Women, Peace and Security: Addressing Violence Against Women and Advancing Gender Justice for Women's Full, Equal and Meaningful Political Participation in Peace Operations Settings

Can I start? Good morning. You can hear me? Good morning, good morning, everyone. Excellencies, distinguished panelists, representatives of member states, colleagues, friends, and all those who joined us on UN Web TV and online, greetings. My name is Inday Sajour, and I will moderate today. First, I would like to thank the event organizers. the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Every Woman, and the NGO CSW Working Group on Crime Against Humanity Treaty, and the NGO Working Group on Gender Equality and Peace. I would now like to invite the organizers to give a brief welcome. Cathy Andela, Chief of the Gender Unit of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Political Affairs, please take the floor.

Thank you, Indai Sajor, and thank you all. A very warm thank you to all of you for being there. So let me start formally, Excellencies, Distinguished Panelists, representatives of Member States, colleagues, partners from civil society, and viewers joining from the UN Web TV around the world, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are. On behalf of the Department of Peace Operations, it is my honor to welcome you to this symposium on advancing the Women, Peace, and Security agenda. accountability, justice, and women's full, equal, and meaningful participation in peace and political processes. I extend our sincere appreciation to our partners and co-organizers, as well as our distinguished speakers. and participants whose expertise, leadership, and long-standing commitment have helped shape global efforts to advance peace, gender equality, and human rights. Your presence today reflects the growing recognition that sustainable peace cannot be realized without gender justice. So let me begin with a simple but fundamental truth. There can be no sustainable peace where women live with violence. There can be no lasting justice where women's rights are denied. And there can be no inclusive governance when half the population is excluded from decision making. This truth is particularly urgent today. Let me provide you some figures. Around the world, 676 million women and girls now live in close proximity to armed conflicts, the highest number recorded in decades. At the same time, the United Nations has documented a dramatic rise in conflict-related sexual violence, with reported cases increasing by 87% in just two years. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that women's participation strengthen peace processes, women represent only 5% of the negotiators, and only 14% of the mediators around the world this year in 2026. So these figures tell us a powerful story. Women are disproportionately affected by conflict, yet they remain disproportionately excluded from the decision that shape peace. This is not simply a gender gap, this is a peace gap. 26 years after the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325, we know that women's participation is not an aspiration, it is a necessity. When women participate meaningful, meaningfully in political processes, peacebuilding efforts, and governance institutions, societies are better equipped to build trust, strengthen resilience, and sustain peace. This is not a matter of right. This is a matter also of results. Today's symposium invites us to examine an equally important reality: Violence against women is not only a consequence of conflict, it is also a barrier to participation. Women human rights defenders, peacebuilders, political leaders, and civil society actors continue to face intimidation, harassment, and violence simply for exercising leadership and claiming their place in public life. This is not only a challenge for gender equality, it is a challenge for peace, it is a challenge for security, and it is also a challenge, obviously, for justice. That's why our discussion today is so timely. As the international community continues to advance efforts to strengthen accountability for serious crimes, we have an opportunity today to reaffirm that gender justice is not peripheral to peace and security, it is at the center. Because for peace to endure, justice must be visible. And for justice to be credible, it must be accessible to women. And for participation to be meaningful, women must be safe to lead. So as we begin, let us ensure that women's participation is effective and influential, that accountability is delivered. I'm almost finished. and that gender justice is recognized not as a woman's issue, but as a peace and security imperative. With that, I look forward to our discussion, which provides an important opportunity to strengthen our collective commitment deepen partnerships and identify practical pathways toward a more inclusive and sustainable peace. Thank you.

Thank you, Kathy, for laying down the groundwork of our work today.

Now, I would like to call on Lina Abirafeh, the CEO of Every Woman.

Lina, you may have the floor.

Thank you very much. Excellencies, esteemed colleagues and panelists, friends. You are welcome. It's a privilege to co-open this symposium together with our partners. Thank you for all of you who made the time to come into this conversation that is on the margins of the Security Council's open debate. But these conversations are not marginal. For survivors, these conversations sit at the center. The women and girls we speak for belong at the heart of the council's agenda. I began as CEO of Every Woman now six weeks ago, and I'm delighted that one of the first things that I do is to bring us together on protection, accountability, and justice. I can't imagine anything more important. Every Woman is a coalition that is fueled by more than 4,000 activists and organizations across 165 countries. And together, we are united by one belief. And that is that every woman and girl has the right to live free from violence. It is simple, it is central, and it is non-negotiable. So why are we here? 26 years ago, resolution 1325, it was a landmark. It was fueled by the commitment of member states, the UN, and certainly civil society. And 26 years ago, it named two truths, that armed conflict harms women and girls in distinct ways. and that peace depends on women's leadership. And yes, adopting sound norms, that is the first step. But 26 years later, survivors of conflict-related violence still face impunity, silence, reparation that rarely reaches them. So as we begin, we reflect. Firstly, implementation is insufficient. You've heard some of the figures from Kathy about the increase in conflict-related sexual violence. Cases have more than doubled in 2025, and these figures, we know, capture only part of the reality. You've heard how many women live near armed conflict. And every day, members of our coalition who are in or near conflict tell us what this costs them in terms of their safety, their livelihoods, and their futures. The second thing to consider is accountability. That is the missing link. Survivors still face challenges and support rarely reaches them. One of our coalition members in Nigeria, Lucia Ekmun, puts it plainly: "Women are often left to choose between justice and survival. That choice is the distance between our commitments and women's lives. And closing that distance That's our shared work. We know funding cuts are shrinking services for survivors at precisely the moment that they are needed the most. And third, the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty is very timely. Every woman has contributed to this conversation, to negotiations, to encouraging stronger language, to ensuring that systematic gender-based violence and gender-based persecution are integrated, and this treaty offers a pathway to holding perpetrators accountable. Together, this is about protection and justice. Protection gives women safety today, and justice delivers accountability and prevents tomorrow's harm. The two are deeply connected, and progress only lasts when they move forward together. So what will we explore today? Women in leadership across prevention, peace, justice, women shaping international law, states keeping their promises to women and girls, and the urgent need for funding and protection for women's organizations who are on the front lines of this critical work. Who is in the room? This room holds expertise from governments, the UN, civil society, academia, justice, protection. All of these perspectives are critical, necessary, and urgent. Let us use these hours well. turning what we know into what we do, and turning commitments into measurable change for women and girls. Thank you.

Thank you, Lina.

And I would like now to call on Pamela Morgan, NGO Chair of the Working Group.

On Crime Against Humanity Treaty. Pamela, you may have the floor.

Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues, advocates, and friends. On behalf of my co-chair, Rosa Lozardi, our Executive Committee, and the NGO CSW New York Peace and Gender Equality Working Group, it is my privilege to welcome you to this important forum. We gather at a time when conflicts continue to devastate communities, undermine human dignity, and threaten international peace and security. Yet, even as the urgency for peace intensifies, the promise of justice, particularly for women and girls, remains profoundly unfulfilled. 26 years ago, The adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 marked a historic recognition that women are not merely victims of conflict, but indispensable agents of peace. Their full, equal, and meaningful participation is essential to conflict prevention, peace negotiation, peacekeeping, and post-conflict reconstruction. Yet today, we must confront some uncomfortable questions. What does meaningful participation mean when survivors of conflict-related sexual violence are denied justice? What does peace mean when forced displacement, reproductive violence, and other gender-based atrocities continue with impunity? And what does security mean when women remain excluded from the decisions that determine their futures? And these are not simply rhetorical questions. They expose a fundamental failure to translate international commitments into lived realities. History has repeatedly demonstrated that peace without justice is fragile, participation without accountability is hollow, and security without women's leadership can never be fully realized. We must therefore move beyond recognizing justice as the unfinished pillar of the Women, Peace and Security agenda and insist on full implementation. Justice must be an a measurable commitment, one that holds perpetrators accountable, ensures dignity and meaningful reparations for survivors, and establishes safeguards against the reoccurrence of these violations. Justice cannot remain an aspiration. It must become an obligation, translated into action and sustained by political will. The process towards the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity presents a historic opportunity to strengthen that obligation. We must ensure that gender-based crimes are explicitly recognized, that survivors' experiences inform international legal standards, and that women participate meaningfully in shaping the convention itself. This commitment is central to the mission of the NGO Committee on the Status of Women New York, and through our newly established working group on the crimes against humanity treating, where we seek to mobilize and amplify women's voices globally, ensuring that civil society can contribute substantively to the development of this landmark convention. As a bridge between the UN and grassroots women's organizations worldwide, NGO CSW New York recognizes that international commitments have meaning only when they transform the lives of women and girls. Our responsibility, therefore, extends beyond advocacy. We must challenge institutional failures, demand accountability, and ensure that women's knowledge, leadership, and lived experience shape the policies and institutions intended to serve them. As we begin today's symposium, I urge us to move beyond reaffirming principles and instead move towards identifying concrete commitments. Let us ask not only what justice requires, but who will deliver it, how will it be measured, and how survivors and women's organizations will help define its success. Let this symposium strengthen our collective resolve to place justice at the very heart of peace and security, because women's participation must never be symbolic, accountability must never be optional, and justice must never be postponed. Thank you all for your commitment, your solidarity, and your presence today. And again, welcome.

Thank you so much, Pamela.

And as we say, I would now like to provide a short background on the importance of today's symposium. As my colleagues just said, connecting women, peace, and security with the emerging crimes against humanity treaty.

Is the way forward.

Let us start with a critical question: Where are the women? when the international community makes the laws that determine how the gravest atrocities will be prevented and punished. Women's participation matters not simply because women should be represented, but because on-the-ground experience can change how international law understands atrocity. Women's meaningful participation must extend to the institutions that write, interpret, implement, and monitor international legal norms. Women know that violence hardly begins with a spectacular atrocity that eventually attracts international attention. It can begin with discrimination, dispossession, militarization, attacks against civil society, forced displacement, sexual violence, political repression, and the gradual destruction of community and institution. This experiential knowledge is especially important for international criminal lawmaking. The crimes against humanity treaty process should therefore be understood as a women, peace, security issue. So the principle we want to address today is simple but consequential. Women called upon to sustain peace must also have an equal voice in shaping the laws that prevent atrocities and deliver justice. Having said that, we have an exciting two panels today. The first panel will share their WPS work from Lebanon, Myanmar, and Nigeria. Then we will show a short video of a successful process of justice addressing sexual violence in Congo. The second panel will be led by the international law experts currently working on the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty. Our process will be a question and answer session. I would like now to begin with panel one. who, by the way, they all traveled from their home countries. I will start with Shirine. Shirine Jordy from Lebanon, who leads the Women, Peace, and Security Working Group at the Arab Feminist Networks. She is also a co-founder of the Women and Gender Constituency MENA Regional Caucus. And she recently initiated a women-led peace infrastructure to redefine human security and civil protection. Now, Shirin, my first question: Women in conflict zones are tired of short-term projects that end abruptly. What structural changes within the United Nations will give feminist movements long-term support and real power? over security resources? More importantly, how do we move past praising women's resilience to actually securing their rights and access to justice?

Thank you. Thank you so much, and I thank you everybody in the room. Thank you for the invitation, exactly, coming all the way from Lebanon, because I think our voices need to be heard, and thank you so much for this question. Women in conflict zones are tired of these short-term projects that end abruptly. The fundamental question before us today is how the UN can give local feminist movements long-term support and real power over security resources, moving beyond praising women's resilience to actually securing our rights and access to justice. At our regional meeting in October 20th, with the IRAF Feminist Network, we discussed these exact concerns. Today, I bring that regional message into this room, including for the women who were excluded to these events by funding barriers, by visa restrictions, and unequal access to decision making tables. Women are only, not only resilient. And this is something that we have learned in our region. But these women are also to be recognized as experts, active, and participants, including peace builders. Calling women resilient while overlooking our expertise risks making our endurance a substitute for institutional action. Amid our monumental work, we are reduced to a project, unfortunately, measured by attendance sheets and narrative reports. We must ask, which is actually impactful? Keeping families alive under bombardment in Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and the list goes on and on, or listening to the toolkit you made-up in the capital, which most of the time has no relation to us? What needs to change? This is the question. First, donors must transform how they fund women's peacebuilding. Commit to flexible, multi-year core grants for at least three to five years that cover staff and operational costs. Remove layers of intermediaries so funding reaches local women-led organizations directly, and ensure women-led organizations and movements have a meaningful role in shaping funding mechanisms before priorities are set and goals are designed. Second, stop separating decision makings from the people. who know what is happening. I mean, we are the owners, we are the people who know what is happening on the ground. We don't want the UN or other agencies, the donors, to come to our area with a set of priorities that has no relation to the ground that is happening. And especially when we're talking about conflict area, we're not talking about a static status quo. Our region is moving daily, and as such, our priorities are also changing by the day. So we need to establish standing regional platforms co-led by women-led organizations and UN leadership. Give women a role in setting agendas and deciding security priorities. Third, make commitments enforceable and ground them in international justice. Track whether women actually influence ceasefire arrangements and negotiations, not merely whether they filled a seat in the room. As our concept note in our session highlights, justice is understandable and is To realize pillar within the Women, Peace and Security agenda, we must link grassroots documentation of violence directly to the international criminal law, especially the emerging crimes against humanity treaty in which we are looking forward to participating. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Shireen, for that very good intervention.

I will now like to go to Noa Sorser. She is a leader for the Women's League of Burma. She leads documentation and campaigns proving that the Myanmar military junta uses rape and gender-based violence as a systematic weapon of war. This includes releasing strategic briefing papers like Speaking Truth to Power: Ending Military Impunity, released in June 2025, and the launching the documentary Field of Sorrows just recently in July 2026.

Now, I have a question now, Sher.

Given Myanmar's challenging political context, what impact has the WPS had on women in Myanmar over the years? What specific challenges do young peacebuilders like you and what innovative approaches have been effective in overcoming these obstacles?

You may have the floor.

Firstly, thank you, everyone. Good morning, Eswan. So, thank you for the very important question. So, Burma still have a long way to go in advance of their women, peace, and security agenda. Since the coup, the situation for women has become even more and more difficult, as well as also women continue to face serious threats, especially physical, emotional, economic, and political security. This is particularly serious for the ethnic women and girls who are living in the conflict-affected and also rural areas, as well also where the conflict-related sexual violence remains very, very serious concerns for the women and girls who are living across the country in Burma. But at the same time, it's very important to recognize that women are not only victims in conflict. Women are also leaders, peace builders, human rights defenders, humanitarian workers, and also community organizers. As my sense of also, I have been a delegate and represent as a peace builder in the peace process in the past. but my voice and my decision are not included in the decision making, even I'm participating. So women also, they have tried to advocate, even women participation, all those things are not here yet. Since the coup, we have a seat over 65% of women are taking very active roles in protests, humanitarian response, emerging federal institutions, and also community-based organization. For me, this demonstrates the strength, the resilience, and also leadership for women, particularly the younger generation. However, young women peacebuilders continue to face many challenges, such as patriarchal attitudes and also traditional social norms continue to limit those women's participation and also leadership. Women also face difficult increases just because of discrimination and also because all of the system broke in our country at the moment. And also, there's so many barriers, such as corruption and also weak justice. Some other place, there are no justice to report their case. Even the conflict-related sexual violence, gender-based violence happens, there's nowhere to report. And they even have any justice. So all the impunity ongoing in our country right now. So for the young women who are working in conflict area, the challenges are even greater. They are faced displacement, they have to relocate when they face the threat, and also they even have to feel insecurity. And also there's a lot of the security concerns of GBV violence happened. And also we have also barriers or challenges that support them when they face the security threat within their family as well. So, what we need to change? So, one of the most important lessons we have learned in the past, women must not simply be invited to participate. Their participation must be meaningful participation. And also, women need to include in every level of the decision making level, even start from the community discussions to the political decision making and also peace negotiation. We may need to invest more young women's leaders. This means providing leadership opportunity and a safe space, mentoring, flexible funding, and a strong network. For example, as my organization, as Women's League of Burma, we have 30 ethnic women's organizations, and also we have constitution to practice the rotating leadership model. And also, this is one of the example, that create the young women's opportunity to be in the leadership role. We should also connect to young peacebuilder from different ethnicity, religions, and also social background, so they can learn from each other, and also they can support from one to another. For me, WPS is not only simply about increases the number of the women at the table. It's about to change the structure, system, and also prevent women from participating equally. So if we want to build a peaceful, inclusive, and also federal democratic future for Burma or everyone, we women and young people must shape that future from the beginning. So their voice should not be at later. They must be part of the foundation. So this is one of our effort to demonstrate and continue demonstrating on that. And also, we also want the international to support some part of our efforts, as well as also the women peace and security agenda in the country of the conflict. So the first things, what I want women's organization needs more flexible funding, accessible, and a long-term funding, because all of these supports are support women's efforts and also long-term position in the leadership, and also support their meaningful participation as well. And then the second, To be meaningful participation as an international and a regional organization, it should create more opportunity for the women's peacebuilder to participate directly in the regional and international policy in the discussion. And that the full protection and well-being are now needed in our country very, very much. And then the fifth, support local-led women peace and security. In our country, we have common within some democratic resistance on the WPS framework, but there's no action, no implementation. So these are also international community, international organization can support of this framework to be more elaborate for implementation as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

And I would just like to take note of what you said, that you actually have 30 ethnic groups that you have put together. I think this is very important for Myanmar, especially, that the women are leading and putting together the different ethnic groups into a peace initiative. And I think I really love the fact that you are asserting on this area. So thank you for that share. Now, I would like to call on Myanmar. Yes.

Elinor is a gender peace building and safeguarding expert with extensive experience advancing gender equality and conflict prevention in Nigeria and across West Africa. From 2013 to 2020, she supported the Nigerian government in developing and launching its first.

And second national action plan on WPS and facilitated federal state.

State-level networks and action plans. So, Eleanor, based on your experience working on WPS in Nigeria, what are the specific challenges to gender justice arising from the diverse ways atrocities affect women and girls?

Thank you so very much. It's a delight to be here. and to meet new friends and old friends in the women, peace, and security space. Thank you for asking about atrocities specific to Nigeria. That's important because the atrocities are different in different geographies. Not only do we have terrorism, we have mass abductions, like we had as far back as 2014 with the Chibok girls. We have mass kidnappings, which happened until recently. We have farmer and herder clashes. We have ritual killings. and organ harvesting, to mention just a few. I would like to use a specific example of women, and in particular, a subset of women, widows. And looking at widows, looking at a subset, child widows. In the northeast of Nigeria, where you would have heard of the Boko Haram conflict, one of the practices is child marriage. So a child who has her husband killed killed is a child widow, if she is abducted and kidnapped by Boko Haram fighters and forcefully married, and if her Boko Haram husband is killed in the process of her being rescued, she is widowed yet again as a child. And the examples that I have seen are rescued child widows who, when they come back to their communities, are called bad blood. They are stigmatised, they are silenced, and they are shamed. What I call the three S's: stigma, silence, and shame. And some of these child widows would have gotten pregnant, and you have children. bearing, rearing, and caring for children. So let us look at something a lot of us consume sometimes daily, a fruit. In the middle, the core, then you have the pulp, and you have the skin. I would like to use that analogy to say, first of all, the human, the woman or the girl in the example I'm giving, is at the center and at the core. She must be protected. But before protection, there should be prevention. By the time some of us in the peace and security ecosystem are talking of early warning, it's too late. By the time there are early warning signs, it's too late. So we need to prevent. Friends, the greatest precursor and preventer of a precursor and predictor of conflict in a society is lack of peace and conflict in the home. So there are studies out there to verify that the greatest predictor and precursor of conflict in the wider society is violence in the home. So when women and girls suffer this violence, and they are at the core, let's quickly go to the pulp. That's now the surrounding family, community, society, faith leaders, traditional leaders, usually in a rural area, the first that they would approach. So If the community is the same community that will stigmatize, or a mother, if a child comes to her to say, "I was sexually violated in the conflict," and she says, "Shh, keep quiet. Don't talk about it. We need to find you a husband." That, my friends, is where the silence begins, the shame begins. the stigma begins. So where can these girls go to? So we need now on the outer layer, systems and institutions that are accountable, that will be there with their obligations, as previous speakers, Kathy and Della said, as Lina has said, As Pamela has said, we need institutions that are accountable, and there must be mutual accountability. For too long, we have humanitarian and development communities coming into the the rural areas demanding accountability of those on the ground, and they are not accountable themselves. We have conflict entrepreneurs who will move in quickly when there's a conflict in the name of rebuilding. They have to be accountable. Governments themselves have to be accountable to their people by way of prevention, protection, ensuring that the legal systems are accessible for those who undergo violence. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Eleanor. That was really very powerful. And also for really stating that the violence within the home is already projected to be a violence within the community and also within the national level, as I would say, because it is a continuum of violence that happens. And also the whole issue of accountability is, I think, a continuing challenge for all of us. So thank you. Now, I would like to go to the second question. And I will go to you now, Shirin.

Shirin, the United Nations Interim Force.

In Lebanon, UNIFIL, has a mandate that ends on December 31, 2026, in the next two months.

As UNIFIL's presence in southern Lebanon ends, How are women peacebuilders preparing to prevent the ongoing security vacuum this withdrawal could create? How can programs like the Women-Led Peacebuilding Initiative help monitor ceasefire and push ground evidence to decision-makers and negotiating tables?

You may have the floor.

Thank you so much, and I, actually, the urgency could not be clearer. UNIFIL's mandate ends on December 31, 2026, just around the corner. UNIFIL has built deep community trust and a strong record of civilian protection over nearly five decades. I think this is one of the oldest mandates of UNIFIL, and it's the oldest also trust in Lebanon that has been created among people and individuals at the grassroots in Lebanon, in the south of Lebanon, despite the great, I would say, deprivation that the people in the south of Lebanon had been living for a long time and enduring. European states lately, including France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany, along with the Lebanese parliamentarians, are deeply worried about the political vacuum about this withdrawal that we will be living. The international community must take Lebanon's call on the aggravating security situation seriously. We recently established the women-led peace infrastructure will be. We did not wait for the space, and we were not invited even to a seat. We created the opportunity because we knew if we don't do it, nobody is going to do it for us. So this is a women-led security architecture designed to connect Track 2 community networks directly with Track 1.5 dialogues. and track one negotiation tables. We cannot wait for papers, ceasefires to become real before taking action. Security is the primary condition for families to return back home despite the occupation in Lebanon. While the international powers worry about political vacuum, we on the ground worry about the human vacuum. Who will document violations along the so-called yellow line, which is the new occupation line? Who will document the homes and villages being destroyed despite paper ceasefires? Who will report on our stolen olive trees, the disappeared people, and families who are prevented from returning home? What will happen to the villages that stayed on the ground through the worst bombardment? So these are all questions that we are trying to solve from a human security perspective. We are supported by regional networks, international partners, so that we can bring real-time civilian evidence straight to decision makers through two components. First, the local women peace and security circles, which is detecting the early risks. We're not waiting for prevention, exactly as Eleanor rightly mentioned. So we are detecting early risks and threats to daily survival. And second, the women-led civilian ceasefire observatory, which is verifying violations on the ground and translating civilian data into direct security briefs for the negotiators. To make a long story short, we need three concrete commitments. And this is on top, the accountability. So what we need, we need to designate official focal points and establish secure channels. for Lebanese institutions and the UN partners to receive and act on WILPI civilian evidence. Second, we need to recognize the pilot in southern Lebanon and establish this civilian monitoring layer on the ground now so evident informs the ceasefire negotiations and implementation. And third, we need WILPI as a multi-layer peace infrastructure move. move even beyond the six-month grants to permanent securing funding. We are working now on a pro bono, and we had a small fund from Wulf to be able to move forward. So we're not waiting for the opportunity, but what we need, we need sustainability. And sustainability to have is to believe in us and to support us in action, not only in words. Thank you, Endai.

Thank you so much, Shireen. And really, it's just amazing how women like you and all your, you know, friends and colleagues and the movement that you're setting up in Lebanon.

To be able to strategically set.

Up a monitoring team in the light that the UNIFIL will be leaving and the insecurity that goes with it, which is, of course, an ongoing insecurity. Before I go to now share, I would just like to ask Rana. Rana is the gender advisor of UNIFIL.

Rana, can you on to the situation in Lebanon in terms of the security situation that is being faced, and what are the.

Initiatives that you are supporting that is women-led currently in Lebanon.

First, thank you so much for this opportunity to join for the second time Catherine and her team in New York, and the UN headquarters also teams. We've been working in UNIFIL for the past 18 years on, intensively, on the Women, Peace and Security agenda in South Lebanon. And Shirin is one of the very prominent ladies that we have in our circle of consultation with women groups. I want to add one thing to what Shireen said in terms of vacuum created. It is not only as land and security vacuum that will be present. UNIFIL now, in terms of conflict, not only UNIFIL, but also I'm advocating for all peacekeeping missions, because apparently all peacekeeping is facing difficulties now. It's not only UNIFIL. The peacekeepers are the only entity that is present where no one is present during conflict. We've been talking a lot during the highs and nice to see you at the beginning of this session about UNIFIL's presence and the conflict in Lebanon. And what I heard also as Lebanese, I'm also a Lebanese woman. I'm not only a gender officer, so my house is in South Lebanon. I might be subject to any atrocity that can happen to Lebanese women of Southern Lebanon. So I have a dual knowledge of what is peacekeeping and what is to be a woman in conflict. The UNIFIL is a witness to what is happening, to the atrocities. But again, I always stress one point in every meeting: Peacekeepers are present when no government is present. The national government in Lebanon is completely absent from South Lebanon. The UN presence, because of the conflict, is very rare and little, and it is not enough. Women, like what you heard from Shireen, have come up with networks. We have gender working groups that we have established as peacekeepers because we were there alone for more than 18 years. We've been working with women and trust needs time. To be able to connect with the women, as you said, shaming, blaming, stigma. Now they know us. They are part of the social fabrics of South Lebanon. We've been there for a very long time that the women come to us to talk. The second thing which I want to highlight is the, yes, we're talking about justice and reporting, but sometimes, and Lina, you can also talk about it more than me as an academic previously, to whom? Do we trust the institutional mechanisms? I'm a girl in Lebanon. If something happens with me, I don't think I will go and report to the existing judicial systems because of the lack of Expertise, maybe I don't trust because it is politicized, the judicial system. So also peacekeepers are there when you want to document what the people do not want to go and officially document. The third thing that I want to highlight really, and I take this opportunity to be present here, it's working with the present structures is not enough. Talking about it is not exactly, is not like living it. The mandates of the missions are very important, and here I come again to thank the Gender Unit, which I feel I'm part of it here with Catherine and her team. The mandates of the missions are a very big barrier when it comes to how much they can do. Until 2018, the Gender Unit in UNIFIL, after 50 years of UNIFIL presence in South Lebanon did not have any mention of the word gender even in its mandate. So we did it because we have now a force commander who is very pro-gender. But sometimes what we are asked, where is it in our mandate that we should be reporting this or working on it? Because we have a lot to do, and if it is not mentioned in the mandates that we are supporting justice and we are supporting women's reporting or women's mechanisms, peacekeepers cannot do it. Unfortunately, you need it in the mandate explicitly to be mentioned, and the peacekeepers need to be trained on how to deal with these cases. It's not easy. The safety, confidentiality, reporting systems is part, is a huge effort on the UN if they want peacekeepers to deal with it. I hope I answered your question. So, thank you.

Thank you so much, Nar. I think you're really true. The mandate really defines the kind of work that you can do or peacekeepers can do on the ground. So, yes, you have to go into the fringes of your mandate to be able to be effective. Thank you for that. And now, I would like to go to Naushar. Yes.

Noor Share, as a peacebuilder.

In Myanmar, how do you express solidarity with the Rohingya as part of your peacebuilding effort?

As a young peacebuilder, what practical support do you need for your solidarity, especially now that the Rohingya issue is before the International Court of Justice?

Thank you, Auser. Okay, it's already open. Thank you so much for another opportunity. So for me to experience the solidarity with the Rohingya is a session part of the peace building in Burma. We cannot talk about peace, democracy, human rights, or inclusive federal future while ignoring the suffering of the Rohingya community, particularly the Rohingya women. I believe that solidarity must begin with the listening and recognition. We need to listen them directly, and also we need to create the opportunity for them to speak for themselves. We should not speak on behalf of them when they can bring their own experience and a priority, and also solution to the discussion. Their voice need to be here directly. So we also need to recognize their challenges, and also what they face is the range of issues not only individual problems that we have to understand and accept it. They are connected to deeper structural problems. So including discrimination, patriarchal, exclusive, and also attitude to our ethnics and other religious minority as well. So changing individual attitude alone is not enough. We also need to change discriminatory system and also institution as well. As a peace builder, we also need to learn from our past. We need to challenge predictions and also discrimination and also narrative that divided our community. This is require courage and accountability. It also means building stronger relationship among Rohingya women, ethnic women, and also women's organizations, including YAN Peacebuilder and other civil society actors. In practical terms, Rohingya women need stronger support to participate meaningfully in WPS process. They are also needed safe space, resources, leadership opportunity. advocacy platform, and also access to international and regional networks as well. Their voice should be also included in discussion about transitional justice, and also the accountability, reparations, and peacebuilding, and also the future of the political system of Burma as well. So we need a policy that protects the rights and dignity of their people. regardless of ethnicity, religion, and also gender, and also other backgrounds as well. So justice and accountability are also essential, because sustainable peace cannot be built while serious violations remain unaddressed. So we may have, you may also have heard a lot of situation in the Rohingya right now, that the situation come out without consultation with them. for example, repatriation issue, as well as also various serious attack without assessing humanitarian assistance and also other protections as well. So this is, we need to have a strong part Especially in the current situation that Justin accountability take over at the ICJ, so we need to have strong action on that. And that, if that action effectively take it, so it also benefit for other ethnic in Burma as well. So our common perpetrator are the same from the military dictatorship. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, sir. And I'm really glad to know that, you know, the group, your organization, different ethnic groups inside Burma are linking with the Rohingya women, because, yes, you are all one country. And this process, as you very well said, you have been divided purposely as a people. So I think it, again, I would say it's the women who are leading this kind of unity within their own country, especially in Burma. So thank you for that share. Now, I will go to Eleanor.

Eleanor, women in Nigeria bear the heaviest burden of nationwide conflict while being denied access to justice.

Why is Nigeria's justice system not responsive to all forms of gender-based violence, especially those targeting women and girls? You may have the floor.

Thank you so much, Indai. I would not call it that they are not responsive or unresponsive, but it is simply not enough on account of overwhelming challenges. For those of us who depend solely and mostly on legal systems, Nigeria is unique in the sense that we have three legal systems operating in tandem. We have statutory law, we have customary law, and we have Sharia law, all operating in tandem. And therefore, if you need to report a case, one would tend to go first to the system under which your family or community depends on. I gave the example in my first submission concerning child widows, but when the customary and Sharia law is different to statutory law, which says marriage, the age of marriage, should be after 18, or that the definition of a child is below 18, and you have a separate law that then gives an age that says the age of maturity and when marriage is allowed is at the age of puberty. As a medical doctor, I can tell you for free that there is something called precocious puberty, where a girl might experience puberty as low as the age of nine. So when you decide to use puberty as the age of marriage, and you have these three laws operating in tandem, therein lies the challenge. So we need to look at an opportunity for harmonization. We also have issues around the fact that there's a very high cost to accessing legal redress, whether it's the administrative fee, whether it's paying the lawyers, and when With the vast terrain and difficult geographies that obtain in Nigeria, even getting to the court, access to the court, is a barrier. A situation where a woman or a girl has to seek permission first from her husband before she can access legal redress It's the same. It has caused issues around even maternal mortality, where a pregnant woman has to get permission sometimes from her husband to seek medical help. Not to talk of you have a conflict situation, you have You know, the dangers of being kidnapped or abducted. So that, again, is another challenge. We have issues around lack of legal awareness, legal literacy. A lot of us here at our fingertips, even if we don't, if we're not legally literate, we can access our smartphones and ask ChatGPT. woman or girl in the rural area where there is little or no internet connectivity cannot do that. We have issues around delays in the court system. Those who have spoken before me have spoken about lived experience. Well, I can give you a lived experience. We had a family case It has taken us 35 years in the court. There's the Court of First Instance, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. And sometimes cases are adjourned for one year or more. And you can think that for us as an educated family, we have been through a 35-year court process. That is What they say that justice denied, delayed is justice denied. So you can imagine those who have gone through violence in the context of violent conflict with the delays in the system. And then you also have fear of retaliation, fear of the stigma, like I mentioned earlier. And then, weak enforcement of court decisions. A court might rightfully say that there should be reparations or compensation. However, we need the system in place to be able to adhere to those. So I would like to conclude by saying the call for action should be for every single one of us, individually and collectively, to be aware that we are not dealing with a one-size-fit-all. The fact that women and girls who suffer any form of violence, survivors as well as victims, should be the ones to speak for themselves. They can tell you best, how best to intervene on their behalf. We should call for governments to be accountable. Lastly, knowledge is power. Knowledge is power. For those of us who are human rights defenders, yes, we do face dangers, but let's break down any highfaluting legal language or life-saving language so that those at the grassroots can have information at their fingertips in order to be able to survive and thrive. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Eleanor. I think you really broke down the three kinds of law system that you have in Nigeria, but also in other countries. You know, it's not a, you know, you have the customary law, you have the Sharia law, and then the statutory law. So, yes, these are the things that our colleagues later on working on crime against humanity will further expound. So, let's now watch a video that was made by Department of Peacekeeping Operation on the justice system that happened in Congo of 398 women who were raped by the rebel groups led by Shaka. So we can now start.

L'est de notre pays, principalement la province du Nord-Kivu, est marquée malheureusement par une grande insécurité. Cette insécurité est occasionnée par la prolifération des groupes armés rebelles qui pillent les coins de toutes ces provinces-là. Principalement dans le territoire de Walikale, où il y a une grande forêt équatoriale et qui est sous-peuplée. En 2009, il s'est créé un groupe armé dénommé NDC, Douma Defense of Congo, dont le commandant, le fondateur était Monsieur Ntabo Ntaberi Tshika, dit Tshika. Ce monsieur, c'était un opérateur économique qui travaillait dans les mines et qui finalement s'est converti en seigneur de guerre. Il a créé un groupe qui était très structuré, vraiment organisé, était pratiquement à l'est le groupe le plus organisé. Il y avait des unités, des brigades, des bataillons, des compagnies. Or, ce groupe s'illustrait par les viols. Partout où ce groupe passait, dans le village, il commettait des viols. C'est donc comme ça que ce groupe-là, soi-disant pour aller se ravitailler, vivre, ils vont entrer dans ces villages, ils vont s'arranger pour éloigner les hommes et laisser les femmes abandonnées à elles-mêmes. Ils vont entrer dans ces villages où ils vont commencer à piller systématiquement et violer. On dit qu'il y a à peu près 300 femmes de tous les âges, jeunes filles, vieilles mamans, qui ont été violées pendant quatre jours successivement. Alors c'est à partir de ce moment-là que le groupe de Tshika a été connu dans ces exactions, les viols massifs de la population de Mufungu.

Tshika, c'était pas n'importe qui, je le dis. Tshika a commis des crimes à large échelle qu'on n'ait jamais connus, je crois, en République démocratique du Congo. 387 victimes de viol. Les victimes sont femmes, les victimes sont des enfants. Il faut relire les procès-verbaux pour comprendre ce qu'a été Tika. Dans certains procès-verbaux, on a démontré comment ces éléments égorgés et les personnes et mettre la tête de ces gens sur des piquets et marcher dans toutes les rues des villages pour dire: "Voilà ce qui vous attend si vous n'arrivez pas à dénoncer ce qu'ils appelaient ennemi." C'était le moment pour dire la vérité. Et il faut affronter les conséquences de la vérité.

C'est ainsi qu'à partir de de ce qui était commis à Gwungi, ça fait tellement fait de bruit que les autorités congolaises de la justice sont décidées de poursuivre. C'est ainsi qu'en 2010 déjà, un dossier a été ouvert contre Tshika. Acculé de toutes parts, il est affaibli, il n'avait plus de choix que de se rendre. Alors qu'il va se rendre à la Monusco. La Monusco va le livrer à à la justice congolaise et des poursuites ont commencé.

Ça faisait plusieurs années depuis que les victimes attendaient que justice soit faite. Et c'était ça la question. Comment atteindre les victimes? Est-ce que les victimes veulent encore aller en justice? Pour la plupart, elles avaient peur d'affronter Tchika. Certaines d'entre les victimes étaient prêtes, mais d'autres avaient peur.

Les victimes, ce n'était pas évident parce qu'elles demeuraient dans des zones de conflit où ces groupes étaient en activité. Donc, c'était difficile pour les acteurs judiciaires congolais d'accéder dans les zones où se sont commis ces crimes pour enquêter, pour aller documenter les faits. Et puis, enfin, elles connaissent les représailles de la part de leurs bourreaux. Et puis, pour les cas de viol, la stigmatisation de la société, la présence culturelle et sociale. Une femme africaine qui est violée, c'est jeune de se présenter devant une autorité judiciaire pour dire tout haut que moi, j'ai été violé, j'ai été atteint dans mon intimité. C'est difficile, il y en a qui se taisent par peur d'être rejetés dans la société par son mari. C'était des difficultés.

Pendant les audiences, Chika est entrée en contact avec certaines victimes pour les intimider. Et ça jouait en défaveur de la comparution de plusieurs autres victimes plus ****. Cela a constitué un frein, mais heureusement, le Bureau conjoint des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme, la Avocats sans frontières, Trial, ont ensemble travaillé et se demandaient quelles sont les méthodologies à mettre en place pour qu'on puisse veiller à la protection de la victime.

C'est grâce à la collaboration avec la Monusco que nous avons pu contourner toutes ces difficultés. La Monusco nous a appuyé matériellement, financièrement, dans la recherche, le déplacement, la descente sur le terrain. Et quand il fallait que les acteurs congolais descendent sur le terrain pour enquêter, pour entendre les victimes, ils étaient encadrés sur le plan de la sécurité par les contingents de la Monusco.

Et donc, pour la plupart, on a pu entrer en contact avec les victimes. Elles sont venues comparaître, mais on a eu la chance d'avoir une cour qui était assez ingénieuse pour identifier des mesures de protection à mettre en place à la requête du collectif des parties civiles.

La prise en charge, oui, elle était très nécessaire, puisque les victimes très éloignées de la ville de Goma avaient besoin d'un appui pour avoir des moyens pour se déplacer. Mais aussi, à Goma, les victimes doivent survivre. Et donc, l'appui que nous avons donné, c'était vraiment pour leur déplacement, c'était pour leur survie à Goma et leur retour, pour que leur engagement ne soit pas vain. Le témoignage a joué une place très importante. Pourquoi? Parce que figurez-vous que ces crimes ont été jugés dix ans après qu'ils aient été commis. Les témoignages étaient l'ultime recours du procureur pour prouver que les crimes ont été commis. Il y a eu des témoignages difficiles à écouter, difficiles à lire, qui ont décrit une activité criminelle que je ne saurais décrire comme l'ont fait les victimes, toutes les violences sexuelles qui ont été commises à l'égard des femmes.

Toutes les fois que j'en parle, ça me fait vraiment dévasté. C'est une réalité vécue par une communauté qui n'a pas de protection. Il faut qu'il y ait quelqu'un pour parler.

La Monusco, les partenaires, ont organisé des ateliers et des séminaires pour former les acteurs judiciaires en cette matière de crimes internationaux. Cela nous a permis d'accéder, d'avoir des connaissances suffisantes pour bien faire ce dossier.

Après sa reddition à l'audience, Tika pleure. Les larmes d'un prévenu sont des réponses. Et je crois que Tika s'était rendu compte qu'il était seul dans tout ça. Il devait assumer ses actes.

Le procès a duré deux ans. Tchéka a été reconnu coupable de crimes de guerre, par folle, par meurtre, par viols. Et il a été condamné à la perpétuité. Et en ayant arrêté, jugé et condamné Tchéka, la justice congolaise a démontré que c'était possible. que la justice congolaise pouvait le faire avec une volonté, une détermination et des moyens. Elle était capable de le faire et elle l'a fait.

C'était un grand message, la condamnation de Tshika. Un message d'assurance pour les victimes qui se sont dit: "Bon, on n'a pas pris notre courage d'aller comparaître de manière vaine. Voici que Tcheka, pour une fois, il est condamné. C'était un message fort.

Ce n'était pas évident que nous puissions comme ça appliquer cette matière sur le terrain et arriver avec succès à ce résultat. C'est une fierté pour moi-même et pour mon pays, pour la justice congolaise. On ne peut pas parler de la démocratie sans un État de droit. L'État de droit est un gage de la démocratie. Et l'État de droit, c'est la lutte contre l'impunité. Par le fait que Tchéka ait été jugé et condamné, c'est une preuve que l'État de droit existe, parce qu'on ne peut pas rester impuni alors qu'on a commis des crimes les plus graves, les plus abominables.

Thank you. Well, that was really very compelling, I would say. I would now like to ask Robert Pulver. Robert, hi. He's the Chief of the Justice and Correction Service of the Department of Peacekeeping Operation and Peacebuilding Support Office.

He oversaw the United Nations efforts to.

To strengthen the rule of law and help bring peace to post-conflict nations.

Robert, the Sheka case in Congo was a remarkable achievement of justice, with.

387 women and children raped in 13 villages. MONUSCO played a major role in this process of justice, which was heard in the local court for war crimes, robbery, and mass rape. Can you share with us the impact of this case, particularly on women? Were reparations given to them and their families? Thank you.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the Government of Norway for supporting the development of that film. And I do have a little bit of a tear in my eye, as everyone else does, I think. It is an example of a remarkable achievement from the Congolese actors, the survivors, the prosecutors, judicial actors, civil society that made this happen. But as we all know, this is just one case, and there are many other cases that should be prosecuted, actors that should be convicted, that aren't. But really, the positive message is what the Congolese people were able to do in this case. And this was driven by their commitment from military prosecutors and judges, victims' lawyers, the survivors, local community. There was also local organizations that supported this, including the Dynamique des Femmes Juristes. and Heal Africa and the International Medical Corps. And yes, there was international support as well. And when Rana was saying where the peacekeepers go, often there's no one else present. There's no one to see, there's no one to support. The government might not be there. And so MONUSCO was a big part of this in support, also from the military to the police, the rule of law component, human rights component, working together. Of course, UNDP was a big partner in this, and the UN team of experts on rule of law and sexual violence in conflict, along with Trial International, as we saw in the film, and the Avocats Sans Frontières as well. My fear is that as we trim back on resources, trim back on peacekeeping, trim back on peace operation mandates, thinking that we're saving money, we're actually making worse the incubator for conflict, for inequality, for gender violence. And in the end, that ends up costing the world much, much more. The explosion in conflict that we're facing now is extremely costly if you look at the cost of humanitarian suffering, both human and financial. You look at the bloating defense budgets as well. So, we think we're saving money. We think to trim back on what the UN should do. It's penny wise and pound foolish. So, I wanted to go to your questions, Madam Chair. The impact on communities, on deterrence, Sheika's arrest and imprisonment removed a notorious armed group leader from the conflict and did send a powerful signal that perpetrators could be brought to justice. Earlier on in the Eastern DRC, there was no chance of accountability for anybody. very few processes going forward at all. But despite this emblematic case, the broader networks of armed violence and exploitation, of course, have persisted. In terms of the impact on women and survivors, the judgment did provide important recognition of the crimes and suffering in the affected communities. However, very few of the women were able to come forward. There were enough to reach this conviction, but many weren't able to come forward because of insecurity, intimidation, inadequate protection, and other barriers. So many of the women affected by Sheika and his armed group, for them, justice remains incomplete. In terms of your question about reparations, although awarded by the court, to our knowledge, no reparations have actually been paid. So it illustrates the persistent gap between criminal accountability and effectiveness and effective remedies for survivors, including rehabilitation, medical, and psychological assistance. And in a way, it's the same gap we see here at United Nations headquarters. We all talk about the importance of gender responsive systems, gender justice, equality, diversity, inclusion, if we can still talk about those things. But where's the money to back it up? Because without the funding, these are well-meaning, correct, appropriate messages, but it needs an increase in funding, and we should triple our investment in women, peace, and security, including in the context of UN peace operations, not trim back on it. So when I was in Kosovo, we had a very effective gender justice program and gender program generally, but we had one person working on it. We were able to double that to two people, but this brought the main ethnic communities together around a common objective. And we used to say in Kosovo that people will come together over two things. Women will get together over gender equality across the different communities, the Kosovo Albanians, Kosovo Serbs, other groups. And the men will get together to pursue criminal operations across ethnic lines. It's sad, but it is true. So we had doubled our program to two people only. So I'm saying across all of peace operations, we need to triple that effort. And as has been said already, involving women in positions of power in peace negotiations is essential to peace. It's not just a nice thing to do. In terms of, you know, the story, continued story in Eastern DRC and North Kivu, we all know about the subsequent M23 offensive incursion, capture of Goma in 2025, which underscores the fragility in that region. The UN is less able to be present and active, and the stories of gender violence have not stopped. But again, we need to redouble the effort and not just back away from it. You may be wondering about the fate of Mr. Sheka. He was in a prison in Goma, but he was moved to another location out of the area that's controlled by the M23. So as far as we are aware, he's still in incarceration. But even the people that put themselves on the line for those convictions, for the imprisonment, et cetera, there was concern for their safety when this M23 incursion happened. But I think overall, certainly the message is this is an important victory against impunity. Kudos to the Congolese actors who put themselves at risk to make this happen. And it can be done again with the right investment, the right support, the right engagement. it can happen more and more and more to hold these types of perpetrators accountable. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Robert. And I think it brings us to the question about ending impunity, about accountability, but at the same time gives us a little bit of hope, you know, that there is a possibility of justice. But again, we are challenged over the fact that reparations is not even possible despite all So, I think this is a very good move to our second panel, because our esteemed colleagues here, who are all experts in international criminal law, will further explain to us the challenges that is being posed as we are now facing a new treaty, which is the Crime Against Humanity Convention. So, I am very honored to start the session with Laila Sadat, who is beside me, who is one of the world's leading scholars of international law and international criminal justice.

She has devoted her career to advancing accountability for genocide.

Crimes against humanity and war crimes, and has advised government, institutions, and civil society organizations like ours around the world.

So her scholarship and leadership have shaped, actually, the conversation on the future of international law.

Particularly her leadership for the campaign for the new global treaty on crime against humanity. So Laila, it's really an honor to have you having engineered this new convention.

You have championed the Crime Against Humanity Treaty.

For nearly two decades, starting with the model convention you drafted in 2008.

For an audience like us that may be new to this process, what is this treaty? Why does it matter that it covers peacetime as well as wartime? And why is now the moment for gender justice advocates to engage?

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Indai. And it's really an honor to be here with you. And you asked in your opening, where are the women? The women are here. The women are here, raising our voices and trying to make a difference in these horrific, horrific conflict situations and non-conflict situations of oppression. So I've had the honor to Work also at the International Criminal Court on crimes against humanity as a special advisor to ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda for her entire term on special advisor. on crimes against humanity and to Karim Khan until 2023. And what crimes against humanity are, are exactly what we saw in this video, right? Which is an attack on a civilian population pursuant to a state or organizational policy. So the Congolese militia in question could have done that. And it consists of 11 separate crimes, including, very importantly for this group, the crimes of rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity and gender persecution, in addition to murder, torture, deportation, enslavement, all the other crimes. So really, one of the extraordinary achievements of the negotiation of crimes against humanity in 1998 as part of the Rome Statute was the fact that the Gender Caucus at the time was able to say, what about us? What about the women and girls? What about the victims? And now we're standing in a new moment where we're drafting a new treaty based largely on what happened in 1998, but also bringing into account sort of modern manifestations of criminality. So think of starvation in Gaza or Sudan, which has a specific gendered impact. It impacts children, it impacts women and girls in specific ways. We have other crimes that are taking place around the world, the slave trade, gender apartheid. in Afghanistan, all different manifestations of criminality that involves the same sort of widespread or systematic attack against civilians and civilian populations, but often in a gendered manner. So we're trying to draft a 21st century instrument that will be the treaty of our generation, if I can say so. And I read a lot about the negotiation of the Genocide Convention in 1948. Remember, there were only about 50 states at that time. And if you read Raphael Lemkin's memoir, there were no women in the memoir. I think there was one woman who he used to talk to for support. But we are here now, and we are talking about this new treaty in a way that says we want the resources to make it real. We want a treaty monitoring body. Kate is leading the initiative on that front. We don't want just a piece of paper. We want something much more that really can allow victims and survivors and all around the world to talk about this treaty and talk about this criminality and demand accountability, right? We've heard that we have to have accountability. So that's where we stand today. I think we're going to talk a little bit about the negotiations further. I think this is the time, now is our moment. We raise our voices and we demand. We don't accept a treaty without ambition. We don't accept that we're just too poor to be able to do this properly. We say, maybe stop spending quite so much on defense and start putting a little more money on justice, because where your heart is, that's where your treasure is. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Laila. I think we have really a big panel ahead of us to really dissect what is this crime against humanity treaty.

Now, i will go to Akila.

Akila, of course, a good.

Friend, an international human rights lawyer specializing in justice and accountability, sexual and gender-based violence, and reproductive rights.

She currently works as an independent consultant, including a legal advisor to end global, to end gender apartheid campaign. So, Akila, I would like to ask you a question.

Feminist advocates and legal scholars engage with this treaty well before negotiation formally opened. What have they pushed for in the substantive and procedural provisions.

How does this align with the WPS agenda?

Thank you so much, Indai, and really an honor to be here and sitting with two women, actually. Leila mentioned the Gender Caucus. Indai was in the Gender Caucus, and in fact, led the Gender Caucus. Leila, in 2008, before this was even taken up formally by the International Law Commission, was the woman, by the way, who came up with the idea that this was a gap in international law that needed to be closed. And this is the process of feminist building that we are engaged in right now. And it's exciting because often as feminists, we're asked only to look backwards at what has been written and how we fit our experiences in what is already in the law. And what we have ahead of us is an opportunity to not only shape, but to write the law itself. And that's really, I think, the approach that feminists have been taking. So the first thing I want to say really about it is that the feminist approach to this treaty is structural. While oftentimes we talk about the inclusion or naming of gender-based harms, that is not the totality of what gender competency really requires. So in this context, we talk about gender not as a definition, but as a framework. Gender is something that tells us a lot about individual experiences of atrocity, how they were targeted, why they were targeted, why a young girl is targeted, why individuals are targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. And it is this approach that we take when we look at this treaty, not just the definitions, but the full treaty, to really understand how we advance gender justice. I'm going to try to be brief, but I'm going to actually track the feminist approaches against the four pillars of WPS, because I think there's a helpful way to understand that for this conversation. So prevention, participation, protection, relief, and recovery. So starting with prevention, I'm not going to say too much because I think Kate's going to get a little bit more into this. But prevention is a core aspect of WPS where we haven't made as much progress as we would like to. This treaty actually includes state obligations to prevent crimes against humanity and accountability measures prevention has failed. This is one of the largest gaps in international law. Leila often talks about this when she talks about crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity cover the vast majority of atrocity situations that we are talking about. They are broader than war crimes, they are broader than genocide. The failure to have a treaty that covers this gap of state obligations is one that has hampered our ability to effectively pursue prevention, including for gender-based harms. Participation, right? We were talking a lot about, I know Nulifor is gonna talk a little bit more about this, who is at the table? So a big part of our consideration right now in feminist advocacy is not just about the substantive content, but what is the procedure? Who is at the table in writing this treaty? So we've called for three major components to this. I'm happy to go into any details and questions. Gender parity on state delegations, because we know that we need to be able to ensure that there is a table that's being set for success. a part and aside from gender parity, gender expertise on state delegations, and actually really looking and inspired by WPS frameworks around mediator networks, so the JRR, I see Laura over there, the different ways that WPS has actually had some innovations in bringing women to the table where women are often not at the table. So how do we bring gender expertise to lesser resource delegations, for example? And finally, robust civil society participation, including from affected communities and victims and survivors. So in the last prep comm, which happened in January, we accomplished pretty robust participation for non-Ecosoc accredited civil society, and the language that was adopted actually does include language calling for gender parity. in the decision making around the civil society. And so these are ways that we think that the participation pillar is being advanced, but also this is how we're going to get a treaty that responds to, as Leila said, a 21st century treaty and not just one that replicates what happened in 1998. Protection is where a lot of the, the protection pillar is where I would say a lot of the energy has currently been to date, which is really in thinking about defining gender-based harms, right? So Laila laid out the Rome Statute, the work that the Women's Caucus really accomplished and the work that they did in Rome. What we're looking at now is what have we learned? about what constitutes gender-based harm in the last 30 years, and how is that incorporated? Because we know that gender-based harms, our understanding is more nuanced now, thanks to the advances that we have, thanks to the jurisprudence that we have. So we have some specific calls that have been made about naming them. So forced marriage as something that's come out of the jurisprudence of the Cambodia tribunal, the special tribunal for Sierra Leone, and the ICC, but it was never named as such. It was called other inhumane acts. So we are calling for forced marriage to be specifically enumerated to give the harm the proper definition, the name in law. We are also calling for the expansion of the category of catchall provisions of other crimes. crimes of sexual violence to include reproductive violence. Because when we think about what we know about gender-based violence, we know that it is not encompassed totally by sexual violence, and that we see in Palestine, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, the way that reproduction and reproductive violence is being used to accomplish atrocities. We also have called for the codification of the slave trade. Now, the slave trade is one where when you look at it, you look at the definition, it doesn't really say anything about gender, but it is one of those issues like starvation, like torture, that actually has very distinct gendered impacts that we need to be thinking about when we think about the broader pursuit of gender justice, because gendered harms don't just manifest in gendered terms. And so this is what I mean by the structural approach. And the last one, and perhaps the one that's gotten the most amount of attention, is gender apartheid, which is an emerging norm that we see coming out of the situation in Afghanistan, where we see what systems of institutionalized gender oppression and domination look like, and the fact that the law does not have a term or a concept that covers this type of oppression. And it's really, this is a campaign that is led by Afghan women, it is animated by the situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, but like many of these things, it is about something broader than any one situation, right? And we've done this before. We get a lot of pushback saying, "This is new. What is this concept?" Well, in Rome, the work of the Women's Caucus was to first codify the crime of forced pregnancy. It was coming out directly in the years before of the experiences in Bosnia and in Rwanda, and it did not have a name. It was an emerging term. And in 2021, we had the first prosecution of the crime of forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity. And so these things build on each other. They've been done before, they can be done again. And then I'll be really brief just on relief and recovery. There are also binding provisions for states to provide reparations. And this complements existing reparations frameworks that sit within the WPS agenda, including the Secretary General's guidance on reparations for CRSV. And so, really happy to get into any of the details, but what I want to emphasize is that the approach that we are taking in our engagement is structural. It cuts across the entirety of the ideas, and I know Kate's gonna get into some more of them. And it really is an opportunity right now for everyone sitting in this room, if this is the first time you've heard about this treaty, think about how this applies in your work and how to get involved in this process, because in a space where gender is extremely difficult to negotiate, we need all hands on deck. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Akela, for really laying down the groundwork of the linkage between crime against humanity and women, peace, and security.

And I think this is the first time that we are really having serious conversation about this.

And we have to continue talking about this because this is really very important.

So that we just stop looking at WPS of bringing women from the kitchen table to the negotiating table. It never worked. You know, we all know that. So let's reshift our strategy on WPS.

And put our energy to ensure that the crime against humanity treaty gets ratified. Now, I would like to move on to our very distinguished panelist, Nilofer Aoral. Yes. Now, this is very important because I really want to introduce Niloufer in a way that I hope I can capture it.

Niloufer is a member of the United Nations International Law Commission, where she now co-chairs the 74th session of the Sixth Committee.

Now, why is this significant, if I may say?

It's because the International Law Commission, which was founded in 1947, only have 11 women out of its 249 members in the past 80 years. And the significance of this today, and for all of us who are here and who are witnessing this, is that Niloufer, together with her colleague Patricia Galvao Telles, became the first women to co-chair the 6th Committee and present the Commission's report after 80 years. Can we give Niloufer, please, a standing ovation?

It is really, I mean, I only know about this now, and thank you, Nilofer, for pushing the door and breaking the ceiling. So I have to ask you again, since the International Law Commission was founded in 1947, only 11, again, of its 249 members had been women. And yeah. Yeah, only 11 are women out of 249.

For the first time in the history of the United Nation, you and Patricia Galva-Telis.

And I may repeat again, became the first women to co-chair the sixth committee and present the commission's report. From that vantage point, why does it matter who writes international law?

What changes when women are at the table as experts, as civil society, as victims and survivors?

Nunfer.

Oh, there you, okay. Thank you so much. First, I'm a little embarrassed, but thank you very much for that very wonderful introduction, and I'm deeply Honored to be here with so many courageous women, actually. After listening to the previous panel, I have to say the peacekeepers, all that they do, and so I'm truly impressed. I have a title. That's all it is, really. But I understand it's an important title. And I want to thank also Leila and Akilah for including me in this panel. Yes, indeed. The International Law Commission is the body of the General Assembly, and maybe not everyone may be familiar with it, but it has a specific mandate, and that is basically what we call the progressive development and codification of international law. So we don't make international law. that, the work of the Commission has been absolutely foundational for many treaties, from immunities, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and, of course, crimes against humanity. And may I say, Professor Leila Sadat was is a force of nature, and if women's voices were heard, she played a very important role. I came in towards the end of that process, but Leila is really incredible. So it does matter. It's so important because you think, so the first woman, two women, elected to the International Law Commission, 2001. That means that this huge body of treaty making, and they call those the golden years, by the way, were all men. There are no women. And so, and it was only, and just to give you, just to show how slow a process this has been, in 2018, it was the 74th anniversary, or the 70th, I'm sorry, 70th anniversary of the International Law Commission. And they had a big celebration, but they didn't include anything about women. We did. The women on our own, we said, "We're gonna have a side event." And we're gonna call it "Seven Women in 70 Years." 'Cause at that point, there had only been seven women. And I cannot tell you, it was shocking to people, you know? And we had a side event, our own side event, but people came. So it does make a difference, but we have a long ways to go in this. And I don't want to take a lot of time, but I think the point that was made earlier, it is so important for women not only to be in the commission, but to be at the negotiating table. And I just ran some statistics, and wow, in 2025, only 17.8% of foreign affairs ministers are women. This is the capital. Okay, we have to get the approval from the capital, calling capital. Who's there? Man or woman? It's going to be mostly a man. And if I'm correct, I went, you know, these are statistics, you have to be careful, 27 of the EU's foreign ministers, only seven were women. So we know that at the very top level where it really matters, at the negotiating table, when you're having treaty negotiations, like now with crimes against humanity, I don't know how many women are the heads of delegation. You know, it's so important for women to be there. You asked about expertise. This is something that, again, I won't talk about the commission, it's a little different. So at the end, I went back and I was looking at, of course, Hillary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin's, you know, that 1991 article. And, you know, We have made some progress, but we have a lot more to go. So I can just say at the 70th anniversary, we're at a total of seven. Now we're at the 74th, 75th session of the commission, 11. And if you don't have women, I mean, just going back to the UN Charter and equal rights, we had Eleanor Roosevelt. You have to have women, there's no doubt about that. And do we do enough in the commission as women? We're trying, but I think when you're, and that's something else, when you're a smaller group, it's harder to feel that empowerment. And that's why, just being here, I'm thinking, perhaps we should have engaged more with women outside of the commission as well. We try to. So having said that, I want to thank those who support the women as well in the commission. But anyway, I don't know if I answered your question entirely. It's a lot to unpack there, but thank you so much.

I think for the challenge before us now, and you can be assured that all of us feminists here gathered here today will support you.

All you have to do is let us know and we will break that building to open it for us.

Yes, thank you. Now I would like to go to Kate. Hi, Kate, thank you for coming.

Kate is the gender and international criminal justice expert with over 20 years of experience working on human rights, including numerous cases involving gender-based violence. She is currently the Director of the International Commission of Juris Global.

Accountability Initiative and previously worked as prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

So, Kate, my first question: Much of the conversation focuses on naming gendered crimes, but a treaty's impact also depends on the architecture. prevention duties, dispute resolution, and victims' rights and reparation. How do we make sure gender justice runs through that architecture?

And what would that look like for women in atrocity settings?

Thank you so much, Indai, and thank you for the invitation to be here and the opportunity to speak in this space. We often work in our own silos, so it's really, I'm really grateful for the opportunity. As Akela said, I'm really gonna focus on the first pillar and on the duty to prevent, but when I think about prevention, I do think about punishment and justice, other forms of justice, accountability, because without those, it's difficult also to prevent, so I'm going to bundle these together. So while codification of the definition, of course, is essential for ensuring recognition of gender-based violence, the Convention is also about domestication of state obligations to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. It does contain a general obligation to prevent and punish those crimes and provide remedies and reparations for them, but it also has very specific provisions with respect to what those obligations entail. On the obligation to prevent, it requires states to take effective measures, and this includes legislative, administrative, judicial measures, or other appropriate measures in any territory or with respect to any person under its jurisdiction, control, or influence. It's required to cooperate with states, just states are required to cooperate with other states and relevant intergovernmental organizations to take action under the UN Charter. And it requires states to monitor, report, and act on risk factors, early warning signs, and the ongoing commission of crimes. And I'll come back to this point particularly. On the obligation to punish, states have to criminalize, obviously, in their domestic systems, not just the crimes themselves, but the modes of liability, and to ensure that no statutory limitations apply to them. They have to establish their jurisdiction over those crimes and investigate and prosecute them occurring in their territory or being when committed by their nationals. But they also have to prosecute or extradite perpetrators of those crimes when committed in other territories or where their perpetrators are of other nationalities. They also have to facilitate mutual legal assistance, so the sharing of information, and facilitate the extradition of suspects, as I've mentioned. The last sort of institutional structural point is that states would be permitted to file cases before the International Court of Justice. So like some of the other conventions, the Genocide Convention, the Torture Convention, and we've seen some really instrumental cases under these conventions around state responsibility, including in Myanmar and elsewhere, states would have the possibility of filing cases. This, of course, is a bit of a contentious provision. So there have been some efforts by states to include reservations to that provision. So we'll have to see how that pans out in the negotiations. So while not gendered on their face, these provisions do provide an architecture for facilitating gender justice. A number of states have made proposals to strengthen those provisions to make sure they're applied in a gender competent way. And many of these actually track the work of civil society, including feminists and other gender justice experts who've been pushing states to really do this. So they've, these include, and I won't go through all of them, or we'll be here for a while, and I'll be the boring lawyer in the room, but a really pivotal one, or important one, is adding an interpretive provision. to the convention to ensure that it's applied in a non-discriminatory way, including with regard to gender, but of course other identities and characteristics. Adding provisions to ensure equal and effective access to justice for marginalized groups and provide accommodations for those groups to actually be able to access justice. There are also specific proposals to take into account the needs of child victims of sexual and gender-based violence. There are proposals to ensure protective measures for victims to take into account gender-based issues or gender issues, and with respect to extradition and MLA, to ensure non-discrimination on the basis of gender when making decisions about whether or not you will facilitate assistance. There remain other means by which gender can be centred in the convention, and one would be including a provision adding an explicit requirement for states to exclude amnesties, pardons, and immunities for crimes against humanity, of course, including gender-based crimes. So I think this convention provides an opportunity to strengthen implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325, particularly with respect to the obligation to protect women and girls from violence and to prevent the commission of gender-based crimes. That requires a gender perspective to be mainstreamed. in peacekeeping and other women, peace and security related activities. And this, for me, falls within that general obligation. This also requires, and as we've heard, women to be participants in decision making, in conflict resolution, peace processes, and ensure consultation with local and international women's groups. And we need to do that in the convention process. Just a final point, 'cause I know I'm gonna run out of time. You know, we heard Eleanor speak about early warning and risk factors, and we know that key indicators of risk of crimes against humanity are discriminatory gender norms, militarized masculinities, which underpin structural gender inequalities in the context in which they are committed. And they exacerbate gender-based harms resulting from crimes against humanity and other atrocity crimes. And I think to really fully implement obligations under this convention, we need to be reading its implementation in the context of the Women, Peace, and Security agenda and make advances in our frameworks and institutions to prevent. It requires institutional approaches beyond what we already have. to ensure that we can devise early warning systems that are actually recognising what those risks are? And I'll get more into that when we move to the next question. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Kate. I think one of the things that my colleagues in the gender units, especially working in peacekeeping operation, and I have also worked in peacekeeping, is really looking at early warning, because that is really one form of prevention that we try to establish by looking at the patterns of violence that is occurring in order to foresee and not to aggravate the situation. So those are one of the challenges that we have ahead of us. Now, I will go to our second question, and I will start again with Laila. Yes. Yeah, here it is. Well, Laila, I can't get over that you are here.

Laila, the Sixth Committee very recently revisited the treaty this month, with its main task of setting dates for the.

Diplomatic conference.

Still, states made numerous detailed intervention during this meeting. Looking ahead to the second preparatory meeting, which will happen in April 2027, where states will settle the conference rules of procedure, what are the biggest challenges you see? And what did this last meeting on the conference tell us? How much will the choice between consensus and voting shape the treaty we end up with?

This is all for you.

So many questions. I'm very honored to be here. I've never been in this space either, and it really is a thrill. And the work of the International Law Commission was epic in getting us to this point. So, Nilofar, thank you to you and your colleagues for, you know, we passed the baton to you, and you ran with it, and now it's sitting with states. So some of you might know that the framework we operate under is a General Assembly resolution 79/122, which set out a five-year negotiation period. It was heavily negotiated, it was heavily contested. You know, as somebody who tends to be impatient, it was annoying because we thought we would have a two-year treaty negotiation process and it's turned into a five-year treaty negotiation process. But we've also learned that time can be our friend because this is a complicated negotiation. You need engagement from all individual, you know, from all regional groups. We have some challenges in terms of the geopolitical situation, which could potentially improve over time. And so we're now seeing time as our friend. And what we're seeing is that states aren't losing the opportunity to continue the momentum and to keep the momentum going. And so what was very interesting is in the last six committee meeting, they really had nothing to do except set the dates for the conference, which they're kind of negotiating. We know it'll be January 2028, three weeks for the first session. But we actually had 122 states represented through 85 interventions. Mexico, whose legal advisor in the Sixth Committee, by the way, is a woman, led a really extraordinary cross-regional statement with 82 states joining, talking about the need for a robust treaty that is going to serve the interests of humanity. That said, you know, we only have three women in the Bureau of the Conference of nine, so I guess that's a little better, Nelia, for then some of the statistics. Some of the women legal advisors are fabulous, and they have a group called the Legal Ladies that meets together, but we know that the Sixth Committee is also going to be a fairly, you know, male-dominated space, with all due respect to my gentlemen colleagues here. So what are they doing now? There is a lot of interest in the treaty. We had a lot of proposals coming in in April. We have a compiled text, and I'm really mindful of what Shireen said, you know, this is about not just creating projects, right? Not just creating work, having something that's real, having something that gets implemented, having something that gets practical. And I think what we really are seeing is states focusing on that, but not all states. And a small group of what I would call treaty antagonist states, states that don't like this process, are very focused on one paragraph of Resolution 79/122, which talks about the need, it's paragraph 11, "The Conference shall exhaust every effort in good faith to reach agreement on substantive matters by consensus." Now, that sounds fine, and like we should all get along, and we should get together, and we should agree. But that's not really what this group of antagonists means by the word "consensus." They want to import the tradition of all states having to agree into basically a veto over provisions that they don't like. And so what we started to hear in the Sixth Committee, I'll just pick three statements that I thought were particularly good: Portugal, Timor-Leste, and Rwanda. So from different regional groups saying, "That's not what consensus means. Consensus means, yes, we endeavor to reach an agreement on substance, but it's not a decision-making process. When it comes to take hard decisions, we have to vote, because that's the rule of the General Assembly, the sovereign equality." of states. So what we expect is a fight over the meaning of consensus. Timor-Leste also made an excellent point. It can't mean a veto. And Rwanda, that doesn't often speak in these meetings, said we shouldn't lower our ambition for this treaty because you don't want a lowest common denominator instrument. So I think that's the risk that many of us see. Not that we won't get some treaty by 2029, but that it won't be something we're proud of. We had the same thing happen during the Rome Conference, right, and in other treaty negotiations. But in this case, we do see that this the weaponization of the word consensus, which is used by different groups, treaty proponents versus treaty antagonists, in very, very different ways. And we had a little harbinger of what might happen in the PPED negotiations, where again this came up. That process, I think, has to be distinguished from the crimes against humanity process. Much smaller treaty, only one negotiating session, has a different resolution, has a different decision on civil society participation. And I don't think we want to use whatever is going on in that process necessarily as a predicate and as a template for the crimes against humanity process. This treaty, the crimes against, that treaty is very important as well. But this one, we really cannot let it fail because of this consensus issue. And the consensus issue could really break the treaty. So I think that's something we're looking at really carefully.

Indy, can I just say one thing?

Yes, please.

Please do.

Just very quickly on consensus. No, I mean, it's a logical thing, right? If we need every UN member state to agree on any gender justice proposal, or if anyone who opposes it can prevent it from going forward, I think for the conversation in this room, it illustrates the stakes at hand, right? Because often when we think of feminist advocacy, we're not thinking in the procedural spaces, but here, if we don't get the procedure right, We can have all of the best analysis and all of the best ideas, and they are not going to get us to what we want.

This is very important.

I just realized now that the word consensus can make or break our gender justice agenda. If you don't mind, I go off the line a little bit here.

Laila, what can we do as a women's movement here?

I mean, we are part of a women's movement.

How can we lobby our government to make sure

that this consensus that you excellently explained, which, you know, made my heart beat faster because I recognized that word when we were in Rome in 1998, and every time we asked, "Is there a consensus?" We want to die because we are really afraid. afraid of what would be the outcome of those consensus. So I think there is more power now because we have a bigger women's gender justice movement. How do you think we can mobilize our governments to make sure that the procedural we are introducing are met and we can do something about it?

Maybe just two notes. One is statement by Rwanda and other states, we can't lower our ambitions. So if you say you want a good treaty, and that was true in Rome as well, right? There were certain red lines that you had to have certain things in order for the treaty really to be something worth fighting for and something worth having. So I think developing a sense of what are the red lines and saying consensus can't tank that. And also there are two words in paragraph 11, the words good faith, right? Good faith tells us that consensus isn't meant to be an obstacle to progress. It's meant to be a way of saying, yes, we want a universal treaty, so of course we're trying to bring the parties together, but they have to come together in a spirit of, shall we say, feminist good faith and other kinds of good faith to hear each other, to listen to each other, to really understand what's at stake and not block things just for the sake of it. And ultimately, we need a great chair. That's the most important thing, because the person with the gavel is the person that's going to be deciding, actually, when efforts have been, quote unquote, "exhausted." So I think right now we have an excellent chair of the preparatory committee that one legal advisor called the roadrunner, because he was so quick to gavel in a couple of very good decisions. And managed to get through a bunch of procedural shenanigans that were happening by the treaty antagonist states during the prep comm. So that's something to really be looking for, right? Great people in the Bureau, great chair, and really thinking about what these words good faith mean, and raising our voices and saying we want a good treaty.

Yeah, we will.

Okay. All right. I have to say, we shouldn't, critical issues, and this is where it comes into prioritization, should not be held hostage to consensus, because unfortunately, it can be misused, and I think that's what we're talking about, because the General Assembly does allow for voting, and we shouldn't be afraid of voting where it's necessary. And this was what happened with the Sixth Committee for many years. The consensus prevented them from moving forward on the work of the Commission. So we also work with consensus in the Commission, but we did, I remember on the immunities topic, we actually had a vote, and it caused quite a bit of concern. But it was important. I think it actually helped move things forward. But what's important then is building support. That's why prioritizing what is essential. So if you have enough support, then those who are trying to break or use consensus can be pressured, knowing that there could be a vote. So anyway, it's a great, it's very important issue.

Thank you for that addition, because I think now we know that the term consensus will determine the kind of work and the kind of crime against humanity treaty we would like to see in the future. So I think we need to roll up our sleeves and be ready to talk to our governments about this. Okay, now I have jumped a little bit in this process, but I will continue.

But now I am into Akela.

Yes. So can I continue with Nonifer?

Okay.

Well, Nonifer, I know you have to run back to your meeting, but let me ask you one more time. The ILC work has often been seen as gender blind.

and gender expert hardly engaged in this space. For example, its 2022 conclusions on peremptory norms, jus cogens, the legal term, included an illustrative list naming racial discrimination and apartheid, but not gender discrimination, a decision that has been critiqued

by feminist international law expert.

How do gaps like this that happens inside the Commission, and where are the opening for feminist advocates and states to shape the ILC texts

before they are finalized?

Thank you for letting me go first, but I have to say I've really learned, I'm learning a lot from this discussion and so happy to be here. So the International Law Commission is is a conservative body, actually. I've discovered that. So we're 34 individuals representing, not representing any state. So it's a body of experts. And as I said, it's just until 2001, we had two women finally elected, but we're still a minority. And I worry we will be a minority for many years to come, to be honest. Because even though, and this is online, even though states say they support women, I don't see it in action. So I wanna see it in action. That means nominating women. So look, let's see how many next, this next candidacy, how many will be women? So having said that, it's a conservative, and it's very much driven by state views. So one of the issues, and we go to the use kogens. When the work of the Commission usually will throw out some draft articles, or now we use draft conclusions, and that's what's happening right now, goes to the Sixth Committee, and we get the feedback from states. And if the states do not support a draft article, conclusion, guideline, then we will not keep it. Because at the end of the day, our work goes to states. So it's very state driven. So that's why, and I think we get back to, at the different layers, that women have to be, you know, different layers of leadership, that for the states also to bring up gender, you know, it's very important, not just the commission. So, but with the Yuzkogens, in all fairness, because when we make lists, lists are very dangerous. And there was a big debate about how do we determine what's a peremptory norm? And one, I remember some colleagues would say, "Well, it'll take us 10 years to go through the methodology." So we took an easy route, which was, let's just put in the list what the commission in the past had identified as jus cogens, but it's a non-exhaustive list. And so there may have been a greater opportunity to have, at least in the commentary, identified something like gender apartheid, but I have to say, take responsibility as well, didn't occur, I fear. And this is where we need more engagement. And that's why meeting like Akilah and Layla is very important. And we do have, we've had some. Remarkably, in 2025, for the first time, there may have been a mention in 2023, actually, we have a segment called rule of law, and there, the commission kind of said, okay, but for the rule of law, in this regard, the commission, oh, for the rule of law, it includes the need to ensure gender parity in national and international institutions. So again, How many decades later? And finally, the commission members said, and in this regard, the commission itself recognizes that its own composition as well needs to improve. So we're making some progress, and I think having women there. We also have seen a little bit of women, gender in the exact work, for example, on subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law. We were placed together with, and the question of what we call teachings, due regard should also be had to inter alia, gender and linguistic diversity. To be honest, I'm not sure it's the same level, but For a conservative body like the Commission, and it is, this is huge progress. So I think what I'm getting from this meeting, and I won't take more time, is we do need to have more engagement. And I think the women of the Commission also need to feel more empowered because we're a minority. And I have to say, when women issues come up, you tread with caution. You know, I mean, and that's the reality. So I'll stop here. I'll stop here. We could go on, but I'll stop here. And just to say right now, the Sixth Committee, the current chair of the Sixth Committee right now is a woman from Guyana, and that is Trishala Simantini Persaud. So very important as well to acknowledge that we have women increasingly in these important positions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Niloufer. And really, I mean, for us who have always pushed for women to be in this decision-making position, every woman who gets into that position, we celebrate, because behind that is years of struggle to put one woman, two women in that position. So yes, thank you for being there. Thank you. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yeah.

The women have to be everywhere.

Yeah. This, thank you. Can I go to you? Yeah. So, okay. Thank you. Okay, Akila, my second question, and this is very important, and then I will go to Kate. States submitted formal amendment proposals in April during the preparatory meeting, which we were all there.

And gender came up again this month at the sixth committee debate. And this is about gender definition. Where are the governments in this process? What made it into the proposal? Which states are championing gender? And where is the pushback coming from?

And maybe I'll just comment on something that's always been on my mind on what Nulufar was talking about. I remember actually when we were working on the proposal on gender apartheid, a colleague in the space said to me, "Well, where's the grounding for the type of gendered considerations you're talking about in the ILC's 1996 draft code of crimes?" which was what the ILC had produced to negotiate the Rome Statute. So before Indai and her group of fierce women came into the room, and I looked at him and I said, "Well, there were no women on the ILC till 2001." The foundational arguments that we are often working with as feminist lawyers never took gender into account. The structural disadvantage of what is produced out of a body at the UN like the ILC that we do not think about, very often, is actually really pronounced when we think of the uphill battle we often have to move things forward, right? So when we think about a treaty that's being negotiated in a gender backlash, in a difficult multilateral environment that needs to apply 50 years from now, we need to also think about our responsibility and our ambition. because what happens now is also going to be definitional to what happens in the future. And so, you know, to me, thinking about the foundations of who's on the ILC, where we as feminists engage, right? Sometimes we only engage in certain spaces. It also is actually what creates some of the structural disadvantages that we deal with in our own advocacy. So that's been on my mind as I've been engaged in this process and really thinking about some of those aspects. So sorry, that was not on your state proposals question, but it, you know, really, i think I think her points really underscored where that sits. So just really briefly on state proposals, you know, again, we sit in a space where you say the word gender and you're often told, that's not going to happen, right? It's too difficult. It's not possible. Well, in April of this year, states made their first set of official proposals for Crimes Against Humanity Treaty. Nearly 50% of them advanced at least one gender justice issue. That's what it tells you about what is possible when you sit down and you think about the advocacy and you engage in the work, right? And from the beginning, I remember when we started this process, well, it's been going on for a long time, but like when we started to sit down in a smaller group of feminist advocates to start thinking about this was actually two full years before the treaty was even sent out to negotiations, because we said, we're often too late to the table. So we want to start centering these questions and these discussions at the beginning of this process. And there were, again, colleagues who said, you're going to tank the possibility of a treaty happening if you talk too much about gender, right? And I just want to contrast that with the fact that right now, 50% of the, nearly 50% of the proposals are advancing gender justice, and some proposals almost exclusively focus on issues of gender justice, right? And that is feminist shaping the the law. And so that, to me, is the overarching framework I want to give when I talk about where are we at now and where have we succeeded, right? So we saw almost every issue that feminists had put their advocacy behind was advocated for by states, multiple states. Forced marriage was actually the single most supported proposal across states on any part of the treaty, It was a gendered issue that had the most support of states going into this process. So these are things I want us to keep in mind, because at every step, we're told the gender stuff is too complicated. It's going to be the thing that breaks us. And actually, it's not the thing that's breaking this process. It's actually strengthening it. We're seeing states get more engaged and animated by the proposals on the table. So in addition to the specific gender crimes that I named, we also saw that states States are starting to think about the structural approach. We saw some states in the preamble actually propose language to mainstream gender and take gender competency into account across the treaty. We saw proposals related to the treaty monitoring body that Kate will talk to that actually raised the need for gender parity in the composition of the treaty monitoring body. So we're starting to see these gendered considerations really proliferate throughout these different provisions. The other thing I want to say about the states is that they are, in fact, cross-regional. These Issues often get branded as WEOG or Western. So on gender apartheid, which is perhaps one of the most complex issues on the table, we actually saw Iceland, Mexico, and Timor-Leste come together in a cross-regional proposal, representing three regions to propose the gender apartheid gets put in. That's the other lesson I want to say, is as someone who works both in the political spaces and in the legal spaces, often you get told in the political spaces that something like gender apartheid is not possible, we're actually seeing that seven states have put it forward and is now part of an active and live treaty negotiation. So I think we need to, you know, we sometimes undermine ourselves in these processes on where things stand or what states are actually willing to put themselves forward for or what they're willing to do. The other, I guess on the negative side, just really quickly, the focus of the regressive proposals have been, unsurprisingly, on the definition of gender. We see this now. We saw what happened at CSW earlier this year in trying to define what is gender. The ILC, one good thing they did on gender in drafting the baseline of the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty was they actually removed the definition of gender. Now, mind you, no other basis in the treaty is defined. Race is not defined. Ethnicity is not defined, right? But for some reason, there is an obsession with defining gender. And I mean, that's not, again, in this room, not a surprise, right? But that is the main area of pushback we're seeing, and we've seen it in two ways. One, states have proposed reintroducing the language from the Rome Statute, which has a sort of convoluted definition of gender that has both a What I would say a binary core with a contextual framework that allows you to interpret it more broadly, as we're seeing the court is actually now doing. And then others have just straight up said, replace gender with sex. And so there needs to be some very serious engagement in this process. And we need to also be in this process, learning lessons from where feminists are, you know, engaging on this issue in other venues, right? The strategies that worked at CSW, the strategies that may need to be invoked in the Third Committee. This is a process that requires all of our expertise, you don't have to be a lawyer, to really be somebody who knows how we engage in these strategies. And I'll just conclude by saying that I think it's really important right now in our work with states, what we're really working on is setting a high level of ambition. We're not even at negotiations yet. Negotiations don't start for another year and a half. We are shaping how this treaty is understood. We are putting the ideas on the table, and the level of our ambition needs to be as high as possible. And just really, it's been a pleasure to work with so many who are operating at that same level. And please consider this an invitation to come join us, because we need more people.

Oh yeah, do you have the?

I do.

Do you wanna do it?

You do it.

I was a baby at Rome, but I was there, and I saw how effective civil society was. And so one of the things, Aquila deserves a huge amount of credit, I should say, and Kate, and the civil society activists that have come, and Ian, who's behind us, and so many people that saw years ago the potentiality of this treaty as well. And it also meant that we were holding little seminars as the ILC was working. I think actually that's why this particular document coming from the commission is better. But we're huge civil society advocates, and there's now a coalition that you can join. We have a QR code. We're all volunteers, so it does take a little while for the applications to be processed because they have to be read by real people like us in our spare time, because women have to do all the work. No, not all. But you can actually join the Coalition for the Crimes Against Humanity Convention. And right now, it's pretty much, you know, we're conveying information, updates on the negotiations. Here's when the meetings are. When there are important decisions, we just let people know. There are quarterly calls that we're going to start. I think people can come and have Q&A. And there's a Signal chat where that allows coalition members to speak. So I'll just pass pass that around, actually.

Thank you so much, Laila, for that. Please, everyone, join the coalition. Yeah. Yes. Kate, can you say something to add on? Yeah, as our speaker.

Yes. Yeah.

You know very well. Thank you.

No worries. Do you want me to answer your question, or are you just asking for an open slate? No, I will answer your question. And I know that I'm not just me, but I am one of the people keeping you from lunch, so I'll try to be pretty quick. So my question is about a treaty body. I already sort of alluded to this in my prior remarks. There is no treaty body proposal in, well, there is no treaty body provision in the current ILC draft articles on crimes against humanity. So there is no institutional body that, apart from the ICJ, which as you would likely know, has a very limited jurisdiction and is really only operationalized where there's very strong political will and in a handful of situations. So there is no real forum at the moment in the draft articles for facilitating implementation of state obligations to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. So there have been a number of actors, including Leila and myself and others, try to push states to include a proposal in the draft articles or in the compendium of proposals for amendment of the draft articles to include some kind of implementing institution, like a treaty body. We think this is really essential. I mean, if we compare it to something like the Genocide Convention, which has no institutional structure to facilitate implementation, we've seen very little progress in our understanding of how that convention should be applied and continued commission of crimes constituting genocide over a number of years. I think there's a lot of opportunity for an institutional structure to facilitate our understanding of how crimes against humanity are committed, how to prevent them, how to implement them domestically, how to implement the obligations domestically, and how to support victims and survivors. So now we have in April, nine states submitted four proposals to create, to include a provision on the creation of some sort of treaty body or other institutional process. They were the Nordic states acting together, Gambia and Sierra Leone together, and then Portugal and Mexico. We've also heard from a number of other states that they would support the creation of the treaty body, and this includes Algeria and Germany in their proposals, as well as more recently Uruguay in their comments and the Sex Committee. The proposals that have been put down are quite different. So they all propose the creation of a committee, but with different mandates. Some include proposals to have a conference of state, a periodic conference of states parties, and one of them includes granting a mandate to a UN secretariat body to monitor implementation and compliance with the convention. Where the consistency lies is on the committee, a committee or a body facilitating capacity building and technical assistance to states. There is not full agreement, but some agreement on a committee issuing interpretive guidance on the convention. on requiring periodic state reporting and on inquiry procedures, but conducting inquiries subject only to state consent. In terms of the underlying objectives, the focus has really been on prevention. So when you hear states talk about the proposals, they talk a lot about how a body like this can support states to implement its obligations to prevent. The provisions in the current draft articles on the duty to prevent aren't terrible. There are some concrete provisions there. However, what we understand to be prevention, I think, is really undeveloped. And as I said before, the risk factors, actually, i think it was Eleanor that said, when you take in, by the time you get to the early warning phase, it's already too late. The crimes have already been committed. So I think there's a lot of scope there for an institutional structure, a committee, a body to increase our understanding and facilitate our understanding of how do we actually identify these risks? How do we actually prevent? What does early warning actually mean? So I think the system should really be exploring how we can make prevention effective. As we heard from Rana as well, working with existing structures is just not enough. And we need these aspects to be in the mandates of different bodies, and we need bodies to be working together. The other aspect which is really undeveloped is what reparations actually look like. Like, what do we actually mean by reparations? We hear, you know, compensation maybe ordered or some form of reparation, but then it's not implemented. And this is a consistent problem across the board. So I think there's really space here to explore what a committee like this could do. We heard from the states that are making these proposals that they're not entirely wedded to the text that they propose, they're interested in exploring different options and potentially innovations. We also heard before the proposals were put down a lot of pushback, like Akela was saying on gender, we hear a lot of pushback, oh, well, you know, the UN's got a budget crisis, there's a liquidity crisis, we don't have the resources, we can't afford this, this will just be another treaty body. But now we have the proposals on the table, and now is really an opportunity to explore, okay, what can be effective? How can we strengthen this system in a context in which we really actually need it? The context is not one, as we've heard Leila say a lot, the context is not one where we should be shying away from thinking big and trying to make a new process or innovative models work to address the crisis that we're facing. So again, like Akilah, an invitation to think about this and get involved in that conversation. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Kate. One of the interests that I have seen within the feminist movement and for women victims of conflict, of sexual violence, is the issue of reparations and compensation. And I think we really need to expand that very well because a lot of, you know, decisions and judgment that included reparation from a legal point of view is never implemented, and women really get nothing in the end.

So, you know, these are just one of the main issues that we need to fight.

For in this crime against humanity treaty, but it has such a long-term impact on the victims and survivors of conflict and even during peace time. So having said that, yeah, because we have run out of time. I will now conclude very shortly, because there are a number of Member States, I hope, that are still around.

We would really like to propose just one thing, that we ask Member State to support for developing monitoring frameworks to measure.

Justice as a core component. in WPS implementation, as well as support to monitor the crime against humanity treaty.

We really need funding for this.

I have seen Laila and Kate, we have been in The Hague, and Akila, and all my colleagues been working on this for free.

The Coalition on Crime Against Humanity, we're doing that for love and kisses, which means for free. So, we are asking the Member States to please support the Crime Against Humanity Coalition, mainly because we want to reach out to the women at the regional level. We want to go to the regions. We want to tell the women and men in the regions what is at stake here.

In the Crime Against Humanity Treaty.

And in order for us to do that, we need funding. We need resources not only to produce the document, but to fly to the regions and to gravitate and start.

A movement around crime against humanity treaty.

A number of us feminists are already merging together that we will start a feminist movement to support what Laila has done here for 20 years, pushing the ILC to recognize crime against humanity. at stake here, our future at stake here, especially the Gen. Z and the new generation. This is your future. The crime against humanity treaty is your future. And we are here. We will combine the activism of women activists on the ground and the legal international expert on our side to come together and really break the ceiling to ensure that this crime against humanity treaty will integrate the gender dimension necessary to move for humanity.

So I close with that, and I thank all the panelists and everyone who stayed as long as this time. Thank you so very, very much. Thank you.