General Assembly: 21st plenary meeting, 81st session

Okay. The 21st plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 130, entitled "International residual mechanisms for criminal tribunals." Documentation under this item is listed in the Journal of the United Nations. So now I call on Judge Graciela Agati Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Judge, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. It is an honour to present the Mechanism's 14th Annual Report to the General Assembly. But first, let me wish the President of the General Assembly every success as he guides the Assembly through its 81st session. His focus on peace and security, respect for international law, and commitment to multilateralism is essential in these times. Indeed, less than two weeks ago, Navi Pillay was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in large part for her role in establishing a modern international legal order of accountability for crimes that shock the conscience. As the first woman judge of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and its second president, Judge Pillay participated in landmark rulings establishing that rape and other forms of sexual violence could amount to genocidal conduct. She was part of trial chambers that convicted for the first time a head of government for genocide and crimes against humanity, and held powerful media to account for fomenting ethnic hatred, genocide, and committing other international crimes. These gains in accountability and justice could only be achieved due to the sustained and significant support of this very Assembly. The justice cycle that commenced with these important judgments is not complete. Four persons convicted in Judge Pillay's cases continue to serve sentences under the Mechanism's supervision, alongside 33 others. The United Nations remains obligated to ensure that these prisoners' fundamental rights are upheld and their ability to seek release on equal terms is ensured. The United Nations also has a continuing obligation to oversee the judicial protection afforded to thousands of individuals who first survived and bore witness to atrocity and then courageously testified in the pursuit of justice. Moreover, our archives, which contain an invaluable historical record, are the property of the United Nations and require continued management for permanent preservation. The Assembly's support now to complete this journey is as important as the support provided to start it. Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. I assure you that the responsible and appropriate conclusion to our justice cycle is within reach. As detailed in our annual report, the Secretary-General issued recommendations in December last year to provide the Council with options to alter the mechanism's mandate that would allow for significant reductions in its size and activities while upholding due process, accountability, and the legitimacy of its proceedings. In February this year, the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, or OIOS, issued its biennial evaluation of the mechanism. OIOS emphasized that despite years of steep resource reductions, the mechanism's ability to further evolve into small, temporary and efficient structure was hampered by its mandated architecture, echoing the Secretary-General's assessment that a Council decision is necessary to enact transformative change. In May, and building upon the Secretary-General's and OIOS's recommendations, The mechanism presented a comprehensive strategic plan to the Security Council, providing a blueprint for the responsible conclusion of all activities with clear implementation timelines. The plan identified which functions can end, which can be transferred, and limited judicial functions that must remain at the international level. The plan identified opportunities for consolidation into a single location and organizational streamlining to achieve substantial cost savings, including a nearly 90% reduction in current staffing levels. The mechanism requires a Security Council resolution to enact this radical, yet just, transformation. The Mechanism understands that the Security Council is actively engaged on this matter, and we extend our profound thanks to the Council for its work. However, while we wait, the responsibility falls to the General Assembly to ensure that the United Nations' investment in international criminal justice is not lost due to the current impasse. Mr. President, Excellencies, The Mechanism's 2027 budget proposal will continue the consistent path of steep resource reductions. These savings are possible due to the termination of the case of Prosecutor versus Felicience Kabuga in May, the anticipated closure of the United Nations Detention Unit by the end of this year, and the Mechanism's planned move to lower cost premises in The Hague in 2027. Additional resource reductions will be accrued through the streamlining of workflows and outsourcing of administrative and technical support where feasible and cost-effective. However, these reductions are piecemeal. The Mechanism's 2027 budget must support its substantial mandated commitments, including maintaining two physical locations on two continents, and not the relatively minimal cost that would be possible following the implementation of our Strategic Plan. When a Council decision is taken, the Mechanism will work with this Assembly to revise its resource requirements accordingly. I must note that our continual downsizing and the general uncertainty of our situations levies a significant toll on our dedicated, mission-driven staff and judges. I extend my profound appreciation to them who, notwithstanding the prevailing circumstances, including the absence of a prosecutor, continue to deliver excellent results in all of our mandated activities. We hope, however, that the Security Council will soon resolve our situation. Mr. President, Excellencies, today, the Mechanism remains focused on five key functions: residual judicial activity, supervision of enforcement of sentences, protection of victims and witnesses, management of the archives, and assistance to national jurisdictions. These functions are fundamental to the protection of individual rights and the integrity of international judicial judgments. They further domestic accountability efforts. The preservation of the judicial record plays a central role in establishing truth and counters historical revisionism and genocide denial. In its recent evaluation, OIOS confirmed that the Mechanism's mandate remained relevant and was adequately implemented. It further highlighted positive feedback from Member States on the Mechanism's continued importance and the necessity of the remaining residual functions. I take this opportunity to emphasize in particular my unequivocal support to the Secretary-General's recommendation that the authority of a pardon, commutation of sentence, and early release should remain at the international level. The Secretary-General, as well as OIOS, noted that such determinations directly engage principles of legality, due process, and equality before the law. They concern the effective implementation of sentences imposed pursuant to an international legal framework. Transfer of this authority to individual states would create an inherent risk of divergent standards and inconsistent treatment of similarly situated convicted persons. Retaining international jurisdiction safeguards the consistent application of the government legal framework. legal certainty, and the involvement of judges familiar with the relevant cases, conflicts, and sentencing practice. Mr. President, Excellencies, the hands of our clock are nearing midnight. Let it not chime, however, before the work of the day is done. The recent burial of Mr. Ratko Mladic's remains in Serbia underscores the potential perils of faltering in this final phase, including new harms to victims and survivors. Specifically, Mr. Mladic died while hospitalised in The Hague, awaiting transfer to an enforcement state to serve a life sentence. Dutch authorities immediately undertook procedures required under national law. Having determined that Mr. Mladic died of natural causes, no criminal investigation was opened and no autopsy was conducted by the Dutch authorities. In the interest of transparency, I ordered a parallel inquiry into the matter based on the Mechanism's regulatory framework. This inquiry is ongoing. Finally, I will be sharing with the Council a confidential ICRC report received today that examined end-of-life procedures and policies in our detention unit. However, the hero's funeral Mr. Mladic was accorded in Belgrade has triggered broad international condemnation. notably from United Nations experts and special rapporteurs, including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. These United Nations experts and special rapporteurs stress that for survivors of atrocities in the former Yugoslavias and families of those killed or forcibly disappeared, such public glorification of war criminals serves to, and I quote, "deepen suffering and undermine memory, truth, and accountability." End of quote. They warn that public actions that appear to honor individuals found responsible for atrocities risk undermining decades of efforts to seek truth, end impunity, and achieve justice and reparations for these crimes. These experts and special rapporteurs further remarked that, and I quote, "If such blatant genocide denial succeeds, It will roll back international criminal accountability gains against impunity that were forged in the fires of Nuremberg and Tokyo and international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. Mr. President, Excellencies, the years that have passed since the commission of these crimes do not diminish our collective responsibility to ensure that justice is done. The mechanism, on behalf of the United Nations, continues to faithfully and effectively sustain the international legal order established through the decades of your support. While we wait for a decision from the Security Council, we ask that you, the General Assembly, provide the support needed to sustain our mandated activities. By doing so, this body will affirm that the United Nations keeps its promises and lives up to the obligations of its Charter. I thank you all for your kind attention.

I thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Before proceeding further, I propose the time limits for statements in this debate be five minutes for individual delegations speaking in their national capacity, and seven minutes for statements made on behalf of the group of states. I recognize the Russian Federation was asked for floor before we proceed further.

Thank you very much indeed. We are against establishing time limits for statements during this particular meeting, I think.

Okay, as I understand, there was an objection before I even ended up the, I posed the question if there is objection, but I understand there is an objection. In the light of the objection made, no speaking time limit will be applied to the debate on this item. With that, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union. to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries Montenegro, Albania, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the EFTA country Liechtenstein, as well as Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. We thank President Gati Gersantana for the 14th annual report of the mechanism. And we commend her, the judges, the registrar, the Office of the Prosecutor, and all staff for their work. During the reporting period, the Mechanism issued 182 judicial decisions and orders, continued to monitor two referred cases, and to protect some 3,200 witnesses, to manage the archives, and to assist national jurisdiction. We note the finding of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that the Mechanism has continued to execute its mandate effectively despite substantial reductions in its budget and staffing. We appreciate the Mechanism's follow-up to Security Council Resolution 2740. The reports of the Secretary-General of 1 December 2025, the evaluation by the OIOS, and the Mechanism's Sixth Review Report, including its strategic plan, provide the Security Council with options for the transfer and completion of the Mechanism's functions. We take note of the proposal of the Secretary-General to transfer certain technical functions of the Mechanism, including archives management and assistance to national jurisdictions, to the UN Secretariat. as well as the proposal to transfer day-to-day supervision of imprisonment conditions to the states enforcing sentences, while retaining international judicial authority over essential judicial decisions, such as prisoner transfers, designation of enforcement states, pardon, or early release. Mr. President, in accordance with Resolution 1966 of 2010 and other applicable resolutions of the Council, The mechanism continues to operate unless the Security Council decides otherwise, as reminded by the Secretary-General in his letter to the President of the Security Council dated 1 July 2026. We urge the Security Council to adopt a resolution as soon as possible. The adoption of such a resolution is a matter of political, legal and financial responsibility. It is needed to provide the Mechanism with what it requires to carry out its mandate, including the appointment of a prosecutor, and to give certainty to its budgetary planning. It is also needed to determine the next steps towards an orderly closure of the Mechanism activities, with proper arrangements for the transfer of some of its still relevant and needed functions. Whatever arrangements are decided, the pursuit of accountability must continue at the national level. More than 1,000 fugitive Rwandan genocidaires remain to be located and prosecuted, while thousands of war crime suspects in the countries of the former Yugoslavia remain to be brought to justice. We commend the Office of the Prosecutor for processing 373 requests for assistance during the reporting period, and know the importance the Member States attach to this function. We are grateful to the host States and all those States that have been cooperating, notably by acting as enforcement States, and we invite others to join them. States must intensify their cooperation with the Mechanism and render all necessary assistance to enforce the sentences pronounced by the ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism. including to facilitate the eventual closure of the United Nations Detention Unit in the AIC and achieve substantial cost savings. Fugitives must be apprehended and surrendered to appropriate jurisdictions. Outstanding arrest warrants and contempt cases require full cooperation from the states concerned. The situation of the acquitted or released persons relocated to Niger in 2021 must be resolved. With the mechanism's financial support to them due to end on 31 December 2026, a durable solution is urgently needed. It cannot be achieved by the mechanism alone. It requires the cooperation of Member States. Mr. President, preserving memory and combating denial of the crimes adjudicated by the ad hoc tribunals remain essential for reconciliation and for preventing future crimes. In August, Ratko Mladic died while serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity and the genocide in Srebrenica. We stand in solidarity with all victims, survivors, and their families. Any glorification of war criminals, genocide denial, and revisionism contradict the most fundamental European values. Recent events are a powerful reminder of the continuing need to communicate and explain the work of international criminal courts and tribunals. In this regard, the European Union is proud to support the Mechanism Information Programme for affected communities in former Yugoslavia. The archives of the ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism, which contain an extensive body of judicial findings and evidence concerning some of the gravest crimes under international law, must also be preserved and remain accessible in accordance with new legal provisions. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that justice for the victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia is fully realized, and that the contribution of international criminal justice to peace and reconciliation is known to current and future generations. In this context, As also recalled by President Guterres Santana, the decision of the Nobel Prize Peace Committee to award the 2026 prize to Navi Pillai for her effort to promote peace and international law is particularly timely. During her eight years at the Tribunal for Rwanda, including four as its president, she helped shape international criminal law. are circled in the prize motivation, during her tenure, she gained distinction for her role in establishing that sexual violence and rape, as well as the spreading of propaganda, could lead to indictment for crimes against humanity and genocide. Her work is a precious compass for all of us in the current challenging times. Mr. President, to conclude, the European Union and its member states remain steadfast in defending the work and legacy of the ad hoc tribunals and the mechanism. and will continue to support the mechanism as it completes its work. Thank you.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand on behalf of CANZ.

Thank you, President. I have the honor of speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia, and my own country, New Zealand. CANZ reaffirms our strong support for the work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and its vital role in preserving the legacies of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. CANZ acknowledges the enduring contribution these institutions have made to the fight against impunity for the most serious international crimes and to the development of international criminal law more broadly. Most importantly, they have been instrumental in bringing justice to victims and survivors and their families, which is an essential step towards sustainable peace. President Cairns acknowledges the Mechanism's efforts to ensure it can continue discharging its residual functions while navigating the final stages of its mandate and planning for the future. We welcome the strategic and future-oriented approach reflected in the latest report. and the significant work undertaken to identify options for the completion and transfer of its functions. We are pleased by the extensive collaboration between the Mechanism, the Office of Legal Affairs, and the Secretary-General, and the efforts in assessing options to transfer functions while preserving the legitimacy and the credibility of the ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism. Kans notes that the Mechanism's final core crimes case was brought to a close this year with the death of Mr. Kabuga. While he did not face a final judgment on the charges against him, we hope the work of the Prosecutor's Office and Tribunal will serve as a valuable contribution to the record of events. Such records are an important resource for future accountability efforts, research and education, and to the preservation of victims' and survivors' experiences. For this reason, CANS also welcomes the Mechanism's commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, including measures to enhance the preservation and accessibility of the archives. These efforts will help safeguard the legacy of the Mechanism and the Tribunals for future generations. CANS acknowledges the importance of the Mechanism's continuing functions beyond the conclusion of its core crimes proceedings. including overseeing the enforcement of sentences and supporting national authorities prosecuting international crimes committed during the conflicts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. These functions remain critical to advancing accountability and ensuring justice is carried through to its conclusion. And we welcome the Secretary-General's recommendation that the technical function related to this important responsibility be transferred to the UN Secretariat. CAN acknowledges the significant downsizing and resource reductions that have taken place since 2021 and the pressures on the Mechanism's personnel during this transition phase. We will continue to support efforts to streamline activities, and we fully commend the Mechanism for its continued dedication to delivering on its core mandate and to ensuring that any transition is orderly, avoids accountability gaps, preserves institutional knowledge, protects judicial independence and due process, and safeguards victims' interests. President, the work of the ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved when the international community acts together to combat impunity. We cannot take their achievements and their legacy for granted. And therefore, we condemn any actions which aim to erase the past and undermine not only the good work accomplished by the ad hoc tribunals, but also the potential for long-lasting peace. Accountability for the most serious international crimes continues to require the sustained commitment of all UN member states. We thank those members of the Security Council who have worked hard to achieve a resolution for the orderly transfer of the mechanism's functions. and we call on all Security Council members to engage constructively to fulfil this important responsibility. For our part, and to conclude, CANS remains steadfast in offering our full support and cooperation to the Mechanism as it fulfils its responsibilities, and to ensuring that the contributions and legacy of the ad hoc tribunals continue to advance international criminal justice. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Latvia on behalf of the Baltic States.

Mr. President, I have the honor to deliver the statement on behalf of three Baltic States. Estonia, Lithuania, and my own country, Latvia. And we align ourselves with the statement delivered by the European Union on behalf of its member states. The RMCT and its predecessors have left a lasting legacy in international criminal justice by demonstrating that individuals, including senior political and military leaders, can be held accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. 90 persons from the former Yugoslavia have been convicted. 61 have been convicted for their crimes in Rwanda. The tribunals have also had an important role in the realm of gender crimes, an area left largely undeveloped in the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crime proceedings. Beyond prosecutions, these institutions gave victims a voice. More than 4,650 witnesses testified before the ICTY and over 3,200 before the ICTR, allowing the survivors to have their experiences officially recognized and preserved in the historical record. The tribunals established an important legal precedence and strengthened the rule of law by combating impunity for the gravest international crimes. This is a legacy. A legacy we must respect, protect, and preserve. And we wish to make three points. First, attempts have been made by the Russian Federation to deny that the mechanism's mandate has been extended and that it continues to exist. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the terms of Security Council Resolution 1966. Paragraph 17 of the Security Council Resolution 1966 is clear. The Mechanism continues to operate for periods of two years following each Security Council review of the Mechanism's work, unless the Council decides otherwise. The Council has reviewed the reports provided by the Mechanism and has engaged with its leadership. The whole UN membership can attest to this. There was a public Security Council debate on 12 June this year. no decision to discontinue the mandate has been adopted. Thus, the Mechanism continues to operate under its extended mandate. Second, it is clear that change to the Mechanism is needed to reflect the completion of its principal criminal proceedings and the evolving nature of its remaining functions. In the last few years, the IRMCT has worked hard on completing all criminal core crime cases dismantling more than 3000 judicial filings, responding to 125 requests for assistance and providing over 120,000 judicial records for use in national proceedings in various member states. Preserving access to these records and continued assistance to national jurisdictions remains essential for ongoing accountability efforts. Third. The completion of its core criminal prosecutions does not mean the functions of the Mechanism are so-called done deal. The UN remains responsible for the victims, the witnesses, and the convicts tied to the authority to the Mechanism. 3,200 witnesses must continue to enjoy adequate protection measures. The implementation of the sentences of dozens of convicts must be carried out in accordance with international human rights and security standards. The justice delivered for these crimes and due process must be safeguarded. The Mechanism's strategic plan proposed that the Council amends the Mechanism's mandate to provide for the completion and the transfer of several of Mechanism's most resource-intensive functions, while retaining a limited number of judicial functions at the international level. Proposed measures, such as the removal of two branch requirement in locations of Tanzania and the Netherlands, and the reduction of the staff by almost 90% demonstrate the preparedness of the mechanism to change. Such reforms must ensure that essential judicial safeguards are preserved and that the transfer of functions is carried out responsibly with the cooperation of member states. To conclude, Rather than continuing the debate on whether the mechanism still exists, the discussion should focus on passing a resolution which would allow for these important and cost-saving reforms that protect the mechanism's legacy. Until such resolution has been adopted, the mechanism needs to be financially supported to ensure that the transfer and the responsible conclusion of its functions. The fight against impunity has been a collective effort of the international community. for the last three decades, and we have the results to prove it. Justice for victims in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia is worth our continued determination and support. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Denmark on behalf of the Nordic countries.

Mr. President, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Denmark. We would like to thank President Gacis Santana for her latest report and extend our appreciation to all of the staff of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for its continued commitment to international justice. Allow me to raise a couple of points that the Nordic countries considered important to highlight at this stage. First, we would like to reaffirm our appreciation for the work of the Mechanism and stress its continued essential functions in the international criminal.

Justice system.

The Mechanism and its predecessor tribunals have been fundamental to the rules-based international order and modern international criminal law.

We note.

That the Mechanism continues to deliver justice and fulfill the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Security Council. Its work remains important in ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes committed in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and to preserve the legacy and the lessons of the Tribunals. Second, while the Security Council unfortunately was not able to adopt a new resolution, following its review of the Mechanism's work earlier this year, we note that the Mechanism continues to operate in accordance with paragraph 17 of Council Resolution 1966. At the same time, we consider it important that the pending matters before the Council are resolved as soon as possible, and we emphasize the Council's important responsibility in this regard. Clarity on the future arrangements for the mechanism is essential for effective planning, including a responsible allocation of resources, as well as an orderly transfer and completion of the remaining residual functions. In this context, we recognize that the mechanism has continuing commitments towards individuals, as well as functions that cannot simply lapse. To conclude, the Nordic countries reaffirm their commitment to strengthen the international criminal justice system, combating impunity, and ensuring that the legacy of the international criminal tribunals is preserved. We encourage all relevant parties to work together to ensure that this justice cycle is concluded in a responsible, orderly and expedient manner. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Denmark. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Mr. President, Germany aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states. Allow me to add the following remarks in my national capacity. At the outset, we thank President Guterres Santana for presenting the 14th annual report of the mechanism. and we express our appreciation to the judges, the prosecutor, the registrar, and all staff for their dedicated work under challenging circumstances. Mr. President, more than three decades ago, the Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda in response to atrocities that shocked the conscience of humanity. Through their judgments, the tribunals established beyond reasonable doubt the truth about crimes committed in Srebrenica, in Kigali, in many other places. The Residual Mechanism is the guardian of this legacy. Its archives lie at the heart of that responsibility. They preserve the evidence, the testimonies of the survivors, and the judgments of the tribunal. As long as these records remain intact and accessible, historical facts remain verifiable. They are our most reliable safeguard against disinformation, against denial of crimes, and against any attempt to rewrite history after the fact. Any decision on the future location of the archives must therefore preserve their integrity, their status as property of the United Nations, and their accessibility. For Germany, this is a matter of deep conviction. Germany has learned from its own history, particularly from the Nuremberg trials, what it means when crimes are established before a court of law and recorded for posterity. It is out of this experience that Germany stands up with the sense of historical responsibility for international criminal justice. Germany's commitment is also a practical one. Three persons convicted by the tribunals are currently serving their sentences in Germany, and we are preparing to receive a fourth. In total, Germany will thus have enforced nine sentences handed down by the Tribunals. In doing so, Germany acts on behalf of the international community and relies on a sound legal framework under which the Mechanism exercises judicial supervision over these sentences. Mr. President, Germany supports the continued and orderly downsizing of the Mechanism. We welcome the strategic plan presented in the Sixth Review Report and the proposals of the Secretary-General to transfer functions such as the assistance to national jurisdictions and the management of the archives to the United Nations Secretariat. These proposals are also consistent with the objectives of the UNAT initiative, a leaner, more efficient and more effective organization that uses the resources entrusted to it by Member States responsibly. At the same time, certain functions must remain international. This applies in particular to the judicial functions relating to early release, commutation of sentences and pardon. Mr. President, it is therefore with deep regret that we note that the Security Council has not been in a position to adapt the Mechanism's mandate this year, despite the sustained efforts of many of its members. As a consequence, the mandate continues unchanged without the adjustments called for by the mechanism itself, by the Secretary General, and by Office of Internal Oversight Services. We regret equally that the Russian Federation in its letters of 1st and 21st of July has called into question the very continuation of the mechanism. Whereas the legal position is clear, under paragraph 17 of Resolution 1966 from 2010, The Mechanism continues to operate for subsequent periods of two years following each review, "unless the Security Council decides otherwise." The Council has not decided otherwise. The mandate therefore continues. We commend the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly for the letters of 1st of July, which, on the basis of this understanding, ensured the continued appointment of the Mechanism's judges and staff. We further note that nine members of the Security Council confirmed this reading in their letter of July 28. Mr. President, attempts to declare the mechanism defunct cannot be separated from the broader question of its legacy. Calling into question the institution that safeguards the record of the tribunals risks calling into question the record itself. We must not allow legal uncertainty to open the door to a reinterpretation of what the tribunals have established. We therefore welcome the efforts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a pen holder and call upon the Security Council to adopt a resolution without further delay. Such a resolution is needed to appoint a prosecutor, to adapt the mandate in line with the strategic plan. It will allow the Mechanism to make responsible use of the resources provided by the Member States, and it will ensure the legal certainty for the judicial supervision of all persons serving their sentences, including those in Germany. States that enforce sentences on behalf of the international community deserve nothing less. The victims of the crimes adjudicated by the tribunals deserve that their legacy be preserved, completed responsibly, and protected from distortion. Germany will continue to stand by its commitment. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Maldives.

President, the closure of an international criminal tribunal should mark the completion of its institutional mandate, not the end of its responsibility to justice. As the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals prepares for a significant transition, our task is to ensure that the progress achieved over three decades is not lost. The Maldives thanks the President of the Mechanism for presenting its 14th annual report and acknowledges the continued work of its judges and staff. The report presents an important opportunity to reshape the Mechanism into a smaller, more efficient institution. We welcome the strategic planning undertaken to identify functions that can be completed or transferred while retaining essential judicial responsibilities. In this regard, the Maldives wishes to emphasize three priorities. First, ensuring continuity in national prosecutions. The report identifies substantial outstanding caseloads involving crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The Maldives therefore supports examining the proposed transfer of this function to the United Nations Secretariat. Any transition must preserve access to evidence, specialized expertise, and technical assistance. It must also avoid delays to ongoing investigations and prosecutions. Second, protecting the rights of victims, witnesses, and convicted persons. Approximately 3,200 witnesses continue to benefit from the protective measures, and these obligations cannot simply disappear with institutional restructure. We encourage the development of clear arrangements for the continued implementation of protection measures, confidential handling of evidence, and the supervision of sentence enforcement. We urge Member States to cooperate with the mechanism in finding a durable solution that respects their fundamental rights. Third, ensuring an orderly and accountable transition. The proposed restructuring offers substantial opportunities for savings. However, reductions must follow a clear assessment of which responsibilities can be concluded, transferred, or retained. The Maldives encourages the Security Council to provide timely guidance, supported by realistic transition plans, clear institutional responsibilities, and adequate resources. The preservation and accessibility of judicial archives must remain an integral part of this process. The success of the mechanism must ultimately be measured not only by the cases it has concluded or the resources it has saved, but also by what it continues after its closure. The Maldives calls for a transition that leaves national courts better equipped, witnesses protected, evidence preserved, and outstanding obligations fulfilled. The institution may be temporary, the responsibility to deliver justice is not. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Maldives. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Mr. President, Switzerland would like to thank the President for her report and its presentation. It commends the work carried out by the mechanism and assures it of its full support. As the Mechanism enters a decisive phase, the priority is to ensure an orderly transition that preserves the essential functions still needed for the responsible completion of the judicial process. In this context, Switzerland wishes to make three observations. First, Switzerland welcomes the work undertaken by the Mechanism and the Secretary-General on possible options for completing or transferring its functions. Decisions on future arrangements should be guided by the functional needs that remain. It is important to ensure legal certainty, continuity of operations that remain indispensable, and an effective framework, while taking into account the necessary expertise and infrastructure. Switzerland stands ready to make concrete contributions to facilitate such arrangements. Switzerland takes note of the Security Council's review of the progress made by the Mechanism. It hopes that the ongoing discussions among Council members will lead to a decision soon. As the Secretary-General and the majority of Council members rightly recalled, the Mechanism will continue to operate for a further two-year period unless the Council expressly decides otherwise. Second, considerable work remains to be done to combat impunity. More than 1,000 fugitives linked to the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and thousands of suspects of war crimes from the former Yugoslavia still need to be prosecuted. National jurisdictions are called upon to assume this responsibility. They must be able to continue accessing the evidence, expertise and institutional know-how accumulated by the two ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism. In this regard, Switzerland underscores the importance of continuing to support national jurisdictions. Arrangements for transferring the residual function of assisting national jurisdictions should be guided above all by the aim of ensuring that this function can continue to operate effectively, under the best possible conditions and in the most appropriate environment. Third, it is essential to preserve the judicial legacy of the Tribunals and the Mechanism. Their archives preserve evidence and facts established by judicial proceedings. They remain an essential resource for national prosecutions, for victims and for affected communities, as well as for education, research and, above all, for prevention. This is all the more important given the continued denial and distortion of facts established by judicial proceedings, as well as the glorification of persons convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Switzerland firmly condemns these practices. They undermine reconciliation, respect for victims and efforts to prevent such atrocities from happening again. The future of the archives must therefore ensure their long-term preservation and accessibility. If desired, Switzerland stands ready to host the archives of the ICTY and the Hague branch of the IRMCT in Geneva, where they would benefit from well-established archival and research infrastructure, ensuring their long-term preservation and accessibility. Mr. President, a responsible closure of the mechanism means more than simply ending the institution's activities. It requires ensuring the continuity of residual functions and the long-term preservation of records and judicial legacy that are essential to justice and prevention. Switzerland will continue to support efforts to achieve this objective, always with a view to strengthening the fight against impunity for atrocities and the protection of victims. I thank.

You.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

The floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, President. The United Kingdom thanks President Gatti-Santana for her report and extends its appreciation to the Prosecutor, Registrar and staff of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for their continued service to international justice during the reporting period. The contribution of the Mechanism, the ICTR and the ICTY over the last 30 years has been significant. And it is clear, in accordance with Security Council 1966/2010, that the Mechanism continues to operate unless the Security Council decides otherwise. And as the Security Council has not yet made any decision to cease the Mechanism's operations, they persist. At the same time, it is clear that the Mechanism is now entering a new phase, and it will need to operate in a different environment from that which existed when it was established. Significant milestones in the work of the Mechanism have been reached, with the completion of core judicial proceedings and the accounting for all remaining ICTR fugitives. So we welcome the efforts undertaken by the Mechanism and by the Secretary-General to consider how the critical functions can continue to be delivered while identifying opportunities for greater efficiency. As the Mechanism's workload diminishes further, its structure, functions, staffing and resources need to be realigned with this reduced role. The Security Council has an important responsibility to the victims of the atrocities committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, and we continue to believe that the Mechanism is performing essential functions that help to preserve the legacy of the ICTY and ICTR, providing recognition and justice for those victims. We therefore thank the DRC for their continued efforts to find agreement in the Council on the way forward. The UK will continue to play an active and constructive role in the shaping of this new phase and will oppose measures that risk undermining the independence and effectiveness of the Mechanism's functions or that would have the effect of undermining its legacy. In this context, we note the need to provide for certain continued judicial functions, the importance of the assistance provided by the Office of the Prosecutor to national authorities and the significance of the archives of the Mechanism and its predecessor tribunals for the historical record and for memorialization. President, the United Kingdom is committed to preserving the legacy of the IRMCT and its contribution to international justice while ensuring that remaining residual functions can be delivered in an efficient way. We look forward to continuing to engage constructively with Member States, the Secretary-General and the Principals of the Mechanism as well as its staff on the next phase of this important work. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria.

Mr. President, Austria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and would like to make some remarks in its national capacity. In 2010, Austria chaired the informal working group on international tribunals of the Security Council. facilitated the negotiations and introduced the draft resolution that led to the adoption of Resolution 1966, establishing the Residual Mechanism for criminal tribunals. The core priorities then remain our priorities today. First, to ensure that the fugitives indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda cannot escape justice. The work of the Mechanism is and has been essential to ensure accountability, including through the assistance to national jurisdictions. Second, the legacy of these two courts and the Mechanisms must be preserved. The preservation of archives and the continuous protection of thousands of witnesses is indispensable. Their record serves as an important fact check against revisionism, as well as denial of genocide and war crimes. Third, in accordance with Resolution 1966 and other applicable resolutions of the Council, the Mechanism continues to operate unless the Security Council decides otherwise. Until the Council has decided on the way forward, there is a reality that the Mechanism has a responsibility and obligation to take care of, among others, fugitives at large, more than 3,000 persons under protection, as well as a number of prisoners serving sentences. For Austria, the rule of law and accountability for the most heinous crimes are foreign policy priorities, and will be priorities during our membership in the Security Council in 2027 and 2028. As we have done since 2010, Austria stands ready to continue supporting the mechanism's important work and functions. We thank President Santana, the judges and each staff member for their continuous efforts and instrumental contribution to international justice. And I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria. And now I give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Brazil.

Mr. President, I thank Judge Graciela Gatti for presenting the 14th Annual Report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. I also commend the Office of the Prosecutor and Registrar Aboubacar Tambadou for their remarkable work in ensuring that the Mechanism fulfills its mandate. The mechanism carries on the work of two cornerstones of international criminal justice: the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These tribunals were decisive for the development of international criminal jurisprudence. They played a pivotal role in ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes under international law committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. Preserving their legacy is of the utmost importance. Brazil insists that states bear the primary responsibility for holding accountable those who commit crimes in their territories. International tribunals are supplementary to national judiciaries. They must act when national institutions are unable or unwilling to do so. The principle of complementarity ensures that states retain ownership of their right and, above all, of their duty to provide justice to their citizens. Historical circumstances made these tribunals necessary. and their work has proven invaluable to the rule of law in the international order. Still, the Security Council conceived the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals as a temporary body. Its activities should therefore be gradually discontinued according to clear timelines. We know this is easier said than done. We commend and the efforts of Judge Gertis' presidency to fulfill the Council's mandate for the completion of the Mechanism's residual functions. Brazil takes note of the strategic plan presented by the Mechanism in the context of the Security Council's sixth review. We welcome the careful reflection on how residual functions may be transferred or completed. We agree that some of them should remain at the international level to preserve equal treatment and the integrity of the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals. We hope that the Council will soon take a decision regarding the Office of the Prosecutor. Indeed, there are still reasons for the Mechanism to exist. Some of its residual functions are long-term by nature. The supervision of the enforcement of sentences must continue until the last convicted person has served his or her sentence or passed away. The protection of victims and witnesses may be needed until the last member of their immediate family has passed away. Convicted persons may also request to review the review of their cases at any time if new facts arise. The archives must also be preserved. We welcome the Mechanism's efforts to disseminate information about its legacy and to strengthen its leadership and governance. Challenges remain. We acknowledge the difficulties in closing the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague and in resolving the protracted situation of the relocated persons. The continued support of the international community remains essential to overcome these challenges. It is equally critical to respond effectively to the ongoing requests for assistance from national jurisdictions. Full cooperation is also needed for the transfer of the enforcement of sentences to national jurisdictions and for the relocation of acquitted or released persons. Mr. President, as the mechanism moves towards closure, its work must be concluded in a way that does not threaten the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals or the fight against impunity. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia.

Mr. President, Slovenia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and its Member States and would like to make a few additional remarks in its national capacity. At the outset, Slovenia would like to thank the Mechanism, including its officials and staff, as well as the Secretary General and OIOS for their work. Their contribution to the continued effective fulfillment of the mechanisms mandate is crucial. This is also fundamental for laying the groundwork and creating conditions for completing the mechanisms core tasks and ensuring the long term impact of its operations. Although the mandates of the ICTY and ICTR have formally concluded.

Important work remains to be done. The States, the Mechanism and the United Nations have the responsibility to cooperate and ensure that justice is delivered.

Certain key activities cannot be discontinued. They have to bring the joint efforts to a meaningful conclusion. As some activities end, others begin. We must not forget that the decision to establish the ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism came with the responsibility to fulfill the obligations arising from their creation. Mr. President, residual functions are vital in ensuring that unfinished business is addressed. Clearly, the Mechanism needs to continue operating while downsizing its functions including transferring some of them. States that are primarily responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes require assistance with their national proceedings.

There are still too many cases waiting to be processed.

Sentences must be enforced fairly and supervised. Not enough has been done.

For a systematic and pragmatic approach to finding durable solutions, such as ensuring that archives remain accessible.

Not yet. Furthermore, any attempt to rewrite history for the glorification of convicted war criminals or the denial of atrocities must be rejected. Such endeavors demonstrate the importance of preserving the legacy of the Mechanism and the Tribunals. This legacy will endure long after the formal completion of the Mechanism and the transfer of its functions.

The need for accountability for international crimes and reconciliation remains as relevant as ever.

This is important for numerous victims, their families and societies, especially those who are still awaiting justice. The Security Council's mandate recognizes the importance of justice and accountability for peace and reconciliations, not only for the affected individuals and communities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but also for the global fight against impunity. Mr. President, Slovenia's commitment to international criminal justice is deeply rooted in its historical experience. Slovenia reiterates its continued support for the Mechanism as it operates in its residual phase and will contribute further ensuring that its mandate is concluded appropriately and in a meaningful manner. It would be wrong to abandon what has been achieved in the interests of many, or to accept the loss of these achievements and the progress made. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kuwait.

Mr.

President, I would like to thank Ms. Graciela Gatti Santana, the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. I thank her for her report submitted under this agenda item. We express our appreciation for the effort to fulfill the mandate of the mechanism according to relevant Security Council resolutions. We recall with respect the victims of grave crimes that were committed against the people in former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. We insist that the establishment of the two tribunals, according to Security Council Resolution 287 and Resolution 977, 5 are important to establish the individual criminal responsibility. And the mechanism was established according to in line with Resolution 1966 to continue the legacy and preserve the legacy of the two criminal tribunals. We commend the mechanism for fulfilling its mandate and that it should continue completing the tasks in an effective manner to protect the victims and to protect the archives, as well as ensure the safeguards needed, enhance the coordination with national jurisdictions and with states in total respect of their jurisdictions. We support the international criminal justice because we believe that justice is not a response to crimes committed, but a cornerstone for achieving sustainable peace. Fighting impunity is a guarantee to ensure a non-recurrence of atrocities and grave crimes. it further safeguards and establishes international peace and security. We stress the importance of complementarity among international mechanisms and national jurisdictions, because fighting impunity is a joint responsibility that requires international effective cooperation with full respect of state sovereignty and national jurisdictions. We express our full support for the independence of international mechanisms. We commend their efforts to cooperate with member states and regional organizations to facilitate their work and to support the capacities of national jurisdictions and to manage archives in a manner that preserves the memory of international criminal justice. We give special attention to human rights and the protection of victims and witnesses. And the election of Kuwait to Human Rights Security Council-- Human Rights Council, sorry, for the years 2017 to 2030 is a reflection of this commitment at the national and international level. At the time when we discussed the report of the president of the International Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, that was established to follow up on the work of the tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to look into crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide. We need to conclude the lessons of the past to ensure that they are not repeated. We stressed that the principles of international criminal justice should not be subject to selectivity, double standards, and that the gravity of the violations against civilians, regardless of the perpetrators or the identity of the victims, require holding the perpetrators accountable according to international law without any exception. In this regard, we stressed that the international community should shoulder its responsibility to face the war crimes committed by the Israeli forces in terms of settlement oppression, genocide, and ethnic cleansing against the brotherly people of Palestine. We stress the importance of ending the Israeli occupation of all Arab territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Mr. President, Based on our insistence on the international law and the refusal of impunity for grave violations, we renew our strong condemnation of the heinous Iranian aggression that started on the 2026 that targeted vital civilian objects, including a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait and the threatening of the safety and security of its citizens and residents. We stress the importance for Iran to comply with international law, principles, and rules, including the UN Charter and its principles on good neighbor relations and the prohibition of use of force or threat to use of force. We stress the importance of fulfilling the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2817 and all other decisions by the Human Rights Council and IOM. and who condemned the aggression as a threat to international peace and security and called for its immediate cessation. In conclusion, we renew our support for the International Residual Mechanism and its independence and its cooperation with the states to preserve the legacy of the two tribunals. we stress that justice and accountability are not optional, but an inherent commitment to international law, the dignity of the victims, and a guarantee for the non-recurrence of grave crimes and fighting impunity. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of Kuwait. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Greece.

President, Greece would like to thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for the presentation of the 14th Annual Report of the Mechanism concerning its work and activities for the second-half of 2025 and the first semester of 2026.

Greece also aligns.

With the statement delivered by the European Union and its member states and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. President, from its establishment under Security Council Resolution 1966 of 2010 as a small, temporary and efficient structure to Security Council Resolution 2740 of 2024, the mechanism continues to operate unless the Security Council decides otherwise. The letter of resolution stressed that, in view of the substantially reduced nature of the residual functions, the mechanism was established to be a.

Small, temporary, and efficient.

Structure whose functions and size will diminish over time, with a small number of staff commensurate with such functions.

It also requested the mechanism to continue to be guided in its activities by these elements. Pursuant to resolution 2740, The Security Council during this reporting period received three key inputs, namely, the Secretary-General's reports on options for transfer of three long-term functions of the Mechanism;

Second, the evaluation of the Mechanism's methods of work by the Office of Internal Oversight Services; and third.

The sixth review report of the Mechanism, which contains a comprehensive strategic plan providing options for the transfer or completion of the Mechanism's functions. This reporting period marks a turning point of the residual phase of the life of the Mechanism. And yet, the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, as well as the.

Reports and information received by the Mechanism and the Secretariat.

Set the framework for the future steps in this respect. Still in the view of Greece, the criteria governing the judicial functions as well as those regarding the prosecutorial functions should respect the rule of law, in particular equality of treatment of interested persons by maintaining the international character of such functions.

Greece, a steadfast supporter of the rule of law and international justice, supports the work.

And the legacy of the Mechanism, as well as the work and the legacy of the ICTR and the ICTY in combating impunity. At a time when violations of international law, including violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, continue to cause immense suffering, Accountability remains indispensable for justice, for the prevention of future atrocities, and for sustainable peace. Justice must place victims at its center. The rights of victims to truth, justice, reparation, guarantees of non-recurrence are a vital part of international criminal justice. Greece reaffirms its determination to defend international criminal justice and to fight impunity. There can be no lasting peace without justice, and no justice without accountability. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Greece, and now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.

Mr.

President, the Russian Federation voted against including the item on the so-called International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals on the agenda of the General Committee and dissociated itself from the consensus on the recommendation when approving the agenda of the General Assembly. Our participation in today's meeting does not mean we have changed our position or have recognised the credentials of those persons continuing, for some very unclear reason, to speak on behalf of a mechanism that no longer exists. Paragraph 17 of Security Council Resolution 1966 linked a subsequent two-year period of the work of the Mechanism to holding reviews of its work, as stipulated in the Presidential Statement, SPRST 2015/21. The results of such reviews should be duly reflected in a decision of the Council. This was confirmed by years-long practice of resolutions. each two years, Security Council resolutions were adopted. Russia was not against the adoption of such a resolution and this time the resolution was not adopted because European delegations decided to extend it for an undetermined period of time. There is no way that this can be deemed to be a sensible approach, especially given the liquidity crisis. On 12 June, there was a Council meeting on the latest review of the mechanism, following which no decision was taken whatsoever. As a result, the review procedure was not conducted, that procedure that was stipulated in resolution 1966, and conditions for extending the work of the mechanism were not met. As a result, the mechanism's mandate ceased on 1 July this year. In this regard, we do not understand at all on what basis and on whose account Ms. Gatti-Santana is here in the all today, dubbing herself the President of the Mechanism. The reappointment of Ms. Santana was conducted by the SG without the consent of the Security Council. This decision, therefore, is null and void. A subsidiary body of the Council cannot exist against the will of the Council. Mr. President, some states are striving to turn the Residual Mechanism into a memorial to itself, preserving it for the sake of memorializing its own existence and its own legacy. In this regard, we should recall that Resolution 1966 established a temporary structure for carrying out a strictly defined set of tasks. We weren't talking about setting up a permanent or non-time-bound institution that would engage in protecting its own reputation and its own legacy. In this regard, we have a question: through whose account does the mechanism exist right now? We think delegations need to think: do they want to pay for a body that is going to exist just to support a narrative that they themselves have created about historical events? There's nothing, for example, about the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO. My delegation does not view document A/81/287-S/2026/631 as an appropriate report for the subsidiary body. However, since the document does cover the period when the mechanism was still in existence, we did read its contents. It's very indicative, very interesting. Paragraph 14, with a reference to the OIOS report, lists so-called five main areas of work of the mechanism, including judicial areas. But in 2024, two years ago, in paragraph 1 of resolution 2740, the Council took note of efforts to conclude the prosecutorial and judicial work for all cases pertaining to core crimes, including the swift conclusion of proceedings on the Philippines. The preamble of this resolution clearly notes the limits to residual functions after the conclusion of cases about the core crimes and tracking of fugitives. Therefore, in terms of carrying out the functions, will we believe that those functions ceased in 2024? The presence of separate ancillary matters should not be used to give the impression that the mechanism has continued to carry out the prior volume of prosecutorial and judicial work, the tasks remaining after the mechanism's mandate expired are purely technical and subsidiary in nature. Their implementation could be carried out by the relevant national bodies, whilst respecting the necessary guarantees. Our misgivings regarding the mechanism never boiled down just to the bureaucratic part of its work, manipulation of the statistics, bloated expenditure, providing misleading accounts, persistent attempts, whatever it takes to extend its existence forever. We consistently pointed out the chronic ineffectiveness of this structure. However, one of the key flaws that the mechanism inherited from the ICTY was the demonstrable anti-Serbian bias. Time after time, our delegation pointed out the selective nature of the criminal prosecutions and the discriminatory treatment of victims of crimes and the detainees themselves. The judgment rendered by the Trial Chamber on the 16th of September regarding the so-called Kosovo is very indicative here. Haxhim Taci, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi, and Jakup Krenicic were found guilty of war crimes, including unlawful detention, harsh treatment, torture, and murder. Taci, who served as the so-called president of the so-called Kosova, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. There is a legitimate question here. Why was the decision on these persons taken with such an enormous delay? and by some kind of body that was established apparently under the auspices of the EU, whilst these crimes fully fell under the mandate of the ICTY. I think the response is clear for everyone. The ICTY did not decide to comply with its mandate for political reasons. So should, for example, these criminals from Kosovo that have been in other prisons, should they be detained there? There are very serious concerns regarding the treatment of Serbian detainees. Symptomatic of the work of the so-called mechanism was the death of General Ratko Mladic in detention in The Hague. Russia, well in advance and repeatedly warned of the critical condition of his health and pointed out the clear need for early release on humanitarian grounds, especially because Ms. Gati Santana herself, in her decisions, clearly recognized that Mr. Mladic did not have very long left to live and such a practice did exist within the Mechanism. However, despite that, Ms. Santana rejected the request for Mr. Mladic to return to his family, he was only given assistance in treating the symptoms and not the cause. really can a judicial administration, a prison administration under the UN take such a decision without consulting anyone. After the death of Mr. Mladic, we sent to the Secretary General a separate letter distributed as a Security Council document S/2026/736, dated the 14th of September this year, with a call for an independent investigation. We are still awaiting a response our request. The investigation should cover not only the circumstances surrounding his death but the quality and timeliness of the medical assistance during his entire detention in The Hague. There needs to be an assessment of actions and inaction of those responsible persons, including the request for an early release on humanitarian grounds and also the rejection of medical treatment. We insist on the inclusion of independent experts in this, including from member states from the Security Council, Ms. Santana herself talked about this, but this does not seem to fall under this. The severity of the indictment or the sentence given does not take away the right to medical assistance or humanitarian treatment. Ensuring these rights is indeed the duty of the mechanism and the prison administration, and not a matter of them choosing whether to be compassionate or not. Thus, We can hardly call the work of the ICTY or the residual mechanism, dub it as the epitome of impartial justice. So the expiration of the mechanisms mandate did not eliminate the impact of its work. Therefore, the adoption by the Security Council of a decision on the reigning functions and rights of affected persons is still relevant. This decision should address the accumulated issues and not retroactively legitimize the dubious legacy of the mechanism or legitimize the continuation of its existence. There's a need to stop violating the rights of Serbian detainees in a number of European countries, including the UK and Estonia, and they are being harshly treated there. Russia repeatedly has drawn attention to problems with medical provision, with contacts with families and with lawyers, with people's personal safety and detention conditions. Assurances of the prison administrations does not replace objective reviews of their complaints. We are in favour of transferring convicts to serve out their sentences in states of their nationalities with the appropriate guarantees for them serving their sentences and with upholding their rights. Uncertainty regarding institutional arrangements should not justify any further inaction. There's also a need to make the archives of the former mechanism accessible to the public, the international community should have the opportunity independently to assess the work of this structure and of the tribunals based on documents and not just on accounts that have been prepared by themselves about their own achievements. Russia is prepared to cooperate constructively on resolving outstanding issues. Our priorities are clear. The respect for the powers of the Security Council, the protection of the rights of persons, an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Mladic, and the transfer of the the remaining functions after the mechanism cease to the UN Secretariat and to the national level, including transferring convicts to countries of their nationality. Since the Nuremberg Tribunal was mentioned here, I'd like to remind you that the Nuremberg Tribunal was where the terrible crimes of humanity, Nazism, concluded its work over a 2.5-year period. So there's no need for assistance in condemning the Nazis. Some Nazis were still alive until very recently. So perhaps here we need to take a separate decision on that. I'd like to thank you very much indeed, sir.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Mr. President, We thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Grechila Gathii Santana, for her report contained in document A/81/287, and acknowledge her efforts towards the effective implementation of the Mechanism's mandate. We recognize the Mechanism's contribution to the fight against impunity and reiterate the importance of fulfilling its mandate in accordance with the principles of justice, impartiality, fairness and due process. Upholding the interests of justice and protecting the rights of victims remains essential. During the reporting period, the Mechanism has made considerable progress in discharging its judicial and residual functions. As the institution moves towards completing its mandate, we emphasize the need for an efficient, orderly and time-bound transition without compromising judicial independence or the effective discharge of its remaining responsibilities.

Mr. President, India underscores the importance of the mechanism

continuing residual functions, including the protection of victims and witnesses, assistance to national jurisdictions, and the preservation and management of the Tribunals' archives. These functions remain essential to safeguarding the legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals and ensuring continued accountability. We also stress the importance of cooperation between the Mechanism and the United Nations Secretariat and the concerned Member States in addressing outstanding legal, administrative and logistical challenges. Any proposed transfer of functions to the United Nations Secretariat should be guided by legal clarity, accountability, institutional continuity, and due consideration given to the associated financial and administrative implications.

India emphasizes the preservation and accessibility of the mechanisms archives are vital for historical documentation, research, and the interests of justice. We also recognize the importance of continued assistance to national jurisdictions

in accordance with the Mechanism's mandate to strengthen domestic capacity and facilitate accountability for serious international crimes.

We remain concerned about the situation of the acquitted and released persons relocated to Niger. In this regard, we note the decision given by a single judge on 21 November 2025

according to which the mechanism would no

longer have a legal or judicial obligation to provide further financial assistance to these individuals after 31 December 2026.

We encourage all concerned

parties to pursue a cooperative and durable solution that safeguards the dignity and the rights of the individual concerned.

In conclusion, Mr President,

We call upon all the Member States

to contribute constructively towards the timely and orderly completion of the Mechanism's mandate in accordance with the principles of justice and the rule of law. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Distinguished Representative of India. And now I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Sierra Leone.

Mr. President, Sierra Leone thanks the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Gaston Legatie Santana, for presenting the 14th Annual Report, A/81/287-S/2026/631. We commend the President, the judges, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registrar for their continued dedication to fulfilling the Mechanism's mandate.

For Sierra Leone, a country whose own history bears profound witness to the devastating consequences of conflict and the importance of accountability, international criminal justice remains indispensable to lasting peace reconciliation and the rule of law. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the fight against impunity and to ensuring that those responsible for the gravest international crimes are held accountable in accordance with international law.

We acknowledge the progress made

as the mechanism continues its transition towards a genuinely residual institution. We recognize the importance of its remaining judicial functions, the supervision of sentence enforcement, the protection of victims and witnesses, the preservation of judicial archives, and assistance to national jurisdictions investigating and prosecuting international crimes. The conclusion of the active core crimes trials and appeals does not diminish these responsibilities.

Rather, this transition presents an opportunity

to consolidate the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals, while ensuring that their achievements in international criminal justice remain

accessible to future generations. We underscore that any transfer or completion of residual functions must

preserve judicial independence, due process, the rights of victims and witnesses, and the integrity and accessibility of the archives.

We therefore take note of the options presented for the Mechanism's future and support a carefully managed, transparent, and financially responsible transition.

Efforts to streamline operations and achieve efficiencies must be accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure that

essential functions are not compromised.

In particular, we emphasize the continuing value of the mechanism's specialized expertise and institutional memory in supporting national jurisdictions. Its eventual closure, whenever determined by the relevant UNSC resolution, must not

create gaps in accountability or weaken the pursuit of justice.

Mr. President, we note the situation of the four acquitted or released persons relocated to Niger remains unresolved.

We encourage continued international cooperation to secure a durable solution that respects fundamental rights and dignity and upholds

the applicable legal obligations.

Sierra Leone attaches particular importance to the work of the Security Council's informal working group on international tribunals.

During our tenure on the Security Council in 2024 to

2025, we served as chair of the working group, providing valuable opportunity to reaffirm our enduring commitment to multilateralism,

the rule of law, and fight against impunity.

We recognize the constructive engagement of the Working Group and express our sincere gratitude to all its members for their cooperation and active participation during our tenure, which coincided with the Mechanism's continued transition to its truly residual phase. We commend the working group's contribution to facilitating substantive engagement with the mechanism and advancing consideration of the issues arising from its evolving mandate. We therefore regret that a new chair of the working group has yet to be selected, owing to the impasse concerning the selection of chairs of Security Council subsidiary bodies. We encourage renewed dialogue and constructive engagement to resolve this situation. The timely restoration of the working group's leadership is important to sustaining its work,

ensuring continuity, and facilitating effective consideration of the mechanism's remaining responsibilities.

Sierra Leone reiterates, Mr. President, that international criminal justice is not an end in itself.

but an essential pillar of a rules-based international order in which accountability, justice and respect for human dignity prevail.

We call on all Member States to continue cooperating with the Mechanism, including the enforcement of judicial decisions,

the apprehension of remaining fugitives where applicable, and the provision of assistance necessary for the completion or transfer of its

function.

In conclusion, we commend the Mechanism for its continued work and encourage all relevant United Nations organs and Member States

to support an orderly, efficient and

principled transition that safeguards the legacy of the Tribunals and preserve the gains achieved in the fight against impunity. I thank you.

I thank the District Representative of Sierra Leone, and now I give the floor the distinguished representative of Uruguay.

Thank you very much, President. Uruguay is grateful for the presentation of the 14th annual report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, which corresponds to the period between the 1st of July 2025 and the 30th of June 2026. In particular, we'd like to pay tribute to the Uruguayan judge, Graciela Gatti Santana, who has carried out her work with a great deal of commitment and dedication. We'd like to welcome the decision by the Secretary-General on the 30th of June to extend the mandates of the President, Judges, and Secretariat of the Mechanism for two years. We await the decisions by the Security Council and the Assembly about the availability of resources in this regard. President, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have played a critical role in the fight against impunity for the most serious international crimes. Their legacy reaffirms that justice and accountability are critical elements to achieve lasting peace and genuine reconciliation. The annual report which we are considering today reflects the continuity of this work, even in a context of the progressive reduction of the activities and resources for the Mechanism. During the period, the judges issued 182 decisions and orders, relating inter alia to the protection of witnesses, the implementation of sentences, and access to confidential information. This shows that in spite of the conclusion of the main criminal proceedings, there are still judicial responsibilities that require an independent international authority. Uruguay acknowledges the importance of moving towards a more reduced and efficient structure, preserving judicial independence and guarantees for due process in the exercise of the residual functions of the Mechanism. At the same time, we think there has to be an orderly transition of certain technical and administrative functions to other UN structures to ensure continuity in the responsibilities that still remain to be discharged. We'd like especially to stress the importance of the assistance that the Mechanism continues to provide to national jurisdictions. During the period under review, the Prosecutor's Office received 373 requests for assistance on the investigations and procedures for international crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. This cooperation is critical for states to continue to investigate and try persons pertaining to these crimes. We also stress the importance of maintaining protection measures for victims and witnesses. According to the report, some 3,200 witnesses continue to benefit from protection established by the Tribunals and the Mechanism. Uruguay stresses the importance of preserving the Mechanism's archives as well. They are an invaluable legacy for international criminal justice, for historic memory and for the right to truth. We recognize progress made in terms of conserving the documentation and digitalizing it, and we stress the need to ensure that these archives remain under UN responsibility, with the necessary resources to ensure their integrity, their conservation, and public accessibility, as well as the due protection of confidential information. President Uruguay stresses its commitment to international criminal justice. the fight against impunity, and the right of victims and relatives to truth, justice and memory. There is a need to move towards a slimmer, more efficient institutional structure, but this has to be done responsibly, preserving essential judicial functions, cooperation with national jurisdictions, witness protection and conserving archives. We hope that the GA and the Security Council will continue to provide the necessary support to ensure an orderly transition to preserve the legacy of the international tribunals. Thank you very much, President.

Muchas gracias. I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Uruguay. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania.

Mr. President, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, this is my first time speaking during the General Assembly, general debate at the first session. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, and other Bureau members on your election to preside over the 81st session of General Assembly. Tanzania fully supports your leadership of this esteemed Assembly. Equally important, as this host of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunal, Arusha branch, and the former International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, My delegation expresses its gratitude to Honorable Lady Justice Gracia Katu Santana, President of the Mechanism, for the comprehensive 14th annual report contained in document A/81/287-S/2026. slash six thirty one. Mister President, since acceding to the UN Charter, my delegation, Tanzania, has strongly advocated for the rule of law, including the administration of international criminal justice. This reaffirm is unwavering support for the United Nations and the International Residual Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunal in fulfilling their mandate. In this regard, Tanzania will come the Secretary General decision to extend the mechanism mandate until June 30th, 2028, subjected to any future decision by the Security Council. Similarly, my delegation will come the reappointment of the prominent Tanzania international jurist to the roster of judges of the mechanism, Judge Joseph E. Chi-Oru, Masachu, and Judge William H. Sekule. Their unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the administration of international criminal justice give me strong confidence that, when called upon, they will continue to uphold this principle with steadfast decision and contribution meaningfully to the fight against impunity. Following the extension of the Mechanism mandate, I wish to reaffirm my country's commitment to comply with its obligation under the host agreement concluded between the United Republic of Tanzania and the United Nations on 26 November 2013. Mr. President, reading between the lines of the Mechanism 14th annual report, It is evident that judicial functions have significantly decreased, except for a few ongoing functions, such as support to national jurisdiction of respective countries and the proceedings related to commutation of sentences, early release, and the supervision of sentences, to name a few. With the completion of the judicial function, the Mechanism transitioned to its full residual role, which requires few staff and small working premises. In this context, my delegation is concerned with the future and effective utilization of the Mechanism premises in Laki Laki, Arusha, Tanzania. Mr. President, the General Assembly will recall the Secretariat spent almost 6.6 million USD for the construction of IRMCT's state-of-the-art premises in Arusha, Tanzania. I am convinced that the amount comes from each of our assets contributions. 10 years passed since the inauguration of the premises in 2016. We are told, according to the report, that the purpose of which it is built have considerably diminished. On our part, and under the host agreement, the government of the United Republic of Tanzania provided free of charge 16 acres of land, infrastructure, and in-kind contributions among 2.5 million, amounted to $2.5 million at the time. This was our modest contribution to the UN community toward the fight against immunity and promotion of international criminal justice. As the IRMCT downsized its operation towards total closure, we insisted that maintaining the IRMCT legacy is imperative. That includes maintaining the achieving the archives in Arusha within the framework of the UN initiative. We urge the General Assembly and the Security Council to request that the Security General consider reallocation reallocating some UN entities and functions to the UNIRRCMRA premises in Arusha, Tanzania, using facilities no longer used after the mechanism scaling down. This would repose existing United Nation infrastructures and avoid the cost of new premises. I wish to encourage the Secretariat to undertake a feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis in consultation with the government of the United Republic of Tanzania and relevant stakeholders. Mr. President, the mechanism's effective delivery of its mandate depends on the cooperation extended to it by the UN member states. Article 28 of the Statute of the Mechanism requires States to cooperate with the Mechanism in several ways, including investigating, arresting and transferring the accused to the Mechanism. My delegation therefore argues that all Member States cooperate with the Mechanism in its efforts to deliver on its mandate. Mr. President, In conclusion, Tanzania reaffirms its unwavering support and commitment to the Mechanism work and its commitment to comply with its obligation as enshrined in the Statute of the Mechanism and the Host Agreement. We have been a good host of the IRMCT. we are premised to remain so. I thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Mr. President, the delegation of Senegal would like to thank Ms. Graciela Gatti Santana, President of the International Mechanism, and the Prosecutor for their briefings and reports. My delegation also commends the work carried out by all judges, the registrar, and the personnel of the Mechanism. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and for Yugoslavia, and then the mechanism that succeeded them, made a significant historic contribution to international criminal justice. Over and beyond consolidating fundamental principles of international law, they brought justice for history and for the victims. Having had several of its nationals serve as In the Mechanism's instances, Senegal has always considered that combating impunity for the most serious crimes is a key pillar of an international order based on law. My delegation takes note that the Mechanism has now completed most of its main judicial functions. Therefore, this is an important stage in line with the temporary and residual nature that was conferred upon it by the Security Council in Resolution 1966. The residual nature of the mechanism does not, however, mean the absence of responsibilities. The protection of about 3,200 victims and witnesses, the supervision and execution of sentences, the preservation of archives and assistance to national jurisdictions remain specific obligations that engage the responsibility of the international community. To this end, Senegal, as a State for the execution of sentences, reaffirms its commitment to continue to carry out its contribution to implementing judicial decisions of the Mechanism, while strictly respecting international norms regarding the treatment of detainees. Senegal considers that the transition towards concluding or transferring certain functions should be carried out in ordered, progressive and responsible manner. This work, however, should not compromise the security and protection of victims and witnesses, the effective implementation of sentences, the preservation and accessibility of archives. This is a precious legacy for the collective memory and to prevent atrocities. Assistance to national jurisdictions should also be ensured. Senegal therefore encourages the Security Council and the Secretariat to carefully consider options presented in the Secretary-General's report and in the strategic plan of the Mechanism to identify the most appropriate arrangements to ensure a progressive reduction of these structures, whilst guaranteeing the continuity of essential functions. My country also underscores the importance of maintaining close cooperation with states affected and states which, like Senegal, contribute to the execution of sentences. So Senegal calls for decisions taken regarding the future of the mechanism to be guided by the desire to preserve what has been achieved over three decades of international justice whilst assuring responsible management and good management of resources. My country remains committed to an international criminal justice system that is effective, credible, and respects the rights of all parties. I thank you. I thank you.

I'd like to thank the representative of Senegal. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Philippines thanks Judge Graciela Gati Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, for presenting its 14th Annual Report. We also acknowledge the Secretary-General, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, and the Mechanism's Principals for their contributions to the ongoing review of its future. The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda represent a defining chapter in the development of international criminal justice. Their jurisprudence affirmed that the gravest international crimes engage individual criminal responsibility and that accountability is indispensable to the rule of law. At a time when atrocity crimes continue to be committed in different parts of the world, and international accountability mechanisms face growing political and institutional challenges, their legacy assumes renewed significance. The Philippines believes that the international community must remain steadfast in its commitment to accountability, even as the institutions established to advance it evolve or conclude their mandates. We recognize that the residual mechanism was established as a small, temporary, and efficient structure whose functions and size would diminish over time. We welcome the substantial progress, therefore, towards streamlining its operations and take positive note of the strategic plan for further restructuring, consolidation, and the transfer or completion of certain functions. The discussions in the Security Council, meanwhile, demonstrate a broad recognition of the need for institutional transformation, notwithstanding the differences concerning its pace, scope, and eventual form. These considerations are not necessarily in tension. A responsible completion strategy can advance both institutional efficiency and the enduring objectives of international criminal justice. The key principle is that the transition should preserve the integrity of the judicial process and the legal responsibilities arising from it. Mr. President, the current report illustrates that the conclusion of criminal proceedings does not necessarily bring all associated responsibilities to an end. The continued protection of witnesses, supervision of sentence enforcement, resolution of residual judicial matters reflect responsibilities whose duration may extend beyond the principle work of the tribunals. We attach importance to ensuring that completion or transfer of functions is accompanied by appropriate arrangements for the continued protection of individual rights and the effective implementation of judicial decisions. We also note the distinction drawn in the Secretary-General's reports between functions that may be suitable for administrative or technical transfer and those involving the exercise of judicial authority. To us, judicial independence, due process, legal certainty, and equality before the law must remain key central principles in determining the future arrangements for residual judicial functions. These principles are particularly important where decisions concern the liberty and rights of individuals, including those convicted of the gravest international crimes. Accountability and due process are essential to the legitimacy of international criminal justice. Mr. President, the Philippines also attaches importance to the Mechanism's assistance to national jurisdictions. The substantial number of requests for prosecutorial assistance recorded in the report demonstrates that the pursuit of accountability continues well beyond the completion of international trials. The Philippines has consistently recognized the primary responsibility of states to investigate and prosecute international crimes, and this commitment finds expression in our domestic legal framework, including Republic Act No. 9851, which provides for the punishment of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. We support the progressive strengthening of national capacities accompanied by sustained international cooperation and access to evidence and expertise necessary for effective domestic proceedings. In this context, the possible transfer of assistance functions to an appropriate UN structure merits serious consideration. We also emphasize the importance of preserving the tribunal's archives as a resource for national prosecutions, historical understanding, and recognition of victims' experiences. At a time when atrocity crimes are sometimes accompanied by denial, distortion, and even glorification of perpetrators, the preservation of reliable judicial records is itself an enduring contribution to accountability and the prevention of future atrocities. Mr. President, the history and practice of the ad hoc tribunals and the Residual Mechanism offer important lessons for the future of international criminal justice. As we advance the process towards a convention and the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, we stress that effective accountability requires more than the establishment of judicial institutions. It requires prevention, capable national jurisdictions, international cooperation, and the sustained respect for the rights of victims and accused persons alike. The Philippines supports the mechanism's orderly and responsible transition, consistent with its temporary mandate, while preserving the essential legal safeguards and accountability functions that remain necessary. The completion of the mechanism should mark the fulfillment of its mandate, not a retreat from the international community's commitment to justice. And that commitment, Mr. President, must endure beyond the life of any single institution. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Philippines. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Serbia.

Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished delegates. I have the honor to address the General Assembly on behalf of the Republic of Serbia on one of the most controversial issue on our agenda, the issue concerning the work and legacy of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Serbia emphasizes the fundamental importance of strict adherence to the principles and rules of international law governing the jurisdiction and powers of international courts and tribunals. However, the work of the Mechanism and its predecessor, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has raised serious concerns and remains open to substantial criticism. Today, I will focus particularly on the HEC branch of the Mechanism. The central issue on our agenda is the completion of the mandate of the Mechanism. The Security Council, in its resolution 1966 and other relevant resolutions, envisaged the Mechanism as a small, temporary and efficient structure whose functions and size will diminish over time. As early as 2008, the former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Judge Fausto Pocar, wrote, I quote, "In fact, the dates set in the Security Council resolutions may not be deadlines. Rather, they should be understood as benchmarks to appraise the ability to comply with the spirit of the completion strategy, which it bears emphasizing again, was delivering essentially by the ICTY itself. This carefully phrased observation remains relevant today with respect to the Mechanism. In managing its completion strategy, the Mechanism simply ignores the time frames or time limits established by the Security Council. We are convinced that the Mechanism's officials are doing their utmost to prolong the very existence of the Mechanism. We therefore urge the responsible United Nations bodies to intensify their efforts to ensure that the Mechanism completes its work as soon as practicable. Mr. President, distinguished delegates, Few convicted persons remain in prison serving their sentences under the supervision of the Mechanism. The Republic of Serbia once again expresses its readiness to assume responsibility for the enforcement of these sentences under appropriate United Nations supervision. Furthermore, The Republic of Serbia has expressed its willingness to accept the archives of the ICTY and the Mechanism and to ensure that they remain subject to the supervision and safeguards designed by the Security Council. Their preservation, accessibility and proper management are essential for historical research, legal scholarship and a comprehensive understanding of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Belgrade as the capital of the former Yugoslavia, would be a natural location for their permanent repository. Consolidating these materials in one location would facilitate access for researchers and other authorized users, while contributing to the preservation of an important part of the legal and historical records. Thirty years have passed since the end of the armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, and 26 years since the end of the armed conflict in the territory of Serbia. Many convicted persons are now elderly, and some suffer from serious or terminal illnesses requiring constant and intensive medical treatment. The former President of the Mechanism, Judge Carmel Agius, has significantly tightened the criteria for granting early release, while simultaneously introducing a new regime of conditional early release. There are strong arguments supporting the view that they constitute a reshaping of the legal regime without adequate grounding in the practice and normative framework binding upon the Mechanism, aimed at prolonging the institutional existence of the Mechanism. It appears that these developments are the result of longstanding efforts by the Mechanism's Office of the Prosecutor to revise the practice of granting early release after a convicted person has served two-thirds of their sentence. However, a departure from such a practice raises a number of contentious issues, including legal certainty for convicted persons, the foreseeability of sentence enforcement regime, as well as the apparent undermining of the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated individuals, which had been constantly upheld by the presidents of the ICTY and the mechanism prior to Judge Agius. The reasoning underlying decisions denying conditional release on humanitarian grounds, even where such strict guarantees have been provided by relevant state, including in the case of Radko Mladic, is not consistent with the established practice or traditional understanding of humanitarian considerations. Furthermore, the introduction of new conditions and legal constructs without a clear normative basis may call into question the limits of the discretionary powers of the President of the Mechanism, particularly in light of the requirement that criminal sanctions be executed in accordance with predetermined and transparent rules. Mr. President, distinguished delegates, To conclude, we are today confronted with a legacy of the Mechanism that differs from the one portrayed by its officials. This legacy also includes a policy of impunity and so-called selective justice, particularly with regard to crimes committed against the Serb civilian populations. Many atrocities, particularly those committed against civilian populations in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia, where Serbs were subjected to ethnic cleansing, remained unpunished. When the Kosovo Specialised Chambers convicted key figures of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, including Hashim Taci and others, within less than a month, Not only were appropriate statements issued, but a comprehensive revision of the mandate of the Specialist Chambers was also adopted, with the aim of securing acquittals and promoting denial of responsibility for, and impunity for, serious crimes committed by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army. It is a shared value that the principles of the proper administration of justice must be respected. However, the ICTY and the Mechanism have placed a heavy burden on the international administration of justice. Both their work and their legacy remain and will undoubtedly continue to be subject to substantial criticism. In order to preserve international justice, we must exercise great caution in establishing new criminal tribunals or supporting their establishment. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the representative of Serbia. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.

Thank you, President. President, France thanks the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Ms. Kathy Santana, for presenting the Mechanism's 14th Annual Report. As the Security Council still has to adopt a resolution on the Mechanism and the necessary evolutions, I would like to stress three points. First of all, the mechanism has a continuous mandate, established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1966, adopted in 2010. Consequently, unlike what some would like to claim, notably the Russian Federation, its mandate and its activities are not affected by the lack of a resolution adopted on this matter by the Council. This is a legal reality. As the Secretary-General recalled in his letter to the President of the Security Council dated 1 July 2026, Resolution 1966 is not ambiguous in any way. Under this resolution, the mechanism continues to operate for a further two years after its work has been reviewed by the Security Council and unless the Council decides otherwise. It is also a reality in material terms on a day-to-day basis, because the Mechanism continues to fulfill its mandate through its daily work, the daily work by its President, judges, the Prosecutor's Office and the Registrar, pursuant to the Council's decisions. And we would like to thank them all. Secondly, Mr. President, 15 years after its establishment, France believes that the Mechanism has reached the stage in its work that requires significant evolution. Indeed, it has fulfilled significant legal tasks that were bestowed upon it when it was established. Therefore, today it is possible and necessary to reduce or to transfer the remaining functions with a view to the progressive and orderly closure of the Mechanism's mandate. welcomed the reports of the Secretary General and the Mechanism Strategic Plan, which made proposals in this regard. We believe that the Mechanism's changes should focus on these proposals that have been made as a starting point for this. Thirdly, President, and consequently to what I have just stated, France calls on the members of the Security Council to adopt a resolution as soon as possible which would allow for this progressive and orderly transition, showing political, legal and financial responsibility. Political responsibility belongs to the international community, given the history of the tragedies that occurred in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. and the history of the response that was provided to them through the establishment of the ICTY and the ICTR. Any attempt to call into question the legal truth established on these bleak periods of history are unacceptable. France, therefore, attaches particular importance to the matter of the archives that must be preserved and made accessible to the public. first and foremost, the populations directly concerned under UN oversight. Legal responsibility means completing the fight against impunity for the mass atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. That is to say that For as long as there are sentenced persons, persons sentenced by these jurisdictions, there has to be an international legal authority responsible for overseeing the execution of sentences. And for as long as there are persons tried, there will have to be an authority to ensure that they are not tried again for the same reasons. And as long as there are those responsible for mass atrocities at large, there will have to be an international legal authority and there will have to be international assistance provided to national authorities to investigate perpetrators. And finally, as for financial responsibility, that means that the Council needs to adopt a resolution that would allow for the considerable reduction of the Mechanism's budget so that it can focus on the remaining essential functions. It is unacceptable that the Council's inability to adopt such a resolution affects the financial interests of all members of the Organization. President, significant progress has been made in this domain, notably thanks to the efforts made by the DRC, whom we thank. France reiterates its full commitment in these negotiations to reach a responsible resolution that respects the fundamental principles of international criminal justice. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France.

To the distinguished representative of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. President. The United States thanks President Gadi Sant'Anna for her annual report on the efforts of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and for her contributions to the work underway to responsibly wind down the Mechanism's functions. The United States also appreciated the Mechanism 6 review report providing a unified vision and strategic plan for the completion and transfer of the Mechanism's remaining residual functions in line with Security Council Resolution 2740. For our part, the United States supported many of the recommendations in that plan, including to end the mechanisms mandate to investigate, indict and prosecute core crimes and contempt and false testimony crimes. To transfer the day-to-day supervision of sentences to enforcement states and the enforcement of ICTR sentences to Rwanda. And to transfer the function of national assistance to the UN Secretariat. the National Assistance Function continues to provide valuable support to UN member states addressing atrocity crimes within their domestic systems, as evidenced by the high volume of continuing requests. We were disappointed that the Security Council was unable to adopt a resolution this summer that would, as observed by President Gadi, quote, uphold member states substantial contributions to decades of international justice and bring this institution and the justice cycle to a responsible closure, end quote. We are grateful to the Democratic Republic of the Congo for its resumed efforts to lead council negotiations on a resolution that could achieve major cost savings and reforms including through the transfer of the Mechanism's archives and the termination and transfer of the Mechanism's remaining functions. We regret the Security Council's continued inability to adopt such a resolution. We believe it is imperative that the Security Council take the necessary decisions to facilitate the closure of the Mechanism in a responsible manner, without undermining the important legacy of international criminal justice attributable to the Mechanism and its predecessor institutions. We have been and will continue to engage actively and constructively with other members to conclude such a resolution. Thank you.

I thank the senior representative of the United States, and now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President. South Africa expresses its appreciation to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for its continued work. We commend the Mechanism for the significant progress reflected in the report despite financial constraints and reductions in human resources. South Africa remains fully cognizant of its international obligations and continues to engage constructively and transparently with the Mechanism to ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes and to advance the completion of the Mechanism's mandate. We stand ready to continue this engagement and to provide any further cooperation required within the framework of our international legal obligations. President, South Africa shares the concerns highlighted in the report regarding the challenges encountered in relation to the surrender of Mr. Fulgenc Kayishema. Under existing South African legislation, the transfer of fugitives to international courts or tribunals other than the International Criminal Court is currently not regulated. A bill has been introduced in the South African Parliament to address this lacuna and to further strengthen South Africa's ability to give effect to its international obligations. President, South Africa recalls that the offences for which Mr. Kayishema has been indicted constitute the most serious crimes under international law. South Africa recognises its obligation to cooperate with the mechanism and to facilitate his transfer to the mechanism. In the same vein, the South African Constitution guarantees every person the right of access to courts, including the right to have legal disputes resolved through a fair public hearing before an independent and impartial judiciary body. South African courts are therefore obliged to consider and adjudicate Mr. Kgatshema's legal challenges in accordance with South African constitutional and with in accordance with the South African constitution and the rule of law. The courts are currently seized with this matter. South Africa's constitutional framework is clear. All organs of state are required to assist and protect the courts so as to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. Equally, no person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts. Accordingly, while the South African National Prosecuting Authority continues to take all appropriate steps within its mandate In line with the principles of procedural fairness, the Government of South Africa is obliged to allow the ongoing judicial process to take its course and therefore cannot intervene in matters that are properly before the courts. President, South Africa has created a direct link between the Mechanism and the South African authorities who are seized with the Kgashema matter. South Africa has remained open and forthcoming in its engagements with the Mechanism and has consistently provided updates regarding developments in the Kgashema matter. We reiterate our commitment to fulfilling our obligations regarding the surrender of Mr. Kgashema. At the same time, we are bound by the constitutional principles of separation of powers, judicial independence and access to justice. President, South Africa remains firmly committed to resolving the outstanding challenges in this matter and ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. And now I give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of the Bosnian and Herzegovina.

Mr. President, first and foremost, we wish to thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, the Mechanism, for the report before us, as well as the judges, the registrar, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the entirety of their staff for their work. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, the work of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, and residual mechanism has profound legal, historical, and humanitarian significance. The legacy of these institutions must be preserved and protected. The rights and dignity of victims and survivors, the need for families still searching for missing persons, and importance of the combating genocide denial and the glorification of convicted war criminals must remain central consideration in the implementation of the mechanisms, residual mandate, and orderly closure. Reports within the framework of the sixth review provided by Security Council with options for the transfer and completion of the mechanisms functions and at the UN Security Council meeting in June 2026, my delegation outlined its position on the key aspects concerning this process. We remain firm on those positions. Bosnia and Herzegovina recognises that the Mechanism was established as a temporary institution to carry out the essential residual functions of the ICTY and ICTR, and acknowledges that the Mechanism must ultimately conclude its mandate. However, closure must be a carefully planned process that safeguards the achievements of international criminal justice, protects victims' rights, and ensures the uninterrupted performance of all necessary functions. To that effect, we welcome the Secretary-General's decision on June 30th this year to reappoint the President, Judges and Registrar for a two-year term, subject to any future decisions of the Security Council regarding the mechanism and the availability of funding. At the same time, we regret the UN Security Council's inability to follow through on its obligation to provide the Mechanism with the resources and institutional arrangements required to fulfill its mandate, as well as guidance on the orderly closure of Mechanism's activities. Refusing to do so does not erase its legacy or its indelible mark on international criminal justice, nor will it force it into obscurity. But most certainly, it does not erase the relevant provisions of the resolution 1966 in 2010 and other applicable resolutions of the Council under which the mechanism continues to operate unless the Security Council decides otherwise. It would only leave the Council in violation of its own adopted documents and its credibility questioned yet again. So we urge the Council to act on this at the earliest, ensuring the most appropriate arrangements for the archives of the ad hoc tribunals and mechanism, assistance to national jurisdictions, and applications for pardon, communication of sentence or early release, and fitting end for the institution of such immense importance, not merely for the purpose of justice, but also for advancing education, preservation of historical and juridical facts, historical research, the prevention of future atrocities, combating the denial of the crimes, and glorification of war criminals. Mr. President, in that regard, we note the statement of the Republic of Serbia delivered earlier, and without commenting on particular details on the statement, assurances, claims, requests, and rebukes contained therein, I will touch upon one event that speaks of the current Serbian leadership louder and more clearly than anything. Ratko Mladic died in this past August. a citizen of Serbia, paid by official Serbia at the time of aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina, protected by military and state leadership of Serbia, while evading justice for 16 years since his indictment in 1995. History will remember him as the butcher of Bosnia, and history will remember that the International Court of Justice found Serbia guilty of breaching the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the Serbians' genocide and failing to punish or transfer perpetrators, such as Radko Mladic, to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The court decision noting that, I quote, "The former Republic of Yugoslavia "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, at that time consisting until 2003 of Serbia and Montenegro, was in position of influence over the Bosnian Serbs who devised and implemented the genocide in Srebrenica, owing to the strength of the political, military, and financial links between Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the one hand and Republica Srpska and Vojiska Republike Srpske on the other hand." End of the quote. Leaves little room for doubt that Serbia was involved in the events leading up to and during the genocide in Srebrenica. Mladic eventually faced justice in The Hague, convicted by ICTY of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, including his responsibility for the Srebrenica genocide and crimes committed during the siege of Sarajevo. And now the current Serbian leadership decides that he's a hero, a war hero no less. His remains were transported on government plane, a commemoration for Ratko Mladic was held by Serbian military forces in Belgrade two days later. He was buried with full military honours in presence of six government ministers from Republic of Serbia and high-ranking officials from Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is who they celebrate, mourn and glorify. This is how they show compassion and willingness to come to terms with the past, atone and accept accountability. This is how they build the trust in the region and promote reconciliation. This is how they respect and uphold international law. On another note, if it were for Serbia, its many citizens accused of the most serious and heinous crimes committed in my country would live freely to this day, sheltered there, shielded by the same Serbia. It is equally amusing to imagine Belgrade as the host of the ICTY archives, as we heard from this stage just a few minutes ago. So, Mr. President, we urge the Council to remain committed to supporting this final and important stretch in the life cycle of the Mechanism, based on respect for international law, in a way that guarantees the completion of the Mechanism's mandate, preserves the integrity of the judicial process, and safeguards its legacy. We reiterate our support for the Mechanism as it completes its work and it will continue to uphold its legacy. I thank you. Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And now I give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Rwanda.

President, thank you for giving me the floor. Rwanda thanks Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, for presenting the Mechanism's 14th Annual Report. We acknowledge the contribution of the judges, the prosecutor, the registrar, and all those who have served the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Residual Mechanism. Mr. President, our discussion today comes at an important moment. As we consider the Mechanism's annual report, the Security Council is negotiating a resolution that will have important implications for its future, its remaining functions, and the preservation of its legacy. The decisions being considered are therefore not simply administrative or budgetary. They concern the responsibilities that will remain when international institutions has completed its work. For Rwanda, these questions are inseparable from 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, the pursuit of justice for its victims, and the preservation of truth for future generations. 32 years later, Rwanda has rebuilt its institutions and made important strides in reconciliation. We remain grateful to those who accompanied us on that journey. The ICTR contributed to accountability, established an authoritative judicial record, and advanced international criminal law. As we approach the closure of the mechanism, we must ensure that this legacy continues to serve those most directly affected. Mr. President, let me begin with the unfinished question of justice and accountability. As reflected in the report under consideration, the pursuit of accountability remains essential. More than 1,000 individuals suspected of participation in the genocide against the Tutsi remain at large. For survivors, those families have waited more than three decades. The passage of time is not an answer. Witnesses are aging, evidence is becoming harder to secure, and some survivors are dying without seeing justice done. We appreciate the states that have extradited suspects or prosecuted them in their own courts. We urge others to act on outstanding indictments and extradition requests, and cooperate effectively with Rwanda's judicial authorities. As the Mechanism prepares for closure, arrangements must preserve assistance to national jurisdictions, including the expertise and resources necessary to sustain investigations and prosecutions. The closure of an institution must never become an opportunity for fugitives to escape accountability. Equally important is the protection of witnesses and preservation of judicial evidence. Genocide denial and distortion continue to harm survivors and undermine reconciliation. The judicial record must remain accessible for legitimate judicial, educational, and research purposes with appropriate safeguards. Mr. President, this brings me to the responsibilities that must guide the Mechanism's closure. The mechanism was never intended to exist indefinitely. Rwanda supports an orderly transition of its remaining functions with clear responsibilities and timelines. For more than three decades, Member States have invested considerable resources in international justice. As we prepare to close this chapter, three responsibilities must guide our decisions: legal, political and financial. Our legal responsibility is to ensure that justice continues beyond the life of the institution and that outstanding obligations, including witness protection and access to judicial records, are maintained. Our political responsibility is to remain faithful to the purpose for which the Tribunal was established: justice for victims, dignity for survivors, and the prevention of future atrocities. And our financial responsibility is to manage the remaining functions prudently, protect the investments made by Member States, and preserve the Tribunal's legacy sustainably. These responsibilities must be addressed together. Mr. President, I wish now to draw attention to a matter of particular importance as the Security Council considers the Mechanism's future. The Security Council established the ICTR and subsequently the Residual Mechanism. It therefore carries a particular responsibility to ensure that their closure reflects not only institutional and financial considerations, but also the interests of those for whom these institutions were established. The countries most directly concerned may not be represented in the Security Council when these decisions are taken, but their absence from Council's membership must never mean the absence of their voices for its decisions. The Council must listen to the countries particularly the victims, survivors and communities whose history and future will be affected by its decisions. Many who testified before the Tribunal are no longer with us. Others have grown old waiting for justice. A new generation has been born since the genocide, carrying the responsibility to preserve its memory and ensure that truth is never distorted. We therefore appeal to the Council members, as they negotiate the resolution on the Mechanism's future, to approach these questions with the seriousness, fairness and historical sensitivity they deserve. Mr. President, it is against this background that I turn to the future of the ICTR archives, a matter of particular importance to Rwanda. These archives are not simply administrative records. They contain survivors' testimonies, evidence of crimes committed, and the judicial record of the genocide against the Tutsi. They are essential remembrance, education, continuing prosecutions, and the preservation of future, prevention of future atrocities. As Rwanda's Minister of Justice and the Attorney General emphasized before the Security Council on the 12th of June, 2026, the ISTR archives concern one country, one people, and one genocide. Their historical subject is inseparable from Rwanda. Their permanent location should therefore be determined not by administrative convenience, but by historical relevance, accessibility, and proximity to the people whose lives and history they record. Rwanda's position has been clear and consistent. The ICR archives should be hosted in Rwanda. We fully recognize that these archives are and must remain United Nations property. Our request is to host them under arrangements preserving United Nations legal authority, professional archival standards, confidentiality, witness protection and appropriate international access. Nor is this simply an expression of interest. Rwanda has invested in archival infrastructure, developed preservation and digitization expertise, and put in place legal and security safeguards. We have communicated our readiness to meet the cost of transfer, preservation, digitization, and subsequent management, avoiding additional financial burdens on member states, while ensuring continued access for authorized users. We believe the essential questions of capacity, feasibility and financing have been addressed. What remains is a decision. For survivors and their families, bringing the archives to Rwanda would mean more than transferring documents. It would bring an essential part of their history closer to their communities. whose testimony and suffering are recorded within them, and to the memorials where we honour those who perished. We therefore ask that Rwanda's views and the wishes of survivors be given due consideration in the decisions now being negotiated. Mr. President, there is one further practical responsibility Rwanda stands ready to assume. We reiterate our readiness to receive convicted persons to serve their remaining sentences, subject to applicable legal frameworks and international safeguards. Rwanda has experience as an enforcement state, and it is prepared to uphold humane detention conditions, independent monitoring and the rights of convicted persons. This offer, together with our proposal to host the archives, reflects our willingness to assume practical responsibilities as the Mechanism completes its work. Mr. President, allow me to conclude by returning to the decisions now before the Security Council. After more than three decades of international judicial engagement, we have reached a point where the future of the Mechanism and the preservation of its legacy must be settled. The decisions taken now will have consequences long after the institution itself has closed. hopes that the Security Council and the General Assembly will listen to the wishes of survivors and give due weight to the views of the country whose history these archives preserve. We hope to bring this chapter of international justice to a dignified and meaningful conclusion by transferring ICTR archives to Rwanda, where crimes were committed and where the survivors live. The Tribunal was established to serve justice. Its closure should serve the same purpose. There could be no more fitting conclusion than to to preserve the judicial records of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, close to survivors, close to the memorials of those who perished, and accessible to future generations while remaining under the authority of the United Nations. This is the outcome we hope Member States, and particularly members of the Security Council, will support. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Rwanda, and now I give the floor.

Of the Mechanism, Judge Kathe Santana, for the introduction of the 14th Annual Report. Croatia aligns itself with the statement of the EU. Allow me to add a few remarks in my national capacity. Indonesia would like to reiterate its support for the efforts to identify the most suitable and efficient way for the timely completion and transfer of the mechanism's functions. We recognize it is essential to ensure that its future closure is carried out in a constructive way that will not, in any respect, undermine the purpose for which the mechanism was established. Mr. President, regarding the future location of the archives, Croatia reiterates its readiness to assume responsibility for the preservation of the archives of the ICTY and the Mechanism and to serve as a long-term host of the United Nations entity responsible for their maintenance. To this end, suitable premises that meet all necessary technical, security and operational requirements are already available in Croatia. Croatia further wishes to emphasise that the archives derived from the work of the ICTY and the Mechanism constitute a unified body of records, which, in accordance with the internationally recognised principle of provenance, should not be divided. We also recognise that safeguarding the integrity, authenticity and credibility of these archives is essential for enabling researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders to effectively address persistent attempts at historical revisionism and to preserve an accurate historical record for future generations. In this regard, the eventual decision on the permanent location of the archives should be guided by thoughtful considerations to ensure the broadest possible confidence in their impartial stewardship, long-term preservation, and accessibility. This decision will carry significance well beyond administrative arrangements, given the archives' important role in upholding historical facts, supporting accountability, and contributing to reconciliation and trust building across the region. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Croatia. With that, we have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. So may I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to take note of the report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals? It is so decided. Thank you. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I propose that the time limits for statements in the exercise of the right of reply under this item be limited to five minutes for the first intervention and three minutes for the second intervention. Is there an objection for this proposal? I hear none. So it is decided. Accordingly, pursuant of the Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, When a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cut-off. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that the statements in the exercise of the right of reply should be made by delegation from their seats. So I call now on the representative of Serbia.

Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished delegates. I would like to reply to the statement of Mr. Zoran Lagumdzija from the Bosnia and Herzegovina and concerning his accusations on the part of the Republic of Serbia. First, I would like to stress that I do not believe that this position is shared by the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly not to the whole entities in the Bosnia and Herzegovina. And this is a very, very sensitive issue, and I think that extensive discussion on this issue is not appropriate for this agenda item. However, I must briefly reply to certain accusations. He has provided a statement about alleged responsibility of the Republic of Serbia in accordance with the relevant judgment of the International Court of Justice, but the International Court of Justice did not establish neither the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia nor the Mechanism any involvement of the Republic of Serbia concerning that relates to the events after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. I must also say that concerning the very legal qualifications of certain events after the fall of Srebrenica are subject to a great and serious debate, and many facts need to be established because the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and also mechanism rely on inferences, on certain circumstantial evidence. not all of the judges was of the same opinion about certain facts and certain legal qualifications. That does not mean that we did not recognise that after the fall of Srebrenica serious crimes have been committed. Concerning the responsibility, Serbia is not at all responsible for the events after the fall of Srebrenica, and that is clearly established. Concerning the funeral of General Ratko Mladic, he provides certain accusations. General Ratko Mladic, as any other person, has right to human dignity. That's the right established in international law, and in the recent report of the International Law Commission concerning the general principles of law, this is recognised as a general principle applicable to whole international law. So it must be admitted. The funeral of General Mladic. and the presence of certain officials at that funeral does not mean that we do not respect victims. We respect victims of all persons who suffered during the war in the former Yugoslavia. However, we are here confronted with some other issues, particularly from speakers from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Crimes against Serbs remain unpunished. In Podrinje, in Srebrenica, during 1992 and 1993, serious crimes against Serbs had been committed. There are no persons accused for those crimes. One-sided justice is not justice. We are here to remind that we need to approach with the events about Srebrenica, about Podrinje region, about the whole war in the former Bosnia and Herzegovina, objectively, and to reconsider certain facts and to reconsider certain legal qualifications. Without that, I think that we will be confronted with injustice.

Thank you.

And I call now.

On the representative of Islamic Republic of Iran.

BASHAR ZARIF, REPRESENTATIVE OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: BismillahirRahmanirRahim.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to exercise a right of reply to respond to unfounded statement made by a delegation today against Islamic Republic of Iran. We categorically reject all allegations made against my country. The report of the UN Secretary-General submitted under this agenda item, contained in document A/81/287, outlines the very subject of this agenda item, which is international residual mechanism for criminal tribunals. Irrelevant statements under this agenda item divert the solemn work of the United Nations. In any way, the facts and laws apply are clear and could not be obscured by political rhetoric or references to an ultra-virus UN Security Council output. On 28 February 2026, my country was subjected to a brutal, unprovoked, and premeditated aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime, killing thousands of our people, including women and children. Unfortunately, this aggression was enabled and facilitated by certain countries in the region that placed their territories, airspace, and facilities at the disposal of the aggressors. As per international law, aggressions include placing a one's territory at another state's disposal for the perpetration of aggression against a third state. In response to the aggression, the Islamic Republic of Iran exercised its inherent right to self-defense. in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. We once again categorically reject the baseless allegations leveled against my country and underline the importance of genuine adherence to the principle of good neighborliness, which requires refraining from any form of aid or assistance to any aggression against my country. I thank you.

Thank you. And now I call on the representative of Israel.

Thank you, Mr. President. We are disappointed, but not surprised, by the blatant misuse of this important forum by the delegation of Kuwait to weaponize empty accusations against my country without any connection to the topic at hand. It is shameful how easy it is for a member state to take any topic out of its proper context, politicize this forum, turn its work into a political spectacle, and contribute to the dissemination of disinformation. This is disgraceful. But since we find ourselves in these regrettable circumstances, we are compelled to respond and set the record straight. The term genocide is not a slogan. It is a legal term that entails specific legal elements, conditions, and circumstances that must be met for the crimes to be established. Needless to say, none of these conditions are met in the circumstances Kuwait referred to. No judgment has been rendered in this regard, yet Kuwait is treating this as an established legal conclusion. The irony could not be more striking. In a debate devoted to the careful transitional functions of international criminal justice, Kuwait demonstrates precisely the dangers of its politicization and misuse of both this forum and international tribunals. Such conduct does not merely undermine the credibility of this forum. It risks eroding the very legal principles, institutions, and safeguards that the international community has worked so hard to establish and protect. Mr. President, let us be clear. Israel categorically rejects these baseless accusations. Those who should be characterized as perpetrators of genocidal terrorist acts are the Hamas Nukhba combatants who committed abhorrent atrocities during the October 7th massacre with clear intent to annihilate the state of Israel. Furthermore, Hamas leadership openly, proudly, and repeatedly declares that if possible, they will repeat the October 7th massacre time and again until the complete annihilation of the state of Israel. These, colleagues, is a genocidal agenda and demonstrate clear intent to commit ethnic cleansing. Destroying the Jewish state and the Jewish people is a genocidal agenda. Recycling fabricated narrative and spreading misinformation has become too easy. Repeating buzzwords like genocide or ethnic cleansing does not make them any more applicable or true of the situation in question. It only served to undermine and erode the moral and legal weight of this incredibly important designation. The casual misuse of these terms serve as a stark reminder to all of us of the risk posed by the continuous undermining of the legitimacy of international tribunals. This is precisely the kind of politicization and abuse that the international community has repeatedly warned against. It must be recognised as such and it must not be tolerated. International justice deserves better than political manipulation, and this Assembly must not allow the language of international law to be stripped of its meaning and moral force. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. And now I call on the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to say that I absolutely agree with the colleague who is representing Serbia in here that things related to war crimes, genocide, and other war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina are very sensitive issue, and there are no doubts about it. Today we are talking about international law, about respect of international law, about supporting of institutions that are basic pillars of international law established by this very United Nations. Today I heard in this reply a few things that I just want to point out. First thing is the genocide in Srebrenica is not a question of opinion or question of political debates. It's legally established fact. And denial of such a legally established fact is called denial of genocide and denial of the truth. Today we heard again that genocide in Srebrenica was not called that way, but as a question of opinion, of political position, it is called differently. So I just want to reiterate, and again we heard that Serbia has nothing to do with it. I'm just quoting again one legal fact, which is not opinion but legal fact, and I reiterate that International Court of Justice found Srebrenica, Serbia, guilty of breaching of Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide and failing to punish or transfer perpetrators such as Radko Mladic. And I quote, I just quote again, the Court decision was very clear that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, at that time Serbia and Montenegro, was in position of influence over Bosnian Serbs who devised and implemented the genocide in Srebrenica, owing to the strength of the political, military, and financial links between Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at one hand and Republica Srpska and Vojiska Republika Srpska on the other hand. Those are not my opinions. These are not quotes from some historical books. These are quotes from relevant relevant statements and final judicial facts established by ICTY, by International Court of Justice and International Court for Crim-- ICTY. And last point, to be very precise, maybe it is the best example about the nature of the facts that we heard and replying to me. I was called as a Mr. Zoran Lagumdzija. And as that is the fact, which is the truth, everything else is a truth. First, I'm ambassador. I'm not mister in here. I'm ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina and permanent representative to United Nations. And point number two, which is even more simple to remember, my name is not Zoran. So everything that I heard from my colleague from Serbia is as true as my name is Zoran. For the record, my name is Zlatko Lagumdja. Thank you.

Thank you. And now I call on the representative of Kuwait.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation takes its right to reply to exercise it. and to start Mr. chair it is beyond me and my delegation to listen to the representative of the occupying power advocating for international law this is the true irony in this hall let me remind the delegation of the occupying power, of what the ICJ is. It is the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the international community. And in July of 2024, it said its word crystal clear. It said that Israel's occupation to the Palestinian territories is illegal. That is international law, ladies and gentlemen. That is what we respect. That is what we uphold, not propaganda, fallacies, And false narratives that this delegation is trying to spread in the United Nations will always be debunked, because international law is very easy to defend. And, Mr. Chair, when the delegation of the occupying power speaks about using words and narratives and just calling things as they are, these are facts. Facts. How many ESS sessions have been held in this very own hall? Does he need a history lesson to be reminded of the numbers that were recorded?

I.

Don't believe so. The Palestinian situation, Mr. Chair, is the easiest to defend. Because genocide is very blatant, apartheid is very clear, and double standards is extremely evident. So what the occupying power is trying to do in the occupied territories speaks for itself and gives us all what we need to debunk everything they have to say. And now, Mr. Chair, I'll move to what the delegation of Iran had to say about territories of neighboring countries being used against their attacks and them invoking Article 51. Three simple questions, very simple. Is Kuwait International Airport a military installation? Is Kuwait's public institution for social security a military target? Are power generation plants, water desalination facilities, and civilian oil refineries military installations? These are among the civilian facilities struck against the attacks against my country, Mr. Chair. These are documented incidents. not hypothetical examples. The Iranian delegation claimed to have evidence. If such evidence exists, let them present it. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And now I call on the representative of Serbia for the second intervention, three minutes.

I'll be very brief. Mr. President, first, apology to His Excellency Zlatko Lagunja. I misspelled his name in my address to this General Assembly. And when he said that the International Court of Justice established the responsibility of the Republic of Serbia, I would like to see the part of the judgment. where Serbian position toward the fall of Srebrenica has been described in the judgement. What are the facts? If you read the judgement, you can see nothing about the events in Srebrenica, just qualifications that are taken from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. However, Serbia as a state is not responsible for those events. The facts established in the practice of -- in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the mechanism might be qualified in a different manner. Many facts are not, let's say, properly established. Many crimes have not been established, particularly crimes against Serbs. And concerning the Srebrenica issue, serious crime have been committed, but it is questionable whether it is genocide or not. Not even all the judges were of the same opinion concerning that. And I think that those issues we now need to put aside and to go further with the mechanism and the role of the mechanism, and there will be certainly time for the discussion of those very, very serious issues in other forums and on other occasions.

Thank you. So now I call on the representative of Israel for the second intervention, three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. I just want to reiterate very basics of international law. I think maybe it's the first lesson on the public international law basic course in any university. The main differences between advisory opinion and contentious cases. It's not surprising that the representative of Kuwait haven't found any judgments referred to the accusations that he accused me during his main intervention or statement. There is no any judgment who deals with so-called allegations about so-called genocide, so-called ethnic cleansing or apartheid. And because of that, he used just another document or advisory opinion by the ICJ, which, with all due respect, is not a contentious case. And again, I think that maybe it just took a mistake that he referred for another accusation or another topic and not for the topics that he referred at the beginning. At the very least, it's a mistake or another attempt to spread misinformation, disinformation, and another political manipulation. This is part of the problem. And with regard to these accusations about the... the number of the ESS in this room I think this is also part of the problem of the politicization of this of this whole and how easy is to convene to convene ESS in in in this hall thank you.

Thank you so now I call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran the second intervention three minutes.

Thank you Mr. president I wish to exercise a right to reply to the statement of the delegation of Kuwait uh uh uh the facts are clear and the law that is applicable thereon could not be changed by uh false narrative on 28 February 2026 my country was subjected to a blatant aggression conducted by the United States and its accomplice the Israel the Israeli genocidal regime And as we mentioned, unfortunately, this aggression has been enabled and facilitated, including through the airspace and territory of the state of Kuwait. The involvement of Kuwait in the aggression against my country is not an allegation, it's a fact, acknowledged time and again by senior officials of the United States. I believe we are not here to respond to questions, but we expect the delegation of Kuwait to respond why their territory has been used for aggression against my country, which has resulted in the killing of thousands of our people, including 168 school children and teachers. But I would like to draw the attention of the delegation of Kuwait to the submissions that we have submitted before the UN Security Council, which includes the examples of the use of territory of Kuwait for aggression against my country. including in those information we have submitted, it states that the Kuwait territory and airspace were repeatedly used by US F-22, F-35, F-15E, and F-16 aircraft to conduct attacks against Iran, while US AVAX and MQ-9 aircraft provided intelligence support and KC-135 aircraft conducted aerial refueling operations from the area of Kuwait against my country. And to point to other evidences for the use of the territory of Kuwait against my country, I wish to refer to the official statements of the United States, where they have thanked, including Kuwait, for helping them in attacking my country. So these are facts, and these facts could not be changed. We expect good neighborliness from the state of Kuwait, as we have always demonstrated that throughout our history. I thank you.

Thank you. I now call on the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the second intervention, three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, I'm saying this because of the people who want to listen and who this, what we are talking about, may reach to, for the sake of true and legal facts. To my distinguished representative of Serbia, I can say only that you can try to deny or completely revise history, as you are doing again and again and again, and like some of your predecessors in this very hall and this very building, to revise history, historical and judicial fact, until you are blue in the face or however long you want to do it. But the facts remain, are well known, and are easily accessible to all. So I refer to distinguished colleague and everyone else who wants to listen and to want to know a little bit more about it, to judge that everything I said can be found as sense of legal facts on the website of ICTY and the ICJ. And I want to thank you, Mr. President, again. And there is gift for you from me, almost two minutes of my time that was available to reply. Thank you.

Thank you. And now I call for the representative of Kuwait for the second intervention, three minutes.

Mr. Chair, it is very interesting to see what the occupying power is trying to do in this hall. That delegation loves media attention. But lately, the attention they've been getting in the realm of the international media is very eye-opening. And the level of shift in the opinion of the international community is something they find very, very uncomfortable. I'll tell you what they do not teach in universities when it comes to first lessons. They teach that permanent representatives should not stand on the podium of the United Nations and shred the charter. With that, I will end my reply to you. And moving on to the delegation of Iran, I'm very glad they mentioned the Security Council. And speaking about the Security Council, It has spoken through Resolution 2817 of 2026. And let me remind the Iranian representative of one particular significant fact. A record number of 136 member states co-sponsored that resolution. 70%, ladies and gentlemen, of the entire United Nations membership. That is seven out of every 10 members. The resolution explicitly condemned Iran's attacks against Kuwait and other states in the region. So the narrative that the Iranian delegation is trying to spread here and across the board and all the different committees of the General Assembly is merely false. It does not hold its weight beyond the ink on the paper. This is not merely Kuwait's position, nor is it a regional position. It is a position of the overwhelming majority of the international community. 136, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. We've just heard the last of the rights of reply, so may I take it that it is a wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of the agenda item 130? It is so decided. I'd just like to thank the interpreters for staying for an extra time to enable the Assembly to conclude its deliberation. The meeting is adjourned.