Sixth Committee, 16th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call to order the 16th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. This afternoon, the Sixth Committee will continue its consideration of agenda item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Given the length of the list of speakers, it is now expected that we will commence our consideration of agenda item 81, status of the protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, at our meeting tomorrow morning. Let us continue the consideration of agenda item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The relevant report of the Secretary-General is contained in document A/81/205, which is available on the website. I wish to recall the decision taken at our first meeting that statements delivered in 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. The first speaker on my list will be the distinguished representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia, as well as Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. We thank the Secretary General for the latest report, as well as the member states and the observers that provided information and observations. Chair, we meet at a time of growing geopolitical tensions and serious violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. the most serious crimes of concern to the international community continue to be committed. The European Union and its Member States remain committed to ending impunity and ensuring accountability for such crimes. The Pact for the Future calls for redoubled efforts to that end. Accountability remains indispensable for justice, for the prevention of future atrocities, and for sustainable peace. Universal jurisdiction is an exceptional but important tool in this collective effort. The primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute rests with states most directly linked to the crime. But universal jurisdiction serves an important function in closing the accountability gap for the most heinous crimes. Its application must be consistent with international law. We recognize and respect the diversity of views and conditions among states regarding the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. National legal systems differ, as do the modalities of its exercise. That diversity reflects legitimate specificities alongside a shared commitment that the gravest crimes must not go unpunished. With that in mind, it is all the more important to strengthen our collective capacity with a twofold aim: to limit the need to resort to universal jurisdiction and to ensure legal certainty where it is exercised. To that end, we should continue to prioritize efforts to harmonize the criminalization of international crimes so that accountability rests on a stronger foundation regardless of jurisdiction. The Conference on Crimes Against Humanity offers an important opportunity to further harmonize national criminal laws and strengthen interstate cooperation. Strengthening international cooperation is indeed equally essential. The effective prosecution of international crimes requires robust mechanisms for mutual legal assistance, evidence sharing, cross-border coordination, extradition, and the protection of witnesses and victims. We recall in this regard the adoption in 2023 of the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention, already signed by 40 States. Within the European Union, cooperation among national authorities is facilitated through Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, and the networks it hosts, In particular, the Genocide Prosecution Network, whose members coordinate and share best practice and expertise in investigating and prosecuting these crimes. We stand ready to continue sharing our experiences and to support similar mechanisms in developing in other regions. Chair, the working group will consider this year how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts. We look forward to taking part in that discussion, which can contribute to greater legal certainty. The European Union and its Member States will continue to engage constructively on this item in pursuit of our shared objective of accountability for the most serious crimes. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. You have the floor, ma'am.

Madam Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and my own country, Sweden. The Nordic countries welcome the opportunity to continue to engage in dialogue on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. We would like to extend our thanks to the Secretary General for his annual report and to the member states and observers who contributed to it. The report provides valuable insights into developments in national legislation and judicial practice. Madam Chair, The Nordic countries recognize universal jurisdiction as a well-established principle of international criminal law and have all incorporated it into our respective domestic legal frameworks, enabling prosecution for the most serious international crimes, regardless of where they were committed and the nationality of the perpetrator. Universal jurisdiction is a distinct principle but at the same time related to other concepts, principles and rules in international and domestic law, enabling it to be applied in a manner which contributes to accountability and justice. We welcome further discussions on these matters focused on ensuring that no individual responsible for the most serious international crimes goes unpunished. The direction must be crystal clear. There can be no safe havens for those responsible for serious international crimes. We encourage states who have yet not to do so to incorporate the principle of universal jurisdiction into their domestic legal order. Madam Chair, states have an obligation to protect populations from atrocity crimes. Yet, serious crimes continue to be committed with impunity. The International Criminal Court remains of paramount importance in the global strive to end impunity and to provide justice for victims of the most serious international crimes. The Nordic countries reaffirm our unwavering support for the independence and impartiality of the ICC. When states are unwilling or unable to exercise jurisdiction over perpetrators of international crimes, the ICC can provide an alternative avenue for prosecution. When the ICC lacks the necessary jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction can close a gap in the existing international legal order by allowing third states to prosecute the most serious international crimes. We also acknowledge the role of international mechanisms in supporting national and international investigations and prosecutions. The International Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria, the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, and the now concluded mandate of UNITAD have all contributed significantly to the collection and preservation of evidence for use in fair proceedings on the international and national level. It is crucial that the international community ensures continued access to such evidence for future prosecutions. We welcome in this regard the establishment of an independent investigative mechanism for Afghanistan. Madam Chair, the increase in the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the last decades and indeed in recent years demonstrates how the principle contributes to ensuring accountability. In that regard, we note recent and ongoing investigations and prosecutions in several national jurisdictions for serious crimes committed in Syria and Iraq. as well as serious crimes committed in Ukraine as a result of Russia's illegal aggression. These efforts, in addition to other examples of such prosecutions, highlight the principle's practical importance in closing accountability gaps. Madam Chair, universal jurisdiction contributes to ensuring justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators. And with every prosecution, a clear message is sent. Those who commit atrocities cannot evade justice forever and must be held accountable. We look forward to continued engagement in the Sixth Committee and other UN fora on this important issue. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand, also speaking on behalf of Australia and Canada. You have the floor, ma'am.

To deliver this statement on behalf of Australia, Canada, and my own country, New Zealand. Cairns countries welcome the opportunity to once again engage in discussion on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. We thank the Secretary General for the continued preparation of reports on this topic. and appreciate the contributions made by member states and observers to this longstanding dialogue. In the view of Cairns countries, universal jurisdiction is most effectively understood as one component of a broader international accountability framework. While territorial jurisdiction remains primary, accountability for the most serious international crimes is strengthened by a range of mutually reinforcing mechanisms. including international cooperation, extradition arrangements, mutual legal assistance, and other established basis of criminal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction enables states to exercise criminal jurisdiction over individuals responsible for certain crimes of exceptional gravity, irrespective of where the conduct occurred, the nationality of the alleged perpetrator or victim, or other links between the crime and the prosecuting state. Cairns countries have consistently recognized that these crimes include piracy, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, slavery, and torture. Such crimes affect the interests of the international community as a whole. The effective investigation and prosecution of these crimes through appropriate national and international mechanisms remain essential to combating impunity. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have all incorporated universal jurisdiction into their respective legislative frameworks, and we encourage all states to empower their domestic courts to exercise universal jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes. At the same time, Cairns reiterates that the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes rests with the state in whose territory the conduct occurred. In most circumstances, the territorial state is best placed to obtain evidence, secure witness testimony, provide for the interest of victims, and ensure that justice is delivered effectively and visibly. CANS also emphasizes that universal jurisdiction must be exercised in good faith, consistent with the rule of law and fair trial guarantees, with the laws relating to privileges and immunities, and without political motivation, discrimination, or arbitrary application. Chair, Cairns countries welcome the continuation of the working group and the focused, inclusive and practice-oriented approach to its work. In particular, we see value in further examining points of convergence and distinction between universal jurisdiction and related legal concepts, including jurisdiction exercised pursuant international treaties. Discussions grounded in national legislation, judicial decisions and prosecutorial practice may assist in identifying areas of common understanding and enhance the precision of future discussions. As the working group's work progresses, CAHRS will continue to support efforts that strengthen accountability for the most serious international crimes, reinforce the rule of law and contribute to the prevention of impunity. We remain committed to a constructive and inclusive dialogue among member states. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of CAHNS, for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Latvia, speaking on behalf of the three Baltic states, which is Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania, and my own country, Latvia. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the European Union. Today, we would like to highlight two points. First, universal jurisdiction represents an exceptional but indispensable tool and plays a distinct role in preventing accountability gaps. For the Baltic States, unwavering commitment to accountability is deeply rooted in our historical experience and our firm dedication to international law. Failure to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law undermines justice and directly threatens international peace and security. Universal jurisdiction remains an important element of the international legal framework for accountability. It reflects the understanding that for core international crimes, impunity must not prevail. Cases brought before national courts on the basis of universal jurisdiction have demonstrated the principle's practical contribution to ensuring accountability. In recent years, the necessity and practical value of universal jurisdiction have become increasingly evident. the Baltic states, alongside other states, have initiated investigations into international crimes committed by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. The contribution of universal jurisdiction should not be viewed only through the number of cases that ultimately result in trials or convictions. By allowing national authorities to act even without territorial or national links, it helps prevent alleged perpetrators from finding safe havens. These investigations also preserve evidence, identify suspects, and support proceedings in other jurisdictions.

This brings me to our second point.

Accountability increasingly depends on cooperation.

International crimes rarely present themselves within the borders of one jurisdiction.

Evidence may be located in one state.

Witness in another, and an alleged perpetrator in a third. For this reason, cooperation between states is essential. Evidence gathered today may become decisive only years later, and it may ultimately be used in a jurisdiction.

Different from the one in which it was first collected.

Universal jurisdiction is not a solitary endeavor. It relies heavily on interstate cooperation, mutual legal assistance.

And coordinated evidence collection.

We call on all States to join instruments and mechanisms that enhance such cooperation and to adopt the necessary national frameworks to effectively exercise universal jurisdiction in.

Accordance with international law and applicable fair trial guarantees. Madam Chair, the Baltic States remain committed to the fight against impunity. Our discussions on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction should contribute to that objective.

In this regard, the Baltic States welcome the focus of the working group this year on how universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts. We see value in greater clarity and a better common understanding of the principle. and considering its relationship with other bases of jurisdiction, due regard should be also given to subsidiarity, the primary role of states with a closer connection to the alleged crime, and the rules to the solve conflict jurisdictions. Universal jurisdiction can complement such jurisdiction by helping to address accountability gaps where effective proceedings are not pursued.

Distinguishing universal jurisdiction from other bases and accountability mechanisms can contribute to greater consistency in our discussions and in state practice. Hence, we also see value in continued discussion within the Sixth Committee and in due course.

Engagement with International Law Commission. Ultimately, universal jurisdiction is one part of a broader system of accountability. That system is strongest when different jurisdictions and mechanisms are able to complement one another. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia, speaking on behalf of the Baltic states. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Czechia, speaking on behalf of the Slavkov Trilateral Format, which is Austria, Czechia and Slovakia. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the countries belonging to the Slavkov trilateral format, Austria, Slovakia, and my own country, Czechia. We also align ourselves with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The proliferation of armed conflicts and the persistent impunity for the most serious international crimes remind us of the continued importance of strengthening accountability at both national and international levels. Our delegations have repeatedly stated that universal jurisdiction is an important instrument in the global fight against impunity. It enables states to prosecute the most serious crimes under international law, irrespective of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. Its basis lies in the nature and gravity of the crimes concerned, rather than in a territorial or personal connection to the prosecuting state. Universal jurisdiction thus complements traditional basis of criminal jurisdiction and the work of international courts and tribunals, serving as a vital safeguard against impunity when other avenues of justice remain closed. At the same time, its exercise must remain consistent with applicable international law, including relevant procedural safeguards and guarantees of due process. Clear legal frameworks are essential to ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of this important instrument of international criminal justice. Madam Chair, in this regard, we thank the Secretary-General for his latest report, as well as the Member States and observers that provided written contributions. we welcome the continued exchange of information on national legislation, judicial practice and relevant international treaties, which provides a valuable basis for further consideration of this topic. The report highlights both the practical relevance of universal jurisdiction and the diversity of national approaches to its application. In particular, It reflects differing views on the categories of crimes falling within its scope, its relationship with other bases of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the conditions governing its exercise. Greater legal clarity on these issues would contribute to a more consistent understanding and application of the principle. Madam Chair. As the Slavkov states have consistently emphasized, the diversity of state practice and legal positions demonstrate the need for a more systematic examination of the definition, scope, and limits of universal jurisdiction. We therefore reiterate our firm belief that consideration of this topic would greatly benefit from being entrusted to the International Law Commission. Such a step would help to depoliticize the discussion and allow for a thorough examination of the issue on its strictly legal merits. In line with its mandate of promoting the progressive development and codification of international law, the Commission is particularly well placed to undertake a comprehensive analysis of relevant international treaties, national legal rules and judicial practice with a view to clarifying the existing legal framework and identifying possible ways forward. In this context, we recall that the topic universal criminal jurisdiction was included in the Commission's long-term programme of work in 2018. We are encouraged that the latest report of the Secretary General also reflects support for entrusting the Commission with a comprehensive legal study of the topic. We believe that advancing this work would complement the ongoing deliberations of the Sixth Committee, facilitate greater convergence among Member States, and strengthen cooperation between the two bodies. Madam Chair, To conclude, the Slavkov 3 countries reaffirm that universal jurisdiction is an important instrument for ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes under international law. We remain convinced that the expertise of the International Law Commission could make a valuable contribution to advancing our common understanding of the principle and facilitating informed discussions in the Sixth Committee. Our delegations stand ready to continue engaging constructively in these efforts. Thank you for your attention, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Czechia, speaking on behalf of the Slavkov trilateral format. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China. You have the floor.

Zhu Xi, Chair. Universal jurisdiction is a complex issue involving legal, political, diplomatic, and many other factors. The written comments submitted by countries on this topic and the relevant materials compiled by the UN Secretariat provide important references for discussing the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. And in this regard, China wishes to emphasize the following positions. First, There is far from an international consensus on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. Judging from the discussion in this committee and the comments from countries, there are clear divergence in views and differences in state practice, and it is difficult to establish opinion juris. Some states establish jurisdiction based on the aut dedere aut judicare obligation set forth in international treaties or exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction based on specific connecting factors. Both constitute departures from the tradition of a jurisdiction resinae loci and jurisdiction resinae personae. These are different from universal jurisdiction over piracy and therefore do not serve as the basis for recognizing universal jurisdiction. Second, the establishment of a universal jurisdiction should be based on sufficient foundation international law. China believes that universal jurisdiction is a supplementary one that applies only in extremely exceptional and isolated cases. In the absence of explicit authorization under international law, states should not unilaterally establish universal jurisdiction, otherwise, this could result in conflicts of jurisdiction and the abuse of it, and undermine the stability of international relations and hinder the goal of combating impunity. Third, the application of universal jurisdiction should follow generally recognized principles and rules of international law. The exercise of universal jurisdiction should strictly observe the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, such as national sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and respect the immunity of foreign state officials under international law, especially that of heads of state. Certain countries, disregarding the sovereignty of other states and the immunity of foreign officials, casually initiate investigations in the name of universal jurisdiction. This not only unnecessarily increases judicial cost, but also triggers diplomatic disputes. Chair, this year the working group will focus on discussing the distinction between the principle of universal jurisdiction and other related concepts. China supports the working group in conducting further research. to carefully distinguish between universal jurisdiction and related concepts such as aut dedere aut judicare, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and jurisdictional immunity, in order to prevent conceptual confusion from leading to disputes in practice and to ensure balance between combating impunity and respecting national sovereignty. Chair. The Sixth Committee established this agenda item in 2009 with the purpose of ensuring that all countries exercise due caution in establishing and exercising universal jurisdiction and avoid its abuse. China supports countries to strengthen exchanges and cooperation in the field of criminal justice, continuing to discuss the issue of universal jurisdiction within the framework of the Sixth Committee, further building consensus and clarifying the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The State of Palestine reiterates its position that impunity for grave breaches and serious crimes threaten international peace and security and undermine our international law-based order. Accountability is indispensable to preserve the rule of international law and to advance peace. The International Criminal Court is the first criminal court with this universal calling, a project of 50 years in the making. Never before in history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of one international court a universal response to countless crimes spanning decades across all continents and building on a century of efforts to develop international criminal law. Despite the magnitude of such a development and its innovative nature, the International Criminal Court lacks universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Victims still fear that justice is beyond reach and perpetrators still believe immunity is conferred. Our moral and legal obligation is to amplify the voices of the victims. Our political and historical responsibility is also to protect the international courts from attacks and sanctions and to preserve and build the institutions that make justice possible, and today more than ever. No state, no matter how powerful, and no individual, no matter how protected, is above the law. This is why the State of Palestine believes it's important that the UN bodies and states continue to promote such universal jurisdiction, including in the Sixth Committee. Rooted in the Geneva Conventions and reaffirmed in international treaties prohibiting the most serious crimes, universal jurisdiction is essential to ensure the rights of victims and effective judicial remedy, to combat impunity and to promote deterrence. It is precisely the horrific nature of the crimes concerned that justifies such universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction is an established component of international law. It overcomes the jurisdictional gaps in our international legal order. It is a stepping stone towards universal justice. We have the power and indeed the responsibility to promote it, advance it, and seek it. However, our discussions here struggle to hold weight against the decades of legal rhetoric and human rights discourse that have failed to materialize into anything tangible for the Palestinian people. The State of Palestine deplores the politicization of international justice and the repeated efforts to thwart in front of both domestic courts and international courts the pursuit of justice for serious crimes committed against the Palestinian people. Year after year, the Palestinian people have spoken, declared, and documented Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Justice for Palestine was deferred. Accountability for Israel and Israeli officials was delayed, leading us to the worst crimes in modern history. There is no crime more serious than genocide, and there is no criminal more dangerous than those who commit it. And there are those who oppose us joining the ICC, and those who oppose the General Assembly seizing the ICJ. There are those who smear the Commission of Inquiries, and those who protect and shield the Israeli officials at all levels. And there are those who champion universal jurisdiction, including in this room, when it's politically convenient for them, while changing their own domestic universal jurisdiction laws to shield Israeli criminals. This selectivity has undermined the viability of the courts as vehicles for international justice, truth, and fairness. It has also ushered the attacks against the courts and has further undermined the rule of international law and the purpose of an independent, impartial, and unbiased international justice. We do need your unconditional support to ensure justice for Palestinian victims and hold accountable Israeli officials before international courts and before your domestic courts. no selectivity, and no double standards. This is the only one path that can lead us to peace and security. No one should obstruct it, and all should help us on it. Finally, the State of Palestine looks forward to engage in discussions on universal jurisdiction, its definition, its scope, and application in order to advance its appropriate exercise in accordance with the principles of international law and in service of justice for victims of the most serious crimes of concerns for humanity as a whole. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, Malaysia aligns itself with the statements presented by the Non-Aligned Movement, NAM, and we would like to take this opportunity to deliver a statement in our national capacity. First and foremost, Malaysia expresses our profound gratitude to the Secretary-General for the report on the topic, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, which was prepared pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 80/168. Malaysia notes that, as in previous years, the integral part of the present report is formed by the comments of Governments and organizations on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction on the basis of relevant national legal rules, applicable international treaties and judicial practice. Malaysia further comments the establishment of the working group mandated to consider and comment on the question how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts. Malaysia has recently submitted its written comments and views on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, including its application under domestic legislation on 20th April 2026. We have consistently provided substantive comments, shared relevant legal information, and raised pertinent concerns regarding the Principles' implementation. With regard to the work of the Working Group, Malaysia emphasizes that universal jurisdiction, unlike other bases of jurisdiction, does not require any nexus between the offender, the crime, or the prosecuting state. In essence, it enables a state to prosecute crimes even where none of the traditional links of territoriality, nationality, passive personality or the protective principle exist. The traditional foundation of universal jurisdiction lies in the extraordinary heinousness of certain conduct, warranting states to extend jurisdiction over serious crimes of international concern, namely piracy, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It has further been argued that such jurisdiction may extend to heinous human right offenses, including slavery, torture, and apartheid. However, actual recognition and application of this extension by states remains uncertain. Accordingly, unlike the territorial, nationality, and protective principles, universal jurisdiction must be applied with caution. Its scope and application should be clearly defined to prevent abuse or misuse. Malaysia observed that universal jurisdiction is rarely invoked by states. This rarity does not reflect disregarded for the seriousness of the crimes, but rather the preference of prosecutors and courts to rely on more established basis of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Madam Chair, Malaysia also submits that it is misleading to assert that universal jurisdiction is established by treaty, in particular for offences such as terrorism and drug trafficking. While it may be argued that international treaties may serve as a source of universal jurisdiction, such treaties in fact authorize states parties to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction over crimes defined therein. Malaysia is of the view that international treaties operate strictly inter-parties and do not possess universal validity. State parties frequently authorize and at times obligate one another to extend the application of their domestic criminal laws to offenses committed within the territory of any contracting state, even in the absence of traditional jurisdictional nexus. In such cases, it is the mutual consent of states parties that legitimize the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This framework applies exclusively among contracting states. The forum state does not prosecute the offence as a representative of the international community. Accordingly, treaty-based jurisdiction to prescribe is not universal in the literal sense of asserting worldwide applicability. Madam Chair, Malaysia further emphasizes that the principle of universal jurisdiction should not be conflated with the principle of aut dedere aut judicare. The latter, under relevant international criminal treaties, imposes an obligation on States Parties to prosecute or extradite offenders found within their territory. This obligation flows from the treaty requirement to criminalize the offenses and establish jurisdiction on the prescribed grounds. In Malaysia's view, or does not itself establish universal jurisdiction for treaty-based offenses. Madam Chair, Malaysia also takes this opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to actively participate in constructive and substantive deliberations on this topic, conducted in a spirit of mutual respect for the views and positions of all Member States. I thank you.

I thank the Distinguished Representative of Malaysia for her statement. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Chile. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Universal jurisdiction cannot be understood outside of international criminal law, including the establishment of different criminal jurisdictions. Its regulation seeks to avoid problems that come up in practice, such as its exercise in sometimes for political purposes and at times discriminatory. Likewise, its analysis cannot be detached from other developments made by the international community collectively, the need to avoid impunity from grave international crimes. this fight against impunity as its fundamental reason for being, the traditional basis for jurisdiction do not always allow to avoid it. However, this extraterritorial jurisdiction requires regulation that avoids its exercise affecting relationships between states, giving rise to selective jurisdictions or allowing leaving it to each state to determine unilaterally which crimes come under it. Resolution 8168 of the General Assembly invites states to express their decisions on the differences between the principle of universal jurisdiction and related concepts, and that's what our statement will focus on. First of all, international jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. These can prosecute grave crimes, but from different perspectives and different methods. They do not compete with one another, but rather they complement one another. International tribunals exercise the jurisdiction provided for in the instruments that establish them, broader or narrower according to their respective rules. However, the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court are complementary to national jurisdictions, which have primacy. This does not prevent the Court, within its competence, to be able to look at whether a state that exercises universal jurisdiction complied with the standards of due process or whether they acted in order to guarantee impunity for the perpetrators. In terms of immunities, universal jurisdiction is also related to the draft articles approved by the ILC on their second reading on immunity from criminal jurisdiction for certain state officials. We believe that the norms of general international law should be applied without establishing a special regime of immunity for universal jurisdiction. Immunity from jurisdiction does not necessarily lead to impunity. The state that invokes it can renounce it. and the accused can be tried by their own state or be prosecuted by a competent international court. Universal jurisdiction is exercised by national courts that can be considered in some, sometimes agents of the international community to punish crimes in the common interest. Madam Chair, now the principle of aut dedere aut judicare Prosecute or extradite contributes to punishing criminal conduct and strengthens the exercise of international criminal justice. States parties to treaties that enshrine this must criminalize the necessary crimes and establish the basis for the jurisdictions required for the prosecution of these crimes, as recognized by the International Court of Justice. States cannot invoke a lack of domestic legislation to not comply with this obligation. Madam Chair, this principle is not an autonomous basis for, is not an independent basis of jurisdiction, but rather a conventional treaty obligation that presupposes the existence of jurisdiction on the part of the states concerned. Universal jurisdiction can facilitate the compliance of this, but it is not necessarily essential for it. The crimes contained in this do not necessarily coincide with those that are subject to universal jurisdiction. The obligation to prosecute does not only arise from an extradition requirement, it comes from the state as long as the accused is present on their territory. There is also a relationship between jus cogens and universal jurisdictions. A large part of the crimes that are found and need to establish it are considered as part of jus cogens. So universal jurisdiction is not limited to this conduct, nor And Madam Chair, by way of conclusion, my delegation wishes to underscore that given that universal jurisdiction cannot be exercised in absentia, any regulatory framework governing its exercise requires mechanisms of international legal cooperation between the state exercising universal jurisdiction and the state where the person sought for prosecution is located. Without such cooperation, universal jurisdiction would remain largely theoretical or abstract. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, my delegation thanks you for organizing this meeting on this open application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. and Secretary-General for his report on this topic. The principle of universal jurisdiction is based exclusively on the nature of the offense of such severity that these crimes affect the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. With regard to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, and enforced disappearances, neither the place where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator nor that of the victim should be a reason for impunity. As a complement to the action of national jurisdictions and other areas of competency, the ICC and hybrid jurisdictions, universal jurisdiction is a key instrument for justice. The exercise of universal jurisdiction does, however, present certain difficulties linked to the lack of a link with the territory where the crime was committed, and that is why a certain criteria for relevance ought to be used. Three tools could help support jurisdictions as they exercise universal jurisdiction. First of all, universal jurisdiction requires specialized investigators and judges that understand the complexity of these crimes. Therefore, France created in 2011 a center for combating crimes against humanity, war crimes, and offenses that is operating within a special jurisdiction that is the National Counterterrorism Prosecutor's Office, as well as a special investigator's office. Thanks to these services, France currently is one of the states that is conducting numerous universal jurisdiction proceedings for crimes committed abroad. Since 2012, 18 proceedings have been held on this basis in France, and more than 100 investigations are still underway. Secondly, France believes that international cooperation mechanisms that support the national level investigations, prosecutions, and sentencing for international crimes are crucial. Cooperation between the closest states or those that are most closely linked to the crimes in question is of particular importance. France here reiterates its call for all states to sign and ratify the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention for international cooperation with regard to international investigations and prosecutions for international crimes. Lastly, defining an international legal framework for the prevention and punishment of the most serious international crimes could also help the exercise of this competency. On one hand, certain instruments clarify and establish universal jurisdiction. That is the case of the Convention against Torture of 1984 and the Convention against Enforced Disappearances of 2006. On the other hand, by enshrining a common definition of international crime, certain conventions help facilitate international cooperation with regard to investigations and prosecutions, such as the Convention on Genocide of 1948. In this regard, France reaffirms its support for the process that ought to lead to the adoption of a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. France hopes that the conclusion of this convention would strengthen the foundation upon which national jurisdictions rely in the punishment of these crimes, regardless of where they were committed and the nationality of their perpetrators and victims. France reaffirms its interest in continuing discussions on the scope and application of the principle of jurisdiction in the sixth committee and will thus take part in the working group that aims this year to examine how the principle of jurisdiction is different from other related concepts and we thank the mission of Guatemala in advance for holding these discussions. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Good afternoon. Slovenia aligns itself with the statement on behalf of the UN and its member states and wishes to convey the following remarks in its national capacity. First, we would like to thank the Secretary General for his present report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction and the member states and observers for their contributions thus far. including the most recent ones. As there have been no changes to the relevant national legal rules, judicial jurisprudence or applicable treaties, Slovenia has not submitted any new information or comments. Madam Vice-Chair, universal jurisdiction is grounded in the nature and gravity of the crime itself. In this respect, it differs in both conception and function from the traditional basis of jurisdiction in international law, we generally depend on a particular connecting factor. The absence of such a connection distinguishes universal jurisdiction in both substance and concept from traditional forms of jurisdiction, requiring careful consideration and responsibility. In practice, universal jurisdiction constitutes the application of national criminal law by domestic courts to prosecute individuals for certain grave international crimes. It can serve as a means of accountability and deterrence, helping to prevent future violations, and reinforces the principle that perpetrators of the gravest crimes should not be able to escape justice. Universal jurisdiction serves the broader interest of justice and protects the interests of victims. The state with a direct connection to the crime bears the primary responsibility for its investigation and prosecution. Universal jurisdiction should therefore complement, rather than replace, the exercise of jurisdiction by such states. Its particular value emerges when jurisdictional gaps arise. For example, perpetrators may be located in third countries, or the state most directly connected to the crime may be unwilling or unable to exercise its jurisdiction effectively. In such circumstances, universal jurisdiction can bridge these gaps and contribute to ensuring that serious crimes do not remain unpunished. However, universal jurisdiction should not be viewed as a substitute. On the contrary, the exercise of universal jurisdiction can provide an important complementary response at the national and international levels. Madam Vice Chair, it is hard to argue that universal jurisdiction does not reflect the shared values and collective interests of member states when it comes to responding to acts that could threaten international peace and security. In this sense, universal jurisdiction can be seen as safeguarding the international community's fundamental commitment to combating impunity. The fight against impunity is a shared responsibility. International cooperation, including judicial assistance, extradition, evidence sharing, and capacity building, is essential. Slovenia, similarly as France before us, therefore invites all states to enhance the international accountability framework by ratifying the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crimes of Genocide, crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other international crimes. This is a universal legal instrument which provides the tools necessary for effective cooperation and also refers to the principle of universal jurisdiction in Article 8, paragraph 3. Madam Vice Chair, Slovenia is convinced that a responsible application of universal jurisdiction based on international law and backed by meaningful cooperation can strengthen the international system of justice while safeguarding the legitimate interests of both states and victims. My delegation stands ready to contribute constructively to further discussions on this important topic. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Rwanda. You have the floor, ma'am.

Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. Rwanda aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the African group and the Non-Aligned Movement and thanks the Secretary-General for his report. Madam Chair, for Rwanda, our position on universal jurisdiction is informed by experience. We believe in the principle and in its ability to ensure that perpetrators of the gravest crimes do not escape justice. But we have also seen how this important principle can be abused, selectively applied, and at times used for political purposes. Rwanda believes in this principle and has consistently supported its proper application. As reflected in previous reports of the Secretary-General, Randa recognizes universal jurisdiction in relation to the gravest crimes of concern to the international community, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. Those who commit such crimes should not escape justice simply by crossing borders or seas in search of safe haven. More than 30 years after the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, genocide suspects continue to reside in different countries. Rwanda has transmitted more than 1,000 indictments and requests concerning fugitives abroad. Our request to states hosting them has always been straightforward: extradite them to Rwanda or prosecute them. We appreciate those countries that have done so. That is universal jurisdiction serving its purpose, denying safe haven to perpetrators of the gravest crimes. We call upon others to do the same. Buranda has also experienced the other face of the abuse of this principle. We have seen judges in some capitals seek to exercise jurisdiction over African officials on questionable grounds in circumstances where legitimate questions arise about political motivation. It is difficult to reconcile such activism with situations where genocide suspects, against whom evidence and indictments have been provided, have lived in those same jurisdictions for years. That is selectivity, and selectivity weakens the very principle we seek to protect. Madam Chair and colleagues, for many years this committee has discussed concerns about the abuse and misuse of universal jurisdiction. Randa believes the time has come for capitals to reflect seriously on this question in the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. This conversation must not weaken the responsibility to investigate and prosecute those who commit heinous crimes and then cross borders seeking refuge from criminal accountability. We must be able to do both, preserve universal jurisdiction as a tool against impunity while protecting it from abuse and political manipulation. This is where Randa believes the working groups should focus. The Secretary-General's report itself reflects concerns about procedural abuse and politically motivated prosecutions and the need for clear rules governing application of the principle. After all these years, we should not postpone this difficult legal and political conversation. Universal jurisdiction should provide no safe haven for perpetrators, but neither should it provide legal cover for political agendas. Rwanda will continue to support its responsible application. For universal jurisdiction to command universal confidence, it must mean justice without selectivity, accountability without double standards, and law without political manipulation. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Rwanda for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, Cameroon lights up with a statement that it pronounced on behalf of the African group and would like to add some points in its national capacity. Madam Chair, my delegation takes note of the SG's report on the topic under consideration. Cameroon reaffirms his commitment to combating impunity. for perpetrators of the most serious crimes that harm the entire international community. The punishment of these crimes is of key importance. Universal jurisdiction here can be a useful tool for combating impunity. However, Its effectiveness and legitimacy are indelibly linked to it being exercised in conformity with international law, while respecting principles of sovereignty and equality of states, as well as fundamental guarantees for a correct administration of justice. In this regard, my delegation would like to make a certain number of observations and highlights or additional considerations. Chair, first of all, universal jurisdiction ought to be subsidiary in nature. The competency of the state of nationality of the perpetrator or victim ought to continue to play a crucial role in the prosecution of crimes committed on their territory or involving their nationals. Exercise of universal jurisdiction should only be applied when there are circumstances that justify that another state should exercise competency, especially when the state has a more direct link to the case in hand and that can that this case that is more closely linked cannot or will not exercise its jurisdiction. In this context, dialogue and cooperation between states ought to be the route that is privileged, especially through mutual legal assistance, information exchange, extradition, transfer of the persons being prosecuted, as well as the protection of victims and witnesses. Secondly, It would be important to clarify the link between universal jurisdictions and other bases for a jurisdiction recognized in international law. These are principles that help to articulate international law, including non-intervention in internal affairs, sovereign equality, the principle of duality, and the rules governing the jurisdiction and immunity of states, which must be fully taken into account. These requirements are especially important because the many national initiatives based upon universal jurisdiction could lead to different interpretations and, in some cases, to tensions between States. It is also crucial to avoid any arbitrary, selective, or politically motivated exercise of universal jurisdiction so that this jurisdiction is not perceived as an instrument for political pressure or for undermining or duplicating the normally competent jurisdictions. Thirdly, the presence of a presumed perpetrator on a state that has not exercised its jurisdiction is a very important element. The possibility of engaging proceedings in absentia for this person leads to legal complexities, especially when it comes to a proceeding or sentence in absentia. This can not be presented as a universally applied established rule under international law. It ought to be continued to be examined in light of the practice of states and the requirements of a fair trial. Fourthly, procedural guarantees ought to be given full attention. Combating impunity should not undermine the right to defense, presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, or other guarantees recognized under international law. Investigations and proceedings should take place based on sufficiently robust evidence and be led by independent, judicial, authorities through transparent and predictable procedures. The principle of double jeopardy also deserves special attention in the context of extradition and others. Effective international cooperation requires predictability as to the legal evaluation of the facts that give rise to a demand for extradition or mutual legal assistance. should be reflected in the law of the requesting and requested state, and this is true for all extradition proceedings. Sixthly, Cameroon is cautious regarding the idea that universal jurisdiction as a general and autonomous principle should be considered customary in nature. There are still major disagreements as to the conditions for application of this jurisdiction, the crimes concerned, the potential existence of a connection, and the procedures that are applicable in these circumstances. We must distinguish between rules of universal jurisdiction expressly enshrined in international law instruments to which states have freely consented, and on the other hand, the alleged existence of a general principle for universal jurisdiction beyond such instruments. The Geneva Convention of 1949, the UN Convention of 1982, and others illustrate conventional regimes that lay out obligations or mechanisms with regard to application and competence of which the exercise should not be automatically equated with the recognition of a general universal jurisdiction applicable to all international jurisdictions. We ought to pay more attention to ensuring coherence and predictability in state practice. The changes of information on the national legislation and practice, including with regard to the launch of proceedings, the role of the public administration and jurisdictions, the presence of the defendant, et cetera. allow us to better distinguish which elements might be subject to consensus versus those that are still controversial, and this could help prevent a conflict between competencies and strengthen mutual trust between national judicial systems. Universal jurisdiction ought to be reserved for the most serious crimes concerning the international community as a whole. My delegation therefore remains cautious with regard to any attempt to establish an exhaustive list of offenses that would fall under its jurisdiction, so that we do not prematurely affect the development of international law or universalize the categories defined by national criminal codes. Madam Chair, universal jurisdiction should not be viewed in isolation from other elements of the battle against impunity. National capacity building for investigation and prosecutions, improving legal cooperation, technical assistance to states, development of mechanisms for collecting and storing evidence, strengthening national legal systems are other methods for contributing in the long term to the punishment of the most serious crimes. Therefore, we ought to strengthen the capacity of states instead of marginalizing national jurisdictions. Madam Chair. The work of the Sixth Committee ought to continue to focus on an approach based on an objective evaluation of the practice and legal positions of States. Our common goal should not be to arrive at an artificial uniformization of national laws, but rather to focus on improving comprehension of existing rules, identifying convergences and divergences between States, and, whenever possible, to to gradually find common guidelines that are compatible with international law. Fighting impunity and respect for sovereignty of states are not mutually incompatible. They ought to be pursued in a complementary way in a clear, predictable legal framework that upholds the fundamental principles of international law. Cameroon will continue in this spirit to participate constructively in the work of the committee and will strive together with all delegations to to find a common understanding of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco.

You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to commend the work of the Sixth Committee On item 85 of the agenda, which is the scope of application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirms its commitment, unwavering commitment, to combating impunity for the most serious crimes. These crimes jeopardize international peace and security and undermine our common human values, regardless of where they were committed, the nationality of the perpetrators, or that of their victims. Our doctrinal approach remains unchanged in this regard. Universal jurisdiction is an exceptional and subsidiary mechanism. It should in no case replace the primacy of the jurisdictional, territorial, or national competence. It also cannot be instrumentalized for political purposes at the expense of the fundamental principles of the sovereignty of states and noninterference in their internal affairs. Madam Chair. The commitment of Morocco is not limited to mere declarations of our intentions. It is translated into legislative measures that are concrete in nature. 2026 has marked a watershed moment for our legal arsenal with the entry into effect of our comprehensive reform of our criminal code and our criminal procedure code. From now on, Morocco has a modern framework for action that protects human rights. The major changes that my delegation would like to highlight before this prestigious committee include the amendment of our national code that now enshrines the establishment of competencies, a new legislative framework that clearly and methodically lays out the rules of extraterritorial competency for Moroccan jurisdictions. while respecting the balance of sovereignty. Secondly, we include the peremptory norms of international law, jus cogens, that is fully in keeping with our international obligations. Our new laws enshrined and clearly define the criminalization of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and enforced disappearances, while guaranteeing a lack of such limitations within Moroccan law. Thirdly, the primacy of international conventions and mutual legal assistance. The new provisions of law reaffirm the primacy of international conventions that have been ratified, especially those linked to combating torture, terrorism, trafficking in persons, money laundering, corruption, and transnational organized crime. They also include special investigation techniques to galvanize international cooperation in the application of the Al Dadera-Tukari principles. Madam Chair, these major national reforms show that a domestic legal system that is robust, modern, and open to international cooperation remains the most effective antidote to impunity. The Kingdom of Morocco believes that all extensions of the scope of international jurisdiction should take place in a conventional multilateral framework that is clearly defined to prevent any risk of unilateral abuses or conflicts of jurisdiction that could undermine the stability of interstate relations. My delegation would also like to highlight that the exercise of universal jurisdiction ought to fully respect the rules of international law with regard to the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal prosecution. In this regard, Morocco takes note of the conclusions of the ILC on this issue and reaffirms the importance of maintaining a fair balance between fighting impunity, respecting immunity, and the sovereignty of states. My delegation will speak in more detail about this issue during the consideration of the report of the ILC. In closing, the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirms its full willingness to contribute constructively to the work of the Working Group of the Six Committee in order to arrive at a balanced consensus on the issue of this principle. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, for chairing this proceedings this afternoon. Nigeria aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the Africa Group and the Non-Aligned Movement and makes the following remarks in its national capacity. First, we thank the Secretary-General for his report contained in document S/81/205 and the states that provided information for it. Nigeria recognizes universal jurisdiction as a principle of international law and a means of ensuring that the most serious crimes do not go unpunished. It is, however, an exceptional basis of jurisdiction to be exercised with full respect for the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs. Nigeria has consistently held that it should be used only as a last resort and never by stronger countries to impose their domestic legal systems on others. The concerns that led the Africa group to place this item on the agenda in 2009, namely the uncertain scope of the principle and its abuse, particularly against African officials, remain unresolved. Selective or politically motivated use of universal jurisdiction erodes its legitimacy and the trust on which international cooperation in criminal matters depends. Madam Chair, Nigeria's approach is grounded in our constitution and national law. Under Section 12 of the Constitution of Nigeria, a treaty has the force of law in Nigeria only to the extent that it has been enacted into law by our National Assembly. In this regard, the Geneva Conventions Act of Nigeria criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, while the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 addresses terrorism offenses. Nigeria continues to cooperate with other states through the Extradition Act and Mutual Legal Assistance Act in criminal matters. As a state party to the Rome Statute, Nigeria supports the principle of complementarity under which the primary responsibility to prosecute lies with national jurisdiction. The same logic should govern universal jurisdiction since the territorial state and the state of nationality have the closest connection to the case and the best access to evidence. Nigeria believes the work of this committee should establish clear limits of the exercise of universal jurisdiction agreed by states. In our view, the following safeguards are essential. A, the principle should apply only to a limited category of the most serious crimes whose universal character is clearly established in treaty or customary international law, and the list should not be extended by unilateral practice of individual states. B, A third state should act only where the territorial state or the state of nationality is unable or unwilling to do so, and after prior consultation with that state. C, the presence of the accused in the territory of the forum state should be a precondition for the exercise of jurisdiction, and trials in absentia should be excluded. And finally, decision to open proceedings should rest with the highest prosecutorial authority of the forum state, so that it is taken on legal grounds, free from political influence and with due regard to the fair trial rights of the accused. Nigeria also attaches importance to respect for the diversity of legal systems among Member States. Universal jurisdiction should be confined to conduct that international community as a whole regards as criminal and should not be used to apply to the standards of one legal system to the nationals of another. Nigeria welcomes a working group convened at this session portion to resolution 80/168. We believe the working group should distinguish universal jurisdiction from the treaty-based obligation to extradite or prosecute from other basis of extraterritorial jurisdiction and from the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals which rest on the concept of states. Nigeria further supports the Africa group in seeking a common normative basis for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, whether a declaration of principles or a legally binding instrument developed by states within this committee and adopted by consensus. Notwithstanding any outcome, national judicial capacity remains the most effective guarantee against impunity in the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Nigeria remains committed to ending impunity for the most serious crimes through universal jurisdiction exercised in good faith, within agreed limits, and with respect for the sovereignty of states. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Maldives. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Maldives welcome the continued consideration of the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The challenge before us is to ensure that any application of the principle remains firmly grounded in international law with sufficient clarity and safeguard. Certain crimes are of such gravity that any concern the international community as a whole. those responsible are not brought to justice, the consequences extend beyond the state where the crimes were committed. Questions concerning jurisdiction over such crimes must therefore be addressed carefully and consistently and in accordance with international law. The established legal framework concerning piracy and grave breach of the Geneva Convention demonstrate that international law recognizes circumstances where the accountability cannot depend solely on territorial jurisdiction. The question is to ensure that any exercise of universal jurisdiction applied within the legal limit and appropriate safeguard. I would like to make three points. First, any exercise of universal jurisdiction should firmly grounded in international law and guided by the established legal principle and interest of justice, rather than political consideration. It's appropriate must be consistent, impartial, and subject to appropriate legal safeguard. The situation in Gaza remind us why accountability matters. Allegation of serious violation of international humanitarian law must be dependent independently investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable through appropriate legal mechanism. International law must provide protection and justice to all people without distinction. Second, the principle must be applied firmly and consistently. Justice cannot depend on where the crime takes place or who is responsible. At the same time, its exercise must respect the state sovereignty, applicable immunities, due process, and the right of accused and established rule of procedure and evidence. Greater clarity is also needed on what constitute universal jurisdiction and how it differ from related basis of jurisdiction. It should be distinguished from territorial and nationality jurisdiction, territory-based obligation to extradite or prosecute, and the jurisdiction of international court and tribunals. Third, adequate resources are essential for the effective exercise of universal jurisdiction. Complex investigation, gathering of evidence abroad, and cross-border witness witnesses coordination place significant demand on national jurisdiction institute. The challenges are particularly relevant for small state with limited resources and institutional resources. International legal rule should take account of the practical capacity required for the state to apply them effectively. International cooperation must therefore be strengthened through mutual legal assistance, evidence sharing, specialized judicial training, and cooperation between national prosecutorial authorities. Too often, discussion on international legal principle focus on their scope without giving equal attention to the capability required for their implementation. Both must consider together with consideration how such jurisdiction could operate in practice. The Maldives support continued discussion in sixth committee toward a clear common understanding of principle and the safeguard governing its application. This discussion should help state understand its scope and and any consideration governing the exercise correctly, consistently, and in accordance with international law. Ultimately, the consideration of universal jurisdiction should strengthen legal certainty. The application must respect sovereignty, due process, applicable immunities, and capacity of state to fulfill their legal obligation. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we consider that universal jurisdiction should remain subsidiary to the primary basis of jurisdiction. and should not supersede or substitute the jurisdictions of states having a direct nexus with the alleged crime. Its exercise should, in principle, be contemplated where states having primary jurisdiction are unable or unwilling genuinely to investigate or prosecute. We keep our position that the exercise of universal jurisdiction should remain strictly confined to a limited category of the most serious crimes under international law, in respect of which such jurisdiction is recognized under international law. In our view, there is no need to initiate further work on the possible application of the concept of universal jurisdiction to other areas. The Secretary-General's successive reports compile information and observations submitted by Member States. These reports demonstrate that universal jurisdiction has predominantly been addressed in the context of criminal matters. The current report further reflects this practice. Madam Chair, As regards the contributions by international organizations, we reiterate our support for efforts against impunity. However, such efforts should not add to the existing ambiguities. In this regard, we recall our position concerning the study referred to in the report under the title Council of Europe. In essence, We consider that universal jurisdiction should remain an exceptional and subsidiary basis of jurisdiction to be exercised with due regard to the jurisdiction of states having a direct nexus with the alleged crime. We would like to underscore that the obligations under international treaties embodying the principle of aut dedere aut judicare are conceptually and legally distinct from universal jurisdiction proper. These treaty-based obligations to extradite or prosecute provide a reliable and predictable framework for ensuring accountability for the offenses covered by the relevant treaties. This framework respects state sovereignty and the applicable rules of international law. We would like to conclude by reiterating our commitment to the work of the Committee. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Czechia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group. We would like to deliver this statement in our national capacity. Algeria welcomes the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations before us on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction contained in document A/81/205. The report compiles the information and written observations submitted by member states on the scope of application of this principle in their national legal systems, as well as the relevant judicial practices. Madam Chair, with regard to the scope of application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, my delegation wishes to point out that there is no international consensus on a precise definition of this principle or the limits of its application. nor is there agreement on the crimes that may fall within its scope or on the issue of the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. This situation is due in part to the substantive differences among states' legal systems and the divergence in their judicial practice in this regard. Against this background, my delegation wishes to emphasize the following key points, which we consider essential foundations for this study and discussion of the scope of application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. First, the primacy of the principles of territoriality and nationality in establishing national jurisdiction. My delegation affirms that the principles of territoriality and nationality constitute, as a matter of principle, the established basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, as they are among the well-settled principles of international law. they are ingrained in the state's legal practice. Accordingly, recourse to the principle of universal jurisdiction should remain exceptional and it should be regarded as a mechanism resorted to in order to prevent perpetrators of crimes from impunity in situations where the competent national courts are unable to or decline to exercise their jurisdiction. Second, the complementarity and exceptional nature of the principle of universal jurisdiction. My delegation underlines that the principle of universal jurisdiction should not be understood as a substitute. It's not a principle of subsidiarity. Rather, it's an exceptional and complementary mechanism to be invoked only where the conditions and safeguards previously referred to are met, thereby ensuring that the inherent jurisdiction of national courts is not undermined. Third. the primary responsibility of the state for the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes proceeding from the primacy of national jurisdiction based on the principles of territoriality and nationality, my delegation emphasizes that the primary responsibility for investigating crimes, prosecuting perpetrators, and prosecuting perpetrators lies with the state in whose territory the crime was committed or with the state of nationality of the perpetrators or the victim in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction established under international law and relevant national legislation. Fourth, the need to respect the principles of international law in the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In the exceptional circumstances in which the conditions for resorting to the principle of universal jurisdiction are fulfilled, my delegation stresses the need for this principle to be applied in full conformity and respect with the principles of UN Charter and relevant rules of international law, foremost among them good faith, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, and respect for the rules on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Fifth, defining and limiting the scope of application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. My delegation considers that universal jurisdiction should not apply to all international crimes. Rather, its application should be confined to a limited category of particularly serious crimes that affect the conscience of humanity as a whole and which the international community agrees constitute grave crimes warranting the application of this principle, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of genocide. In this context, my delegation warns against the risks of misuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction, including its selective, arbitrary, or discriminatory application, or its use for political purposes and objectives. Such practices undermine confidence in the mechanisms of justice, impair the credibility of international efforts aimed at combating impunity, and prejudice the principles of sovereignty and equality among states. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Algeria reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, to the provisions of international law, and to promoting an international order founded upon the rule of law, mutual respect, and the sovereign equality of states. We further stress the need to adopt a balanced and rigorous approach in studying and discussing the scope of application of the principle of jurisdiction, one that takes into account the differences among national legal systems, respects the rules and principles of international law, and ensures that this principle is not misused or applied in a manner contrary to its objectives and purposes. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You have the floor, ma'am.

Madam Chair, the Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the statements given by the European Union on behalf of the EU and its member states. In addition to these statements, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to share the following. In the view of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, universal jurisdiction is an important tool in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes under international law. Furthermore, universal jurisdiction contributes to implementing the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This topic has been discussed in the Sixth Committee for some years now, and even though some progress has been achieved, it is also clear that the views and practices of states concerning the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction the universal jurisdiction vary widely. For the Netherlands, the most relevant piece of legislation concerning universal jurisdiction is the International Crimes Act of 19 June 2003, which entered into force in October 2003. The Act provides a basis for the exercise of universal jurisdiction by the Netherlands. as it allows authorities to investigate and prosecute the crimes covered by the International Crimes Act when these have been committed abroad by foreign nationals. However, the International Crimes Act does not provide for full unlimited jurisdiction in respect of international crimes. The judicial authorities of the Netherlands cannot open an investigation into alleged international crimes committed abroad by foreigners against non-nationals without the suspect having been identified and present in the country. Investigations into a general situation are not possible, unless the victim and/or the alleged perpetrator are Dutch nationals. In addition to the International Crimes Act, the Netherlands' Crimes Code provides a basis for the exercise of universal jurisdiction by the Netherlands over the crime of piracy committed on the high seas. Under Dutch law, dual criminality is not a prerequisite for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes. The Kingdom of the Netherlands supports the ILC study and awaits its results.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the State of Israel. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Israel acknowledges the opportunity to continue engaging in an open discussion on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction within the framework of the Sixth Committee. At the outset, Israel reaffirms its commitment to combating impunity, including ensuring that perpetrators of the most serious international crimes are brought to justice. In this regard, Israel emphasize the primary responsibility of domestic legal systems, particularly those possessing the closest genuine jurisdiction links to investigate and prosecute. At the same time, Israel shares concern constantly expressed by many states regarding the risk of abuse or misuse of universal jurisdiction. A main concern is actors seeking to use the principle of universal jurisdiction in a politically motivated, selective, or discriminatory manner. Beyond undermining the core principle of sovereignty, subsidiarity, and international committee, such misuse risk eroding the legitimacy of international law, over burdening domestic legal systems, and impairing diplomatic relations and international cooperation. These risks are magnified by the lack of universally agreed definitions, conditions, established state practice, and opinio juris, particularly where application may conflict with conventional or customary international law. Madam Chair, today's debate and the inflammatory political rhetoric witnessed here only serve as further practical demonstration of these precise risks. Israel regrets that certain actors have been unable to refrain time and again from misusing this forum for inappropriate and accusatory political statements, underscoring the danger of abusing another professional legal forum for agendas outside its purpose. It was astonishing to hear the Palestinian delegation declare that they deplore the politicization of international justice. There is no one that uses, abuses, and takes advantage of the international law and international justice for political goals more than the Palestinian delegation. Israel refuses to lend credibility to such politicized interjections or lower the standards of this debate. Israel will dedicate its allotted time to the substantive legal discussions of the matter at hand. Madam Chair, Israel notes the efforts undertaken by the Sixth Committee and the working group to foster clear understanding of the scope of the principle of universal jurisdiction under the domestic and international law, while also acknowledging the deriving views, while also acknowledging the diverging views held by states. Yet, low participation in recent reporting cycles, alongside sparse and inconsistent submissions suggest that fundamental divergences persist within the international community regarding definition, legal status, scope, and conditions for applications of this principle. These reporting outcomes confirm that identifying sufficient state practice and opinio juris continue to pose a major methodological challenge. This challenge is further compounded by limited public information on how complaints invoking universal jurisdiction are handled at the national level. In particular, the range of legal grounds for declining to initiate, admit, or prosecute such complaints remain undisclosed, making it often impossible to determine whether a complaint was dismissed as unfounded, considered unlikely to succeed on the merits, or rejected on the basis of immunity under customary international law. Consequently, state reports submitted to this reform provide only a partial picture, omitting the vast numbers of unpersecuted complaints whose legal outcomes remain unknown. The evident lack of state practice and opinio juris calls into question whether international law currently provides a clear basis for the exercise of universal jurisdiction against state officials in respect of official acts, particularly where the official's state objects to exercise of such jurisdiction by the foreign state. In any event, even assuming its applicability and consideration of this doctrine must proceed with extreme caution due to the absence of clear grounding in customary international law. It is therefore essential that exercise of universal jurisdiction remain a discretionary mechanism of last resort, subject to robust domestic procedural safeguards designed to prevent misuse and politicization while ensuring compliance with international obligations. Such safeguards may include requiring the decision to exercise such jurisdictional basis be made at the earliest procedural stages by the forum state's highest ranking executive officials. This decision would follow formal consultations with the state possessing primary jurisdiction links and strictly subject to an explicit written waiver of immunity where it applies under international law. In this context, it is critical to recall the core principle of sovereign immunity and the fundamental obligations under customary international law deriving directly from it to respect the immunities of state officials for which no exception applies when acting in official capacity. Israel maintains serious reservations regarding the work of the International Law Commission on the topic and will address this matter in a relevant forum. Madam Chair. Significant differences reflected in lacking state practice and opinio juris alongside the lack of available material data in this regard highlight that it is unfounded, inappropriate or premature as a matter of law to consider imposing rules and standards for universal jurisdiction. Moreover, treaty obligation to extradite or prosecute are legally and conceptually distinct from the principle of universal jurisdiction and should not be cited as evidence of state practice or opinio juris. The lack of prosecutions or extraditions in cases where immunities have been asserted by states for their officials is also telling. Madam Chair, under these circumstances, any rush towards normative conclusions on this matter remains both premature and counterproductive. Still, this in no way diminishes Israel's enduring commitment to the rule of law or to combating impunity through legitimate legal framework. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Israel. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cote d'Ivoire. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, Cote d'Ivoire aligns itself with the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. And in our national capacity, we wish to make the following comments. My delegation thanks the Secretary-General for the quality of his report under document A/81/205 that emphasizes the observations judicial rules and legal practices and measures adopted by several member states to implement the principle of universal jurisdiction in their national jurisdictions. We also take note of the comments made by some organizations and relevant observers to the United Nations on this issue. Madam Chair, the principle of universal jurisdiction is designed to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of the most serious crimes that afflict the conscience of humanity. This principle that allows for a state to prosecute the perpetrators of grave crimes, in particular crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and genocide, regardless of where these crimes were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or the victims. lead to major legal and political questions. Addressing this matter, the General Assembly seeks to clarify the conditions for universal jurisdiction to apply to prevent its abuse for political purposes and to promote an objective, coherent and equitable approach to the fight against impunity. This question is and therefore a useful tool for strengthening the rule of law, security, peace, stability, and the sustainable development of any country. It's therefore a significant step forward in discussions on criminal justice and human rights. Cote d'Ivoire. which is a country that is absolutely committed to the ideals of peace and the fight against impunity, welcomes the noble objective pursued in this principle. It's in this regard that in order to modernize criminal justice cooperation and to adapt and align with international norms, Cote d'Ivoire adopted law 2024-349 of the 9th of June, 2024 on extradition. This text defines the conditions for the application of universal jurisdiction and establishes that those accused of grave offenses who are foreign nationals can be prosecuted before Ivorian jurisdictions or before other foreign jurisdictions when the international legal instruments provide for this. When it comes to Ivorian nationals, they are to be prosecuted before the jurisdictions of our country. Indeed, this provision is part of the broader framework of the reform of the legal system undertaken following the grave armed crisis that our country experienced. Madam Chair, it must be underscored that the application of universal jurisdiction does not exclude the sovereignty of states. It must operate in the strict respect for the norms enshrined in the UN Charter, in particular the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, the freedom to pursue relations of peaceful cooperation, and with respect for criminal immunity for the representatives of states before foreign jurisdictions. For my delegation, when it comes to exercising universal jurisdiction, primacy must be accorded to the jurisdictions of the state on whose territory the alleged offence was committed. This approach encourages the undertaking of effective and contextualised investigations where the alleged crimes were committed. And it's only when there's a proven incapacity or an obvious lack of will to prosecute that jurisdiction can be exercised by a third country or by any other foreign jurisdiction in line with the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity. Universal jurisdiction must therefore be understood as a complementary principle that is used not automatically, but when it is necessary to use it in close cooperation with the state where the crime was committed. Madam Chair, I wish to conclude by assuring you of Cote d'Ivoire's commitment to the principle of universal jurisdiction and to its just transparent application in line with the legislation of the states involved and with international law. My country is committed to contributing to increasing our understanding of this issue. Thank you.

Thank you, representative of Cote d'Ivoire, for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, the Philippines thanks the Secretary General for his report and welcomes the continuation of the working group's consideration of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, particularly the General Assembly's invitation to examine how the principle is distinct from other related concepts. We believe that this exercise should be grounded in international law, national legislation, and judicial practice. Philippine experience illustrates both its long-held recognition of universal jurisdiction and the importance of distinguishing its legal foundations from the conditions governing its exercise. First, on the nature and scope of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction permits states to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses, irrespective of where they were committed or the nationality of the offender or victim. It is distinct from territorial, nationality-based, and protective jurisdiction, which requires a particular connection with the prosecuting state. It must also be distinguished from or the obligation to extradite or prosecute. The former concerns a basis for establishing jurisdiction. The latter concerns obligations relating to prosecution or extradition. Although they may operate together, they are not interchangeable. Nor should universal jurisdiction be conflated with the jurisdiction of international criminal courts, which derives from their constitutive instruments. Second, on Philippine legislation and judicial practice. While territoriality remains the general rule under Philippine criminal law, our jurisprudence has long recognized universal jurisdiction over particular offenses. In the case of People versus Lolo and Sarao in 1922, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over piracy committed outside Philippine territory against foreign victims, recognizing piracy as an offense subject to universal jurisdiction. Our treaty commitments further inform Philippine practice. Under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols I, the Philippines recognizes its obligations concerning grave breaches of international humanitarian law. The Convention Against Torture, likewise, requires jurisdiction under specified circumstances, including where an alleged offender is present and not extradited. These commitments are complemented by Philippine Republic Act No. 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. Section 17 permits jurisdiction over these crimes committed abroad, where the accused or victim is a Filipino, or where the accused, irrespective of nationality, is present in the Philippines. The latter ground is particularly significant because it permits jurisdiction without a territorial or nationality connection subject to the accused's presence. In the case of Bayan Muna versus Romulo in 2011 and Pangilinan versus Cayetano in 2021, the Philippine Supreme Court also examined the domestic framework for prosecuting international crimes and its relationship with international criminal jurisdiction. These developments underscore an important distinction between the legal recognition of universal jurisdiction and its actual exercise in criminal proceedings. Third, on lessons from Philippine practice. The Philippines considers it essential to distinguish jurisdiction established under specific treaty regimes from jurisdiction permitted under customary international law. The Geneva Conventions provide an established framework for grave breaches, while customary international humanitarian law supports universal jurisdiction over war crimes in international and non-international armed conflicts. The precise scope and conditions applicable to other international crimes warrant further examination without assuming identical rules across all categories. Philippine legislation also illustrates the importance of coordination among competent jurisdiction. Section 17 of Republic Act number 9851 provides for possible deference to proceedings before other competent courts, surrender or extradition, and safeguards against duplicative proceedings. Effective implementation further requires access to evidence and witnesses, international cooperation, mutual legal assistance, and full respect for due process and fair trial guarantees. Madam Chair, moving forward, we believe that the working group should focus on clarifying the legal basis of universal jurisdiction. distinguishing them from obligations to extradite or prosecute, and identifying the conditions governing its exercise. Our experience demonstrates that universal jurisdiction can be recognized through judicial practice, treaty obligations, and domestic legislation, while remaining subject to clear legal conditions and procedural safeguards. Greater clarity informed by diverse national practices will help ensure responsible exercise of universal jurisdiction and our shared objective of ensuring accountability for the gravest crimes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Philippines for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank the Secretary-General for his report included in document A/81/205, which provides comprehensive information and observations of the Member States, including their relevant legislation on the topic. My delegation continues to follow with high interest the discussion and developments on this agenda item. India maintains its principled position with the firm view that those who commit crimes must be brought to justice and be punished. A criminal should not go scot-free owing to the procedural technicalities, including lack of jurisdiction. The term jurisdiction refers to two aspects. First, the rule-making and second, the rule-enforcing. The widely recognized theories of jurisdiction include territorial, which is based on the place where the offence was committed, nationality, which is based on the nationality of the accused or the victim, and protective, which is based on the national interest affected. Territorial, nationality and protective jurisdiction theories require a connection between the state asserting jurisdiction and the offence, including nationality of the offender or the victim, or the place of commission of the offence. Madam Chair, a state invoking universal jurisdiction claims to exercise jurisdiction over any offender, irrespective of the question of nationality or the place of commission of the offence. or any link between that state and the offender, we must consider whether the jurisdiction provided for the specific serious international crimes in certain treaties could be converted into a commonly exercisable jurisdiction of a wide range of offenses. Various treaties mandate state parties either to prosecute a criminal or send him or her over to a state which is willing to prosecute the criminal. The obligation to extradite or prosecute is distinct from the principle of universal jurisdiction. Under international law, piracy on the high seas is the only crime over which claims of universal jurisdiction are universally accepted. A few international treaties have provided for the exercise of universal jurisdiction in respect of certain crimes like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, et cetera. They include, among others, the four Geneva Conventions and the Apartheid Convention. This includes treaty-based jurisdiction rather than customary law applicable to all states. We stress the need for preventing the misuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction. We look forward to a thorough and meaningful discussion on the relevant elements of scope and application of the concept of universal jurisdiction in this session. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of India for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ethiopia. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ethiopia aligns itself with the statements delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the NAM. We note the report of the Secretary-General contained in document A/81/2016. and would like to make the following remarks in our national capacity. Madam Chair, considering universal jurisdiction as one among the instruments in combating impunity, we call for a careful scrutiny of its scope and application in order to ensure its consistency with other principles of international law, such as sovereignty, non-interference and political independence of states and sovereign immunity of state officials. Technical aspects of its application in terms of international legal cooperation also merit a thorough discussion. Ethiopia believes that universal jurisdiction should only be used as a last resort and in a manner that supports the primary role of Member States with direct links to the specific incident. only in the event that the state with primary jurisdictional link fail to investigate and prosecute the crime, should universal jurisdiction be exercised by others. The primary objective of the inclusion of this agenda item by the United Republic of Tanzania on behalf of the African group in 2009 was to settle or determine the context and extent of the application of universal jurisdiction. The invocation of the principle of universal jurisdiction is important to fight impunity as well as to punish perpetrators of the most serious international crimes. In this light, the scope of universal jurisdiction shall be limited to crimes which are committed against the conscience of the international community in violation of international law. Its application shall be consistent with international law and the conduct of international relations. It should not be used as a political instrument or a tool to pressure states and discredit governments. We believe deliberation on this agenda item should focus on the determination of the extent and application of the principle, and in a later stage, to establish regularly provisions for its scope and application as originally envisaged. The progress of contemporary technology and the increasing interconnectedness of the world have created interests of states and the mobility of their citizens across borders. This again increases the possibility of the occurrence of transnational crimes and the interest to prosecute such crimes. Madam Chair, for Zermur, Ethiopia is of the view that the principle of universal jurisdiction should not be confused with the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, ICC. and other similar ad hoc mechanisms, which only have jurisdiction based on specific agreements between states. And we do not support any approximation between the competence of the IC over its member states and universal jurisdiction. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ethiopia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The persistence of crimes that affect the international community as a whole requires us to preserve mechanisms that are able to prevent the perpetrators from finding safe haven. Universal jurisdiction serves as one means. to meet this imperative, distinct from the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals and the principle of extradite or prosecute. Universal jurisdiction must operate on a subsidiary basis, providing primacy to the state on whose territory the crimes were committed, and this due to their proximity to the crime, the victims and the evidence. Nevertheless, It should not be turned into a formula that perpetuates inaction from the international community when said state is not able to exercise criminal jurisdiction. Mexico believes that it's necessary to delve into further depth into discussions on the need for the accused to be present during the criminal proceedings. The presence on the territory of the state exercising jurisdiction as a requisite for initiating proceedings and exercising fully the adjudicative function can strengthen the right to defence and allow the implementation of judicial decisions. Nevertheless, this must be weighed up alongside the possibility of competent authorities carrying out preliminary measures such as receiving complaints, preserving evidence and identifying victims and witnesses. And this in order to avoid loss of evidence and make a future trial possible. Although there is no definitive list of the crimes. that should apply to universal jurisdiction, Mexico does recognize that there is broad agreement on crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and torture. We believe that the application of universal jurisdiction must not be politicized, and as a result, selective investigations must be avoided. In all cases, procedural and criminal safeguards must be respected that can ensure a fair trial, and these include the presumption of innocence, the right to benefit from adequate defence, equality of arms and judicial independence. Madam Chair, In terms of the questions that require more in-depth study, Mexico reiterates that the International Law Commission can provide valuable technical analysis. Therefore, we reiterate our request to the ILC to include this issue on its current programme of work. It is worth recalling that in 2018, when the International Law Commission considered the inclusion of universal jurisdiction on its programme of work on the long term, it identified the existence of sufficient state practice, precedent and doctrine in order to move forward with study on the issue. Progressing with the preliminary proposal of the commission to lead to guidance or conclusions would enable us to have a solid basis in order to continue our substantive discussions. The contribution of the International Law Commission would help us to come out of the stagnation that this issue faces here at the Sixth Committee, since thus far we are still using the same working document from 2011 and its respective annex from 2016. The work of the ILC would encompass both the codification and progressive development of international law and would enrich our considerations. At the same time, we would enrich its work with our debates. This could be addressed by way of a working group, like we did for rising sea levels. Universal jurisdiction should not be an unlimited promise, nor should it be an exceptional tool condemned to inaction. It must be a mechanism that is clearly legally ring-fenced and effective, focused on closing spaces for impunity and dispensing justice to the victims through legitimate proceedings. In addition to this, we must progress with the study and harmonization of different points of view on its nature and application. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the representative of Mexico for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Chair. I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his latest report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The submissions contained in that report provide useful information on applicable treaties, national legal rules and emerging judicial practice.

The submissions.

Also highlight the diversity of domestic approaches to the basis, scope and exercise of jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad. Recent national practice demonstrates that domestic proceedings can make an important contribution to delivering accountability. However, the practice also serves to illustrate the importance of identifying the precise jurisdictional basis in each case. Not every exercise of jurisdiction over conduct committed abroad will amount to an exercise of universal jurisdiction. The UK considers the term universal jurisdiction to refer to national jurisdiction over a crime, irrespective of the location of the alleged crime, the nationality of the alleged perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or other links with the prosecuting state. It is distinct from the jurisdiction of international judicial mechanisms and from other categories of extraterritorial jurisdiction, including jurisdiction based on nationality. It is also conceptually distinct from, albeit sometimes linked to, treaty-based obligations to extradite or prosecute. Our debate has highlighted the continued absence of international consensus concerning the nature, scope and application of universal jurisdiction. We also note that there are significant practical constraints to delivering justice through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In our view, the authorities of the state in whose territory an offence was committed will generally be best placed to secure the evidence and the witnesses that are necessary for a successful prosecution. Questions as to whether universal jurisdiction or another form of extraterritorial jurisdiction should apply to a particular crime are therefore best approached collaboratively between states, including through treaties. with a focus on identifying those steps that will make an effective contribution to addressing the crime concerned. Where universal jurisdiction is available, appropriate procedural requirements remain an important safeguard in ensuring its responsible exercise. The UK welcomes further consideration by the committee of the topic, including the distinction between universal jurisdiction and related concepts. Greater convergence on the relevant categories and definitions would support a clearer shared understanding of the scope and application of the principle.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. So for the sake of brevity and heeding the request from the Bureau yesterday to reduce our statements, I would please request the Secretary to consider the statement uploaded on eStatements as our official statement. And so I'll just make very brief remarks first. Of course, Egypt aligns with the statements of the non-aligned movement of the African group. And I've listened to many of the statements that were read by colleagues, and I agree with the sentiments expressed by our colleagues from Algeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Morocco, Nigeria, Turkey, and India. And briefly, Egypt reaffirms that the principle of territoriality remains the principal basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and the universal jurisdiction remains exceptional, subsidiary, and residual. Second, Egypt reiterates that it is essential to proceed on the basis of a precise legal definition of universal jurisdiction, and I agree with the position just expressed by our dear colleague from the United Kingdom on the need to proceed on a clear understanding of this doctrine and how it is distinguished from other forms of jurisdiction. Third, Egypt underscores that universal jurisdiction must not be conflated with the principle of and is important to better understand the distinction between these two doctrines and the treaty regimes establishing specific forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot automatically be relied upon to establish the existence or scope of a general rule permitting universal jurisdiction. Fourth, it's important to preserve the distinction between principles of jus cogens and procedural rules relating to jurisdiction. The fact that a certain prohibition is recognized as a peremptory rule of international law does not automatically translate into a procedural mechanism for enforcement of the said prohibition. Fifth and finally, Egypt reiterates that the exercise of universal jurisdiction must remain consistent with other applicable rules, especially those relating to the sovereign immunity of states and the immunity of state officials. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt for his intervention and statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Singapore. You have the floor.

Madam chair Singapore thanks the secretary-general for his report on this agenda item the principle of universal jurisdiction is important in the international community's fight against impunity as the laws perpetrators to be held responsible for the crimes they have committed the principle reflects the recognition that certain crimes are so years and of such exceptional gravity that their commission shocks the conscience of humanity. The international community therefore has a common interest and shared responsibility in combating such crimes and bringing justice to the victims. Singapore's views on this topic are well known. My delegation would like to reiterate four key points. First, Universal jurisdiction is not and should not be the primary basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by states. Instead, the primary basis should be the territory principle or the nationality principle. This means that the main responsibility for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction lies with the state in whose territory the crime has occurred or the state of nationality of the alleged perpetrator. Universal jurisdiction should only be invoked as a last resort, to prevent the alleged perpetrator from continuing to act with impunity in situations where no state is able or willing to exercise the other established bases of jurisdiction, including the territory and nationality principles. This serves to reduce the potential for abuse while ensuring that perpetrators of the most heinous crimes are held accountable. Second, the principle of universal jurisdiction should only be applied in respect of particularly grave crimes which are of interest to and affect the international community as a whole, and where there is general agreement in the international community that it is appropriate to apply the principle. In this respect, we note that there remains significant variance as to the specific crimes which delegations consider to be crimes of international concern subject to universal jurisdiction. Third, we should keep in mind a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the exercise of universal jurisdiction, which is the principle of customary international law, and on the other hand, the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to a treaty obligation to extradite or prosecute, or the exercise of jurisdiction by international tribunals constituted under specific treaty regimes. The exercise of jurisdiction in each of these scenarios has different sets of considerations, juridical basis, objectives, and rationales. They should not be conflated. Finally, universal jurisdiction exists within the larger international legal order. It cannot be applied in isolation from or to the exclusion of other applicable principles of international law. These principles include the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Universal jurisdiction must also be applied in a manner consistent with the principles of due process, transparency, rules of procedure and evidence, and international comity, amongst others. My delegation hopes that the discussions at the working group, including on the question of how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts, will be assisted by the points we have highlighted. We look forward to the discussions with great interest. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Singapore for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, first of all, please allow me to convey how proud my delegation is to see you an African woman presiding over the work of the Sixth Committee. Madam Chair, Cuba aligns itself with the statement made by the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. We take note of the Secretary-General's report drafted on the basis of the contributions of Member States contained in document A/81/205. Madam Chair, universal jurisdiction cannot be employed to undermine the integrity of different legal systems that exist across the world, undermine national jurisdiction or the values and integrity of any legal system, nor should it be used selectively for political purposes or undermine the norms or principles of international law. The application of this principle by national courts must be done in absolute respect for the principles of sovereign equality, political independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. These principles of international law constitute a limit on the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, preserving its suppletive nature in relation to the action and national jurisdiction of every state. and is limited to exceptional circumstances when there are no other ways to avoid impunity. Cuba expressed its profound concern over the undue use of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the universal, selective and politically motivated exercise of the jurisdiction of the courts of developed countries against persons or legal entities of developing countries. without this being enshrined in any kind of international treaty or norm. We condemn all types of laws of this nature directed against other states that have grave effects on international relations. Madam Chair, The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction is an issue, a wide-ranging issue, whose aspects must be debated by the General Assembly as the highest level deliberative body of the organization, where all member states are represented on an equal footing. The ultimate goal of the work of the Assembly on this file is to establish international guidelines that avoid the undue use of this principle and that safeguard international peace and security. Cuba supports the drafting of international norms or guidelines that clearly establish the conditions under which or within which limits the principle of universal jurisdiction can be invoked, as well as the crimes to which this principle would apply. In this regard, we are grateful for the work of the open-ended working group and the work carried out by its chairperson. The crimes that come under the application of this principle must be restricted to crimes against humanity, and must be invoked when it has been recognized that there's no other way of prosecuting criminally the perpetrators of these crimes. The immunity of state officials, diplomats, and other high-level officials under international law must not be subject to any type of questioning and this is under long-term universal acceptance, under universal jurisdiction, and this is contrary to the principles of the UN Charter and the rule of law. Madam Chair, my delegation reiterates our profound support to the efforts of the international community in its fight against impunity and the prosecution of those, the perpetrators of the gravest crimes committed against the whole of humanity. In this regard, the Cuban legal system has substantive criminal law means to prosecute Cuban citizens, foreigners or stateless individuals if any act committed is a crime against humanity or against human dignity, collective health or if the crime committed is a prosecutable under international treaties. By way of conclusion, we reiterate the importance of not having double standards and the strict observance of international law if we really want to achieve positive results and not water down the legitimacy of our struggle for humanist values of peace and justice. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Burkina Faso. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Madam Chair, my delegation lines itself with the statements delivered by the Islamic Republic of Iran and Cameroon, respectively, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group. We make the following comments in our national capacity. My delegation thanks the Secretary-General for his report A/81/205 on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. This principle, although a noble one, often gives rise to questions or even concerns in the current state of state practice with regard to its definition, scope, and application. Madam Chair, the debate that we are holding today is especially relevant in a context in which all legal ambiguities surrounding the principle of universal jurisdiction ought to be fully addressed. The application of this principle may be one of the mechanisms of last resort to combat impunity for the most serious crimes. Indeed, its application is based upon the idea that the most serious crimes against humanity as a whole should not be unpunished, regardless of where they were committed or who the perpetrator is. It also can help prevent impunity for the perpetrators of such crimes by allowing states to intervene when the jurisdictions that usually have competency are not able or willing to prosecute these crimes. This gives rise for states to the obligation to uphold and respect the rights of the international community as a whole. Madam Chair, the legal framework of Burkina Faso affirms the universal jurisdiction of jurisdictions of Burkina Faso for handling the most serious crimes, especially war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This Affirmation is based upon the collective awareness that international crimes affect the entirety of the international community and therefore cannot enjoy any form of impunity. However, my country notes with regret that the application of this principle is often instrumentalized, politicized, and undermines the hopes placed upon it. As an exception to the principles of territoriality and nationality of criminal law, the principle of universal jurisdiction, which is subsidiary by its very nature, ought to be applied cautiously and in good faith while strictly upholding the fundamental principles of international law as enshrined in the UN Charter, universal instruments in this field and the rules of general international law. In addition, my delegation is greatly concerned by the implications of the applicability of universal jurisdiction to representatives of states enjoying immunity under international law. An inappropriate application would undermine the sovereign equality of the states concerned, as well as to non-interference in the internal affairs of states, and would de facto constitute a serious violation of international law. National jurisdictions that misuse this jurisdiction would make it into an instrument that is illegitimate and illegal that serves darker interests. In any case, my delegation would like to note that immunities belong to the state and that only the state can lift them in order to allow for the correct administration of justice. We condemn any questioning of the immunity of immunity to foreign criminal jurisdiction of state officials based upon the principle of universal jurisdiction. And we oppose its application in violation of the UN Charter, as well as of customary international law and general principles of law. Madam Chair, the scope of the principle of universal jurisdiction ought to be clearly defined, and its limits ought to be formally set in order to ensure it is applied in an objective manner to avoid any abuse. In closing, Madam Chair, my delegation remains open to constructive debate on this agenda item and is committed to combating impunity for the most serious crimes while respecting the fundamental principles of international law. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Burkina Faso for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to begin by thanking the Secretary-General for his report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. In many of our discussions here in the Sixth Committee and beyond, one key word echoes throughout different topics: accountability. Holding accountable those who violate their legal obligations is, after all, a premise of the rule of law and a condition for any legal system to be meaningful and effective. This holds true for international law just as much as for domestic law, for states as well for individuals. Yet, accountability requires authority with the power and willingness to act. When it comes to criminal accountability for the most serious international crimes as prescribed in relevant international law, all states have an interest and an obligation in ensuring there is no impunity, even when the ordinary domestic mechanisms to achieve this fail. Universal jurisdiction stems from this fundamental commitment by states to react, promptly and swiftly to serious violations of peremptory norms of international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. It ensures that criminals cannot shield themselves from the law when territorial jurisdiction is either unable or unwilling to act. However, The rule of law demands that accountability be pursued through means that are not only effective, but also rigorously lawful. Full adherence to other tenets of international law, such as the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention, is non-negotiable. This is why universal jurisdiction by states must be soundly exercised never allowing its abuse as a means of unlawful coercion. The adequate exercise of universal jurisdiction can be summarized in three general principles. The first principle is the exceptionality of universal jurisdiction. Only the most serious violation of peremptory norms of international law such as genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture, may entail the exercise of this modality of jurisdiction. The second principle is that of subsidiarity. To safeguard the fair exercise of criminal jurisdiction and avoid its abuse, primary jurisdiction must always be accorded to the state with the closest link to the crime. Connecting factors such as territoriality and nationality are key. Only when the state with primary jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to act, may the custody state invoke universal jurisdiction. Therefore, the custody state must always ensure that state with more direct connections to the crime or international criminal forum are not already pursuing investigations or criminal proceedings. This consideration is also relevant to other obligations under international law, such as the audiatur et judicari principle. At all times, the custody state should seek to cooperate with states having primary jurisdiction. The third principle, Madam Chair, is the impossibility of initiating proceedings in the absence of the offender. For a state to initiate proceedings invoking universal jurisdiction, the accused must be present on the territory of the foreign state. This prevents the abuse of criminal jurisdiction and safeguards the due process and other relevant human rights. Other rules of international law, they also impose restriction on the exercise of universal jurisdiction. For instance, the immunities of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction constitute a clear limit no state is entitled to cross. As noted by the ICJ in the arrest warrant case, jurisdiction does not imply absence of immunity, while absence of immunity does not imply jurisdiction. Likewise, immunity does not and cannot mean impunity. States should ensure the officials are duly held accountable when responsible for serious international crimes. Madam Chair, Brazil supports continued discussions on this topic within the Sixth Committee. If exercised in a fair and impartial manner and under the conditions imposed by international law, universal jurisdiction can be a helpful mechanism to promote justice and safeguard the effectiveness of international law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Eritrea. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation takes note of the Secretary-General's report A/81/205, in which we have reviewed the information and observations on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, including the submissions from Member States and relevant observers. Eritrea aligns itself with the statements delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. I would now like to make the following remarks in my national capacity. Madam Chair, Eritrea attaches great importance to this agenda item, which the African group requested to be included in 2009, precisely because of the manner in which universal jurisdiction has been used and abused by foreign courts, particularly against African officials. More than a decade and a half later, the reality remains unchanged, and so does the relevance of the agenda item. Eritrea stresses that the universal jurisdiction is supplementary in nature and must not be used as a substitute for national jurisdiction. The primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes under international law rests with the domestic jurisdiction where the alleged offence occurred, acting in accordance with domestic law and without external interference. Far from acceptance, divergent views among states make it difficult to establish universal jurisdiction. As a universally applicable principle, there remain considerable divergences on the list of offenses that could be subjected to its application, as well as on the role of customary international law, with significant differences in state practice and opinio juris. We also are concerned by the increasing extraterritorial exercise of criminal jurisdiction by domestic courts and its persistent selective application, whereby certain states conveniently invoke criminal justice mechanisms to pursue vested interests while evading accountability for crimes allegedly perpetrated by their own nationals in other countries. Such abuse must be rectified against the general principles of international law including sovereign equality, territorial jurisdiction, and the immunity of state officials, as reflected in the African Union model on universal jurisdiction. Moreover, in the view of my delegation, the manner in which universal jurisdiction has been pursued fails to recognize restorative justice as a legitimate element of post-conflict transitions. which risk undermining nationally owned peace processes and locally grounded transitional justice arrangements tailored to specific contexts and the needs of affected societies. In this regard, Eritrea urges a cautious approach in defining the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. We welcome the Sixth Committee's decision to establish a working group at the present 81st session to continue a thorough discussion. In closing, Madam Chair, Eritrea supports an international justice system that serves all peoples and nations equally. We look forward to substantive deliberations in the working group format during this present session. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Eritrea for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Myanmar. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I thank the Secretary-General for his report on this agenda item. Myanmar aligns its stance with the statement of NAM. Madam Chair, the concept of universal jurisdiction is deeply rooted in the principles of international law and the very spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. It is founded on the premise that Certain crimes are so exceptionally grave that they shock the conscience of humanity. While interpretations of universal jurisdiction may vary among States, my delegation firmly believes that its responsible, good-faith applications contribute to the broader fight against impunity. Madam Chair, universal jurisdiction does not exist in a vacuum. It operates symbiotically with international law and domestic legal systems. We consistently reaffirm that the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute these crimes lies with states where the offences occur. We are of the view that universal jurisdiction is not designed to replace domestic courts. Rather, it acts as an indispensable safety net rather than undermine sovereignty. These principles reflect the shared responsibility of states to ensure that core international crimes do not go unpunished. It reinforces the collective commitment to justice, accountability, and the values that lie at the heart of the UN Charter. While the moral imperative is clear, we acknowledge the practical challenges in its applications, including the foreign domestic frameworks and the ongoing tensions between global justice and state immunity. It is precisely because of these challenges that the ongoing efforts of the Sixth Committee's working group are so critical. We fully support the working group's mandate to establish a common legal understanding which will prevent misuse and ensure that the sheath of state sovereignty is never twisted into a cloak of absolute impunity. Madam Chair, for the people of Myanmar, these theoretical debates are a matter of life and death. The situation in my country vividly illustrates why universal jurisdiction was conceived and why it must be operationalized. In February 2021, the military staged an illegal coup and overturned the democratic will of the people. Since that day, the military junta has waged a campaign of terror against its own people, committing core international crimes. First, the junta has committed and continued to commit war crimes against humanity. We have witnessed arbitrary detention, widespread torture, the murder of peaceful civilians and massacres. These acts meet the strict legal threshold. They are part of a widespread and systematic attack directed specifically against the civilian populations. Second, the junta is perpetrating horrific war crimes. The military routinely turns its weapons upon civilians launching indiscriminate airstrikes on villages and deliberately bombing schools and hospitals. These atrocities blatantly violate the Geneva Conventions by intentionally targeting protected non-combatants and civilian infrastructure. Third, we cannot speak of universal jurisdiction without recalling the atrocities committed against Rohingya. Long before the 2021 coup, this very same military establishment orchestrated brutal clearance operations in the Rakhine state and committed international crimes. Accordingly, we strongly support the international judicial effort to establish accountability for these outstanding crimes. Madam Chair, when we speak of the complementary nature of universal jurisdiction, we must look at the current conditions of Myanmar's domestic judiciary. Today, our legal system has been entirely controlled by the military junta. It has been collapsed. This collapse of public confidence reflects the complete erosion of rule of law and leaves victims isolated and voiceless in the face of ongoing atrocity. In such circumstances, where domestic mechanisms are neither willing not able to deliver justice, the international community bears a shared responsibility to act to save the lives of the people and their future. We believe that when the state apparatus is hijacked by the criminals, the international legal framework must step in. This is exactly why the people of Myanmar, out of a profound helplessness, have desperately invoked the responsibility to protect and asked the UN, I quote, "How many more dead bodies does the UN need to help save lives in Myanmar?" I quote. Yet the help remains elusive. The military hunters continue to act as if it knows the international community lacks the decisiveness to intervene. We must prove them wrong. In this regard, we view universal jurisdictions as a critical lifeline. We are fully committed to international law. We cooperate extensively with the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. Accordingly, IIIN has ample of evidences of the military hunters' atrocities against the people amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. We have accepted the jurisdictions of the ICC And these steps reflect the National Unity Government's unwavering commitment to accountability and its determination to restore justice and the rule of law for the people of Myanmar. In conclusion, Madam Chair, delays or ambiguities in our collective understanding of universal jurisdictions only provide loopholes for perpetrators. If crimes are left ignored and unpunished, perpetrators will only be emboldened to commit further atrocities. The culture of immunity must end, and those responsible for the gravest international crimes must be held to account through credible international judicial mechanisms. The military hunters rely on the world's legal hesitations. Therefore, we urge this committee to move forward decisively. The people of Myanmar cannot wait. They look to this body and to the principles of universal jurisdiction for their rightful demand for justice. The people of Myanmar are resilient but vulnerable at the same time. We need your support and thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Myanmar for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ukraine aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and would like to add several remarks in its national capacity. We thank the Secretary-General for his report on this item. It once again confirms that more and more states are establishing universal jurisdiction in their national legislation and, no less importantly, applying it in practice. Madam Chair, for Ukraine, universal jurisdiction is not an abstract question. Since the beginning of Russia's war of aggression, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies have registered more than 260,000 war crimes. No national system, however capable, can ensure accountability for crimes on such a scale on its own. That is why we regard universal jurisdiction as a subsidiary but indispensable tool in the fight against impunity. It does not replace but complements the work of the Ukrainian courts, the International Criminal Court, and the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, helping to close the gaps that none of them can cover alone. Our position is consistent. The primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting international crimes rests with the state on whose territory they were committed. At the same time, no state should become a safe haven for persons suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the crime of aggression. Universal jurisdiction must be exercised in good faith, in accordance with international law, and with full respect for fair trial guarantees. Madam Chair, Ukraine has backed this position with concrete steps. In 2024, we ratified the Rome Statute and amended our criminal court. Today, Ukrainian courts can try anyone suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of aggression, or the use of weapons of mass destruction, no matter where the crime was committed or who the perpetrator and the victims are. State practice demonstrates that universal jurisdiction works. In the case of Ukraine, this practice rests on broad international support. Less than a month after the full-scale invasion began, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland set up a joint investigation team on genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It has since been joined by Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, and Romania, as well as by Eurojust and the International Criminal Court. Importantly, these efforts have already moved beyond investigations. National courts are delivering judgments, proving that those who commit crimes in Ukraine and then flee abroad cannot escape justice. Finland offers a clear example. When a Supreme Court refused to extradite Jan Petrovsky, a commander of the Russian paramilitary unit, Rusich, to Ukraine, Finland prosecuted him in self for war crimes committed in eastern Ukraine in 2014. In August this year, the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction and sentenced him to 12 and a half years imprisonment. Ukrainian victims and witnesses took part in the proceedings, and the investigation was conducted in close cooperation with Ukraine, Eurojust, Europol, and the ICC. Lithuania, one of the founding members of the Joint Investigation Team, opened its own investigation into crimes committed in Ukraine as early as March 2022. Another milestone came last year when Ukraine for the first time handed over a captured Russian serviceman to a foreign state, Lithuania, to face prosecution for torturing civilians and prisoners of war in occupied Melitopol. The pursuit of accountability for the crime of aggression against Ukraine holds a special place among these efforts. The International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine in The Hague show what can be achieved when states direct their national, including universal, jurisdiction towards a common goal. They share evidence promptly, coordinate investigation and build cases in parallel across several jurisdictions. The work of the ICPA will provide an evidentiary foundation for the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. We call for a swift operationalism which will mark a decisive step towards comprehensive accountability. Madam Chair, universal jurisdiction is effective only when states can promptly share evidence and extradite suspects. That is why Ukraine actively contributed to the drafting of the Ljubljana-Doha Convention and signed it. The Convention fills a long-standing gap in international law. It provides a modern treaty basis for mutual legal assistance and extradition in cases concerning the most serious crimes. For its part, Ukraine remains to share our extensive experience in investigation into international crimes with all states exercising universal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, justice knows no border. Every judgment delivered on the basis of universal jurisdiction sends a clear signal to those committing crimes today. Sooner or later, accountability will come, whenever they may try to hide. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I would like to indicate that my country participates with interest in the work of your distinguished committee, particularly under the agenda item, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia emphasizes the need to continue the consideration and study of this topic in the Sixth Committee in light of the legal issues it traces that merit further study and consensus among states. We take note of the reports of the Secretary General of the United Nations submitted pursuant to the General Assembly resolutions relevant to this agenda item. Madam Chair, my country affirms the importance of combating impunity and strengthening international cooperation to achieve justice and ensure the accountability of perpetrators of crimes in accordance with international law and relevant national legislations. The Kingdom believes that the consideration of the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction should be based on the rules of international law and the principles of the UN Charter. We should also take into account the sovereignty of states, sovereign equality of states, and the immunities established under international law. The Kingdom also emphasizes the need to continue to study the legal matters related to the scope of this principle and the conditions for its application, including the identification of the crimes that it may encompass and the clarification of the relevant legal basis, safeguards, and judicial procedures in a manner that ensure legal clarity and prevent any misuse. Madam Chair, the Kingdom considers that combating impunity and achieving justice must be carried out within the framework of respect for the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The exercise of jurisdiction should be based on a recognized legal foundation while respecting the sovereignty and immunities of states in accordance with international law. My country stresses the need to continue examining the legal issues associated with the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, particularly in light of the divergence in states' positions, national legislation and judicial practices. Thus, the Kingdom emphasizes the need to continue dialogue and exchange of views and legal expertise among member states. We should also avoid any application that may be inconsistent with established principles of international law. Madam Chair, finally, my country reaffirms its support for international efforts aimed at achieving justice and combating impunity within the framework of international law, national legislations, and the relevant international agreements. The Kingdom calls for the continuation of research and study on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction in a manner that contributes to clarifying the legal matters associated with it and enhancing consensus among Member States while fully respecting the sovereignty of States, their sovereign equality and the immunities established under international law. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Togo. You have.

The floor.

Madame Chair, my delegation thanks the Secretary-General for his report under A/81/205, and we align ourselves with the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of African States. for Togo, impunity for the gravest crimes, weaken peace and collective security. International jurist, like international jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction seeks to fill a gap where otherwise they can't be prosecuted. It responds to legal and moral obligation to serve justice. This is transposed into our law in Togolese jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of apartheid, wherever they are committed, as well as torture and maritime piracy. Madam Chair, my delegation welcomes the fact that resolution 80/508 invites the working group to review the principle of universal jurisdiction and how it's distinguished from other related instruments. We believe that universal jurisdiction must be distinguished, one, from the obligation to extradite or prosecute, a conventional obligation linked to the presence of the suspected perpetrator that can be based on different titles of competence, while universal jurisdiction is a jurisdiction in itself, the jurisdiction of international tribunals and courts that depend on their statutes. Three, the extraterritorial jurisdiction based on the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim, the protection of the fundamental interests of the state. universal jurisdiction being characterised by the persistence of links, and this comes from a consequence, because it diverts from universal ordinary provisions. It must, first of all, target crimes that are an affront to universal conscience, genocide, war crimes. torture, apartheid, piracy, inter alia. The exercise of universal jurisdiction must absolutely respect the sovereign equality of states, the non-interference in their internal affairs and measures recognised by international law, in particular for heads of state, heads of government and ministers of foreign affairs. In this regard, Togo advocates precise guardrails. First of all, subsidiarity, priority to the state on the territory on which the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator, universal jurisdiction only coming in when there is a manifest absence of willingness to act, also the territory of the country engaging proceedings. There's also the principle of non bis in idem that prevents double jeopardy for the same crimes. Fourth, the right to free trial without any political motivation. And five, lastly, non-selectivity, so that the proceedings don't always target the same regions or the nationals of the same country. Madam Chair, Togo is very active on the issue of mediation. This experience shows Togo's experience that justice and peace must be linked together, that universal jurisdiction cannot compromise the peace processes and must complete national and regional mechanisms. The experience of the extraordinary African chambers in Senegal has shown that Africa can try on its soil the perpetrators of international crimes. These principles also involve legal cooperation, judicial cooperation through bilateral agreements and national legislation on statutes of limitations and others. This is part of a multilateral framework and involves boosting the capacities of judges in Africa and elsewhere. Madam Chair, on the outcome of our work, Togo is in favor of a progressive, consensus-based approach. First of all, in the working group with convergence on the notions and the limits, and then to draft principles on universal jurisdiction in order to ultimately reach an international legally binding agreement, if there is consensus for it, to provide the international community with a clear and balanced framework. Togo reiterates its commitment to justice that protects everyone, everywhere, where there are no exceptions for any regions or people. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Togo for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of Togo was the last speaker on the list for this agenda item this afternoon. We will continue the consideration of agenda item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, at our next meeting tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Upon conclusion of our debate, we will turn to the consideration of agenda item 81, status of the protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts. I recall the decision of the Bureau to schedule a further plenary meeting on Friday morning, 16th October 2026, starting at 10 a.m., in order to make more progress in our work. The meeting of the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, initially scheduled for the morning, will now take place from 3:00 to approximately 4:30 p.m. With an informal briefing on agenda item 150, Administration of Justice at the United Nations, now starting immediately following the adjournment of the Working Group on Terrorism. I also wish to announce that at an additional meeting on Friday morning, the Sixth Committee will also briefly revert to its consideration of agenda item 124, revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, in order to receive a presentation by the co-chairs of the ad hoc working group on mandate implementation review on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 80/251. In addition, I draw the attention of delegations to a change in the schedule of the informal consultations that will take place tomorrow, the 15th October. The informal consultations on agenda 112, measures to eliminate international terrorism, 15 p.m., while the informal consultations on agenda item 79, United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity will be held at 2:00 p.m. Finally, please recall that we will also receive an annual visit of the President of the General Assembly tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Delegations are requested to be present for that. I thank you, and the meeting is adjourned.