Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity - General Assembly, First Session, 1st plenary meeting General Assembly Date: 19 January 2026 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1a/k1ac49x3ba Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- UN Secretariat · Legal Counsel [0:04]: Good morning, everyone. Distinguished delegates, I have the honor to declare open the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. In accordance with General Assembly Resolution 79122 of 4th December 2024, and to call to order its first meeting. In doing so, we are embarking on a historic journey in the fight against impunity for the commission of what are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The General Assembly has envisaged a multi-year process aimed at the adoption of an international convention. As legal counsel, I wish you the very best with that work, which has every prospect of counting among the most significant achievements of the organisation. I assure you of the full support of the secretariat, in particular that of the codification division of the Office of Legal Affairs. My function this morning will be to assist the preparatory committee with the election of its chair. I am informed that in order to facilitate the process of identifying candidates to serve on the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, to be established in accordance with rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, a nomination process was undertaken under the auspices of the Bureau of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly for the 80th session. I wish to extend my gratitude to the chair of the Sixth Committee, Ambassador Enrique A. Manolo of the Philippines, and to the Bureau for their able assistance in that regard. I am also informed that, further to that process, the only nomination received for the post of chair of the Preparatory Committee was that from the Western European and other States group, for Mr. Declan Smith of Ireland. Mr. Smith has been the legal adviser at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ireland since 2021. Prior to assuming his current position, he was the deputy legal adviser in the department. He was chair of Ireland's National Committee on International Humanitarian Law from 2008 to 2020, and also chaired the European Union's working party on the law of the sea during Ireland's EU presidencies in 2004 and 2013. He was deputy permanent representative of Ireland to the United Nations at Geneva in 2005 to 2007 and has also had diplomatic assignments at Ireland's embassies in Madrid and Tehran. He's a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and is currently the vice chair of the Council of Europe's Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law, CARDI. He was educated at University College Dublin and the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin. Are there any other nominations? I see none. May I take it that it is the wish of the Preparatory Committee to elect Mr. Declan Smith from Ireland as the Chair of the Preparatory Committee? The Russian Federation has requested the floor, and I give the floor to the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [4:00]: Thank you, legal adviser, legal counsel. Indeed, we will be speaking regarding the way the meeting is being held. We have a point of order. We have questions regarding the Bureau. In order for this Committee to constitute a Bureau, we had to respond to the following question: Does the Prep Committee need a Bureau? Because in the mandate resolution, there is no mention of a Bureau. If we do need a Bureau, should we work in accordance with the established practice when constituting the Bureau, past practice when constituting the Bureau, or should we start from scratch? If we do use past practice, What practice exactly, what specific practice would we use? Because as we know, practice, including past practice, differs vastly, both in terms of the composition and the powers of the Bureau. Until we come up with answers to these questions, we cannot endorse the Bureau, nor can the Bureau take any decisions. We cannot talk about that until we have answered those questions. What I have said does not mean that our delegation is against having a Bureau in principle. Nonetheless, the Bureau must be constituted in keeping with the rules. and procedures. Our ability to work according to the letter of the law is of principled importance, and especially given the importance of the topic at hand as part of this process. What we suggest is a constructive solution, which will not result in any delays in our process. Specifically, what we propose is the following: At the first session of the Prep Committee, we should limit ourselves to selecting the facilitator or a temporary chair. We would then dedicate part of our time, and once again, let me underscore at that first session right now, we would spend time to come up with new rules of procedure, future rules of procedure for the diplomatic conference, and this as regards the Bureau, the section on the Bureau. As you know, as per the mandate resolution, in any instance we do have to come up with the rules of procedure for the conference at the second session of the preparatory committee. So, in fact, what we're asking is to do some of that work earlier. Subsequently, we can then come to an agreement or make a decision on temporarily applying the section on the Bureau to the Preparatory Committee. In that instance, between the two sessions, the first and the second, we will be able to fully, transparently and inclusively constitute this body so that by the time the second session starts, starts, that body will be fully up and running and can begin its work. Once again, I'm referring to the second session of the Preparatory Committee, so we're not losing any time. When constituting the Bureau in the ordinary fashion, answering all of the questions I posed earlier, what's important is to ensure representation of regions and of views on the establishment of a future instrument. For that reason, the Bureau's membership should be broadened to have three members from each regional group. What's of principled importance is the issue of the powers of the Bureau. The Bureau's powers must be specified because right now, as things stand, it's not clear at all what the Bureau can and cannot do. In light of the above, what we propose is that we suspend the meeting so that delegations can discuss the constructive solution we've proposed or alternatives, so delegations can discuss those. And I would like to underscore and to draw your attention to the fact that pushing through opaquely developed solutions is not the best way of starting this process of negotiations on such an important document. I do hope that everyone understands that and that we'll be able to come up jointly with a transparent decision which will be able to garner consensus and which will be agreeable to all. That would be a great start. I thank you. UN Secretariat · Legal Counsel [9:45]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, and his comments will, of course, be recorded in the summary records. At this stage, I'd like to recall to delegations a few of the rules of relevance. I want to recall that, pursuant to rule 161 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the rules relating to the procedure of committees of the General Assembly, as well as rules 45 and 60, apply to the procedure of the Preparatory Committee. According to the relevant part of rule 103, which I quote, "Each main committee shall elect a chair, three vice-chairs and a rapporteur. In the case of other committees, each shall elect a chair, one or more vice-chairs and a rapporteur. Those officers shall be elected on the basis of equitable geographic distribution, experience and personal competence. As one such other committee, we are thus required to elect a chair, one or more vice-chairs and a rapporteur. I'm informed that it's a well-established practice of the Sixth Committee and of other subsidiary bodies of the General Assembly, such as the International Law Commission, that the bureaus are composed of at least one representative from each of the five regional groups. In other words, it's a well-established practice to elect the full complement of a chair, three vice-chairs and the rapporteur, who, together with the chair, would constitute the representatives of the five regional groups on the bureau. I wonder whether, based on that clarification and the recognition that the proposals raised by the Russian Federation would be included in the summary records, we could proceed at this stage to the election of the chair. I recognize the distinguished delegation of Iceland. You have the floor. Iceland [12:22]: Good morning, colleagues, Excellencies. It is very good to be back in the room to discuss crimes against humanity on the long road towards the agreement we all are looking forward to seeing coming to existence. And I just wanted to make it very clear on behalf of Iceland that we are extremely supportive of Mr. Declan Smith and of Ireland as the chair of the Bureau. In fact, we were ecstatic when we heard his name was on the books as a candidate. So that's important for us. It's important to have someone so experienced to be in charge here and help us get further in our preparatory work for the conference. We agree with the Russian Federation on the importance of this process. So that's good that we agree on that. Iceland would be inclined to just get to work, so to speak, without spending too much time on debating the procedural aspects of the Bureau. And I think the UN Legal Adviser has just explained perfectly well why this arrangement with the Bureau is well-established practice. So, I would say let's proceed on this basis. I think there is broad support for that in this room. And then let's get to discussing the substance of the future agreement which Iceland is looking very much forward to doing. We agree with the envisioned procedure here and the Bureau. Thank you. UN Secretariat · Legal Counsel [14:06]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Iceland. I see no objection to the explanation that I provided of the rules of procedure, and we would then proceed accordingly. I would like to then revert. I recognize the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [14:37]: Madam Legal Counsel, there is an objection on this interpretation. However, as we stated earlier, we are prepared to consider constructive solutions to the situation we find ourselves in. So on the interpretation, yes, we do have rules of procedure, but they are to be applied mutatis mutandis. It doesn't mean that they're applied together with all of the practices of the main committees. And as we know, each main committee has its own practice, and this practice varies widely. If we look at the practice of preparatory committees for these kinds of conferences, we're going to see even more differences. Therefore, I'd like to underline that each of these issues requires a separate decision. Nothing can be done automatically by default. Therefore, what I propose is not to limit ourselves to submitting what delegations said, to introducing that into the summary records, but actually to consider what is being proposed. We, referring to constructive solutions, we said that we could consider constructively a temporary chair or a facilitator being elected. So we won't object to the next step, which you proposed, to ensure that the Preparatory Committee can do its work. However, as for the following step on the Bureau, our questions remain, and we do not agree with this interpretation. And I'm only taking the floor because you said that, "Do we agree with this interpretation?" Can we take that as a given? No, we cannot. Therefore, we need to craft a way forward, a common understanding. So let's take the next step, so elect the Chair, but then on the Bureau, let us suspend, after all, let us discuss the option put forward by my delegation. We're prepared to discuss any and all other constructive options as well, which might bring us towards an agreed outcome. However, pushing through a decision on the Bureau, that won't fly. The objections that delegations have will remain. Therefore, let me underscore once again that we do not agree. We need to come up with agreed parameters. I thank you. UN Secretariat · Legal Counsel [17:31]: I give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Rwanda. You have the floor. Rwanda [17:38]: Thank you very much, Legal Counsel. Very good morning, colleagues. Happy New Year. Good to see you all, for those that I haven't seen and haven't met since the year began. Happy New Year, better late than never. Chair, we take the floor not to object to leadership of this process. but rather to speak to the process. The process is as important as the outcome itself. The outcome is as important as the process that leads to that outcome. And I think what Member States are looking at is an outcome is arrived at with unity, and I think unity must start from the beginning. We are of the view that given the importance of what we are discussing, I think unit of purpose from the beginning to the end is going to be extremely very important. For us, we want to see an outcome not arrived as good as it might be, but end up being shafted because the political process was not based on unity. So I think we must take into account all constructive elements that is going to build the unit of purpose that is needed, leading to this important matter that we are all discussing. So I'm just appealing that as we're going to enter into the real work of negotiations of this outcome that we wish to get, let's all focus on the unity we need and even the negotiations have probably will be much more easier. So I will appeal that we, all of us, show maximum flexibility in terms of understanding each other and then we move forward in the intent purpose. Thank you very much. UN Secretariat · Legal Counsel [19:52]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Rwanda. May I then take it, bearing in mind the comments by delegations, that it is the wish of the Preparatory Committee, as the next step, to elect Mr. Declan Smith from Ireland as the Chair of the Preparatory Committee? I see no objection. It is so decided. Accordingly, Mr Declan Smith of Ireland has been elected as the chair of the preparatory committee. I congratulate Mr Smith on his election. I extend to him my best wishes for a successful session, and I invite him to take his seat at the podium. Ireland · Chair [22:34]: Distinguished delegates, allow me first to express my sincere gratitude to you for entrusting me with the honour of chairing the Preparatory Committee. This is a significant honour for me personally and for my country, Ireland, and I will endeavour to maintain the trust that you have placed in me this morning. In discharging my functions as chair of the preparatory committee, I know that I will be able to count on your usual co-operative participation and engagement in order to progress efficiently and effectively towards the fulfilment of our mandate. Permit me also, on behalf of the preparatory committee, to thank the United Nations legal counsel, Ms Eleanor Hammerschmidt, for getting us on our way this morning. Distinguished delegates, at this point of proceedings, it would be customary to move now to the election of the Bureau. In light of the comments made before my election, I would like now to invite comments from the floor on this matter. And I have, I see on the speaker's list, the delegation of Egypt. So you have the floor. Egypt [24:21]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues, good morning. I'm honored to deliver the following statement on behalf of the following delegations: Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Uganda, and my own delegation, Egypt. Our delegations appreciate the effort that has been exerted to prepare for the convening of this preparatory committee, including by the delegations that have been invited to serve on the Bureau and also by the Secretariat. our delegations are firmly committed to ensuring that the discussions in this preparatory committee and the negotiations in the diplomatic conference are managed consistently with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and in a manner that is transparent and efficient, which facilitates the successful conclusion of this process. In this regard, our delegations have a set of questions and concerns with respect to the Bureau of this preparatory committee. These questions and concerns are as follows. First, the size of the Bureau. We are of the view that the current size of the Bureau is not sufficiently representative, and we feel that this process would benefit from an extended Bureau by adding two further representatives from each region. Second, the composition of the Bureau. We are of the view that the composition of the Bureau is not reflective of the diversity of views and positions with respect to the content of the ILC draft articles. This can be addressed by expanding the size of the Bureau to include States representing various legal systems and also representing the range of views on the draft articles. Third, the prerogatives of the Bureau and its exact functions remain unclear. We would appreciate greater clarity on this matter, and we are of the view that determining the prerogatives of the Bureau should be undertaken on the basis of consensus. Fourth, we underscore that the decisions taken by the current Bureau are not binding. Until a decision is made on the question of the Bureau and the methods of work, all decisions should not be viewed as binding. Our delegations would appreciate greater clarity on these matters, and we also believe that these procedural issues should be settled by consensus and in a transparent manner. Our delegations underscore that precedents from past processes or past negotiations are neither binding nor unalterable. We should definitely be guided and informed by our previous experiences, but the fact that a certain format was adopted in a previous negotiating process does not necessarily mean that it should be applied in the present context. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [27:02]: The distinguished delegate of China has asked for the floor. Sir, the floor is yours. China [27:13]: Thank you, Chair. I congratulate you on assuming the chairmanship, and China will fully support your work. At the same time, We echo the statement made by the delegation of Russian Federation. They have expressed a legitimate concern. According to GA resolution 79/122, the resolution has not determined the composition of the Bureau, and nor has it mentioned this issue. relevant rules are not very clear in this regard. In particular, regarding the size of the bureau, how big should the size be? These key questions have not been fully discussed yet. So, We are thinking about underrepresentation or not full representation has achieved for every country. We can look at the BBNJ process in which a pre-decision has been made in the preparatory process, according to General Resolution 78272. Regarding the Bureau composition, the size of the Bureau, the terms have been clearly determined in that GA resolution. Of course, we will follow the Chair's guidance and leadership. and we can specify a specific time slot for discussing the composition of the Bureau, so as to ensure the smooth conduct of our meeting, of our session. Thank you, Chair. Ireland · Chair [29:36]: I thank the distinguished delegate of China for those comments. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sir, you have the floor. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [29:49]: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. In my national capacity, please allow me to congratulate you upon your well-deserved election as the chair of this committee. Rest assured of our full engagement and constructive role in this process. Now, I would like to deliver this statement on behalf of China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, and also on behalf of my own country. We would like to express our gratitude for the efforts made in convening this meeting, while assuring you of our active and constructive engagement in this process. On procedural aspects, Mr. Chair, we believe it is important to conduct our work on such an important topic strictly on the basis of clear rules and transparency, adhering to our mandate from the very start. This includes the question of Bureau. Given the importance of a bureau for ensuring the smooth conduct of business of the Committee, it is vital to establish a bureau for the Committee. The UNGA resolution A/RES/79/122 does not mention such a body. Thus, a bureau could be formed on the basis of a decision by the Committee which delineates the mandates of the bureau. To that end, we propose to dedicate some time during the first session of the PrepCom to draft a section of the future rules of procedure of the conference dedicated to the Bureau. It will be particularly important to make sure that the Bureau is inclusive and representative of member states from different geographical regions. This could be achieved by expanding the membership to three members per regional group, as in many recent processes. Other options could also be explored. We will remain open to engage on this matter to ensure that this process is well-structured and could facilitate the elaboration of the convention on crimes against humanity, taking into account the principle of transparency. I thank you so much. Ireland · Chair [32:05]: I thank the distinguished delegates of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Cuba. So you have the floor. Cuba [32:18]: Thank you very much, Chair. I wish you every possible success ahead of these difficult days of negotiation that we have ahead. I'm sure it's going to be a very interesting week and month in relation to international law. I would like, Chair, to put on the table that in the absence of any rules of procedure relating specifically to the election of the Bureau, we cannot claim to use customary procedures when there is another proposal about the decision, this objection. There has been a formal objection from the delegation of the Russian Federation, and so In order to focus and make progress on the debate, we would appreciate it if this point of order could be taken into consideration rather than speaking of customary practice when we have a proposal that goes against customary practice. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [33:56]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Cuba for those comments. May I ask if there are any other delegations that wish to take the floor? I have the distinguished delegate of Venezuela. Madam, you have the floor. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) [34:19]: Thank you very much, Chair. We congratulate you on your election and we wish you every possible success in this session and forthcoming ones. We would also like to support the suggestions from the delegation of the Russian Federation. Indeed, we should not stop taking into account the fact that the matters that we will be discussing here are of the utmost importance. And if we truly want to reach an optimal agreement that is This type of objection should not be sidelined. We believe that it is necessary for us to discuss this point and that we consider that these matters of procedure are really crucial for the success of this conference. cannot discuss customary practice when there is not just an objection, but as we have seen, several objections here in the room, and it is our hope that this will be taken into consideration. Thank you very much. Ireland · Chair [35:24]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Venezuela for those comments. And the next delegation on my list is Canada. The distinguished delegate of Canada has the floor. Canada [35:34]: Thank you, Chair. And I would like to start by congratulating you on your election to this process. You can count on our support. On the issue before us, we've listened carefully to all interventions, and what we see is a desire to negotiate modalities for the diplomatic conference. We believe that there's already a plan to do so at the session next year of this preparatory committee. At this stage, we note that each regional group has selected a candidate to be part of the Bureau, a process that was run here in New York through the regional groups. We trust the Bureau to ensure the good functioning of the meeting. for the purpose of the preparatory committee, we're happy to go with the proposal that was made by the legal counsel, that was put forward to the attention of all delegations by the legal counsel. I thank you. Ireland · Chair [36:49]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Canada for her comments. I see on my list the distinguished delegates of Ukraine. Sir, you have the floor. Ukraine [37:05]: Distinguished Chair, my delegation of Ukraine would like, first of all, to congratulate you on the election as the Chair to guide this preparatory committee. Our position is very simple. We fully share the assessment of the legal counsel, and we would like to proceed as quickly as possible. And we took note of the proposals that were just raised and we think that we have to stick to the established practice. We do not have to invite a bicycle again. So let us not have further delay and start our work. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ireland · Chair [37:52]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Ukraine for his remarks. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished delegate of Andorra. Sir, you have the floor. Andorra [38:04]: Thank you, Chair. And I also congratulate for your election. We are very happy. Actually, it was not rather easy in our regional group, but we all agree, and I'm very delighted to see you here leading this group. I, you know, we all been waiting a lot time to be here today. And I was not expecting to have such troubles already at the beginning, which is not a good sign. I understand some reservations sometimes. Yes, of course, we have to pay attention to reservations. But I wonder, I wonder really if this, because they've been suggested to extend the Bureau to two or three people. I wonder if the decisions of this bureau are of such gravity that we need such extensive a bureau. And I understood when we talk about this and we both discussed because the secretary inform us of the possible functions of the bureau. It seemed to me that that's not justified extension at all. We were talking when we have another meeting of this prepcom, definitely the decisions are going to be of different gravity, but at this stage, I don't think that we need such an extensive bureau. And I am the opinion, like the legal counsel, that we should proceed ahead. Let's start working, which is the finality that we are all here. Some that came from abroad and they're just eager to start. So I would support, like, Canada, the solution of the legal advisor and the bureau, because they've been nominated already. I thought there was certain discrepancy in the Asian group, but finally it was resolved in the same way we did in the WEHOC, so I think we came here with the wish to start working. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [39:48]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Andorra for his remarks, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Rwanda. Sir, you have the floor. Rwanda [40:00]: Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair, and warmest congratulations to you. And you can count on our full support. We're happy that you be leading this process forward. Chair, I'm taking the floor in terms of, and I've been listening very carefully, the views from everyone, including the proposals raised by even Egypt on behalf of a group of countries, the Russian Federation. In When we're setting the foundation of a house, it must be very strong because the intention is to have a very strong house. I was wondering whether the proposals, the different proposals, contribute to the success and the strong foundation of our process or we object to them simply because we take them as a minus. In our view, as for Rwanda, our focus most importantly is the outcome and setting a strong foundation of unity of all of us as member states and ownership of it is of critical importance and, again, as I mentioned before, The process is as important itself as the outcome we intend to come up with. We are appealing and of course taking into account the advice provided by the legal counsel, very good foundation, very good advice, but I think the ownership of this body is going to be extremely very important. So every view raised by a member state, we should give it due consideration, especially if, like for Rwanda, we're thinking it's contributing to the unity of the process that is leading to an important outcome. Again, as I said, For our delegation, we don't want an outcome which is adapted and then shelved, simply because the foundation wasn't as strong or as good as it should be. I appeal again, Chair, we are in your hands. Your leadership is going to be very critical, it's going to be very important. We're going to support you through this process. But I think listening to each and every one is going to be very critical to move the process forward and for a good outcome. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [42:47]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Rwanda for his remarks. I next have the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. Sir, you have the floor. Russian Federation [43:00]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your election. We are counting on you in your capacity as Chair seeking to strike a balance to find consensus, because the process is indeed important. I could not agree more with my distinguished neighbor to my right. We need an outcome which will not just be shelved. We need a genuinely good outcome, and to that end, what we need is a sound foundation for that outcome, which we will build together through joint efforts. I would like to add that for my delegation and for many delegations, this step of the process is going to be very demonstrative. It will demonstrate to what extent we are going to try to garner consensus, we are going to try and come to an agreement, to find joint decisions. It is a process whereby quality should not be sacrificed on the altar of speed. It is a process in which swiftly pushing through certain solutions will hardly help to achieve an outcome which will be useful for the international community as a whole. Because our objective is establishing an instrument which is as close as possible to universal application. And for that to happen, what we need to do is listen to one another. From what we heard, we'd like to comment. Some clarification on the facts. It was said that bureau candidates were nominated by regional groups. I would like to clarify, not all groups can nominate candidates, not all groups have a situation in the group whereby the situation allows them to do that, so that's not correct. Moreover, We know that some groups nominated more than, well, in some groups they had more than one candidate wishing to serve on the Bureau. But these alternative candidates were given a recommendation. It was recommended to them that they shouldn't take part because, and this is a quote, "There's no appetite for having more than one representative per group on the Bureau." I do apologize, but who decided that? We didn't get an answer to that question. What's the problem? Why is it an issue to have more than one candidate to serve on the Bureau? Moving on, regarding the transparency of the process. To be perfectly frank, we were surprised, our delegation, that is, surprised when we got information about the Bureau Certain decisions that the Bureau might be taking, we got that information only in December of 2025. A bit late, don't you think? But at that stage, we asked questions, and they very much chime with the questions put forward by Egypt on behalf of a group of countries. We asked the same questions. And these questions went unanswered. So What were you hoping for, that we would agree with a decision, although the questions remain? That's not going to happen, no. For that reason, once again, we're at a rather important juncture right now. We are demonstrating whether we're prepared to listen to one another or whether we're going to engage in political pressure. exerting that pressure. Now, if we hasten the process, if we come up with a document, well, clearly not all of the world's states are going to participate in that document if we proceed this way. We probably don't need that kind of process. So what we should rather do is let's listen to one another and address this issue, the Bureau issue, as it should be addressed, because, let me repeat myself, we heard arguments in favour of using past practice or the practice that we have. The practice varies. It's different in various main committees. The GA plenary has different practice. The processes of years past, the Cybercrime Convention, BBNJ, they had completely different approaches to the Bureau. very different from the ones that are being put on the table before us right now. And by the way, the distinguished representative of China, the proposal they had regarding biodiversity, it's very interesting. Everyone knows my delegation's position regarding the biodiversity instrument. Nonetheless, on the Bureau, we're very much prepared to consider any and all constructive proposals. Hence, Even with the BBNJ example, we're prepared to examine that closely, that option. And we could perhaps repeat some of what was done with BBNJ in this process on the Bureau. Now, once again, I'd like to highlight that we're not talking about the conference stage. What we're discussing is the Bureau, the Bureau for the Preparatory Committee. Because we don't have a clear-cut mandate, we need to come up with that mandate together through joint efforts. Therefore, to summarize all of the above, we have two very simple ways forward. The first way forward, listening to the comments, the questions, the objections put forward by delegations, consider the very constructive proposals that we heard, we see no issue with the addition of Bureau members, with improving the representation of both groups and views. Because, to be perfectly frank, we don't see the problem with that, objectively. This is an excellent proposal which we should take into account. Therefore, we should give this the necessary form and then continue down that path. There's another option as well, option two. If we wish to move ahead speedily, as some recommendations recommended, well then for some reason we would start the entire process with a confrontation. We don't recommend such a way forward. Let's listen to the delegations rather. let's constitute a bureau which would meet the needs of this committee. From what I heard, the contours of such an organ have more or less been sketched out. It's not going to take too much time to work on constituting that kind of bureau. Thank you very much. Ireland · Chair [50:50]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation for his comments, and I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [51:01]: Thank you, Chair. Let me first congratulate you on your election as Chair of the PrepCom. You have the support of our delegation. We also thank USG Hammerskjold for her explanation of the applicable rules of procedure. To us, rule 103 and the established practice seem clear. We agree with the points made by Canada and Andorra that the planned approach of one Bureau member per regional group is the appropriate way forward. as far as we know, this, this, the planned approach has been known at least since last June, and, and we don't see a need to change that at this late stage, and, and we also don't see a need for any larger bureau for the preparatory committee as proposed, as compared to the actual negotiating conference, which may be a different question. We trust the Bureau to ensure the functioning of the meeting, and we would be happy to go with the proposed approach that has already been outlined. Ireland · Chair [51:59]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom for his remarks. I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Iceland. Iceland · Nordic Group [52:10]: I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Iceland. And firstly, Mr. Chair, we would like to warmly congratulate you on your election as Chair. We are very pleased to see you elected. And as the International Law Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Reykjavik, I can attest to your strong reputation as an international lawyer and leader. As Ranta and others have mentioned, you have our full support, like us, for all of the Nordics. We support Canada, and that this is not the stage for having these discussions and spending time, wasting time on procedure, I would say, when nominations are in place and we are ready to get going. We agree with the Legal Counsel on Rule 103 of the General Assembly Rules of Procedure. which very clearly speaks about geographical representation, experience and competence, not political views. The UN, in fact, would be a very different place if not just regional representation, but also views were a requirement every time we elect the Bureau. Most importantly, moving forward without delay is what the Nordics strongly prefer right now, and I would just Lastly, I'd like to remind all of us essentially of what we're here for and I would quote the resolution of the Sixth Committee from December where it says among other, "In consensus, deeply disturbed by the persistence of crimes against humanity and recognizing the need to prevent and punish such crimes, which are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. This is big. Let's get to work. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [54:16]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Iceland for her comments, and I give now the floor to the distinguished delegate of Eritrea. You have the floor. Eritrea [54:28]: Thank you, Chair. At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your election. Eritrea shares the concerns raised. It is important that we address these concerns. To ensure legitimacy, the proposed Bureau's composition, mandate, powers, and transparency must be clearly defined before its establishment. such as the size and the equitable representation of the full diversity of UN member states. It is imperative that the serious objections and concerns raised are fully addressed. This is essential for a transparent, inclusive and genuinely intergovernmental process. I thank you, Chair. Ireland · Chair [55:18]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Eritrea for his remarks. I have. Six more speakers on the list, and then I would propose, I will say something about how I propose to proceed. The next person on the next delegation on the list is the distinguished delegation delegate of Germany. So you have the floor. Germany [55:40]: Thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. First of all, let me congratulate you, Chair, on the assumption of your position. Germany fully supports your important work. We have listened carefully to the views expressed this morning, and there seems to be a consensus that this process needs to be a transparent one. And it is important, in my delegation's view, to make a distinction between the organization of the work of this PrepCom, of our task at hand, and the conference which we are supposed to prepare. So It is our task now to lay the foundation for the conference, and if I may refer to our distinguished colleague from Rwanda, it is important to have a very strong and good foundation. However, this foundation needs to be laid down in these weeks we have at hand. So it is my delegation's view that we should not delay our work, and we should base our work on the sound advice given by the Under-Secretary-General and the Office of the Legal Adviser. We concur with the views expressed by others in this room that, in particular, Rule 103 is a good foundation for the Bureau, and we would be happy to go ahead with that proposal. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [57:14]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Germany for his comments, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Portugal. Portugal [57:24]: Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair, good morning, colleagues. First of all, congratulations for your election. We are very happy to see you sitting as Chair. So we have listened, as others, very carefully to the different views regarding this procedural issue on the composition of the Bureau. Again, as others, we would like to underline that the nominations have been made, and it is also, for instance, in our own case, Portugal was a candidate also to the Bureau, but due to the fact that there was just one representative agreed per regional group, we have happily and with all flexibility stepped down in order to facilitate the process. So we very much concur with the position and the views that have been conveyed by the United Nations Legal Counsel. We also like to remind that this question has not been raised before, and we have had many discussions before about about the the diplomatic conference about setting out the prep com and this has not been raised before that's why and since the resolution says nothing about it that's why precisely in our view that we should apply the general rule that is set out in the rules of the procedure of the General Assembly as the United Nations legal counsel has reminded us so basically the The mission that we have ahead is historical, it's an historical one, so let's get to work. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [59:15]: I thank the distinguished. Delegate of Portugal for his remarks, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Poland. Poland [59:24]: Thank you. Chair, first and foremost, let me congratulate your election to this position. I'm sure that having such a distinguished lawyer in this place would allow for a smooth conduct of this preparatory committee. As for the substance, Poland aligns with the position of the UN Legal Council and views expressed by other states, in particular by my predecessor from Portugal, that supports the position that one of three is a good way to compose the Bureau. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:00:06]: I thank the distinguished delegate. Of Poland for his remarks, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Australia. Madam, you have the floor. Australia [1:00:18]: Chair, Australia first wishes to congratulate you on your election as chair. You have our full support and we have full trust in your leadership to guide us through this process. We have listened to the views by delegates this morning. For Australia, we support the intervention by Canada and others. We agree with the approach proposed by the UN Legal Council outlined earlier. Thank you, Chair. Ireland · Chair [1:00:43]: I thank the delegate of, the distinguished delegate of Australia for her comments. And I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of the Netherlands. Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [1:00:53]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to congratulate you. You have the support of the delegation of the Netherlands. I'll be very brief. We echo what's been said by our colleagues of, amongst others, the UK, Andorra, the Nordic countries, and we. Agree with the approach of the Legal. Council of the UN and are ready and look forward to continue with the substantive discussion as soon as possible. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:01:18]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Netherlands for her comments, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of France. France [1:01:28]: Thank you very much, Chair. We congratulate you on your election. I will also be very brief for France. We have been carefully listening to the points of view expressed, and we support the position of the Legal Counsel which was supported also by Canada and a group of states that is founded on a well-established practice. And we propose that we progress and begin the debate without changing the procedure as regards what was decided previously, so that the Bureau is ready to start working in that way. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:02:11]: I thank the distinguished delegate of France for her comments. I have Three speakers left on my list, and then I would propose to make some remarks about how we should proceed. I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Nigeria. Nigeria [1:02:29]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And at the outset, my delegation would like to congratulate you on your election and to assure you of our support throughout the process. First, my delegation aligns with the statement delivered by distinguished delegation of Egypt on behalf of the group of states. We also echo the comments that we made by several other delegations, including Iran, Rwanda, Eritrea, and the Russian Federation. Mr. Chair, we agree that the process is as important as the outcome, and we think that this is the first time delegations are having the opportunity to discuss the question of the composition of the Bureau. By the understanding of my delegation, we do not think that the LEGO Council's intervention meant that there's complete foreclosure on the expansion of the size of the Bureau. And the argument that such expansion could actually allow us to have proper representatives of views and the various legal system is quite germane. And our approach will be that commencing this process from a very strong foundation means that there is unity of purpose. We want to move as a group, given the important nature of this topic and beginning Uh, with that process means that, um, all views should be, uh, looked at and considered and decisions on them taken in a very constructive manner, we want every delegate, every delegation to be on board, we want everyone to be, uh, part of this process and we want to, uh, commence this process in unity and we are in Johan's chair. This is a litmus test, the first difficult decision that you will have to make, and we count on your good judgment to approach this matter and then come up with a decision that will reflect the generality of the views that have been expressed by member states. Thank you very much. Ireland · Chair [1:04:39]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Nigeria for his comments. I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. Sir, you have the floor. Russian Federation [1:04:49]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This time I will keep my intervention brief, very brief. We continue to listen to colleagues' interventions very carefully, and we'd like to draw some conclusions from the discussion. First, Rule 103, which the Legal Counsel referred to, even if we set aside to what extent we can apply this practice to our situation, or where we should do that, we should look at what Rule 103 says. And it says "one or more vice-chairmen". Therefore, even referring to Rule 103 doesn't mean we're in a situation where we are limited to having one representative per group on the Bureau. No, not at all. What did we hear from the room? We had a representative from one specific regional group, the Western Europe and other group, objecting to broadening the composition of the Bureau. And then we heard representatives of other regional groups, many representatives from many groups saying, let's broaden the Bureau. Well, what's the problem? What's the problem with broadening it, if there's a desire to do so? Second, the dynamic we're seeing in the room, well, it points to the fact that we need to work on making the Bureau genuinely representative. Because as things stand, the dynamics in the room only serve to strengthen our doubts about the fact that the Bureau composition, as currently proposed, is not inclusive or representative. Last thing, the remark regarding views. No one is talking about political views. However, it's sufficiently important to have the Bureau to be balanced in terms of views of the concept of the instrument. So it could be a framework document, it could be a more detailed document, there might be different views on the elements making up that document. And it's good when we have different views because the Bureau should be representative and neutral. That's its job. I think where we stand now, we're very far off from achieving that objective. So let's listen to all of the regional groups, especially given that their proposals are very logical. And also, they don't actually contradict what the legal counsel proposed. Third, they also serve an opportunity to create that robust foundation and also to avoid a confrontation at the starting line, which would be catastrophic for this process. Therefore, we are counting on your wise judgment, Mr. Chairman. I thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:08:03]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation for his comments, and I give the distinguished delegate of Greece the floor. You are the last speaker on my list. Greece [1:08:15]: Foreign language Thank you very much, Chair. We would like, uh, at the outset to congratulate you on your election, and we, uh, support the decision to follow Article, Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure as in terms of the basis of equitable geographic representation. This reflects the constant abiding practice in our view. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:08:48]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Greece for his comments. Distinguished delegates, I think at this point it would be useful to make a number of clarifications and then I will propose how we should proceed. Firstly, and I think. That this has been brought out in our discussion this morning, it is important to distinguish between the rules of procedure for this preparatory committee and for the diplomatic conference. They are different. Secondly, as the legal counsel clarified this morning, our preparatory committee here is what is described as an other committee of the General Assembly, and insofar as that is the case, the rules of procedure of the General Assembly apply to our work here in this preparatory committee. Thirdly, I have noted the wide variety of comments that have been made this morning about the composition of the bureau, in particular the number of representatives of each of the regional groups in the Bureau. Fourthly, I would say that while the rules of procedure of the General Assembly apply to this meeting, the relevant rule of procedure in relation to the composition of the Bureau does not fix a precise number. For the bureau. In view of the comments that we have received this morning, it is important to recall, firstly, that the call for nominations to the bureau was made in June of last year by the chair of the Sixth Committee. The comments that we have received this morning depart from the request of the chair, who sought one nomination for each regional group. However, in the light of. The comments that we have heard this morning and the disparity of views expressed, I propose that, for the time being, we postpone the election of the bureau while informal consultations take place in relation to that matter. that we proceed now to the adoption of the agenda for this meeting. I see no objection. It is so decided. I move to the adoption of the agenda for our meeting. I then intend to provide some information relating to documentation for our meeting. Distinguished delegates, adoption of the agenda. The provisional agenda is set out in document A/AC.300/2021/1. 2026/L1, which was reissued last week in order to reflect the dates of the second session of the committee, as decided by the General Assembly in December. The agenda is available on the website of the committee. May I take it that the committee wishes to adopt the agenda? I see no objection. It is so decided. Distinguished delegates, I will now turn to the documentation for this session. Delegations are advised to consult the website of the preparatory committee and, in particular, the documentation page for the present session, where you will find links to the respective pages on the websites of the International Law Commission, and of the Sixth Committee, containing information and documentation relating to the consideration of the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity in both those bodies. You will also find a link to the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, as adopted by the commission, and the commentaries thereto. Please note that the secretariat can also make available on the preparatory committee's website electronic versions of the statements made by delegations during the general. Debate today. Those delegations and representatives who wish to have their statements made available on the website are invited to transmit electronic versions of them to e-statements@un.org or directly to the secretariat of the Preparatory Committee's separate e-mail address, sixthcommittee@un.org. Let me also remind delegations that have not yet done so to submit the names of their representatives, alternates, and advisers to the secretariat for the purposes of the preparation of the list of delegations attending the first session of the Preparatory Committee, preferably by registering online in the e-participants module of the e-delegate portal, or by e-mail to the secretariat of the Committee. Distinguished delegates, we turn now to the organization of work. The General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of resolution 79/122, decided, inter alia, to convene a working group, which shall be governed by the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, to meet for the entire first session of the Preparatory Committee to facilitate consultations on the draft articles and to enable Governments to prepare formal proposals for amendments to the draft articles for consideration by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. I also draw your attention to paragraphs 14 to 16 of the same resolution, by which the General Assembly decided to open the meetings of the Preparatory Committee, including, therefore, those of its working group, to all States members of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies. Observers, having received a standing invitation to participate in the sessions of the work of the General Assembly, on the understanding that they shall participate in the conference in accordance with the rights and privileges conferred upon them by the Assembly; and observers from relevant non-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in accordance with the provisions of Council resolution 1996/31. Of 25 July 1996. Distinguished delegates, I turn now to the programme of work and the modalities for the participation of NGOs. A proposed programme of work has been prepared for approval by the preparatory committee. The programme is available on the website of the preparatory committee and was circulated electronically on 25 November last year. It was also introduced at a briefing held by the secretariat on 11 December last year. A slightly revised version was prepared and circulated two weeks ago. As you can see from the proposed programme of work, it is recommended that the preparatory committee hold its formal meetings, both in the plenary and in the working group, primarily during the morning sessions but also during some afternoons. I expect that the general debate will continue in the afternoon today, Given the length of the list of speakers, it is likely that we will be meeting for the entire day tomorrow as well. We will also be meeting in the afternoons on Friday 23 January instead of in the morning, and the same next week, on Tuesday 27 January. That is due to the limited availability of interpretation services in the mornings on both of those days. In accordance with the proposed programme, the preparatory committee will meet in plenary for the remainder of the day today in order to hear general statements. Please note that, given the number of inscriptions on the list of speakers, I am recommending the following limits on the length of statements, 12 minutes for statements delivered on behalf of groups of States and seven minutes for national statements. The working group of the whole will commence its work tomorrow morning, or perhaps, given the length of the list of speakers for today's general debate, tomorrow afternoon. It is further recommended that the working group structure its work on the basis of the five thematic clusters of provisions in the draft articles prepared by the International Law Commission. The list of the five clusters appears in the footnote in the proposed programme of work. Such an arrangement was used to organise the discussion during the two resumed sessions of the Sixth Committee, which? Were held in 2023 and 2024. That arrangement was well received, as it permitted delegations the opportunity to focus on specific aspects of the draft articles and to consider related provisions together. Accordingly, the discussion on each cluster will be scheduled for each day until Monday, and it is suggested that the slots for Tuesday and Wednesday next week be left open for discussion of proposals for additional provisions and any other matters. While I intend to apply the programme flexibly, I will, to the extent possible, seek to ensure that the debate on each cluster takes place as scheduled, in order to allow delegations the opportunity to plan their interventions. In other words, if the discussion on a particular cluster ends early, I will adjourn the meeting of the working group, rather than move directly to the debate on the next cluster. Doing so will also permit delegations the opportunity of sequencing their informal meetings in the afternoon with the discussions held in the mornings. I wish to remind delegations that the meetings of the working group are closed. In other words, only the three groups of participants identified in resolution 79/122, which I mentioned earlier, can attend the meetings of the working group. No recording of the proceedings of the working group will be made or permitted. No meetings of the working group will be held during the afternoons, except on 23 and 27 January. Instead, delegations will have those afternoon times to hold informal meetings which could range from informal consultations, whether structured or not, to side events. While we will have the room available for those gatherings, we will not have interpretation for most of them. It is for delegations to organise those meetings. The preparatory committee has been allocated the use of this room, the trusteeship council chamber, each day until Friday 30 January 2026, with the exception of next Tuesday 27 January, when the working group will meet in conference room 2 downstairs. In the afternoon. Please also be aware that the secretariat has also arranged for the availability of conference room A for the entire session for the use of any delegations that wish to hold smaller gatherings. Interested delegations are invited to approach the secretariat to request the use of either room on a first-come, first-served basis. The secretariat can also assist with the circulation of announcements of informal meetings. Announcements on side events will also be posted on the committee's website. The preparatory committee is expected to conclude its first session on Friday 30 January, at which time it will adopt. Its report for the session. No meetings have been scheduled for Thursday 29 January in order to permit the secretariat the time to process the summary of the proceedings of the first session. Before moving to the approval of the proposed programme of work, I wish to draw the attention of the Preparatory Committee to paragraph 8 of resolution 79/122. according to which the committee shall also decide at its first session on the participation of stakeholders other than those referred to in paragraph 16. In other words, the preparatory committee has also been assigned the task of taking a decision at this session on the participation in the conference of stakeholders other than the relevant non-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. As you can see, no specific meetings on this matter have been scheduled in the programme of work. Instead, I have decided to appoint Ms. Keke Motsepe of South Africa as coordinator on the issue, with a mandate to seek agreement among interested delegations on a proposed draft decision to be presented to the preparatory committee for approval at the final meeting of this session, on 30 January. I thank Ms. Motshephe for being available and willing to take on that task. and I encourage all interested delegations to make contact with her. Distinguished delegates, as I have already indicated, the proposed programme of work will be applied with the appropriate flexibility. As chair, I will start all meetings punctually. I therefore urge all delegations to be on time for meetings. May I take it that the committee wishes to approve the proposed programme of work and to proceed on the basis that I have just described? It is so decided. Distinguished colleagues, let me turn now to the modalities for the participation of non-governmental organisations. As already recalled, the General Assembly, in resolution 79/122, also made provision for the participation as observers of representatives of relevant non-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in accordance with the provisions of Council resolution 1996/31. Following a registration process undertaken with the assistance of the secretariat, we have with us a number of representatives from those non-governmental organisations. On behalf of the preparatory committee, I welcome all of you to the committee. We look forward to working with you throughout the forthcoming process. On the arrangements for your participation, I recall that, in paragraph 17 of resolution 79/122, the General Assembly decided that the participation of representatives of NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status means attending formal meetings, receiving copies of the official documents, making their materials available to delegates and addressing the meetings through a limited number of their representatives, as appropriate. In addition to observing the meetings of the plenary and the working group, which has already been agreed, the bureau would like to propose the following further two modalities. I should rephrase that. I would like to propose the following further two modalities, namely, that, following the exhaustion of the list of speakers for today's general debate, representatives of participating non-governmental organisations will be permitted to make interventions limited to two minutes each, or to three minutes for groups of non-governmental organisations. Secondly, participating non-governmental organisations will be entitled to make their materials available on designated tables at the sides of the room. I understand that the delegations were informed of these proposed modalities at the briefing given by the Secretariat in December. May I take it that the Preparatory Committee wishes to proceed accordingly? It is so decided. Distinguished delegates, before beginning the general debate, I would now like to give the floor to the coordinator on non-ECOSOC stakeholder participation, Ms. Motshephe of South Africa, to make a brief statement. Ms. Motshephe, you have the floor. South Africa · Coordinator [1:30:39]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wish to congratulate you on your appointment. I wish to thank you for entrusting me with this important task of this Preparatory Commission. And I assure you and all delegations of my full determination to work inclusively and transparently. I wish to inform that I will, in a few days, and through the assistance of the Secretariat, invite interested delegations to participate in informal consultations aimed at deliberating on this matter and assisting the Preparatory Commission to arrive at a decision. I wish to further inform delegations that from this moment I am available to engage bilaterally, and delegations are welcomed to reach out to me. I also encourage delegations to engage among themselves. Further details on how we will proceed will be shared as and when the process unfolds. I am available, Mr. Chair, for any engagement. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:31:50]: I thank you for those comments. I encourage all interested delegations to contact the coordinator, with a view to our being able to reach a successful outcome on the issue of non-ECOSOC stakeholder participation at the present session. Finally, I draw your attention to general assembly resolution 79/122, this time to paragraph 19, which provides for the attendance at the conference and the first session of the preparatory committee as an expert the special rapporteur of the International Law Commission on Crimes against Humanity. It is my pleasure to welcome to the Preparatory Committee Professor Sean Murphy, who has served as special rapporteur of the International Law Commission on Crimes against Humanity. Professor Murphy is well known to all of us here. As intended by resolution 79/122, Professor Murphy's attendance here will be in his capacity as an expert in the service of the preparatory committee. As such, he is here to explain the background, scope and content of the draft articles adopted by the commission and to respond to any questions based on the commission's work on the topic, recognising fully that the process is now in the hands of states. In that regard, he asked me to convey to the preparatory committee that, while the commission started with a blank slate, it modelled many provisions of the draft articles on treaty text that is used in many existing multilateral treaties that are widely adhered to by all states. as indicated in the ILC's 2019 commentary. I wish to thank him for making himself available to share his knowledge and expertise with us, and I encourage all delegations to make the best use of his presence with us to ask any questions you may have about the draft articles adopted by the Commission. I propose to invite Professor Murphy to take the floor at the beginning of the debate on each cluster in the working group, in order to introduce the cluster. In light of the more informal nature of the process within the working group, delegations will then be invited to request the floor to make statements or to comment on the views of other delegations, or, if they wish, to address questions to or seek clarifications from Professor Murphy. He will also be permitted to request the floor to respond to comments made in the working group. I have no doubt that we will all benefit from his presence and continued contribution. I would like to invite Professor Murphy to take his seat on the podium. I have a request for the floor from, I see the. Distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor. So you have the floor. Russian Federation [1:35:18]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We listen to you very carefully. And we do want to seek some clarifications based on what we heard. You mentioned the fact that we will hold formal meetings. both as a committee and both in the working group. However, on the working group, if we understood correctly, they are closed meetings, therefore no recordings can be made of what happens there in the working groups, so no summary records will be made. And when introducing Mr. Sean Murphy, you also said there will be a more informal process in the working group. Well, that's what we expected, that's what we saw it as, as a more informal process. if we have formal meetings of the plenary and the working group, what's going to be informal? Second, If the working group is held in closed session, doesn't that automatically mean that it loses all of the tributes of a formal meeting? The way we see it, that's pretty logical, that's what's going to happen with the working group. And this brings me to the question regarding what you mentioned, limitations on participation in the working group, limited to three categories. So we'd like to ask what these categories are. Because we had some questions, so we'd like to seek clarification. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [1:37:41]: I see I have a request for the floor from the distinguished delegate of Nigeria. Sir, you have the floor. Nigeria [1:37:49]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on your election. I just wanted to raise a couple of -- of course, you have the prerogative to make adjustments. But now for the non-governmental organizations, now the comments they are going to present or statement they are going to, is it going to be part because they are non-member state? So the comments that you said, you agree for them to make, is it going to be part of the the negotiations, so we'd know where we're going for. If they make comments, it's going to be part of the documents that are going to be included as discussions because they are non-members. So giving them the opportunity to make statements is going to be part of all the negotiation content for the negotiations. So we have to know where we're going. So before we conclude, thank you very much. Ireland · Chair [1:39:06]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Nigeria for her comments and the distinguished delegate of Russia for his. And I'm happy to offer some clarifications. Firstly, in relation to the points raised by the distinguished delegate of Nigeria, to be clear, the non-governmental organizations do not participate in the negotiations of the convention. They are entitled to make statements in the plenary meeting of this preparatory committee, and those statements will be recorded within the official records of the preparatory committee. In relation to the three. Categories referenced both by me and the Russian Federation, I am happy to clarify that the three categories all States members of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies of the United Nations; that is the first category. The second category is observers having received a standing invitation to participate in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly. on the understanding that they shall participate in the conference in accordance with the rights and privileges conferred upon them by the Assembly; observers from relevant non-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in accordance with the provisions of the council's resolution 1996/31; That is set out in operative paragraphs 14 to 16 of resolution 79/122. The final point of clarification was in relation to. The reference to the formal meetings of the preparatory committee plenary and of the working group. The use of the term "formal" in this sense is intended to reflect the fact that the General Assembly has formally established both the Preparatory Committee and the Working Group within it. Different arrangements, as I have explained, will apply in both. There will be no official records of the proceedings in the Working Group. Meetings of the Working Group are closed. plenary meetings of the Preparatory Committee will be the subject of official records, and these are open. And these are the formal distinctions between the two groups, the two bodies. The Russian Federation has asked for the floor again, I see. I give the floor to the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [1:42:19]: Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much for attempting to clarify the issue. But we still have that question. So, based on what we just heard from you, you said that we have NGOs partaking in negotiations on the draft, that they won't be taking in negotiations on the drafting. Then you said that we have closed meetings without summary records. That's the working group. You then mentioned the three categories of entities which will be participating in the work of the working group. And the membership participation there is very broad, so in practice There's not going to be any opportunity to control the fact that no one would be making a record in the room, and so on and so forth. Now, this begs the question, what is the point of calling a meeting closed if we have no procedural guarantees of the fact that the meeting will be closed in practice? In practice, we have two types of plenary. one plenary that's a bit more convenient, with a regular list of speakers, with summary records and so on and so forth. And then we have a less convenient plenary where we don't have the above, but at the same time it's closed only in name. Let me remind you that at the working group we intend to work on coming up with proposals for the future treaty. So, in practice, we're going to be working on the text of the future convention. Broad participation in this process is not in keeping with this practice. The word "formal" in the resolution was not an arbitrary choice. If we look at established practice, "formal" means plenary. Whereas the working group, where we work on the text of the future convention, do the negotiating, that's usually informal. It's closed, as you rightly said. So the word "closed" should be imbued with the requisite meaning, something that hasn't yet been done. So we would like to look to the text of the resolution, which we have before us, but also stick to the practice that we acted in accordance with in other processes as well. We have no issues with the plenary, no issues with the approach you've proposed to the plenary. As for the working group, we still have those issues. Ireland · Chair [1:45:20]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation for his comments and questions. Perhaps it would be useful if I offer some clarifications at this point. As the distinguished delegate recalled, we are bound by the operative paragraphs of the resolution that established the preparatory committee. Operative paragraph 16 of that resolution decides that attendance at the conference and at this preparatory committee as observers will be open to relevant non-governmental organisations. The preparatory committee consists of both plenary meetings of the preparatory committee and of the working group. There are no negotiations taking place at the preparatory committee. The working group has as its purpose the facilitation of delegations in the preparation of possible proposals for amendment to the draft articles. No negotiations will take place, but. We are restricted to complying with the operative paragraphs of the relevant resolution, which has decided that non-governmental organisations in consultative status with ECOSOC shall attend as observers the preparatory committee. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the delegate. I see that the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation has requested the floor. I give you the floor. I ask you to keep your comments brief, as we have a very large number of delegations inscribed on the list of speakers for the general debate, and we would like to start that as soon as possible. You have the floor. Russian Federation [1:47:42]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do not intend to draw out the process. All we want is clarity. And for the time being, we don't have that clarity. We didn't even get it on our second try. Now, we do not object with the mandate in the resolution. We have a copy of the resolution, and it says that these formal meetings, they can be attended. but the question is what is meant by formal meeting and the resolution does not predetermine that we don't deem working group meetings to be formal meetings what's more is we don't really agree with your rationale according to which the working group won't be engaging in any negotiations I do apologize what is the working group what are we going to do at the working group then because we're Starting work on the future document. Indeed, the objective was worded by the General Assembly in a slightly strange way. The Committee should help to come up with national proposals for the future document. National proposals is in essence drafting. Therefore, in this instance, we don't agree. We will be negotiating at the working groups quite substantively. Once again, the resolution does say formal meetings, but we do not construe the working group as a formal meeting. This issue is something that we need to resolve together, how to interpret what it says, because the clarifications we received imply that there's no difference between the plenary and the working group, no difference at all. Now, this begs the question, why do we need this format? And also the word "closed", why? What is the meaning of that word? It is shorn of meaning. And this leads us to conclude that the legal interpretation should be made in good faith, and what's more is, to avoid stripping this provision of its meaning. If we did foresee different formats, These formats do have to be genuinely different and if you have the word closed in there, then that should result in something being closed. So far, we haven't seen that from neither clarification we received, so the question stands. Ireland · Chair [1:50:33]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation for his comments. I think it would be useful to clarify that the purpose of the working group, as he recalled, is to facilitate a discussion which would enable delegations to prepare possibly for any amendments that they may wish to propose in due course by the 30th of April next year. It is not intended or anticipated that that would entail any negotiation between delegations. The working group is convened to enable a more informal exchange with the special rapporteur and dialogue between delegations, if they so choose, all with a view to facilitating them in the preparation of any amendments that they may wish to propose by the deadline of 30 April. That is the reason why these different arrangements have been made for the working group. I propose now to proceed to the general debate. I will note your concerns in relation to the operation of the working group, but I do not consider them to be an objection, and I propose, therefore, to proceed to the general debate. Distinguished delegates, let me turn now to the general debate. With that, we have concluded the organisational element of this morning's proceedings. Before we begin the general debate, I would like to say a few words about the task that lies ahead of us over the next four years. That task is the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission. Today, we are at the very beginning of the process. By elaborating a convention, we will be closing a significant and longstanding gap in the edifice of international law. Distinguished delegates, The list of speakers was opened for inscription on the e-delegate portal last Monday. A link to the live list was shared over e-mail last week and is available on the website of the preparatory committee. Delegates can also access it directly by scanning the QR code that is available on the sides of the room. The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the Africa Group. You have the floor, sir. Cameroon · Africa Group [1:53:42]: Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to deliver a statement on behalf of the African Group. The African Group would like to thank the Bureau, the Office of Legal Affairs, and the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management for the preparation of this meeting. Chair, In its resolution 79/122 of December 4, 2024, the General Assembly decided to convene a United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiary to meet at the United Nations Headquarters in 2028 and 2029 to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The African Group welcomes this decision as it demonstrates our collective commitment to prevent and punish crimes against humanity, which are among the most serious crimes that affect the international community, deeply shock the conscience of humanity and endanger the stability, peace and cohesion of society. The Group welcomes the holding of the current first session of the Preparatory Committee, which constitutes the point of a process that hopefully will lead to concrete and tangible results with the elaboration and adoption of the Convention as the ultimate goal. It is expected that this meeting fostered exchange of substantive views expressed during the past session of the Sixth Committee in a constructive and open spirit with a view to achieve the broadest possible consensus for the adoption of this Convention. Chair, the African Union recognises the fundamental importance of this process, and it is for that reason that it reiterates its readiness to constructively engage in meaningful and substantive discussion to be held following a fair, inclusive and transparent process premised on the established principle of consensus. In this regard, the African Union would like to echo resolution 79/122 in stressing that the conference should be undertaken in an open and transparent manner with a view to promoting universal adherence. Equally important is the necessity to ensure the widest possible and effective participation in the conference, as well as on all the major preparatory steps that will lead to the conference. As previously stated, While the draft article adopted on second reading by the ILC may constitute a potential basis for our consideration on this subject, the legitimate concern raised by many member states, both individually and as part of regional group, during the past session of our committee, should be given due consideration. This will give effect to the decision of the General Assembly in its resolution 79/122 that a summary document consisting of the draft article and a compilation of the amendment that state would propose be transmitted to the conference, thus clearly demonstrating that the said draft article will not serve as the sole basis for negotiation. For the African group, an inclusive process is a process reflective of the injustice of the past, which are still a reality disguised differently in modernization as reflected in the comment of our group and the individual African state made during the tourism session of the sixth committee. A transparent process is a process where the concern raised by the African group and all region affected by the crimes against humanity are duly reflected. Such a process should also address contemporary form of crimes and threat. The African Group recalls the negative impact of historical atrocities, unilateral coercive measures and international crimes, especially slavery, slave trade, colonialism, apartheid, racial segregation and subjugation, and the exploitation of resources and other heinous acts associated with these crimes, that denied and violated the humanity of its victim as one of the highest form of crimes against humankind. To this day, we continue to experience the vestige and consequence of, for instance, the transatlantic slave trade and racial discrimination, which continue to affect the continent and people of African descent. It is in this context that we continue to call for the admission of responsibility for slavery and the slave trade, as well as all other practices threatening the future and perpetration of humankind and their continuing consequences, with the moral authority and responsibility to lead global effort in their prevention. We therefore reiterate our call for the inclusion of these crimes as crimes against humanity as the prohibition of this crime is inalienable and inescapable. In the same way, it is crucial to recognize the violence and denial of human dignity that marked this period and establish a new legal framework for recognition and reparative justice. Similarly, the fundamental legal concept of historical importance to African member states such as the principle of territorial integrity, sovereign equality, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states enshrined in the UN Charter, should be explicitly mentioned in the draft article, given the horizontal nature of this article. We also caution against the double standard and the selective approach to justice, as they erode trust and confidence in the international legal order. Chair. The African group reiterates its concern regarding the ILC approach regarding the review of and reference to some provision borrowed from other internationally binding instrument in a manner inconsistent with their initial context or intention. The African group highly value international cooperation in combating crimes against humanity. Such cooperation should be undertaken in accordance with the principle of complementarity and with applicable rule of international law relating to immunities. In this regard, we are of the view that priority should be given to national jurisdiction and to bilateral cooperation in the area of mutual legal assistance like extradition. The general obligation of states should be linked first to national law and then to obligation freely enter into under the mechanism provided by the international law. to ensure that this obligation comply with the spirit and letter of international law. Further, the prohibition for engaging in act constitution crimes against humanity must be precise and formulated within the capacity of the state to punish. An emphasis also ought to be placed on strengthening capacity building and fostering mutual legal assistance. This is about filling the resource and capacity gap and ensuring that implementation of the expected instrument will be accompanied by technical and institutional support for the benefit of states that need it most, including African states. To conclude, the African Group share the views that to effectively combat impunity and blatant disregard for human rights, more effort should be exerted in line with applicable international legal instruments. Considering this, the African Group remains ready to engage constructively during the current first session of the Preparatory Committee, subsequent steps and the diplomatic conference itself, with the objective of developing an international instrument that is fair, balanced and enjoys the widest possible support from Member States. While challenges remain, we believe that with broad ownership and consensus, a universal instrument on the prevention of crimes against humanity can be achieved. I thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:02:06]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Cameroon for his statement on behalf of the African Group. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished delegate of the European Union to make a statement on behalf of the European Union and its member states. EU · EU [2:02:26]: Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries, North Macedonia, Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia, as well as Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. Chair, the European Union and its member states are honored to participate in this first session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference on Prohibitory on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. At the outset, we wish to thank the UN Legal Counsel for opening this session, as well as the Office of Legal Affairs and the Secretariat for their continued support. We also congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your election. We once again acknowledge the important work of the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteur, Mr. Sean Murphy. Chair, the European Union's member states have supported this initiative from the outset as part of our steadfast commitment to ending impunity and ensuring accountability for international crimes. We therefore reiterate our full support for this process and for its objective, the adoption of a convention that will fill a longstanding gap in international treaty law. Alongside the crime of aggression prohibited by the UN Charter, the crime of genocide and war crimes, Crimes against humanity are amongst the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Yet, unlike the crime of genocide and war crimes, which are addressed by dedicated conventions, crimes against humanity remain the only ones of the international core crimes without a comprehensive treaty framework. This gap is particularly striking given that such crimes may occur outside situations of armed conflict and are no less egregious in their scale or impact. So it is time to fill this gap. Throughout history, millions of women, men, and children have fallen victim to these crimes, which continue to be committed around the world to this day. Yet many states still lack comprehensive domestic legislation to criminalize them, and the absence of a unified international framework hampers both prevention, repression, and effective interstate cooperation. The case for a convention could not be clearer. Chair, the convention will require states parties to criminalize crimes against humanity under national law, strengthen their capacity to investigate, prosecute, and punish such crimes, and oblige them to take measures to prevent their commission. It will provide essential tools for international cooperation and ensure better protection for victims and survivors. Above all, it will send a clear and powerful message of condemnation by the international community as a whole. Colleagues, crimes against humanity are, by definition, a concern of the international community as a whole. Protecting humanity against these crimes is a shared responsibility that transcends political, geographical, and ideological divides. The Pact of the Future calls on us to redouble our efforts, I'm quoting, "to end impunity and ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity," unquote. We must answer that call, particularly at a time when multilateralism and international law are under strain. When the international order based on international law is being tested, we must demonstrate that the United Nations remains capable of delivering on issues that unite us by their very nature and of advancing international law for the protection of all people. Few initiatives embody this imperative more clearly than a convention to protect humanity from the most serious crimes. Now, as we begin our work, we believe it is essential to focus on substance and technical elements drawing on the solid foundation provided by the ILC's draft articles, engaging constructively and avoiding politicization. A technically sound and widely supported convention is the best safeguard against misuse. The active engagement of all delegations and a comprehensive participation of civil society organizations in this process is the surest way to achieve a widely accepted convention, one that reflects the values of the international community as a whole. We wish to especially underscore the importance of the meaningful participation of civil society. This Preparatory Committee is called upon to decide at this first session on the participation in the Conference of State Holders beyond non-governmental organizations with ECOSOC consultative status. Civil society organizations have played a valuable role throughout this process, and their continued engagement, including at the conference itself, will be essential, in particular, to ensuring a victim and survivor-centered approach. Chair, in closing, we participate in this open and positive spirit to listen to other delegations, to civil society, and to all those committed to bridging differences. Let us work together, dear colleagues, to demonstrate once again what is possible when nations unite for the common good, to protect humanity and to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:08:05]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the European Union for his statement. I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Jordan for a statement on behalf of the Arab Group. Jordan · Arab Group [2:08:34]: Chair, allow me at the outset to congratulate you on your election to chair this preparatory committee. We wish you every success. I also have the pleasure of delivering this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. Chair, As part of international efforts aimed at preventing and punishing crimes against humanity, crimes that are amongst the gravest crimes affecting the international community, the Arab Group is delighted by the adoption of the resolution 79/122 on a diplomatic conference on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, and this provides for a conference of three weeks at UN headquarters in early 2028. And also this preparatory conference for drafting the text, the Arab group supports this work in order to combat crimes against humanity to prevent them and to ensure accountability and punishment. We are aware of the fundamental importance of this process, and we reaffirm our readiness, as the Arab Group, to participate constructively in the substantial and deep discussions at the diplomatic conference and during the work of the working group of the Preparatory Committee that will lead to a consolidated text, including draft articles and a compilation of proposals submitted by States and governments with a view to amending the draft articles, those specifically that do not enjoy universal acceptance. Chair, over recent years, we have closely followed the thematic discussions in the Sixth Committee on the draft articles of the International Law Commission as regards crimes against humanity. This dialogue was a constructive process that went beyond the traditional procedural process, and we would encourage continuing in this way. We call for an equitable, inclusive, and transparent process. As demonstrated by the observations of certain Arab states in the resumed session, our main responsibility in terms of the prevention and punishment of these crimes falls to States. The Group also highlights the importance of respecting the principles enshrined in the Charter and the absence of selectivity in order to promote the rule of law, to guarantee accountability and to combat impunity. We warn against illegal unilateral measures that are in violation of international law, its rules, and that would reinforce double standards and a selective approach in the administration of justice. We believe that responsibility for grave crimes requires the application of the rules of international law in the absence of any kind of selectivity or politicization. We reaffirm the importance of cooperation, of mutual respect between states in order to support the efforts aimed at preventing and eliminating impunity. In this context, we recall the principles that underpin the international order by virtue of the Charter of the United Nations, notably respect for the sovereignty of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, and abstention or refraining from the use of force or the threat of the use of force. as well as avoiding resorting to unilateral measures that may undermine international law. By way of conclusion, Chair, 80 years after the end of the Second World War, we face a painful reality which shows that millions of people, young people, women, children, older persons, They live in conditions that do not live up to the promises of the international community. The Charter of the United Nations and international instruments have made a commitment to preserve the dignity of all human persons, and yet these commitments are still out of reach. It is therefore down to the international community to remain firm in its determination to transform these commitments into real action, notably by establishing a binding legal framework that is comprehensive and clear and that puts an end to impunity and guarantees accountability for crimes against humanity. I thank you, Chair. Ireland · Chair [2:13:32]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Jordan for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Sweden for a statement on behalf of the Nordic countries. Sweden · Nordic Group [2:13:55]: I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and my own country, Sweden. The Nordic countries warmly welcome the convening of this first session of the Preparatory Committee for a future convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Today marks the beginning of a new and long-awaited phase in our collective efforts to close a significant gap in international treaty law and to strengthen accountability for one of the gravest crimes of international concern. The decision taken by the Sixth Committee to move forward with negotiation was a historic milestone. A dedicated convention will reinforce accountability at the international level, support national implementation, enhance interstate cooperation, and strengthen our shared ability to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. These crimes continue to cause immense suffering around the world, and impunity remains far too common. We owe it to victims and survivors to ensure that this process leads to a strong, effective, and universal convention. The Nordic countries remain convinced that the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission provide a solid and balanced basis for negotiations. The discussions held in the Sixth Committee demonstrated broad readiness among States to engage constructively and revealed convergence on many key elements. We look forward to building on that momentum in the work ahead. Mr. Chair, as we embark on this preparatory phase, the Nordic countries wish to underline one point of particular importance. the meaningful participation of civil society. Civil society organizations, including survivor groups, human rights defenders, practitioners and academic experts, have played a vital role in advancing accountability for international crimes. Their expertise, field-based knowledge and lived experience are indispensable to ensuring that the future convention is effective, credible and grounded in reality. Inclusive and transparent processes are essential to building trust and legitimacy and to ensuring that the Convention reflects the needs of those it is ultimately intended to protect. The Nordic countries dare to hope that none of us would want to inadvertently exclude survivors of crimes against humanity from the process ahead. We therefore strongly support the broadest possible participation of civil society throughout the preparatory process and at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries. We encourage the Preparatory Committee to adopt modalities that facilitate such participation in a meaningful and practical manner. Mr Chair, our task in the coming years is clear: to lay the foundations for a Convention capable of preventing future atrocities and ensuring that crimes against humanity never go unpunished or unaccounted for. The Nordic countries stand ready to work constructively with all delegations to achieve this shared objective. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:17:00]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Sweden for her statement. And I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of a group of states. Sir, you have the floor. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:17:27]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to deliver this statement on behalf of China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, and also my own country, the Islamic Republic of Iran. We would like to express our gratitude for the efforts made in convening this meeting, while assuring you of our active and constructive engagement in this process. Mr. Chair, crimes against humanity threaten the peace and well-being of societies, unfortunately affecting millions of people, including children, throughout the recent history. Such egregious crimes that are of most serious concern to the international community as a whole should not go unpunished, and the perpetrators of such crimes must not operate with impunity. While there is often common understanding on the gravity of these crimes, The key challenge lies in determining how best to proceed in our discussions to ensure accountability and justice. In our view, much depends on genuine international cooperation free from politicization or double standards. That should guide both the procedural and substantive work of the preparatory committee. That being said, as preliminary remarks on behalf of our group, we would like to touch upon a few procedural and substantive issues. On matters of substance, fighting crimes against humanity, which is of serious concern to the international community as a whole, requires a solid universal international legal instrument To that end, the preparatory committee and the conference need to not just aspire for, but practically take appropriate measures to ensure that the outcome of this process could assure universality of the instrument in question. Past experience has visibly demonstrated that a favorable environment for elaboration of a convention and constructive engagement of delegations in good faith has led to an outcome that have achieved near universal acceptance. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the United Nations Convention against Corruption are among these kind of instruments to which the ILC has time and again referred to or otherwise alluded in its commentary on the draft articles on crimes against humanity. The definition of crimes against humanity is central to the ongoing discussions. To achieve universality, we need a definition that incorporates a reasonable and well-defined threshold. We are of the firm view that such a threshold is met in the case of unilateral coercive measures. Unilateral coercive measures, which are imposed systematically and in a widespread manner, among others, inflict severe conditions of life upon the population, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine. Such unlawful measures could even result in mass death and starvation among the population. Thus, the definition of crimes against humanity must include a direct reference to unilateral coercive measures. We will elaborate on this at a later stage. Our group understands that the African Union has taken steps to include slavery and colonization into the definition of crimes against humanity. We are well cognizant of the historical background of this issue and that throughout history, unfortunately, such situation has inflicted irreparable harms to the African people. We follow the developments in this regard and where appropriate, we'll reflect our position on this matter. Mr. Chair, it is important to combat crimes against humanity without politicization or double standards. and with full adherence to the fundamental principles of international law. Otherwise, rule of international law could be weakened, not reinforced. In this regard, the draft convention must reaffirm the necessity of compliance with the fundamental principles of international law, including sovereign equality of states and its corollary rules and principles, such as immunity of officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, non-intervention in domestic affairs of states. throughout efforts in prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The future convention must not encourage use of tools or mechanisms prone to politicization and leading to encroach upon functions that are reserved exclusively for the domestic authorities of other states. Similarly, questions of jurisdiction are of essence in our discussion so as to respect sovereignty of states and to prevent jurisdictional conflicts. As to the question on the need for specific provisions on immunity of States' officials, our group sees merit in reflecting in the document the respective rules of customary international law. And in a similar vein, we highlight the necessity of considering stipulating respective procedural guarantees, checks and balances. On a procedural note, Mr. Chair, we would like to underline The intergovernmental nature of this process, this fundamental element must be respected at all the stages of our work, including in addressing the issue of participation of non-governmental organizations. The modalities agreed in this regard in the resolution of the General Assembly must be strictly followed. Along similar lines, we stress the need to support and facilitate the participation of developing member states in this process. This could be done through a trust fund that the committee might decide to establish. To conclude, Mr. Chair, while reserving our right to present further comments or proposals on the topics under consideration by the preparatory committee, it is imperative to ensure that any outcome would pave the way for implementation of obligations in good faith. in accordance with international law, and not for advancing political agendas, nor for perpetuating double standards. We set on an important journey to develop a document dedicated to extremely grave crimes that have already affected millions of people throughout history. It is necessary to keep this goal in mind, aiming for such a draft that will have best chances of becoming a truly universal treaty. To achieve this, adherence to the principle of consensus will be crucial at all stages of our work. Quality should be observed, especially on such a topic. To that end, due regard should be had to the dedication of enough time for careful consideration of this highly nuanced work. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Ireland · Chair [2:24:34]: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his statement. And I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Estonia, on behalf of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. You have the floor, sir. Estonia · Baltic States [2:24:53]: Mr. Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the three Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, and my own country, Estonia. The Baltic States align with the statement made by the European Union and its Member States. At the outset, the Baltic States warmly welcome General Assembly resolution 79/122, which sets the way forward for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. We appreciate the convening of the first session of the Preparatory Committee and the opportunity to engage in the preparatory process. While genocide, war crimes, torture, and enforced disappearance are governed by dedicated treaties, crimes against humanity, despite their gravity and status under customary international law, remain without a standalone treaty. Addressing this gap is both timely and necessary. Crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, and they threaten the peace, security, and well-being of the world. Regrettably, they continue to be committed today. The civilian population continues to suffer, while the perpetrators often enjoy impunity. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a stark and prominent example. The Baltic States have already incorporated crimes against humanity into their criminal law. We have actively engaged in the discussions in the Sixth Committee and supported the work of the International Law Commission on the matter. We find that the draft articles prepared by the ILC and the established international criminal law, particularly the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are a solid foundation for our continued work. The draft articles integrate prevention, punishment, and international cooperation. They clearly set out the obligations of states to criminalize crimes against humanity, to establish jurisdiction, to investigate, to prosecute or extradite alleged perpetrators, and to cooperate internationally. These obligations are essential to combat impunity and to ensure accountability for such most serious international crimes. We value the victim-centered approach of the draft articles, including the recognition of the rights of victims to protection, participation and reparation. The victim-centered approach is vital, given the profound and lasting harm inflicted on individuals, families and communities. We also underscore the importance of the gender dimension. The gender-responsive provisions are central to accurately reflect the suffering of victims and to ensure effective prevention, investigation and accountability. We further stress the importance of meaningful civil society participation. Their engagement enhances transparency, inclusiveness and the quality of our deliberations. Looking ahead, we see this stage of consultations as an opportunity for constructive, solution-oriented dialogue, guided by our shared objective: establishing a robust and universal legal framework to prevent crimes against humanity and to ensure accountability. In this spirit, the Baltic States reaffirm full support for the continuation of the process under General Assembly resolution 79/122. We stand ready to engage actively and constructively in all forthcoming stages. The adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity would be a landmark achievement, strengthening the rule of law and contributing meaningfully to the prevention of such crimes. The Baltic States look forward to working with all delegations and civil society partners towards the successful conclusion of this vital endeavor. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:29:27]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Estonia for his statement, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Egypt. You have the floor, sir. Egypt [2:29:42]: Honorable Chair, distinguished delegates, as we embark on the process of elaborating a convention on crimes against humanity, it is essential to begin by defining success. Specifically, what are the indicators that we should use to determine that the drafting of a convention on crimes against humanity has succeeded? To answer this question, I would like to offer two metrics or two indicators for success. The first is quantitative and the second metric is qualitative. Quantitatively, the Crimes Against Humanity Convention would be successful if more states joined this new convention than those that are already parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The reason that I'm using the Rome Statute as a numerical benchmark for the success of this new convention is obvious, and it is because Article 7 of the Rome Statute was incorporated almost verbatim into the ILC draft articles. Currently, 125 states are parties to the Rome Statute. This number is significantly lower than the number of parties to other conventions in the fields of human rights and international criminal law. Let me share some examples. The Genocide Convention has 153 parties. The Terrorist Bombings Convention has 170 parties. The Torture Convention has 175 parties. The ICCPR, 175 parties. The Convention Against Taking of Hostages, 176 parties. The Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, 191 parties. Convention Against Corruption, 192 parties. Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 193 parties. And the Geneva Conventions, 196 parties. In my view, if after years of negotiations, we end up with a convention that has roughly the same states that are parties to the Rome Statute, then I would say the process has not succeeded. On the other hand, this process would be a success if a new convention on crimes against humanity attracts parties that are not members of the ICC, and if it enjoys levels of support that are similar to other comparable instruments. Achieving this rate of ratification or accession to this new convention requires taking the following considerations into account. First, support for the Rome Statute is obviously far from universal. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that many states will be disincentivized from joining this new convention if it is a vehicle to universalize the definition of crimes against humanity found in the Rome Statute. Indeed, Egypt has consistently expressed concern with respect to certain elements of this definition, which has been largely replicated in draft article two of the draft articles prepared by the ILC, and we will advocate for revisiting those elements. Second, it is essential for the diversity of legal and judicial traditions to be respected. Some states apply the adversarial system of prosecution, while other states apply the inquisitorial system of prosecution. This diversity of systems means that the new convention should neither adopt or impose a one-size-fits-all approach to matters such as international judicial cooperation or mutual legal assistance. Third, concern has been expressed by many states with respect to certain aspects of the draft articles. This especially applies to rules and principles such as immunity, the application of the principle of and modes of criminal responsibility. These concerns should be addressed in a manner consistent with sovereign equality of states and other principles of customary international law. Chair, the second metric of success is qualitative. As indicated by the title and Article 1 of the draft articles, the purpose of this new convention is both preventing and punishing crimes against humanity. To successfully achieve these objectives, we must approach the negotiations on this convention with the understanding that the territorial state retains responsibility to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. and that the prevention and punishment of these acts should be undertaken through the domestic legislation and domestic judicial processes of the territorial state. Like all instruments of human rights law, this new convention will be most successful if it becomes domesticated and incorporated into national legal and judicial systems. This is the most effective approach to promoting the rule of law, upholding the rights of victims, and protecting the rights of defendants. The real guarantee of success for this convention is not the threat or specter of enforcement through foreign courts or foreign prosecutions. Rather, it's recognizing the responsibility of the territorial state and the integration of the rules and principles codified in this convention into the domestic legal and judicial processes. That is the most effective guarantee for the success of this convention. In closing, Chair, Egypt underscores that it will engage in these negotiations on this convention constructively. Make no mistake, Egypt unwaveringly supports the fight against impunity. This is consistent with Egypt's long and proud judicial and constitutional tradition and builds on our contribution to the elaboration of many instruments of international criminal law. and also reflects our enduring commitment to the rule of law and the protection of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. In closing, on a personal note, I would like to extend a welcome to Professor Sean Murphy, dear friend and dear colleague and mentor. Thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:35:58]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Egypt for his statement, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Romania. Madam, you have the floor. Romania [2:36:13]: Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your election as Chair of the Preparatory Committee and be assured that you have our full support in discharge of your mandate. Romania welcomes the convening of this Preparatory Committee, a pivotal moment in the development of international criminal law. The negotiation of a comprehensive binding convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity responds to a long-standing gap in the architecture of international accountability, a gap that has perpetuated cycles of impunity and human suffering. The convention we are aiming for, once adopted, will constitute a historic commitment by the international community to ensure that the perpetrators of these grave crimes cannot evade justice. The establishment of a dedicated treaty on crimes against humanity is not merely a matter of legal codification. It reflects the international community's moral duty to provide effective remedies to victims and survivors, to deter future perpetrators, and to strengthen the foundation of the international rule of law. Our collective resolve to take this process forward, together with the historic result of the BBNJ Agreement, which just entered into force a few days ago, and the positive momentum of the protection of persons in the event of disasters, are tangible proofs of the enduring relevance of international law and its essential role in peace and security. This realization is perhaps more important now than ever. Dear colleagues, the 2019 International Law Commission draft articles provide a solid and principled foundation for our work. These articles have been informed by decades of state practice, extensive jurisprudence from international and national courts, and the lived experience of victims across the globe. Moving forward, we should bear in mind where relevant, emerging state practice and needs generated by contemporary challenges while being guided by the coherence and authority that the ILC process has produced. The overarching objective of our future convention is that of providing clear and robust obligations for states to domestically criminalize, investigate, prosecute, and effectively punish crimes against humanity in light of the well-established and tested definitions as reflected in the draft articles. In addition to ex post action, states must also undertake concrete measures to prevent crimes against humanity before they occur. This proactive prevention requires investment in protection mechanisms, rule of law capacity, and institution building that address the conditions under which such atrocities emerge. It is both a prerogative as well as a duty, an expression of the fundamental responsibility of states to protect their population and to ensure compliance with international norms. The legitimacy and effectiveness of this treaty will depend in no small measure on whether it reflects the concerns and insights of the full range of stakeholders affected by crimes against humanity. This means ensuring that survivors, human rights defenders, women's organizations, disability rights advocates, and grassroots organizations have real opportunities to contribute to our deliberations. A strong and genuine commitment to inclusivity and participation is a solid investment in the credibility and integrity of the process. To this end, we look forward to contributing to solutions that will ensure the widest possible participation of CSO representatives to the process as a whole. Dear colleagues, this first session of the preparatory committee provides us with the opportunity to shape the negotiations process as a constructive path to identify areas of convergence of views on the draft articles and the ILC recommendation in respect to them. It can also be a way to better understand substantive concerns or areas of divergence and to work towards ironing out the differences. We begin this session with a solid basis that is the result of the work done so far by the International Commission, by the Sixth Committee through its annual debates and informal negotiations, as well as the two resumed sessions. We now have on the table a comprehensive set of state comments and reports to lean on, as well as a broad convergence from the membership to proceed to the text of a convention. Romania looks forward to engaging in substantive discussions and negotiations based on a principled, inclusive, transparent and results-oriented approach. I thank you very much. Ireland · Chair [2:41:19]: I thank the distinguished delegate of Romania for her statement, and I give the floor now to the distinguished delegate of Switzerland. Switzerland · Permanent Representative [2:41:30]: Thank you, Chair. Allow me to begin with the words of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. "Crimes against humanity are aptly named. They are crimes against us all." We have before us a historic opportunity to fill the gap that exists in international law with regard to crimes against humanity. we have the opportunity to negotiate and adopt a robust and effective instrument that strengthens prevention and that guarantees the repression of these fundamental crimes. It is our collective responsibility to seize this opportunity through concrete action, starting now, beginning with our discussions within this Preparatory Committee. Switzerland welcomes the launch of the negotiation process aimed at the adoption of a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. This moment, indeed, marks the beginning of a decisive and long-awaited phase. Switzerland has proactively supported the opening of these negotiations since 2019. The decision taken by the General Assembly last year together with recent debates in the Sixth Committee, have clearly demonstrated the existence of broad support for the elaboration of a legally binding convention. As regards substance, my delegation wishes to reaffirm the high quality of the draft articles of the International Law Commission, the ILC, which, in our view, should form the basis of our work. It is equally essential that we preserve the convention's dual objective. to prevent crimes and to ensure their effective punishment. Three key elements merit particular emphasis. First, the definitions contained in the Rome Statute, ratified by more than two thirds of the member states of the United Nations. They have demonstrated their relevance and operational practicability, including at the domestic level. They therefore constitute a solid foundation for negotiations. Second, In order to ensure the effectiveness of the fight against impunity, the principle of out de jure, out de judicare should be reflected in the convention, together with a broad range of jurisdictional bases, including universal jurisdiction. Third, the Convention must establish clear, reliable and effective dispute settlement mechanisms in order to ensure its effective application and thereby guarantee legal certainty, which in turn strengthens the prevention of crimes and the protection of victims. With regards to the process, we wish to underscore the important role played by the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, with the indispensable support of the Secretariat, in facilitating a fair, efficient and results-oriented process. While the path towards the adoption of the Convention remains demanding, Switzerland wishes to reaffirm its full confidence in the leadership of the Bureau, and we thank both the Bureau and the Secretariat for their efforts. Convinced that the quality of the outcome of these negotiations will depend on the inclusiveness of the process, Switzerland supports the participation of non-governmental organizations. Their expertise and commitment constitute a valuable contribution to our work. It will also be necessary to create conditions that are conducive to an efficient and pragmatic decision-making process in order to allow the negotiations to move forward and to reach the broadest possible agreement. Chair, Switzerland welcomes the commencement of our work towards the adoption of this Convention, which is of fundamental importance for humanity. You may count on Switzerland's strong and constructive engagement. I thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:45:20]: I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Switzerland for her statement. We have one speaker on the list left for this session. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine. State of Palestine [2:45:36]: Chair, the absence of a convention dedicated to crimes against humanity constitutes a gaping hole in the edifice of international law that was built in response to the horrors of the Second World War. An absence that nothing can justify and that has lasted for far too long. We thank Mexico and Gambia for their leadership that has enabled us to move forward towards a conference to fill this gap. Palestine is proud of the role that it has played in reaching consensus on this issue, working closely with Mexico and the Gambia, as well as with Portugal, who chaired the Sixth Committee. We thank all the countries that made this consensus possible and enabled the holding of this preparatory meeting, both early supporters of which it is one, as well as those who were initially reluctant. We have worked, nevertheless, we have worked together to reach this consensus in order to promote the universality of a future instrument. We should also thank the International Law Commission for their work, which guides and informs our deliberations. Finally, we wish to thank the victims' associations and civil society organizations. They are a constant reminder of why such a convention is a moral, legal, and human necessity. Their presence, their mobilization, and their contributions are indispensable. In this regard, I hail Palestinian civil society organizations that have been repressed and punished for their exemplary defense of law. Chair, some will say that this is not the right time to advance our work, given an unfavourable international context, the decline in adherence to international law, increasing polarisation, or the unabashed return of those who believe in the law of the strongest or might is right. Some will say, what is the point of another convention when so many rules, including the most fundamental and elementary ones, are being violated? Believe me, we are well placed to understand the reasons for these doubts. But do we have the right to submit in advance to a failure that it is our responsibility to prevent? We are neither blind nor naive. What we see at home and around the world only strengthens our determination to defend principles that were forged through pain over centuries, principles that founded this organization, not as the result of some abstract philosophical exercise, but as wisdom that was acquired at the cost of the most terrible suffering. Renunciation is never the solution. When it comes to international law, our imperfect shield, we either move forward by strengthening it or we perish by abandoning it. This convention will not merely exist to restate the rules, but to ensure that states mobilize nationally and collectively in order to implement them. Chair, we will not prolong hear the debates that take place in the Security Council or the General Assembly. We are not here engaged in an exercise of accusation or denunciation, which may have its place elsewhere. Rather, together, we must move forward to provide humanity with an instrument to combat crimes which, by their nature and their scale, strike at the very foundations of our collective humanity and which cannot remain unpunished. The human species What unites us beyond race, religion, and nationality deserves to be called humanity through the principles that it adopts, the rules that it develops, and the actions that it undertakes. We do not renounce this title of humanity, the most sublime, the most noble, and sometimes the most forgotten, the one that is most essential to our survival. Some, intoxicated by the arrogance of force, forget the lessons of history. Power can always change hands, and brutality corrupts some while causing others to suffer. Violence multiplies through its own use, and unpunished crimes are reproduced endlessly. That is why the rules were established and why we subscribed to them on the day that it became undeniable that our destinies are linked. in a global war that spared no one? Must we wait for the next one to think together about the future of our peoples and our planet, beyond the selfishness that will inevitably lead all of us to collective ruin? So it is here and now, in the struggle that is ours, that we must do our part to demonstrate that we continue to belong to humanity, that it is our responsibility to save it from its worst instincts and demons. To cede to the myth of powerlessness would be to feed impunity. We in this hall will proudly represent our country, Palestine, and our wounded Palestinian people. We have been informed by our suffering, but also we are here on behalf of all peoples and all individuals who throughout history have suffered and perished. The seat that we occupy here, we will use it to serve humanity together with you. Crimes against humanity are being committed at this very moment as we gather here. Allow me, therefore, to dedicate my final minute to the victims, not to honour them through silence, but through words and through action. To the victims here and elsewhere, the victims of today and of yesterday, your suffering obliges us to deliver justice to those who are entitled to it and to save those who might be the victims of tomorrow. I thank you. Ireland · Chair [2:51:29]: I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine for his statement. Distinguished delegates, we have now reached the end of the time allocated for this morning's session, and we still have a long list of speakers on the list for the general debate. Accordingly, the plenary of the preparatory committee will reconvene in this room at 3pm this afternoon to continue with the general debate. The next speakers on the list are the distinguished delegates of the Republic of Korea, followed by Germany. The meeting is adjourned.