 individuals indicted by Rwanda, some of whom reside with impunity in the jurisdictions of some members of the Security Council, remains incomplete. While important progress has been made over the past 31 years, the continued impunity of many genocide suspects remains a serious concern. Just weeks ago, Faustin Nsabumukunzi, indicted and wanted for crimes during the genocide, was found That persistent threat underscores the urgent need to establish a comprehensive registry of individuals convicted of international crimes. Such a tool would not only help identify criminal histories and support harmonization with the National Public Prosecution Authority in Rwanda’s criminal records database to prevent future abuses by those released but also serve as a vital mechanism to identify and apprehend fugitives who remain at large when their names appear in the system. As Rwanda advances its post-genocide reconstruction, we cannot accept a reality in which those responsible for unimaginable suffering live freely or engage in narratives aimed at destabilizing our society. We commend the continued cooperation of the Mechanism, through the Office of the Prosecutor, with the National Rwanda Public Prosecution Authority in national prosecutions and the tracking of genocide suspects. The initial steps of that enhanced operational cooperation have already produced tangible results; in a significant development, 65 genocide fugitives have been accounted for and their case files formally closed. The results of that cooperation demonstrate what can be achieved when political will and technical expertise are combined. We urge Member States to meet their obligations: to identify, apprehend and surrender genocide fugitives. The principles of human rights are incompatible with sheltering those who destroyed them. In that regard, Rwanda takes note of the statement on behalf of the Secretary- General concerning the case of Fulgence Kayishema. We share the concerns expressed about his ongoing efforts to delay justice and avoid surrender to the Mechanism. We join Prosecutor Brammertz in calling for his immediate transfer into the Mechanism’s custody and emphasize the importance of ensuring that legal processes are not undermined. The Mechanism has yet to resolve the issue of relocating both acquitted individuals and those who have completed their sentences. It is imperative to find expeditious and durable solutions to that matter, and as a country that prioritizes both accountability and restorative justice, Rwanda stands ready to engage those individuals and to receive and integrate them in its ongoing reconciliation efforts. What remains unacceptable is their indefinite reliance on international resources despite their freedom and liberty. Looking ahead, the time has come for the responsible and dignified conclusion of the Mechanism’s mandate. We urge the Council to ensure full implementation of the ICTR completion strategy with sustained international commitment to justice. The closure of the Mechanism must not be abrupt, but carefully coordinated, guided by the lessons of the past three decades and anchored in the principles that gave rise to international criminal justice. As we move towards the final chapter of the Mechanism, we must do so with the same clarity of purpose, moral resolve and institutional integrity that marked its creation. Justice must not only be done, but it must also be preserved, completed and protected for future generations.

I now give the floor to the representative of Croatia.

I would 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 Mechanism in fulfilling its remaining residual operations. The glorification of convicted war criminals and the denial of crimes, most notably the genocide in Srebrenica, are unacceptable. Such actions not only deepen the suffering of victims and their families but also distort the truth for future generations, thereby hindering reconciliation and serving as a cynical tool for inflaming instability in the region. In that regard, and in view of achieving long-term reconciliation, we continue to firmly support the European Union’s enlargement process in the Western Balkans, which we regard as a cornerstone of regional peace, security and stability. Croatia remains fully committed to regional cooperation in war crimes cases. We emphasize the importance of judicial cooperation that is evidence-based, non-politicized, transparent and constructive. However, it must be stressed that meaningful cooperation needs to be reciprocal. Transparency, as well as adherence to international legal standards and good practices, are essential to ensuring the timely resolution of such cases. Unfortunately, we are compelled to raise again the issue of insufficient cooperation with Serbia in the tracing of missing persons and their mortal remains. The fate of 1,748 missing Croatian citizens remains unresolved. It is a matter of deep national and humanitarian concern and continues to be our long-standing priority. Determining their whereabouts and enabling dignified burials is not only critical for the grieving families but also fundamental to reconciliation, as well as an opportunity to lay a building block for improved future cooperation. Regrettably, it remains a missed opportunity, as the lack of political will in Serbia to share information and enable access to archives still presents the main obstacle to progress in resolving those cases. In addition to its call for improved bilateral cooperation, Croatia therefore urges the Mechanism to prioritize its support for the tracing of missing persons and the resolution of those cases within the remaining duration of its mandate. In conclusion, allow me to reiterate Croatia’s steadfast support for the Mechanism and its important work, and our shared commitment to the successful completion of its residual responsibilities. Allow me to briefly respond to some of the remarks made by the Serbian Minister of Justice about Croatia, although Mr. Vujić has, in the meantime, left the Chamber. Serbia wishes to forget that its aggression against Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo represents the very framework for all the crimes committed in the region in the 1990s. It also wishes to forget that the majority of crimes were committed by forces under its command and control. It should also be noted that in the ICTY’s dealings with the aggression against the Republic of Croatia not a single Croat was ever convicted by the ICTY for any crime committed on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. That fact speaks for itself and is a testament to the way in which the conflict was waged by its parties and primarily their readiness and ability to respect and implement international humanitarian law. Serbia has obviously yet to face its own past and realize the difference between Franjo Tuđman, who defended his country from aggression, and Mr. Milošević and

The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

At the outset, we wish to comment on the statement delivered by the representative of the United Kingdom. First and foremost, he did not describe specifically how the description of Mr. Karadžić’s stay was inaccurate. Secondly, his visit relates to a period before the most recent meeting of the Council on this topic (see S/PV.9805), during which we had information about the horrific conditions that Mr. Karadžić endured, and we requested that the President of the Court carry out a monitoring visit to the United Kingdom to see the detention conditions. Furthermore, we have information that the President of the Court, during her visit to London, had a discussion with the authorities. She did not speak with Mr. Karadžić, only with the prison authorities. She did not visit his cell. Instead, she simply took them at their word. Thirdly, we wish to comment on the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If we understood his statement correctly, he called for the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals not to be guided by the Nelson Mandela principles with respect to the individuals serving their sentences. In that regard, we wish to remind Mr. Lagumdžija that operative paragraph 16 of resolution 2740 (2024) stipulates that the Mechanism must be guided by those principles. Naturally, the principles are mandatory for other States, as well, with regard to those who have been convicted by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia or the Mechanism and are serving their sentences. We call upon Mr. Lagumdžija to respect the resolutions of the Council and the Council itself.