Sixth Committee, 11th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

I call to order the 11th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, this morning the Sixth Committee will continue and conclude its consideration of agenda item 75, criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission. After which, we will commence our consideration of agenda item 79, United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. Distinguished delegates, in relation to agenda item 75, criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, I recall that when we exhausted that when we exhausted the list of speakers on this agenda item at our meeting on Friday afternoon, we hadn't quite completed our business. At the end of the meeting, the observer delegation of the State of Palestine had requested the floor to make its second intervention in exercise of the right of reply, at which time the electronic services were switched off. I understand that the delegation of the State of Palestine still wishes to make its second intervention in exercise of the right of reply. I therefore give the delegation the floor.

Thank you, Ambassador, for giving me the floor, and good morning, colleagues. I do understand that the majority of delegations are here for the crimes against humanity agenda item, but there is an overdue second right of reply from Friday, and I promise to keep it as quick, as entertaining as possible. But on Friday, under the agenda item on accountability of UN officials, the Israeli representative once again delivered a mendacious statement. inciting against and attacking the United Nations, its different bodies, its agencies, its court, its officials and its personnel, in particular UNRWA, the United Nations Works and Relief Agency for Palestine Refugees, defaming the humanitarian agency as a terrorist organization, labelling the United Nations and, by extension, the majority of member states which support on the role. And when we exercise our right of reply, we presented the facts, the truth, and the law, including as presented by the ICJ advisory opinion in 2025, where it conclusively concluded that Israel's allegations against on the role were unsubstantiated and rejected Israel's lies and propaganda against on the role. Instead of engaging on the merits of the law as presented by the ICJ, the Israeli representative expressed feigned astonishment and confusion to why the delegation of the State of Palestine exercised their right of reply. They explained that the statement was directed against UNRWA and did not mention Palestinians or the Palestinian delegation, and then proceeded to condescendingly and derisively question our representation and asked who do we represent in this room, whether it's UNRWA or others. So I feel obliged to answer the question. We proudly represent the State of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the 15 million Palestinian people, including the 7 million Palestine refugees who are registered with UNRWA, the same UN agency that the Israeli representative attacked and incited against. and the same UN agency that Israel and Israeli officials are trying to dismantle, hoping that if they were to dismantle UNRWA, they would erase the right of the Palestinian people to return. But our right is an inalienable right. It cannot be erased, not with the passage of time, even 80 years after the Nakba, and certainly not with Israel's actions and violations against UNRWA. So, in particular, any attack against UNRWA is an attack against the Palestinian people, and this is why we exercise our right of reply. And I can only imagine how overwhelming it is for the Israeli representative to represent a state that is standing trial for genocide before the ICJ, and whose officials are internationally wanted criminals. And it can also be overwhelming to continuously defend Israel's 80 years long crimes against the Palestinian people. And while the Israeli representative was busy defending genocides, illegal occupation, apartheid, the mass killing of children, the rape and torture of detainees, they missed the connection between UNRWA and the Palestinian delegation and the Palestinian people. And I really hope that our answer was sufficient and will help the Israeli representative overcome this confusion. Thank you again, Ambassador, for giving me the floor. This was our second right of reply. I won't be able to engage in the third right of reply as much as I would like to, but we do look forward for the crimes against humanity debate. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine for her statement. The distinguished representative of Israel has requested the floor in the exercise of a second right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. As I've said before, I rarely see any value in responding to Palestinian delegations' endless stream of baseless allegations. Now I understand also that she enjoying to entertain you. I'm not here to entertain you, but if that this is what she wants to, so this is her part. Apparently, they still believe that if they overwhelm this committee with enough words, accusations, and selective references to international law, they can make falsehood appear credible. But repetition does not turn a lie into fact, and empty rhetoric does not make a weak argument even stronger. It merely wastes this committee's time and distracts us from the substance of our work. Let me also clarify, I did not initiate this exchange. The Palestinian delegation could have inscribed themselves on the speakers list and contribute to the debate. Instead, they chose to exercise their right of reply today for the second time to launch yet another round of baseless accusations. Israel is already working closely with UN agencies operating in Gaza, agencies that deliver humanitarian assistance and professional services rather than political advocacy, incitement, or activities linked to terrorism like UNRWA has done. Our expectation is simple. UN agencies must be professional, impartial, accountable, and committed to their mandates. They must deliver assistance, not advance political campaigns or provide cover for terrorism. Israel cooperates closely with UNICEF on water, sanitation and hygiene as well as education, with UNDP on solid waste management and shelters, and with WFP on food security and nutrition. The successful vaccination campaign in Gaza, led by the WHO, is another concrete example for a good cooperation between Israel and the UN. And these are just some examples of many. These are not talking points like just UNRWA ones. They are practical results for civilians in Gaza. And in October 2026 alone, three senior UN officials have visited Jerusalem to explore further avenues for cooperation. Given the high demand for engagement, we jointly thought to coordinate additional visits in November. Israel is not isolated, not disengaged, and certainly not unwilling to cooperate. The substantial volume of humanitarian assistance entering into Gaza is also facilitated by close coordination between Israel and UN agencies, alongside other humanitarian actors, all those that are not UNRWA, that have not been infiltrated by terrorist organizations. This is the reality on the ground, dialogue, coordination, and practical cooperation. Our invitation remains open to every UN agency that is professional, impartial and free from terrorist involvement and inherent bias. We will work with those who approach their mandate in good faith. What we will not accept is the proposition that UNRWA must be preserved in and of itself, regardless of its record or the existence of professional alternatives. Madam Chair, I was equally astonished to hear the Palestinian representative suggested on Friday that Israel owes a unique debt to the United Nations because of the circumstances of its establishment. We do not have time today for a history lesson, but since the Palestinian representative chose to invoke history, let us recall one essential fact. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted resolution 181. 181, recommending the partition of the mandatory land into Arab state and Jewish state. Israel accepted the plan. The Arab leadership rejected it. Violence has been initiated by the Arab leadership, and war followed Israel's declaration of independence. The Arab leadership vowed to wipe Israel off the map. One can only wonder what might have happened to the Palestinian and Israeli relationships if they, the Palestinians, chose differently. But that is, of course, a question for historical speculation. The Palestinian representatives should exercise greater caution before lecturing this community and this committee about Israel's legitimacy, its relationship with the United Nations, or who truly pursued the path for peace. And this brings us to a broader point. The United Nations is a bubble. Outside this building, countries, including countries in our own region, are expanding cooperation with Israel in security, civilian, economic, and diplomatic affairs. Peace agreements and normalization arrangements are being concluded, and we welcome further progress. Yet, Inside this UN bubble, we continue to witness an obsessive focus on Israel, the recycling of Palestinian allegations, and the politicization of humanitarian and UN agencies. And in this committee, the Palestinian representative has never condemned the atrocities of the 7th of October. Beyond these walls, Israelis and Palestinians engage with one another every day, but regrettably, not in this committee and not at the UN. Outside of the UN, Israelis and Palestinians coordinate projects, security, trade, economic cooperation, and sometimes they simply sit down for a coffee. The disconnect between what happens on the ground and what is said in this committee speaks volumes. We must stop rewarding political manipulations, confront terrorist involvement wherever it exists, insist on accountability, and strengthen professional cooperation. We must reject the politicization of UN institutions and stop allowing every discussion to be consumed by endless accusations unrelated to the subject before us. Israel will not remain silent in the face of disinformation. We will challenge it, expose it, and refuse to let political theater replace facts. Our hand we meant extend to every serious partner, UN agencies and other willing to work with us professionally and in a good faith. But let us be aquil clear. UNRWA is not relevant anymore and is not an option. It is a loose cannon and a drain on the vulnerable resources. Madam Chair, let us return to the work of this committee as was that. Madam Chair, let us return to the work this committee was convened to do. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for the statement. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee has concluded its debate on agenda item 75, criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission. I recall that the working group established under the present agenda item will meet on 15 October and 2 November 2026. Delegations are also reminded that the annual briefing by the Secretariat will take place in the context of the working group on 15 October 2025 at 3 p.m. in this room. I wish to inform you that Mr. Ahmad Ghazali Mohamad Nazri of Malaysia and Mr. Zulfiqar Ali of Pakistan will once again coordinate the draft resolution on agenda item 75. As agreed at our first meeting, we will provide the coordinators assigned to each agenda item the opportunity to take the floor to give a brief indication of their plans and, if possible, to already introduce the initial draft of their proposals for draft resolutions where applicable. As such, I request Mr. Nazri of Malaysia to take the floor on the agenda item. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, colleagues. On behalf of Malaysia and Pakistan, it is our honor to have the opportunity once again to co-facilitate the draft resolution under this agenda item. We have listened very attentively to the statements that have been delivered under this agenda item, and you will be receiving the zero draft of the draft resolution very soon. Once circulated, you will see that most of the changes to the text are technical in nature. the changes will be indicated in the track changes format for ease of reference. We will have our first round of informal consultations to introduce the draft resolution immediately following the meeting of the working group on the agenda item on Thursday 15 October in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. We will also elaborate further on the deadline for the proposals and the timeline regarding the negotiations of the resolution during the informal consultations in the e-mail that will be circulated to transmit the draft resolution. You will also have my contact details and those of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali of Pakistan, so please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to fruitful engagement on the draft resolution. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for the update and statement. I encourage the coordinators to use the e-sponsorship module in the e-delegate portal for the circulation of the draft resolution as early as possible and to submit it for processing in good time. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee will now commence its consideration of agenda item 79, United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. I remind delegations of the decision taken at our first meeting that statements delivered in a national capacity should be limited to seven minutes, while statements by groups of States will be limited to 12 minutes. Delegations are strongly encouraged to adhere to the time limits in order for the committee to be able to stay with its planned programme of work and to catch up. We are, as you know, a little bit behind schedule. Let us now commence our debate. There are no documents issued under the agenda item at the present session. The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Mexico on behalf of a cross-regional group of states. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Republic of the Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, the State of Palestine, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia, the European Union, and my own country, Mexico. Almost two years ago, the adoption of Resolution 79/122, convening a United Nations Conference on Plenipotentiaries for the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, marked a decisive step towards closing a longstanding gap in the international legal framework. It also reaffirmed our shared commitment to the progressive development of international law, accountability, and effective multilateralism. We welcome the successful conclusion of the first session of the Preparatory Committee in January 2026. More than 90 States participated in the plenary meetings and working groups, demonstrating the international community's strong and sustained engagement in this process. The discussions also reveal significant areas of convergence, including broad recognition that the International Law Commission's draft articles provide a sound basis for negotiations. We also welcome the decision establishing the modalities for civil society organizations without consultative status within the Economic and Social Council to attend and participate in the conference. Meaningful civil society participation will contribute to an inclusive and informed process that benefits from the experience and perspectives of all relevant stakeholders. including victims and survivors. We further welcome that textual proposals were submitted by 63 states. These contributions will help us identify areas of convergence, better understand remaining differences, and prepare for focused and constructive negotiations. We encourage states to engage in an open and constructive manner. A widely supported, effective, and future-proof convention will strengthen the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, promote justice for victims and survivors, and help end impunity for some of the gravest crimes of concern to international community. The International Law Commission's draft articles provide the foundation for advancing the convention's dual purpose. preventing crimes against humanity and ensuring their effective investigation and punishment. The forthcoming negotiations should preserve this essential balance. As we prepare for the conference, we underscore the importance of adopting rules of procedure that facilitate inclusive, transparent and efficient negotiations, safeguard the integrity of the process and enable us to pursue the broadest possible agreement on a strong and effective convention. Important work remains ahead, yet the progress achieved thus far demonstrates that we can accomplish through sustained dialogue, mutual respect, and collective resolve. We call on all states to build on this momentum and to engage constructively. ambitiously and in good faith as we move towards the negotiations. The international community has waited too long for a global convention on crimes against humanity. We now have both the opportunity and the responsibility to deliver it together. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group.

Madam Chair, I have the honor to deliver a statement on behalf of the African Group. Madam Chair, in this resolution 79/122 of December 4, 2024, General Assembly decided to convene a United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries to meet at the United Nations headquarters in 2028 and 2029 to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The African Group support this decision, which demonstrate our clear manifestation and commitment to the collective will to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. which are amongst the most serious crimes that affect the international community, deeply shock the conscience of humanity and endanger the stability, peace and cohesion of society. The African Group notes the successful convening of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference, which took place from 19 to 30 January 2026, and looks forward to the next one, scheduled to take place in 2027. We note the written proposal made by State in this process and reiterate the African Group readiness to constructively engage in meaningful and substantive discussion to be held following a fair, inclusive and transparent process premised on the established principle of consensus. Madam Chair, the African Group note the proposed compared text which would only be acceptable to the group if it is inclusive, of the legitimate concern raised by many states, both individually and as part of regional group, during the 78th, 79th, and 80th session of the General Assembly, as well as in the tourism session. The African Group reiterates that any further action and ongoing discussion on this matter should take cognizance of the historical injustice, cultural specificity, geographical and political realities of member states, and their legitimate concern. The group records the negative impact of historical atrocity, unilateral coercive measure, and international crimes, especially slavery, slave trade, colonialism, apartheid, racial segregation and subjugation, and the exploitation of resources and other heinous act associated with this crime that deny and violated the humanity of its victim as one of the highest form of crimes against humankind. To this day, we continue to experience the vestigial consequences of, for instance, the transatlantic slave trade and racial discrimination, which continue to affect the continent and people of African descent. In this regard, the African Group recalls the landmark resolution A/HRC/250 entitled Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved African and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the gravest crimes against humanity, adopted on 25 March 2026, in which the General Assembly, amongst other, reaffirmed its collective recognition of the profound and lasting impact of the historical atrocity on Africans and people of African descent, and how this continues to cause immense suffering, cultural disruption, economic exploitation, emotional trauma, and unending discrimination endured by Africans and people of African descent throughout history. Affirm the importance of addressing historical wrongs affecting Africans and people of African descent in a manner that promotes justice, human rights, dignity, and healing, and declared the trafficking of enslaved African as racialized chattel enslavement of African as the gravest crime against humanity. It is in this context that we continue to call for the admission of responsibility for slavery and the slave trade, as well as all other practices threatening the future and perpetration of humankind and their continuing consequence with the moral authority and responsibility to lead global effort in their prevention. We therefore reiterate our call for the inclusion of this crime as crimes against humanity, as the prohibition of this crime is undeniable and is prescriptible. Madam Chair, the 39th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Head of State and Government of the African Union held from 14 to 15 February 2026 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, declare 2026 to 2030 2085, a decade of justice for African and people of African descent through reparation. The African goal reaffirmed the gravity of transatlantic slavery, the slave trade, colonialism, and apartheid, which were neither accidental nor incidental, but deliberate and planned, and which inflicted systemic harm on African people. The effect of this atrocity is still a reality even today. African group will continue to work towards the international recognition of this historical Injustice and of the right of African and people of African descent to Justice and repression it is for that reason that the African group welcomed the historic decision adopted in February 2025 by the African Union Assembly SL au/ December dot 934 on the codification of slavery deportation and colonization as crimes against humanity and genocide against African people this important decision recognized the violence and denial of human dignity that marked this period and aim to establish a new legal framework for recognition and reparative justice The fundamental legal concept of historical importance to African member states such as the principle of territorial integrity, sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of states enshrined in the UN Charter should be explicitly mentioned in the draft article, given the horizontal nature of the article. We also caution against the double standard and the selective approach to justice as they erode trust and confidence in the international legal order. Madam Chair, the African Group reiterates its concern regarding the ILC approach regarding the review of and reference to some provision borrowed from other internationally binding instrument in a manner inconsistent with their initial context or intention.

In this context, the

African group call for halt or end of attack on all civilians in all conflict for the protection of the civilians in accordance with international law, including humanitarian and human right law, and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire toward the achievement of a permanent and sustained cessation of hostility. The African group recognize the need for international cooperation in combating crimes against humanity. Such cooperation should be undertaken in accordance with the principle of complementarity and with applicable rule of international law

relating to immunities.

In this regard, we are of the view that priority should be given to national jurisdiction and to bilateral cooperation in the area of mutual legal assistance like extradition. The general obligation of states should be linked first to national law and then to obligation freely entered into under the mechanism provided by international law. in order to ensure that this obligation comply with the spirit and letter of international law. Further, the prohibition to engaging in act constituting crimes against humanity must be precise and formulated within the capacity of the state to punish. In conclusion, the African group is of the view that to effectively combat impunity and blatant disregard for human right, more effort should be exerted in line with applicable international legal instrument.

In light of

this, the African Group remain ready to engage constructively in the upcoming Preparatory Committee and subsequent diplomatic conference with the objective of developing an international instrument that is fair, balanced and enjoys the widest possible support. While challenges remain, we believe that with broad ownership and consensus, a universal instrument on the prevention of crimes against humanity can be achieved. I thank you for your kind attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statement. I give the floor to the European Union. You have the floor, distinguished representative of the European Union.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia, as well as Armenia, Andorra, Monaco, and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. Madam Chair, following the adoption of resolution 79/122, launching the process to negotiate a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. We understand that this year the Sixth Committee's task is simply to adopt a decision setting the exact dates of the first session of the diplomatic conference.

This debate, however, offers us the

opportunity to take stock of the important groundwork that has been achieved throughout the last 12 months in particular at the first session of the Preparatory Committee last January. The European Union and its Member States were pleased to participate in the constructive discussions, cluster by cluster, of the draft articles elaborated by the International Law Commission in 2019, and then to present their respective comments and specific amendment proposals alongside many other delegations. These exercises help paving the way for the Conference in 2028. Also, we welcome the fact that the Conference will be open to the active participation of relevant non-governmental organizations. Madam Chair, as for the work ahead, the EU and its Member States stand ready to work constructively with all delegations at the upcoming second session of the Preparatory Committee.

We are positive that the Preparatory Committee will be able to find consensus on all texts to be prepared

and, in particular, on rules of procedure that should allow the Conference to concentrate on substance as of day one

and to deliberate in an open, inclusive, transparent and efficient process.

I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union for his statement. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Libya, on behalf of the Arab Group.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Madam Chair, I speak on behalf of the Arab Group with regard to international efforts to prevent and punish crimes against humanity, this crime which is one of the most dangerous of all that affect the international community and that shocks the conscience of humanity and undermines societal cohesion. The Arab Group welcomes resolution 79/122 on the Conference of Plenipotentiaries of the United Nations on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. This resolution calls for holding this conference at the UN headquarters in New York for three consecutive weeks at the beginning of 2028. The resolution also calls for organizing a preparatory committee in January of 2027 in New York, as well as a working group to establish an instrument to punish, prevent and punish crimes against humanity. We insist on the importance of international cooperation, including through the requisite legal framework to combat these crimes, to prevent and punish them. We are aware of the vital importance of this process, and that is why we remain committed to taking part constructively in the negotiations that are substantive and targeted, And subsequently, in the conference, the PrepCom and negotiations on a compiled text of draft articles that take into account the proposals presented by the various governments with regard to amendments to these draft articles when they are not subject to consensus. We've taken part in some of the discussion during the Sixth Committee on the draft articles presented by the ILC. This dialogue was a constructive process that went beyond the procedural, and we believe this approach, we hope this approach will continue. We also call for a fair, transparent, and comprehensive process as expressed by a number of Arab states during their comments. The primary responsibility for preventing and punishing these crimes continues to lie with Member States. We underscore the need to respect all of the principles of the UN Charter and to apply them non-selectively to guarantee the primacy of law in fighting impunity and guaranteeing accountability. We warn against unilateral measures, illegal unilateral measures that undermine international law. that administer justice selectively. We underscore the importance of guaranteeing the universality of legal and humanitarian norms because the impunity we are witnessing is unacceptable, and the international community must address genocides and crimes committed against the Palestinian people for more than 78 years at the hands of the occupying Israeli power, we must guarantee the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination under the UN Charter. The Arab Group highlights the importance of refraining from the threat or use of force to threaten the political independence and territorial integrity of states, as well as refraining from interfering in internal affairs of states. Chair 80 years after the end of World War II, reality shows us that millions of people, youth, women, children, elderly persons continue to live in situations today that do not meet the promises of the international community, the UN Charter and international instruments aim to preserve the dignity of all human beings. However, these commitments still have not been upheld. That is why the international community must remain firm in its commitment to transform its promises into concrete measures, including by establishing binding, clear and comprehensive legal frameworks to put an end to impunity and to guarantee accountability for crimes against humanity. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Libya for his statement, and I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sweden on behalf of the Nordic countries.

Madam Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and my own country, Sweden. The decision taken by this committee to move forward with negotiations on a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity was a long-awaited and important step. It marks a milestone in the collective efforts of the international community to close a gap in international treaty law. A future dedicated convention will not only reinforce accountability at the international level, but also benefit national legislation and criminal jurisdiction, promote inter-state cooperation, and reinforce our shared ability to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. These crimes remain among the most serious of international concern. Despite their clear prohibition under international law, civilian populations continue to suffer, while perpetrators often enjoy impunity. We must not allow this to continue. We must honour the memory of those who lost their lives and heed the call of survivors by ensuring accountability for the unthinkable violations of their human rights that crimes against humanity entail. Madam Chair, the Nordic countries remain convinced that the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission provide a solid and credible basis for the elaboration of the Convention. We welcome the further steps that have been taken towards the Convention, in particular through the first session of the Preparatory Committee in January and the submission of written comments and proposals for amendments. We would like to express our appreciation to the Bureau and the Secretariat for facilitating fruitful deliberations in the Working Group, enabling us to move forward. The Nordic countries have submitted written comments to the Secretariat. The submission includes general comments and proposals of amendments. We have also proposed amendments on some key substantive issues to align the draft articles with developments in international law and to better reflect current realities. Amendments include the recognition of reproductive violence, forced marriage, and forced pregnancy as constitutive acts of crimes against humanity. These proposals also reflect the importance of strengthening gender equality and ensuring that the Convention adequately addresses the gendered dimensions of crimes against humanity. To more effectively advance the key goal of prevention and ensure strengthened implementation, the Nordic countries also propose introducing a provision establishing a treaty mechanism. The proposal is based on existing treaties, including the Convention against Torture. Madam Chair, We stand ready to work with others to ensure that the treaty provides a strong basis for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, reflects developments in international law, and responds to the stark realities of today. Looking ahead, the Nordic countries look forward to the second Preparatory Committee session in 2027. and the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity in 2028 and 2029. We must make the most of our mandate through inclusive, transparent and constructive engagement. In this spirit, we strongly support the broadest possible meaningful participation of civil society in these meetings. The Nordic countries are mindful that the work leading towards the future convention originated in academia and civil society. States must have much to gain from ensuring that experts, as well as victims and survivors of crimes against humanity, can contribute meaningfully to our discussions. to prevent further crimes and ensure that never again will crimes against humanity go unanswered. The Nordic countries are ready to work with all delegations to achieve a strong and universal convention that future generations can rely on. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand on behalf of Australia and Canada. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of Australia, Canada, and my own country, New Zealand. For many years, states have recognised a significant gap in the international legal framework governing the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Unlike genocide and war crimes, there is no international convention dedicated to state responsibility for crimes against humanity. And yet, like genocide and war crimes, Crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Wherever they occur, they threaten our peace, security, and well-being, inflict profound harm on victims and survivors, and undermine the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter. When States convened for the first session of the Preparatory Committee in January this year, We took one step closer towards addressing this profound gap in the international legal framework with treaty-level legal certainty. We took one step closer towards strengthening prevention and international cooperation. We took one step closer towards accountability and ending impunity for these grave crimes. Cairns was encouraged by the substantive discussions that took place during the first session of the Preparatory Committee. The exchanges demonstrated strong engagement by states with the International Law Commission's draft articles, highlighted considerable areas of convergence and underscored a shared commitment to developing a broadly supported convention. Like many others, CAHNS considers that the ILC's draft articles, including the definition of crimes against humanity contained in Article 2, provide a strong foundation for commencing negotiations. Draft article 2 draws on the most recently accepted elements of a potential definition of crimes against humanity. We also note that it reflects definitions that have already been adopted in the domestic legal frameworks of a considerable number of states, including those that are not parties to the Rome Statute. Importantly, reliance on this definition would neither alter nor prejudice positions regarding the International Criminal Court or imply acceptance of its jurisdiction. We remain supportive of adjustments to the draft articles, including the definition in article 2, in line with evolving understandings and in support of the widest possible implementation of the future convention. Like many other delegations, Cairns countries continue to support the consideration of language in the draft convention that reflects evolving definitions under customary international law that is inclusive and integrates gender equality in addition to ensuring enhanced prevention and accountability measures for sexual and gender-based crimes. CAHNS also considers that these negotiations present a valuable opportunity for states to further codify existing rules of customary international law. including the prohibition against the commission of crimes against humanity, and to contribute to the progressive development of international law. CANS further welcomes the Preparatory Committee's consensus decision regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders that do not have ECOSOC status in the negotiations of a future convention. The decision reflects a shared recognition of the valuable contribution that stakeholders can make to the process and represents an important step towards ensuring that negotiations benefit from a broad range of expertise and perspectives while fully respecting the intergovernmental nature. In our view, any objections to stakeholder participation should be carefully justified and applied only where genuinely necessary, consistent with the objective of fostering an inclusive, transparent, and well-informed negotiating process. CANZ was further encouraged by the significant efforts undertaken by states in submitting written amendment proposals to the draft articles. The submissions reflect the diversity of legal traditions, experiences, and priorities represented within the international community, and will help to ensure that negotiations are both comprehensive and well-informed. We also acknowledge that differences on some aspects of the draft articles remain. However, we do not view these differences as obstacles to the successful conclusion of a convention. Rather, we see these as a natural and necessary feature of the treaty-making process. They reflect the strong engagement of States in this process. Cairns remains confident that through constructive dialogue and good faith negotiations, a convergence of views can be achieved on these outstanding aspects of the draft articles. As we look ahead to the second session of the Preparatory Committee and the Diplomatic Conference itself, Cairns encourages all delegations to engage constructively with the written proposals and to approach the next phase of negotiations with flexibility, openness and a willingness to seek practical solutions. We must remain steadfast in our shared commitment and our collective responsibility to end impunity for these grave crimes and advance justice for victims and survivors. CANZ remains committed to working with Member States to fulfil this important responsibility. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Chair. Crimes against humanity are internationally recognized as serious crimes. First provided for in the charters of Nuremberg and International Military Tribunals for the Far East, they have had a profound historical impact on punishing fascist and militarist atrocities and upholding international fairness and justice. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trial. At this pivotal historical juncture, discussions and negotiations on the Convention on the Crimes Against Humanity of great historical and contemporary significance for safeguarding the fruits of victory in the Second World War and for jointly preventing and combating such crimes. China has consistently supported the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity in accordance with the law and has always participated constructively in relevant processes. At the preparatory committee meeting for the conference held in January this year, China articulated its position on the existing draft articles and submitted specific amendment proposals. Regarding negotiations on the convention moving forward, China wishes to reiterate the following points. First, the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity should be consistent with the UN Charter and the generally recognized principles of international law. In recent years, certain countries have been quick to accuse other countries of committing crimes against humanity, using this accusation as pretext to interfere in their internal affairs. To prevent the abuse and the politicization of crimes against humanity, the proposed convention should explicitly incorporate principles such as sovereign equality, prohibitions of use of force, and non-interference in internal affairs, while fully respecting the immunities enjoyed by state officials under international law. Second, the definition should fully reflect state practice and build the broadest possible consensus among all parties. The definition in the Rome Statute of the ICC has not achieved universal acceptance and should not be transposed wholesale into the Convention. Meanwhile, the definitional provisions should avoid overly vague and broad language that could lend itself to expansive interpretation and abuse. Third, negotiations should be based on international consensus and aim to deepen international cooperation in combating such crime. The drafting of a convention on crimes against humanity is of vital interest to the international community and is a systematic undertaking. All parties should adopt a responsible attitude and proceed prudently based on broad consensus. The draft articles should avoid including controversial provisions, such as classifying crimes against humanity as jus cogens or applying universal jurisdiction to them. to ensure the future convention is universally accepted and effectively implemented. Chair, China always believes that concluding a convention is not the only option for combating crimes against humanity. Existing international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the domestic laws have provided solid legal foundation, China stands ready to work with all parties to constructively participate in the convention negotiation process, strengthen international cooperation, and promote more effective prevention and the punishment of crimes against humanity. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for the statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Malaysia recalls its consistent engagement with this agenda item since the International Law Commission's recommendation at its 71st session in 2019 for the elaboration of a convention on crimes against humanity. We have maintained this active participation through the resumed sessions of the Sixth Committee in 2023 and 2024, leading up to the General Assembly's resolution of 4 December 2024 that convened the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. Malaysia thanks the Chair of the PrepCom Crimes Against Humanity for the conduct of its first session held in New York from 19 to 30 January 2026, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 79/122 of 4 December 2024 and decision 80/521 of 15 December 2025. Malaysia participated actively in both the plenary and the working group of the whole, which considered the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity adopted by the International Law Commission in 2019, organized across five thematic clusters.

Malaysia reaffirms, consistent with its earlier statements before this Committee.

Its support in principle for the elaboration of a dedicated global convention on crimes against humanity, and reiterates that the prohibition of crimes against humanity is a peremptory norm of general international law, or jus cogens, admitting no derogation. Malaysia further reaffirms that any future convention must expressly reaffirm the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including sovereign equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of states and respect for territorial integrity as essential safeguards against the potential misuse of the convention.

Malaysia wishes to note, in general terms.

That a number of provisions in the draft articles draw upon the language and concepts of other international instruments. Malaysia considers Malaysia considers it important that the eventual convention be capable of attracting the broadest possible participation and support among member states, including those with differing treaty relationships and domestic legal systems, and encourages the Commission and member states to remain mindful of this consideration as the text continues to develop. Malaysia further emphasizes that any obligations relating to the exercise of national jurisdiction, international cooperation, extradition, and mutual legal assistance under the future convention should strike an appropriate balance between advancing international cooperation and preserving the sovereign prerogatives of states, including the exercise of prosecutorial and administrative discretion in accordance with each state's constitution, domestic legislation, and national policy considerations. Malaysia reiterates that the elaboration of this Convention should continue to be pursued in a manner that promotes consensus, inclusivity, and the broadest possible support among Member States. Consistent with paragraph 9 of the resolution adopted on 4 December 2024, Malaysia will carefully review its position on the draft articles and undertake the necessary domestic interagency consultations, including with the relevant ministries and agencies. and looks forward to continuing this engagement at the second session of the PrepCom Crimes Against Humanity scheduled for April 2027. In conclusion, Malaysia reaffirms its constructive engagement in this process and its commitment to contributing to the codification and progressive development of international law in this field in a manner that is both faithful to the international community's collective resolve to prevent and punish crimes against humanity and consistent with Malaysia's federal constitution, domestic legislation and national policy considerations. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries. You have the floor, Ambassador.

Madam Chair, I am delivering this statement on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, CPLP. We are a group of countries that in their diversity not only share a common language and a strong attachment to multilingualism, but also a common history, cultural traits and values, including a firm commitment to multilateralism and international law. Madam Chair, the decision to convene a conference to negotiate a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity was a landmark in the history of international justice. Member states finally concluded that there is a gap in international law that we urgently need to address. Unlike genocide and war crimes, there is no major international convention on crimes against humanity. The time has come for the international community to have an instrument that ensures coherence in the prosecution of these crimes in national courts and cooperation for their punishment. The pursuit of accountability is fully compatible and must be in accordance with the UN Charter. its general prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, its recognition of the sovereign equality between states, and its rejection of interference in international affairs. We welcome the successful conclusion of the first session of the Preparatory Committee held in January this year. The broad participation of States demonstrated the importance attached to this process and the shared understanding that the time has come to move from exchange of views to concrete negotiations. We also welcome the submission of amendments amendment proposals by a significant number of delegations, they reflect the serious engagement of States with the future Convention and provide a solid basis for identifying areas of convergence and outstanding questions. Now we have to move forward with the same openness to frank discussions we have shown so far. that we have shown during the sessions last year. All the differences are natural and even welcome in light of the rich variety of legal traditions represented at the General Assembly. It is time for us to strive to narrow them with a view to reaching a common understanding, an understanding we owe to the peoples we are accountable to. In this endeavor, we encourage Member States to fully engage in the process set out in resolution 79/122. The process gives us time enough to mature our ideas and arrive at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries already with a solid basis for a convention capable of achieving universality. To this end, at the second session of the Preparatory Committee of the Conference, dialogue will be key to guide Member States on the path ahead. While substance is central, it is proper procedural arrangements that will allow us to focus effectively on it. Therefore, it will also be important to agree on methods of work and rules of procedure that allow for open, inclusive and effective negotiations during the Conference. Madam Chair, Excellencies, A unanimous and strong condemnation of crimes against humanity is evident in the statements we have been hearing at this Committee, as well as a widespread belief that they must not go unpunished. With this in mind, our countries stand ready to continue participating in the negotiation process with an open mind and a spirit of compromise towards a successful outcome. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Gambia.

Thank you, Chair.

At the outset, the delegation of the Gambia is pleased to speak on this agenda item on crimes against humanity. We align with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African group, and the statement delivered by Mexico on behalf of a cross-regional group of states, and we wish to make the following statement in our national capacity. Two years ago, the United Nations, through resolution 79/122, took the historic step to advance a formal negotiation towards a standalone treaty on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. The Gambia is proud to facilitate the adoption of this decisive resolution with Mexico through the constructive efforts of all Member States of the United Nations. This decision by the international community demonstrates that our central purpose is to move to a phase defined by consistent, credible and visible results, results that consolidate existing gains to advance in accountability and enjoys the broadest possible support as clearly envisaged in the resolution. Chair, the Gambia is pleased to deliver its national remarks following the successful convening of the first session of the Preparatory Committee on Crimes Against Humanity this January. We commend the Chair of the Preparatory Committee for his diligence and proactive role. We also thank the International Law Commission for compiling the draft articles, and particularly Professor Sir Ian Murphy for his presence and constructive engagement during the Preparatory Committee. This session represents a milestone for accountability for all victims of atrocity crimes and underscores the imperative for a universal convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity by addressing a gap in the international legal order for the crimes which are among the gravest and which for far too long lacks a dedicated treaty as opposed to other core crimes. The Government of The Gambia reiterates its commitment to the highest level towards the negotiation of this Convention, imbued in a criminal accountability mechanism that activates pathways for both domestic and international prosecutions, with a strong focus on judicial expediency, victims' participation and witness protection. Crimes against humanity are abhorrent practices. Regrettably, history has shown that the risk of reoccurrence of these unspeakable crimes has not diminished. A dedicated treaty on crimes against humanity will deliver solutions that are effective to combat impunity. It is crucial that root causes that derive the perpetuation of mass atrocities, including its risk, triggers, and multipliers, are properly discerned through the appropriate treaty-making process. The Gambia reiterates its position that the realities of the future convention should not be merely emblematic, but should demonstrate guaranteed and tangible protection to all victims and survivors of crimes against humanity. and in all regions to bolster faith in the sanctity, practicality, and capability of international law. A future convention to provide benchmarks and to resolve risk on crimes against humanity is imperative. The architecture for a prospective concrete treaty already exists. What must follow is to operationalize this ambitious project to a convention that ensures that the contagion of mass atrocities would never again mark humanity or lead to clear violations of human dignity. Understanding that international justice cannot succeed in isolation, and bearing in mind the domestic obligations of states under this process, accountability for serious crimes ultimately depends upon strong domestic institutions, effective judicial systems, and meaningful cooperation between states and international bodies. The Gambia welcomes recent developments and takes note of the different proposals by member states, which demonstrates the constructive engagement in this important process. We have the considered view that the ultimate aim must lay a foundation of a treaty that is credible, legitimate, and responsive to the consequences of the atrocities that constitute crimes against humanity, avoid impediments that strengthen accountability, while preserving the important standards already established in the well-deliberated, constructive draft articles provided by the International Law Commission. The Gambia indicates that the principal challenge is not the definition of commitments alone, for their translation into outcomes that victims and communities can see and feel. We are of the considered view that through the proposals submitted, Member States contributed directly at ensuring that these crimes ought to be recognised and prosecuted through a lasting, pragmatic and enforceable treaty as among the gravest violations of international law, contributing to the development of international criminal justice and the evolution of modern international criminal jurisprudence. The legal principles developed through this negotiation will contribute to the progressive development of international law and remain highly influential to the prevention and punishment of atrocity crimes and the intersection of law, justice and human dignity. We commend the decision by Member States to adopt the participation of non-ECCOSOC civil society. The Gambia believes that this is an important and fundamental step in the elaboration of the Convention, ensuring wider representation, perspective and expertise of the international community. For Africa, this is vital as the region with the least representation of members of the civil society accredited to the ECOSOC. The representation of civil society is of significance in this process to provide cutting edge and in-depth research in a wide range of scholarship, including education and training on the warning signals and the prevention of crimes against humanity. We believe that the historic decision of inclusion is consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, which provides the normative foundation for the participation of civil society in UN deliberative processes. We are pleased to join a number of proposals, such as recruitment against the use of children in armed groups, and of course, we are also pleased to join Mr. Arden in bringing the proposal to recognize slavery and slave trading as crimes against humanity. In this connection, we reinforce the African group position on including an explicit preamble, a paragraph referencing to historical injustices such as slavery and slave trading. We consider that this incorporation places the draft articles within a well-defined historical context and acknowledges the moral and legal significance of these actions in current discussions concerning crimes against humanity. Furthermore, with Sierra Leone and other states, we also conveyed proposals for capacity building and technical assistance for developing countries. This proposal is informed by the duties espoused in the draft articles, particularly Article 3, which creates an obligation for states to refrain from committing crimes against humanity by taking appropriate measures to prevent them from occurring within their territories. The Gambia also supports the proposal for an implementation mechanism through an established treaty body. We believe that this is an important aspect of the future treaty which requires adequate support. We believe that clear provisions must be articulated for excluding immunity for crimes against humanity as enshrined in the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and as also established in Article 4 of the Genocide Convention. The international community has reached a decisive phase of the process. What we now ask is to make commitments with sustained, credible and decisive action to craft a convention that has the victim at its heart. We remain resolute, we remain committed and we remain grateful for the solidarity of this mission. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Gambia for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As this is the first time that my delegation is taking the floor, I should like to congratulate you on your appointment and wish you every success in your task. And I extend those wishes to every member of the Bureau. Madam, my delegation should like to say how pleased we are at the successful outcome of the first session of the preparatory committee of the Conference of Plenipotentiaries held here between the 19th and the 30th of January last. For Chile, this session constituted a significant milestone on the path towards the adoption of a legally binding international instrument on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. On that occasion, my delegation actively took a part in the discussions of the three thematic groups during those sessions, and I would like just to outline briefly some of the positions that we voiced then. Madam Chair, for Chile, it is critical that a future convention should benefit from the experience of similar instruments in force, such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Rome Statute. We would likewise underscore the fact that a future convention must be seen as a complement to and not a replacement for the Rome Statute. Here, we would observe that the definition of these crimes as a peremptory norm in international law is to be found in Article 7 of the Rome Statute, and as thus arising from a broad consensus, and it would be based on a well-established customary practice, including a recognition in the domestic legislation of a significant number of states, Chile amongst them. We also stress that functional immunity cannot be any impediment for the criminal prosecution of these crimes. It is important that the treaty should include principles such as and the imprescriptibility of these crimes as a minimum bulwark against impunity. Madam Chair, my delegation noted the many proposals for amendments submitted by states, and we are studying them scrupulously. in order to be able to make constructive contributions to the debate in the substantive negotiations to take place in the Conference of Plenipotentiaries. My delegation would also like to emphasize the importance of the participation of civil society, the academic world, and non-governmental organizations throughout every stage of the process. in accordance with the principles of transparency and equitable geographical representation. Madam Chair, for Chile, the road followed thus far shows that it is possible to move towards the adoption of a convention on crimes against humanity, enjoying the broadest possible support of the international community. Once again, we state our full commitment to this process, and we appeal to all delegations to maintain a constructive spirit and one of dialogue, looking at the second session of the Preparatory Committee of the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, which will be held in 2028 and 2029. Our intention must be to endow the international community with an effective instrument to prevent these atrocious crimes and to respond effectively to the victims and communities affected thereby. Thank you very much, Madam.

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal. You have the floor, Ambassador.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by Timor-Leste on behalf of the community of Portuguese-speaking countries, the statement delivered by Mexico on behalf of a group of states, as well as the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. And we would like to offer a few additional remarks on our national capacity. Madam Chair. Last January, we finally began the process leading to a dedicated convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

That convention will close a long-standing and intolerable gap in the legal architecture built to confront the gravest crimes.

And I'm honored to have contributed together with a wide membership of this committee to this much significant step while sharing the sixth committee at its 79th session during negotiations that led to the start of this process. We have participated very actively in the first session of the preparatory committee, which outcome was, in our view, encouraging. We engaged in substantive discussions and in a constructive spirit that was held throughout the two weeks of work.

It was also significant that procedure did not become an obstacle to progress.

Madam Chair, the response to the invitation to submit proposals for amendments confirms the breadth of that commitment. By 30 April, close to 70 submissions have been received.

Having carefully studied them, we are confident that this codification

effort is on the right path and that agreement is indeed attainable.

The first session was defined by frank discussion, by constructive engagement, and by an awareness that the collective responsibility vested

upon us is the greater than an individual national interest we may hold.

We hope to continue in that same spirit. Portugal submitted proposals addressed to what we consider to be the main institutional gap in the draft articles, the absence of any standing

arrangements for monitoring, prevention and cooperation.

Prevention requires sustainable attention to situations of risk, the capacity to

act urgently when persons are in imminent peril, and a forum in which parties collectively review their shared commitments. Legally sound and ambitious norms are not sufficient.

We also need mechanisms that ensure those norms are implemented and complied with. Our proposals are deliberately streamlined and built on existing precedents, and we look forward to discussing them with all delegations.

Madam Chair, Portugal's expectations for the second session are pragmatic.

Four days is a short time, and the agenda is substantial. The organization and methods of work of the Conference, including its rules of procedure, and the preparation of the compiled text. These are procedural matters, but they will shape the substance of what follows.

We should arrive prepared and we should certainly not reopen what was settled in January. Portugal will continue to work for the broadest possible support for this future convention.

Consensus is a goal worth pursuing and we will pursue it in good faith. It is not, however, a decision-making procedure, and it must not become a veto in disguise. Consensus serves to encourage dialogue, flexibility and common solutions, and not to block negotiations.

Eighty years after Nuremberg, humanity is still waiting for the treaty that bears its name. We have the text, the timetable and the mandate.

Let's keep the pace. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Portugal for the statement, and I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Poland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Poland welcomes this opportunity to exchange substantive views on the future Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the European Union and the statement delivered by Mexico on behalf of the Cross-Regional Group of States. I will offer the following points in my national capacity. Distinguished delegates, there is no doubt that the international community should enhance the coherence of the international system. As of present, we lack the universal, ambitious, comprehensive, and legally binding instrument that would contribute to the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Thus, we welcome the successful conclusion of the first session of the Preparatory Committee in January 2026. Poland is among the states that submitted the proposals for amendments to the draft articles by the ILC. While we consider the draft to be a balanced and solid basis for negotiations, we believe that certain provisions could be further strengthened. Specifically, it is necessary that the future convention ensures that children are treated as fully fledged human beings, that their voices are heard and their rights are known and respected. Hence, Poland advocates for stronger protection of children in the future Convention. We firmly believe, we all share the same conviction, that in cases concerning children, the best interest of a child must be a primary consideration. In our submission, we place particular emphasis on the following principles. First, Convention should contain a definition of a child, meaning every human being below the age of 18, unless Under the law applicable to a child, maturity is attained earlier. Second, in all cases concerning children, the best interest of a child must be a primary consideration. Third, any child who is capable of forming his or her own views shall have the right to express those views freely. The views of a child shall be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of a child. Fourth, every child, whether a perpetrator, a witness, or a victim of a crime against humanity, shall have, without any discrimination, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his or her status as a minor. Fifth, The convention should explicitly state that each state must take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of children in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of a child. Sixth, the definition of forced pregnancy should unequivocally cover victims who are minors. And finally, seventh. In order to protect children alongside other vulnerable groups, the list of grounds for persecution constituting crimes against humanity should include the additional criterion of age. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates. Poland looks forward to the process of elaboration of the future convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, continuing with the second session of preparatory committee in April 2027, and to the active participation of all stakeholders. We intend to play an active role in the negotiation process and are ready to work with other parties to ensure a meaningful progress towards a victim-oriented and child-sensitive convention. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Poland for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, South Africa aligns with the statements delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and Mexico on behalf of a cross-regional group of states. At the outset, South Africa congratulates Justice Neve Pillay on being awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to promote peace and international law. Her outstanding contribution to international human rights and humanitarian law continues to shape the impact peace and justice have on humanity. The work she does for the victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is even more significant now during the persistent attacks, threats and coercive measures from states and other external actors against the international criminal justice architecture. This worrisome trend constitutes a direct threat to the integrity and independence of the international legal order. South Africa views the sanctions and threats against the International Criminal Court as an attempt to intimidate and obstruct the Court's efforts to hold the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes accountable. Madam Chair, as we move a step closer to the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, South Africa reiterates its unwavering commitment to the processes that will lead us to a codification of this convention. Following the great work that was carried out during the previously and successfully held resumed sessions and a preparatory committee, which led to the substantive discussions that enriched consideration of this important topic, we urge member states to work towards adopting a convention through consensus to achieve a convention that gains universal acceptance and implementation. The significance of such a convention is in closing the treaty gap, obliging states to investigate, criminalize, prevent, and extradite or prosecute perpetrators within their own domestic legal systems, and establishing formal frameworks for mutual legal assistance, extradition, and victim and survivor pathways to truth and reparations across borders should provide the momentum needed by states to complete this process with a consensus treaty. Madam Chair, South Africa welcomes the decision on the participation of stakeholders other than those in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council taken by the Preparatory Committee on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity in January 2026. We also welcome the proposed compilation of written comments from States, which was prepared and shared by the Secretariat for States' consideration. South Africa is engaging with the proposals for purposes of building positions thereon ahead of the conference. South Africa further welcomes and looks forward to the informal inter-sessional work in the form of workshops or similar processes organized by Member States and/or civil society organizations in the advancement of this process. This will ensure continued engagement on the topic in the lead-up to the conference and will contribute to the States' preparation for the conference. Madam Chair, In line with the statement of the African group, South Africa welcomes the landmark resolution A/80/250 adopted on 25 March 2026, in which the General Assembly, among others, declared enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity, and further welcomes a declaration by the African Union of 2026 to 2035 as a decade of justice for Africans and people of African descent through reparations. These declarations came at a critical time in this process and will be significant in our negotiations of this convention. We look forward to working closely and constructively with all delegations in pursuit of these shared objectives. I thank you, ma'am.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa for the statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Slovenia aligns itself with the statement on behalf of the EU and its member states and wishes to convey the following remarks in its national capacity. Madam Chair, Slovenia attaches great importance to the collective efforts to reinforce the international legal framework regarding the most serious crimes affecting the international community and individuals. The consensual adoption of General Assembly Resolution 79/122 in 2024 with broad cross-regional support was a significant milestone confirming the international community's readiness to take next steps towards establishing a normative framework for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity at the international level. Slovenia is very pleased that the preparations for the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries have begun in earnest. During the first session of the Preparatory Committee in January, Slovenia participated in constructive discussions with other States and participants, benefiting from a highly appreciated input from the Special Rapporteur on the topic in the International Law Commission. In April, Slovenia submitted comments on the draft articles and proposals for amendments. As a member of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee and a participant in the negotiation process, Slovenia will continue to engage actively in an inclusive, transparent and constructive way. Madam Chair, the adoption of the Rules of Procedure at the second session of the Preparatory Committee in April next year is essential in order to enable negotiations to focus on substance. In our view, it is of the utmost importance that we commit to reaching decisions by consensus and that we genuinely support efforts towards creating a new, universally applicable, comprehensive and coherent legally binding instrument. Finally, Madam Chair, a convention on crimes against humanity has the potential to strengthen the global legal framework and reinforce our national capabilities. It will enable states to act more effectively, both individually and collectively. It will also foster international cooperation in the prevention and prosecution of the most serious crimes, thereby contributing to peace, security and justice. Slovenia will continue to work with partners to promote respect for human rights and uphold humanity, human dignity and respect for international law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, crimes against humanity are an intolerable violation of principles of justice and international law, which we uphold. And yet, unlike the crimes of genocide and war crimes, no international convention governs the prevention and punishment of these atrocities today. Of course, important initiatives do exist already and ought to be commended, including the signing of the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention by 40 States, of which the upcoming entry into effect will strengthen and facilitate legal cooperation with regard to the investigation and prosecution of crimes against humanity and other international crimes. France is proud of having signed this Convention and will soon launch its ratification procedure. We strongly encourage all States to accede to this instrument. These initiatives, as useful as they are, must still be complemented by the drafting of a universal instrument on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, based upon draft articles proposed by the ILC. work of which we commend, France reaffirms its full commitment to such a convention. Resolution 79/122, adopted in December 2024 by the General Assembly, establishes the framework for our upcoming negotiations, which will culminate in 2029 with the holding of a plenipotentiary conference, and we are committed to striving to work together as part of this established framework for which its credibility and respect will determine the success of our work. The Working Group on Preparatory Committee in January of this year highlighted the importance of pursuing in-depth and constructive debate between all States to reach the broadest possible consensus. This consensus is crucial for ensuring the legitimacy of the future instrument. It is the crux of its universal vocation. France, like many States, has submitted written comments on this ILC draft in April. The number and quality of comments demonstrate the keen interest in this future convention, Madam Chair. Persistence of crimes against humanity requires that we act with determination. France calls upon all States to take active and constructive part in the remaining work. especially during the second session of the Preparatory Committee that will take place in April of next year. Our delegation is prepared to continue dialogue already begun with other delegations and to continue to advocate for the universal adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Rwanda.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Rwanda aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group. Madam Chair and colleagues, Rwanda sees great value in advancing a dedicated international convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Such an instrument would strengthen prevention, reinforce accountability, facilitate international cooperation, and help close existing legal gaps. I welcome the progress thus far and commend IOC and member states for advancing the process. From the IOC's work initiated in 2014, and its 2019 draft articles, the General Assembly resolution as well, 79122, which sets out a roadmap for the preparatory discussions in 2026, 2027, and the negotiations in 2028, 2029. These are encouraging steps towards addressing a long-standing gap in international law. Madam Chair and colleagues, for Rwanda, this discussion carries particular significance. Our experience of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi and the long pursuit of justice that followed has taught us that the human cost of international crimes and the consequences when prevention fails and accountability is delayed. We have also learned that justice requires more than legal instruments. It demands a functioning institutions, effective cooperation among the states and sustained commitment to victims and survivors. It is from this perspective that Rwanda supports a strong and effective convention that advances both prevention and punishment. Chair and colleagues, as we approach the negotiations or as we continue this discussion, Rwanda wishes to emphasize one important consideration. While considerable attention has been rightly put and devoted to the legal provisions and negotiating the procedures, we believe equal attention must be given to mobilizing the political support necessary for the convention to succeed. A convention, however carefully drafted, can only fulfill its purpose if states are prepared to sign it, ratify, and implement it. We would not wish to invest years of collective effort in producing an excellent legal instrument only for it to remain on the shelf because the necessary political ownership was never secured. WADA therefore believes that political engagement must advance alongside legal negotiations, including within regional groups and where appropriate at highest levels possible. This would help address concerns, build confidence, and develop a shared ownership before a convention is finalized. Colleagues, we recognize that states approach certain legal questions differently. Building consensus does not mean avoiding difficult issues or lowering our ambition. It means addressing differences constructively in the pursuit of a workable solution. Chair and colleagues, we must remain mindful of the broader international environment. With multilateralism under pressure and political priorities shifting, we cannot assume that today's momentum will automatically translate into tomorrow's commitment. Therefore, the process is as important as the outcome. An inclusive and consultative process can help produce an instrument that states recognize as their own and are prepared to implement it. Our ambition should not simply be to conclude a convention in 2029, but to deliver one that enjoys a broader political ownership and attracts early widespread ratification. Madam Chair and colleagues, the international community has waited for too long for a global convention dedicated to these crimes. Rwanda hopes that the years ahead will be useful and used for only to negotiate the text, but also to build the trust, consensus, and political commitment needed to make this convention a reality. Let us ensure that by 2029, we have not only agreed on a convention, but have also laid the foundations for its broad acceptance ratification and meaningful implementation by all Member States. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

I thank the distinguished representative of Rwanda for the statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Latvia.

Latvia aligns with the statement delivered by the European Union on behalf of its Member States and the cross-regional statement delivered by Mexico. Crimes against humanity are among the gravest crimes, yet, unlike genocide and war crimes, they are still not governed by the standalone convention. The future convention will be an important and long-awaited step towards closing a gap in the international legal framework. It will strengthen prevention, facilitate interstate cooperation, and ensure that those responsible for crimes against humanity are brought to justice. We welcome the progress achieved during the first session of the PrepCom in January 2026, and take note of the decision 80/52/1, by which the General Assembly decided that the second session of the PrepCom will be held in April next year. The draft articles adopted by the ILC in 2019 provide a solid and carefully balanced foundation for our negotiations. Our objective should be an effective and operational convention that strengthens accountability, protects victims, and contributes to the prevention of future atrocities. In this regard, I wish to make three points. Firstly, the future convention must effectively address impunity. States must be able to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity through their national legal systems and to cooperate effectively with one another. Neither official positions nor functional immunity should become a shield against responsibility for crimes of this gravity. The integrity and consistent application of the future convention must also be preserved. It is a core obligation that should not be weakened through reservations, amnesties, or other measures that would prevent investigation, prosecution, or punishment. The convention should reinforce the principles that there can be no safe haven for the persons responsible for crimes against humanity. Secondly, the future convention should respond to contemporary forms of criminal conduct and close existing accountability gaps, including those affecting children. Children continue to be recruited, enlisted, and used by state and non-state actors. The Rome Statute recognizes the enlistment and use of children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities as a war crime. That framework, however, is connected to the existence of an armed conflict, and crimes against humanity require no such nexus. Latvia has submitted its national comments on the inclusion of the recruitment or use of children among the acts that may constitute crimes against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Latvia supports the proposed addition to the draft Article 2 covering the recruitment of children under the age of 18 as part of an attack or their use to participate in that attack. The age threshold of 18 reflects the evolution of international standards concerning the protection of children. Its inclusion would strengthen the preventive character of the future convention and help to address the existing accountability gap. Thirdly, victims must remain at the center of the future convention. Crimes against humanity cause profound and often lifelong harm. Children experience such crime differently from adults and have distinct protection, recovery and reparation needs. Latvia supports the strengthening of draft article 12.3 by expressly requiring States to give special attention to child victims. Reparation measures and programs must be accessible, age-appropriate and responsive to the particular harm suffered by children. This approach is consistent with Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires States to take appropriate measures to promote physical, psychological recovery and social reintegration of the child victims. Madam Chair, the future convention will also benefit from the inclusive process. We support the meaningful participation of CSOs and NGOs, and particularly Human Rights Watch. victims and other relevant stakeholders through the preparatory process. Their expertise and lived experience can help to ensure that the Convention responds to realities on the ground. And, dear colleagues, our task in the coming April is not merely to elaborate on another legal instrument. It is to strengthen the capacity of international law to prevent atrocities, protect victims, and ensure that accountability never when the -- and to ensure accountability when prevention fails. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine.

Thank you. When it's a question of drawing up international law pertaining to the most atrocious of crimes, our first responsibility must be to victims. those we have failed and those we can still save and spare. One of the tragedies of international law is that it always arrives too late as a reaction to unspeakable horrors. probably because states find it hard to remove themselves, constrain themselves, except on reaction to tragedies which shake us out of our indifference. International law was a reaction of the Second World War, to the Second World War, and faced with unregulated wars, untrammeled wars, humanity decided to impose limits with no waivers. When it comes to these challenges and nations and states, the right of self-determination, respect of sovereignty, and prohibition of aggression, and just as important, the protection of individuals, groups, and civilian populations against the most serious crimes against their lives, their dignity, and their integrity involved. We gave ourselves an instrument to prevent genocide and war crimes. How is it possible to explain that so many years later, we are at last discussing a convention to prevent and punish crimes against humanity? Why is there this legal gap? Why is there this moral failure? It is to us to remedy this straightaway, to put an end to impunity, to investigate these crimes, punish their perpetrators when it is not possible to dissuade them. It is also important to remember that states still have obligations to put up a shield for those who need it and to defend our humanity. Madam, we talk about these things, alas, with full knowledge thereof, with experience of them, experience that our Palestinian people is still undergoing as I speak to you. And this has gone on for far too long. We are speaking on behalf of all victims as well, regardless of their nationality, religion, their provenance, or their race. We all belong to the human race. We do this because it's just, because it's our duty, without any opportunism or evading our true objective, that all states may participate, we pray, and underwrite this convention. We need the universal protection so that we can protect the greatest number. Palestine is proud of the role it's played in the regulation leading to the conference of plenary pretenders and crimes against humanity. But this will will come to nothing. We need to move forward quickly to come to as comprehensive a convention as possible. We work with all delegations to arrive at a convention that can protect as broadly and as effectively our peoples against these crimes. The draft articles of the ILC must be a guide for our discussions, while they can be strengthened so that we can arrive at a more comprehensive and effective convention. We have jointly with Mexico proposed that we include the crime of starving civilian populations, making crimes of victims, weapons against them, affecting coming generations. We need to return to the definition of crimes of forced displacement and deportation. We have endeavored to complete in parallel the state's obligations, particularly those of refraining from committing these crimes, of aiding the commission of these crimes, or helping another state and abetting another state to commit them. But we would also like to recall the duty of refraining from any transfer of arms, munitions, or military equipment that might facilitate these crimes. These proposals have a basis in existing international law, international jurisprudence, and the obligations of third states. We've also proposed that we include inciting and threatening to commit such crimes, and also intending to commit them. People who have been subject to these can bear witness to this. Palestine, together with Belgium, Estonia, Iceland, Libya, Mexico, Slovenia, and Timor-Leste, we have come forward regarding the settlement of disputes. Madam, we cannot allow the demolition of international law, undermining its basic tenet. We are too naive. We can't see the world as it is, where might determines right. We see brutal force which is flagrant, which does not heed our appeals or our values. Humanity has already suffered the blindness of this force. and is reacting finally, listening to the voice of reason and moving forward to adoption of this law. We are not naive. We have been tempered and we have learned from this suffering. We want to see a more human mankind. We are giving a world where people are free of sanctions, where we fail to be concerned about evils. We do not want this to continue. We are not naive, we are not weak, and we shall not be overcome, because our defeat will be that of all the peoples of the West and East, the South and the North. All our differences don't change anything. We are all the enemies of someone, the minority somewhere, the weak, the oppressed of someone. if not today, in the future. We deliberately choose not to contribute to a jungle, but rather to human civilization, the result of all civilizations, regardless of our differences. Madam, in conclusion, each nation represented here has contributed to international law. Since its very origins, mankind has drawn up rules to protect against crimes. We cannot, in our human spirit, tolerate the murder of civilians, slavery, deportation, apartheid, forced disappearances, executions. This is why we reject them as inhuman, because they are intrinsically against that humanity which should shape our nature. This rejection is now in a convention. Let it be there to be a useful weapon to combat these crimes. This is the most opportune time to adopt this. to defend common mankind despite the many assaults against it. Let us refuse to dismantle what past generations have given us and to deprive our children of this protection of international law. If we don't do this, we would not be worthy of being called humane. For those who are suffering today, tomorrow, let us do all in our power to strengthen this shield rather than to break it, because regardless of the world in which we live, there are red lines which we must ensure are never crossed. Thank you very much, Madam.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Madame la Presidente, depuis la.

Decision de la General Assembly, we have moved towards a convention to bridge gaps in international law and to strengthen the prevention and punishment of these crimes. The first session of the Preparatory Committee marked an important milestone in this regard. For Switzerland, the decisions confirm the relevance and validity of the ILC's draft articles as the basis for our work. Delegations relied on this framework and put forward proposals aimed at refining and strengthening it. We must now build on these foundations and prepare the ground for the diplomatic conference. Switzerland wishes to highlight three key elements. First, Negotiations should build on the ILC draft while preserving the acquiesce on which it rests. The future convention must remain firmly rooted in existing international law and should not call into question established standards. In this spirit, Switzerland submitted proposed amendments aimed at strengthening the draft in a targeted manner while preserving the acquiesce. It considers that any modification should bring genuine added value and enhance the convention's coherence and effectiveness. Secondly, the future convention must not leave safe havens for persons alleged to have committed crimes against humanity. A broad and effective jurisdictional framework is essential. Switzerland, therefore, attaches particular importance to a well-established requirement where an alleged offender is present in the territory of a state and is neither extradited nor surrendered, that state must establish its jurisdiction and submit the case to its competent authorities. Universal jurisdiction has an essential role to play in ensuring that borders do not stand in the way of the fight against impunity. Effective international cooperation must complement this framework in full respect of procedural guarantees and human rights, in particular the right to life. Thirdly, the second preparatory committee in 2027 must establish the procedural conditions necessary for the success of the conference. The rules of procedure should ensure transparency, inclusiveness and efficiency, including the appropriate participation of relevant non-state stakeholders. They must also provide the necessary flexibility for decision-making and create the conditions for an efficient and pragmatic process, allowing negotiations to move forward and to reach the broadest possible agreement. Madam President, the months ahead should bring us closer to a convention that strengthens prevention, reinforces international law and promotes cooperation, always with a view to closing accountability gaps and providing better protection for victims. Switzerland will continue to work with all delegations towards an effective and substantive convention, enjoying broad support. Thank you.

The distinguished representative of Switzerland for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative.

Of Morocco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The delegation of the Kingdom of Morocco thanks you for your excellent management of the work of this committee. We reaffirm our commitment to preventing and punishing crimes against humanity and fighting impunity. This is a constitutional commitment for us because chapter 23 of our constitution stipulates that crimes against humanity must be punished. And the articles proposed by the ILC in 2019 are an important contribution. However, establishing an instrument requires examining substantive and unresolved questions. Madam Chair, I'd like to affirm four points. First of all, The link with national legislation, Morocco believes that a future convention ought to highlight a direct link between international law, international humanitarian law, and other instruments of criminal justice. This is an important issue in order to fully define the scope of the commitments of member states. The Rome Statute remains a cornerstone for the development of international law. However, we ought to distinguish between the various instruments, and the future convention must fully respect the sovereignty and sovereign equality of states, as well as their territorial integrity in accordance with the UN Charter. Secondly, national courts play an important role in this area. because national jurisdictions remain a key pillar for combating impunity without prejudice to the existing international legal framework. National jurisdictions have legal capacities and must remain a key element while respecting diversity in national systems. On the national front, we have established a national committee to contribute to this effort. Third, international cooperation. We ought to support mutual legal assistance, extradition, to guarantee that international law is upheld. guarantees of implementation when it comes to extradition, including the principle of non-refoulement. These are principles that we must adhere to and take into consideration when drawing up a new instrument. At the same time, the severity of these crimes should not justify the non-administration of justice, but it must be an important element in the credibility of criminal justice. Madam Chair, the Conference of Plenipotentiaries ought to consider the proposed amendments put forward by States and the draft articles ought to be the subject of consensus because these provisions will determine the universality of this future instrument as well as the commitments of states in this regard. Morocco will contribute to the drafting of a balanced instrument in keeping with international law. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Morocco for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala. You have the floor, Ambassador.

Madam Chair, Guatemala wishes to join with the statement by Mexico on behalf of a regional group of states. This debate is taking place during the preparatory period for the Conference of Plenipotentiaries. This provides us with an opportune moment to reflect on the progress achieved and what still remains to be done. Guatemala has indicated that the development of international law takes time. The process pertaining to crimes against humanity does indeed show this. In 1947, one of the foremost tasks that the General Assembly gave to the ILC was to draw up the Nuremberg principles. These endeavors reflected the belief, the conviction of the international community that the most serious of crimes cannot remain unpunished and laid down the basis for the gradual development of international law. Subsequently, in 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide was adopted, and in 1949, the Geneva Conventions were adopted. However, despite these instruments, crimes against humanity continued to be perpetrated for decades without any international instrument to prevent and punish them. It wasn't until 2014 that the ILC included crimes against humanity in its work, program of work. After five years of analysis in 2019, the ILC gave the GA draft articles on the prevention and punishment of these crimes, laying down the basis for a legally binding international legal instrument. Guatemala played an active role in this process, particularly during the 77th and 78th sessions of the GA, when we co-facilitated the dialogue and negotiations that took place amongst member states. At last, in 2024, by means of 79/122, the GA decided to convene a conference of plenipotentiaries of the United Nations to discuss the draft articles to work out an international convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. This is to be held in 2027 and 2028. So nearly 80 years have gone past since the Nuremberg principles were drawn up to the convening of this conference. Although the building of international law creates time, this cannot go on indefinitely. The victims of these crimes cannot remain just hoping. This process we are involved in today shows us clearly that with political will and legal discipline, it is possible for the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly to provide appropriate outcomes to the result of the ILC's work. Here, Guatemala wishes to contribute to the gradual elaboration and codification of international law. We recognize the valuable contributions of civil society to this process. Madam Chair, in its comments on the draft articles, Guatemala outlined three aspects it believes to be fundamental. Firstly, the need to include specific provisions to protect children, boys and girls, and adolescents involved in crimes against humanity. Secondly, it is appropriate to establish an international fund for reparation for the victims, taking into account that these crimes usually cause collective damage that affects entire communities. Thirdly, it is important to include a provision restricting amnesty with regard to these crimes. Guatemala invites States to examine these proposals during the next stages of the process. And we also commit ourselves to constructive participation in the forthcoming discussions and to considering the proposals brought forward by other delegations. Here, we emphasize that OP.11 of the resolution convening the conference urges the Preparatory Committee to do everything possible in good faith to achieve agreements on a basis of consensus on substantive points. Guatemala believes that dialogue, flexibility and seeking points of convergence will prove vital to comply with this mandate. Madam, the road traveled has been long, but the path before us is a decisive one. Guatemala believes that adopting a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity will bridge a gulf, a gap in international law, and also pay off a historic debt to victims. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished permanent representative of Guatemala for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovakia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of my delegation, allow me to first congratulate you and the other members of your bureau on your election and wish you all the success in your important role. Slovakia aligns itself with a statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states as well as with the statement of Mexico on behalf of a cross-regional group of states. Allow me to add a few remarks in my national capacity. Slovakia remains a firm supporter of the process leading to the elaboration of a legally binding international instrument on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. We welcome the progress achieved this year, in particular the successful first session of the Preparatory Committee held in January 2026. The first session provided an important opportunity for substantive consultations on the draft articles and for governments to prepare proposals for their further improvement. We welcome the decision of the Preparatory Committee concerning the participation of relevant non-governmental organizations without ECOSOC consultative status, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector. We consider their contribution an important element of an open, transparent and inclusive negotiation process. Slovakia has also actively contributed to the preparation of the future Convention by submitting proposals for amendments to the draft articles, mainly focused on the protection of children throughout the instrument. They include references to children among victims and witnesses, the explicit inclusion of age as a ground for persecution, addition of a crime of recruiting or using persons under the age of 18 in attacks against civilian populations, or safeguards concerning children in criminal proceedings and reparations. We consider these proposals a contribution to ensuring that a future convention adequately reflects the particular vulnerability and specific rights of children affected by crimes against humanity. Looking ahead, we attach particular importance to the second session of the Preparatory Committee to be held in April 2027. We expect this session to advance the preparation of the compiled text of the draft articles and proposals submitted by governments, as well as to address the organization and methods of work of the Diplomatic Conference. Slovakia stands ready to engage constructively in this process with a view to contributing to a convention that is effective, comprehensive, and attracting cross-regional support. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovakia for the statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.

Madam Chair, Israel reiterates its appreciation for the work done on this topic by the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Sean Murphy. Israel has actively engaged with the Commission on this topic, including by participating in this past year's session of the Preparatory Committee and submitting written comments on the text of the draft articles. Israel is looking forward to continuing this engagement in a constructive manner. Madam Chair. The urgent need to prevent and punish crimes against humanity remains a paramount concern for the international community. For Israel, this matter is tragically concrete. Just last week, Israel marked three years since the mass atrocities committed on October 7, 2023, in which Hamas and other terrorist groups initiated a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population in Israel. Given the reality that non-state armed groups increasingly commit large-scale atrocities all over the world, any future legal instrument in this field must explicitly address crimes committed by non-state actors. Madam Chair, Israel knows firsthand how international law and international institutions can be manipulated to serve political ends. This unfortunate phenomenon not only undermines basic principles of justice, but also erodes trust in the international legal system as a whole. Such bad faith misuse risks weakening the effectiveness of the very mechanisms designed to prevent impunity. That is why Israel would like to reiterate several key proposals that it believes are paramount to ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of any future legal instrument, as well as securing universal adherence. First, any future convention must rest on a strong foundation grounded in customary international law, rather than on concepts that lack global consensus. Similarly, the Rome Statute should not be the basis of a future convention, as it does not enjoy universal adherence. Rather, States should retain the flexibility to incorporate legislation prohibiting crimes against humanity into their national laws in a manner consistent with their domestic legal systems, provided they align with the treaty's object and purpose. In adherence to the principle of legality, we caution against introducing overly broad formulations, which could undermine the convention's long-term viability. In this regard, And to ensure fairness and predictability, we also propose that the text strictly affirm the principle of non-retroactivity. Because any future instrument in this field addresses matters of criminal law, precision and caution are vital to protect individual rights and freedoms. That is why robust procedural safeguards must be embedded. This is necessary to preserve the treaty's integrity and prevent misuse, arbitrary application, or political abuse. In this regard, Israel has put forward several concrete proposals, including the following key examples. First, rules on jurisdiction must explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the state with the closest jurisdictional links in order to maintain fairness and legal effectiveness. Moreover, Any future instrument should require adherence to the principles of complementarity and subsidiarity, including as a factor in prosecutorial discretion. Second, regarding the exercise of preliminary measures, Israel proposes several procedural improvements. States should be required to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the facts before identifying a person as an alleged offender which require proper high level authorization. States also must establish the existence of immunities as well as other safeguards available under domestic legislation and common practice. Third, it is essential to explicitly clarify that the draft articles in general are without prejudice to the immunities enjoyed by foreign state officials under customary international law. An explicit affirmation of these safeguards is vital to ensure that any future treaty is used to combat impunity rather than as a political weapon. Madam Chair, Israel underscores the necessity for this committee to operate strictly as a professional, consensus-based forum for exchanging substantive legal views. we must rigorously guard against the politicization of the negotiation process, which would risk undermining the integrity of any future legal instrument and widening the divide between nations. Therefore, negotiations should avoid promoting specific and immediate political interests and instead focus on the decades ahead and the long-term future of international law. In this spirit, Israel intends to actively take part in the upcoming session of the Preparatory Committee in April 2027. We remain committed to constructive engagement to enhance the clarity, legitimacy, and universal acceptability of this vital instrument. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nigeria. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, at the outset, Nigeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the Africa Group. Nigeria condemns crimes against humanity in all their forms and reiterates that perpetrators must be held to account. The primary responsibility to prevent and punish these crimes rests with states. Our approach to the future convention follows from this principle. Nigeria welcomes the first session of the Preparatory Committee held in January 2026 pursuant to resolution 79/122 of 4 December 2024 and looks forward to its second session to be held in April 2027 and to the conference of plenipotentiaries in 2028 and 2029. The compilation of proposals ahead of the conference should reflect the comments and observations made by states individually and through regional groups during its relevant sections and resume sections as we make progress. The process should remain inclusive and transparent and proceed based on consensus. Madam Chair. As a state party to the Rome Statute, Nigeria supports modeling draft article 2 on article 7 of the Rome Statute. For the same reason, the definition should follow article 7 in full, including the definition of gender in article 7, paragraph 3, which the draft articles do not retain. The definition was agreed in Rome. Nigeria does not accept that it has become outdated and supports retaining the original wording of Article 7, paragraph 3. A departure on this point would create inconsistency between the two instruments and narrow support for the future convention. Nigeria also draw attention to Article 26, paragraph 2. paragraph C of the Malabo Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, which defines crimes against humanity by reference to a widespread or systemic attack or enterprise directed against any civilian population. African practice, in our view, should inform the negotiations and understanding of the terminologies in the future treaty. Nigeria echoes the position of the Africa Group that slavery and slave trade should be included as crimes against humanity in the future convention. Nigeria reiterates its proposal made at the 80th session that colonialism and exploitation of natural and mineral resources also be included in the future convention. On March 25, 2026, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 80/250, declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized chattel enslavement of Africans the gravest crimes against humanity. The African Union has further declared 2026 to 2035 the Decade of Justice for Africans and the People of African Descent through reparations. The future convention should give legal effect to these recognitions. Madam Chair, we further reaffirm our support linking draft article 3, paragraph 1 to the national obligations of states. In this regard, the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states set out in the charter of the United Nations should be expressly referenced in draft article 3. We further underscore that the role of intergovernmental organizations under draft article 4, sub paragraph B, must be clearly defined. Cooperation with an organization should necessarily support a state in meeting its obligations, and it does not transfer those obligations to the organization. Cooperation should respect the principle of complementarity and the applicable rules of international law on immunities, with priority given to national jurisdiction and to bilateral mutual legal assistance and extradition. Nigeria further holds that a state providing financial, military, or other support to another state that is committing crimes against humanity against its population has a duty to cease that support and should be held accountable if it fails to do so, and demands express reference to this principle in the future treaty. In conclusion, Nigeria will engage constructively at the second session of the Preparatory Committee and at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries with the aim of concluding a convention that is fair, balanced, and enjoy the widest possible support. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria for the statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Maldives.

Thank you, Chair. The Maldives welcomes the decision to convene the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. The task now is to develop a convention that states can implement, that strengthens prevention and accountability, and one that commands broad support. For the Maldives, international law matters most where power is unequal. It protects the space within which states can make and implement their own choices. A convention on crimes against humanity should strengthen that space through clear obligations, effective cooperation, and stronger national and state capacity. First, the convention should provide a clear basis for national implementation. States should have the legal framework and practical capacity to incorporate crimes against humanity into domestic law, exercise jurisdiction, investigate allegations, and prosecute where the evidence warrants. Effective national jurisdiction is also a matter of sovereign capacity. The convention will create obligations for all states, but not all states begin with the same institutional capacity to fulfill them. Second, international cooperation must work in practice. Crimes against humanity may involve suspects, evidence, witnesses, or assets across jurisdictions. The convention should therefore provide effective arrangements for mutual legal assistance, extradition, evidence sharing, and communication between competent national authorities. This matters especially for smaller legal systems. New obligations on investigation, prosecution, cooperation, victim protection and evidence sharing can place significant demands on states with limited legal and institutional resources. The negotiating process should therefore recognize these differences in capacity. Implementation provisions should be realistic and technical assistance should be available to help states meet their obligations through their own national institutions. Too often, international law creates obligations first and asks about implementation capacity later. That sequence should change. Capacity needs should be identified early and support should strengthen the institutions that will carry the obligations in practice. International cooperation can help close that gap through practical support, prosecutor to prosecutor cooperation, evidence sharing, case-based training, peer assistance, and sustained support for national investigative and judicial institutions. Third, victims and witnesses must remain central. They should be able to participate safely, receive protection, and access effective remedies and reparation. Particular attention should be given to children and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Fourth, the convention should strengthen coherence in international criminal law. Its definitions and obligations should complement existing international law, including the Rome Statute, while providing a dedicated framework for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The International Court remains important in the fight against impunity, but accountability cannot depend on one institution alone. A strong convention should reinforce national jurisdiction, international cooperation, and international judicial institutions. The Maldives supports an inclusive negotiating process aimed at a strong and widely implementable convention. Broad acceptance matters because the instrument will succeed only if states ratify it, incorporate it into domestic law, cooperate under it, and use it. The practical question is therefore not only what obligations the convention creates, but whether all states have a realistic capacity to fulfill them. For small states, international law protects sovereign choice only when the capacity exists to implement it. The conference should recognize that reality from the outset. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon.

Madam Chair, Cameroon joins with the statement made on behalf of the African Group, and we should like now to make some comments on our national capacity. Madam, my delegation takes note of the continuing process to draw up an international legally binding instrument on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. We also note the discussions looking at the forthcoming conference of plenipotentiaries on the prevention and repression of crimes against humanity, scheduled for 2028 and 2029. We uphold, once again, our view that crimes against humanity should not go unpunished, and we are willing to make constructive contributions during the various stages leading to this conference, Madam, my delegation. would like to return to the discussions of the first preparatory committee from the 19th to the 30th of January this year. This exercise was particularly important in that it enabled delegations to hold substantive discussions on draft articles from the ILC and to voice their views on the elements which should be taken into account given the forthcoming negotiations. The discussions in the preparatory committee confirmed the existence are of broad agreement with the aim to arrive at a universal instrument to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. They also emphasize the need to continue consultations on several aspects of the articles of the ILC. Various delegations thus voiced again concerns that they had already expressed during previous sessions of the Sixth Committee, particularly regarding certain wordings of particular decisions in the draft articles of the ILC. These concerns must be taken into account as the process continues. They must find their place in negotiations and be examined with all due attention. Madam, the draft articles is the outcome of a commendable codification of work developing international law. However, referring these to the plenipotentiary conference must not prejudge the outcome of these negotiations. The GA Assembly decision specifically stated that the text to be a basis for negotiations must be compiled taking into account not only the draft articles of the ILC, but amendment proposals coming from states. This shows the will to continue negotiations, fully taking into account the various concerns voiced by States. This must remain the way in which we work. This must make it possible for the Conference of Plenipotentiaries not to be a mere formalization of the ILC draft, but a true space for negotiation between and among States in order to arrive at an instrument which enjoys the broadest possible consensus. Madame. As we move towards the second session of the Preparatory Conference and essentially the Conference of the Plenipotentiaries, it is important to progressively move from identification of concerns to true search for solutions. This means that all delegations must really want to enter into dialogue, to heed what the others say and to reach a compromise. Cameroon, therefore, encourages pursuing bilateral, regional and intergovernmental negotiations in order to identify similarities, better to understand differences and whenever possible to... bring positions closer together. We also believe that particular attention should be paid to the concerns of states in development, particularly pertaining to necessary national capacities to implement a future instrument. Combating impunity cannot fully produce its effects if the obligations stemming from a convention are unless these are accompanied by legal means, institutional ones, and technical ability allowing states effectively to move to implementation. Madam, any future conference of plenipotentiaries depends on our working collectively over the next stage. Cameroon believes that an instrument on preventing and punishing crimes against humanity cannot attain its full scope can only attain its full scope if it is based on a balance between combating impunity and also taking into account the fundamental principles of international law and the legitimate concerns of states. This is the spirit in which my delegation encourages an open, inclusive, transparent, and consensus-based series of discussions. We must remember that our objective is not just the adoption of the text, but a real instrument that can enjoy broad consensus and truly contribute to the prevention of crimes against humanity, the prosecution of their perpetrators and protection of victims. Madam, as we move towards this new phase, Cameroon wishes to state once again that it is willing to work with all delegations in a constructive spirit of compromise in order to bring positions closer together so that our endeavours can be crowned with success. We believe that divergences remain. They're not insurmountable. They can be overcome with continuing dialogue, with our listening to each other, and a shared will to arrive at a balanced, universal, and broadly accepted instrument. In this spirit, Cameroon will continue to play an active part in this process, believing that the future convention must be at the level of its main aim to prevent and punish the most serious crimes affecting the international community as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you, Cameroon, for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to begin by extending our sincere thanks to the International Law Commission and the Sixth Committee for their work in preparing the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. We would also like to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to the Secretariat for their diligent work. In particular, managing and consolidating voluminous contributions is undoubtedly a highly challenging task. Crimes against humanity is a crucial issue, and we are committed to engaging in this process constructively, despite the challenges it presents. In this vein, we have submitted our written contribution, and we are carefully reviewing the compiled text in coordination with our relevant agencies. At this stage, however, it should be underlined that the input by the Member States clearly demonstrates that we are dealing with a wide range of divergent opinions. The diversity of the views collected indicates the complexity of the task before us. Many of the views touch upon fundamental and substantial issues. Therefore, numerous core matters require extensive deliberation. It is evident that extensive work remains to be done on the text before we can reach a common ground. This clearly shows that we still have a long and demanding road ahead of us. It is well recognized that definitions, jurisdictional approaches, and modes of application may vary across national legal systems as well as within international judicial frameworks. These differences in interpretation and practice should be carefully considered. It is a challenging process. As we have also underlined on previous occasions, a considerable number of Member States harbor serious concerns that an international regulation for this category of crimes could particularly be vulnerable to exploitation for non-legal motives. Therefore, the prospective international convention on crimes against humanity, first and foremost, should envisage substantial safeguards against potential misuses for political and other motives. The proposed rules and mechanisms should be crafted meticulously, inclusively, and with utmost clarity. Our primary and ultimate goal must be to produce a text that enjoys universal acceptance. We must remain mindful that an instrument lacking the support of the states will not serve our collective purpose. In fact, rushing this process without due diligence may jeopardize the work that has been carried out so far and could adversely have negative effects on the entire process. In this regard, Turkey expects that the negotiations ahead of us may help to address these concerns and to ensure that the outcome will remain closely anchored to existing rules. Turkey is committed to constructive engagement and ready to further contribute in a meaningful and cooperative manner to the discussions and deliberations throughout the process. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Turkey for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate the efforts in convening the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, held in January 2026, pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 79/122 of 4 December 2024. The overarching objective of international law is the preservation of universal values of humanity. Serious violations of international law run counter to the spirit and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. States bear the responsibility to ensure justice and accountability for grave human rights violations and mass atrocities in accordance with their national legislation. The draft articles must reinforce the principle that the primary responsibility for protecting people from crimes against humanity rests with the state. States have the responsibility and obligation to ensure justice and accountability for the gravest violations of human rights and mass atrocities committed within their territory or by their nationals in accordance with their national legislation and judicial mechanisms. The importance of technical assistance and capacity building, particularly in strengthening national investigative and prosecutorial capacities, is also recognized. Existing international instruments already address to a considerable extent the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. States, parties to the Rome Statute, are aware of its relevant provisions, while many states that are not parties to the Statute have national legislations addressing such offences. As a state not party to the Rome Statute, India does not support the simple transposition of existing international regimes into a new convention. Any new legally binding instrument should complement rather than duplicate existing international legal mechanisms. There should be no attempt to introduce legal theories, concepts or definitions derived from international agreements that do not enjoy broad or universal acceptance. The divergence of views among member states on several aspects of the draft articles demonstrates the need for caution in this regard. Incorporating definitions or legal theories drawn from non-universal instruments, national laws or practices under the guise of progressive development could impede consensus building. The draft articles should therefore be grounded in principles that command broad acceptance among member states. Crimes and atrocities perpetrated by terrorists, where they meet the requisite threshold, should be appropriately reflected within the framework of crimes against humanity, given the grave nature of such acts and their impact on people. This should, however, be considered in a manner consistent with the overall approach of the draft articles and without simply transposing existing legal regimes into a new convention. Madam Chair, a clear jurisdictional linkage should guide the exercise of jurisdiction by States over crimes against humanity. States exercising territorial jurisdiction or active nationality jurisdiction are generally best placed to investigate and prosecute such crimes effectively. Territorial and national jurisdiction should therefore be accorded primacy, taking into account the interest of justice, the rights of the accused and the interest of victims. Such an approach is grounded in the fundamental principles of international law, recognizing the sovereign prerogative of states to exercise jurisdiction through their national courts over crimes committed within their territory or by their nationals. The draft article should not prejudice or take primacy over state sovereign right to exercise jurisdiction through its robust and independent judicial mechanisms, including in relation to crimes against humanity committed in states territory. Measures aimed at preventing and punishing such crimes must fully respect state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. At the same time, there is a need to strengthen national capacities for the effective prevention, investigation, and prosecution of crimes against humanity. International cooperation and technical assistance should support and enhance national mechanisms rather than duplicate them. Madam Chair, the nature, scope and format of any future legally binding instrument should not be predetermined without comprehensive and substantive deliberation on all aspects of the draft articles. The concerns and views of all member states, including those that are not parties to existing international instruments, must be considered through a transparent, inclusive and meaningful dialogue within the preparatory committee meetings. We consider that constructive engagement remains essential to ensuring that the draft articles contribute effectively to preventing and punishing crimes against humanity while respecting state sovereignty, preserving the primacy of national jurisdictions, reflecting broadly accepted principles of international law, and avoiding unnecessary duplication of existing international legal mechanisms. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of India for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. You have the floor, Ambassador.

Madam Chair, we align ourselves with the statement made by Libya on behalf of the Arab Group and the statement made by Mexico on behalf of a cross-regional group of states. Madam Chair, It would be remiss not to recall the painful experience of the Syrian people and the high price it paid due to the gross violations and crimes perpetrated by the former regime, which impacted many segments of our society, which also impacted our social and economic structures and state institutions. And despite the horror of these crimes and the scars that remain on our collective memory, the Syrian people, as it seeks to recover, has sought no retaliation but rather demanded justice. The Syrian Government, born of this historic transformation, reiterates its commitment to prevent crimes against humanity and prosecute their perpetrators. In this regard, we established the National Commission for Transitional Justice and the National Commission for Missing Persons to address the legacy of gross violations, serve justice for victims, and ensure non-recurrence. We initiated measures to prosecute those involved in the most serious crimes, which encompass crimes perpetrated in the past, including those in the transitional period, as we reaffirmed that the era of impunity is long gone. Madam Chair, The bitter experience of the Syrian people and the daunting sacrifices conceded by our people could have reduced Syria to a mere victim. However, we took it upon ourselves to shoulder our moral and historic responsibility as an active participant in the negotiations on the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. in the hope that we would spare other peoples what we had gone through to uphold prevention, accountability, and non-recurrence. My country therefore submitted its candidacy for the membership of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee of the UN Conference of Plenipotentiary on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. We were elected vice chair during its first session. This candidacy reflects our resolve to make headway on the path to justice. And our election reflects the confidence placed by member states in our resolve and commitment to constructively participating in the drafting of the future convention. We reiterate our commitment to constructive participation in the future negotiations to ensure the success of the future conference in New York. In our national capacity, we hope that this convention will include draft articles that provide protection to hospitals, children, and medical facilities. We had gone through a bitter experience that we do not wish for any other people. Madam Chair, it is concerning and rather painfully paradoxical that the Syrian people, who only just turned the page of decades of repression and gross violations and is seeking healing, justice, accountability, and the rebuilding of the state and its institutions is facing an ongoing Israeli aggression that reproduces our suffering and undermines every requirement for human security and dignity. While the Syrian government channels its efforts to address the legacy of the past, serve justice for victims, and achieve stability, Israel pursues its aggression and impedes our national recovery. These violations are no longer merely acts condemned by Syria and countries of the world, but rather facts documented by United Nations mechanisms. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria expressed serious concern over growing Israeli military activity and entrenchment of Israeli presence in the south of Syria, including incursions, raids, and abduction of civilians, including children. The Commission stated, and I quote, "Some acts may amount to war crimes." While we commend growing international political support for Syria, we hope that this support can be translated to tangible and practical steps that can end the ongoing Israeli aggression and safeguard the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of Syria. In conclusion, We will engage in this process to protect our people and other peoples from crimes against humanity. However, we cannot do so while crimes are perpetrated on our territory. Preventing such crimes is a humanitarian moral responsibility that requires collective political will and respect for state sovereignty and the safeguarding of the neutrality of international justice system. We hope that the future conference will be a shift towards an international order that is more just, balanced, and effective. We know all too well, Madam Chair, what the lack of that really means. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Syrian Arab Republic for his statement. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The delegation of Senegal joins with the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and by Mexico on behalf of the Group of Friends. In our national capacity, we would like to make the following comments. Madam Chair, it is regrettable that at this date, crimes against humanity are the only mass atrocities not governed by a specific international convention. The absence of a consensus has long impeded the drawing up of such a convention. This is why Senegal has resolutely supported the process leading to the adoption of resolution 79/129 by the General Assembly, convening a conference of plenipotentiaries to draw up an instrument against the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. This reflects the constant commitment of my country to combat impunity. And we believe that the draft of the ILC provides a credible basis for drawing up a future convention. Once again, Senegal commends the remarkable work done by the ILC. And we state once more how important it is to continue substantive discussions in an inclusive and transparent framework in order to arrive as soon as possible at the adoption of an effective international instrument. Madam, my delegation would like to welcome the first session of the Preparatory Commission from the 19th of January this year. This was a significant stage It provided an opportunity for inclusive, mutual work on a legally solid convention based on as broad a consensus as possible. In parallel with this, it is important to strengthen national ability to prevent and prosecute, as well as international cooperation against crimes of mass atrocities. So therefore, Senegal has acceded to the MLR Convention, Argentina, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and Slovakia as well. against, we also welcome the 23 Ljubljana-La Haye Convention against genocide, working against crimes of humanity and war crimes, open to signature in January 2024. We urge all countries to accede to this international instrument to effectively combat the perpetrators of these mass atrocities. The long road to having a convention against these crimes means commitment from individual States under the aegis of the UN. This is something that stirs the conscience of mankind. We are dealing with very fundamental rights. These crimes cannot be tolerated. We have to have international competence to deal with these. Here, Senegal, once again, wishes to voice its support for the International Criminal Court, which is essential as we combat impunity for the most serious of crimes. As one of the first countries to ratify the Rome Convention, Senegal believes that the universalization of this treaty will be an important step towards preventing such crimes and avoiding impunity for their perpetrators. Once again, we have to rely on cooperation among states and support, respecting their independence and their mandate, free of any threats to undermine this. Madam, if we are to achieve our shared objective, my delegation wishes to stress how important it is to have discussions that respect the concerns of all States, so that we can adopt as swiftly as possible an international convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. As I conclude, I we would urge all States to gather around this aim, to overcome their differences, to pull together to have a more effective international instrument here. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal for his statement. The distinguished representative of Senegal was the last speaker on the list for this agenda item this morning. We will continue our debate on agenda item 79, United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. allegations are reminded that informal consultations on agenda item 84 the rule of law the national and international levels will be held during the lunch break today from 1 15 to 2 p.m. in this room the meeting is adjourned