Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar : launch of IIMM's Annual Report
Highlights from the Mechanism's eighth Annual Report The Mechanism advanced its investigations into aerial attacks by the Myanmar military against civilians, identifying some of the military units responsible and their respective command structures. Its investigations into arbitrary arrests and crimes in military-run detention facilities also progressed, including cases linked to the 2025 law criminalizing criticism of the elections. The Mechanism also investigated allegations of reproductive violence affecting detained women and girls. The conflict in Rakhine State intensified significantly, and the Mechanism advanced its investigations into arbitrary detention, torture, forced displacement and restrictions on humanitarian assistance committed against Rohingya, Rakhine and other communities by all perpetrators, including members of the Arakan Army. The Mechanism made significant contributions to the proceedings in The Gambia v. Myanmar before the International Court of Justice by providing extensive evidence and analysis to the parties, which were widely referenced during the public hearings held in January 2026. UN Geneva press briefing summary: Annual Report of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar Nicholas Koumjian, Head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), presented the Mechanism's eighth annual report. The Human Rights Council had established the Mechanism in 2018 to collect evidence of the most serious international crimes committed in Myanmar since 2011, in order to facilitate criminal prosecutions in national or international courts. The IIMM now concentrated on the situation of the Rohingya; on the ongoing conflict in Rakhine State; and on the violence related to the post-coup situation and the conflict between various armed forces opposed to the military junta and the military forces. The Mechanism noted that many airstrikes were targeting schools and hospitals, with children often the victims. The team collected evidence where the airstrikes occurred, including the kind of munitions used, the command structure and how the orders were given. The Mechanism was also very concerned by crimes in detention: tens of thousands had been arrested since the coup, and the IIMM had collected testimonies of individuals about torture and sexual violence in detention. The Mechanism was collecting evidence to share with courts that may have the ability and willingness to exercise jurisdiction over those offenses. The team relied very much on brave individuals who were willing to share their testimonies; it had thus collected information from over 1600 sources. The Mechanism was not a court and not police. It depended upon courts and judicial authorities taking interest in its cases and having the willingness to prosecute them. So far, the Mechanism had shared evidence the International Criminal Court, which has an investigation about the Rohingya in 2017 and earlier, violence against the Rohingya - back in November of 2024, the ICC prosecutor announced a request he was requesting an arrest warrant for Myanmar's military leader Min Aung Hlaing; with the Federal prosecutor's office in Argentina, which had responded to a complaint filed by Rohingya victims living in the UK and in Bangladesh. The Mechanism had also shared evidence and analysis with parties at the International Court of Justice, in a civil case where the Gambia had alleged that, as a signatory to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Myanmar, another signatory, had violated its obligations. The Mechanism continued to look for opportunities to share evidence, including determining whether those who were providing, from outside, the means – such as weapons – for the crimes committed in Myanmar could be in violation of national laws or sanctions. Answering questions from the press, Mr. Koumjian said the investigation in Argentina was looking at whether individuals had contributed to crimes under international law; the International Court of Justice was trying to determine whether the State of Myanmar itself had violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention. These processes were important to keep the matter before the public, reminding potential perpetrators that those who commit such crimes could be held to account. The Mechanism was not looking at establishing States' responsibility for supplying weapons. It was looking at whether individuals, including individuals who may be part of a corporation or business, had provided the means for the crimes. It was possible to hold them responsible under "aiding and abetting" under international criminal law, if it could be shown that they knew they had contributed, or were still contributing, to the crimes. Regarding air strikes, Mr. Koumjian noted that the military was the only force with airplanes in Myanmar. Opposition groups had used drones: the Mechanism was looking into allegations regarding this usage, and the drones' origin. It was investigating another allegation according to which the military had bombed detention facilities where some of its own soldiers and their families were present.
