Sixth Committee, 17th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning. I call to order the 17th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, it is a great honor for me to acknowledge the presence of the President of the General Assembly for the 81st session, His Excellency Dr. Khalilur Rahman, to our meeting today. The visit of the President of the General Assembly to the main committees has now become an annual tradition. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee, I extend to you a warm and cordial welcome to the Legal Committee of the General Assembly. It is my distinct honor to give you the floor.

Madame Chair, thank you very much. You very appropriately said that this is the legal committee and others are not. Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to congratulate you, Madam Chair, and the other members of the Bureau on your election. I also warmly welcome the legal advisers and experts joining us today in the legal heart of the Assembly. International law gives expression to the principles, values and commitments that member states have chosen to uphold collectively. Its rules reflect the world in which they were forged, the aspirations they embody and the people they are meant to serve. As our world evolves, Our challenges are twofold. To safeguard the rules painstakingly built over eight decades and to ensure that they continue to serve their purpose in the decades to come. Trust in these shared commitments is essential to cooperation, even when national interests may differ. Few bodies are better placed to advance this effort than this Sixth Committee. The rules and standards shaped here in this room give practical effect to the principles on which the United Nations rests, from the peaceful settlement of disputes and protection of human rights to international cooperation for development and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Your deliberations this session, including on the rule of law, measures to eliminate international terrorism, and criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, demonstrate both the breadth of the Committee's responsibilities and the value of sustained dialogue on key issues. Our approaches may differ, but this committee remains an indispensable forum for advancing legal cooperation, clarifying international obligations, and finding common grounds. The choices we make today will determine whether international law remains a living force or becomes an increasingly distant ideal. Indeed, we meet at a critical moment when multilateral cooperation is under growing strain and the principles governing international relations are being tested. Yet, during the high-level week, delegations reaffirmed a clear message. International law and the Charter of the United Nations remain the indispensable foundation for this organization and the principles anchoring our shared systems of law. treaties and institutions remain universal and enduring. As President of the General Assembly, I take this as a mandate to strengthen multilateralism and translate the emerging reform agenda into member-driven decisions that make the United Nations more coherent, effective, and accountable. Allow me to set out three imperatives for this session. First, Revitalization of our organization and the General Assembly must make our work more efficient, predictable, and results-oriented. Resolution 79/327 and 80/251 provide a basis for putting agreed measures into practice in each main committee. For the Sixth Committee, this includes more predictable planning and timely documentation, appropriate clustering or rationalization of related items, and sound time management. Where substance and mandates permit, recurring technical resolutions should be considered biennially or triennially. New resolutions or mandates should be assessed against existing decisions and implementation requirements to avoid duplication or to use limited resources wisely. At the same time, efficiency must reinforce, not curtail, the Sixth Committee's distinctive strength, rigorous legal analysis, its long-standing tradition of consensus and full and meaningful participation of every member state. The co-chairs of the ad hoc working group on mandate implementation review are compiling relevant decisions and practical tools. I intend to share concise, non-prescriptive guidance with the committee chairs. I will also continue fortnightly exchanges with the chairs of the main committees, which I have recently begun, to share experience and assess progress. I mentioned to other committees that it appears that we in various committees do not regularly share our work with each other. We are working almost in silos, although the work of our General Assembly centers around three pillars of the organization: peace and security, development, and human rights. And we regard these three pillars as integrated. Working in silos do not give us outcomes that are coherent, and consistent across the various committees. So it's very important that committees talk to each other, and this is why I have begun a process of holding consultations in the presence of all committee chairs, which I will do every two weeks. Looking ahead to December, I will invite each committee to identify up to three achievable improvements suited to their respective work. I look forward to hearing from Chairs in their closing statements about what has been achieved and reflecting that progress in reporting to the General Assembly. Our success will be measured not simply by the number of meetings or resolutions, but by the quality and inclusiveness of our deliberations and the results we achieve together. In doing so, we also strengthen confidence in how this Assembly works. It is a key element in restoring trust in our Organization. Second, we must ensure that the rule of international law works for peace, especially when peace is most at risk. Throughout the General Debate, we heard a common concern: the consequences of conflict fall hardest on those who are already most vulnerable. An estimated 239 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance and protection. In each crisis, our international legal obligations carry their greatest weight. The United Nations Charter provides the legal foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 33 of the Charter offers a range of powerful diplomatic and legal tools to prevent escalation from negotiation, inquiry and mediation to conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and regional arrangements. Each provides a vital avenue for preventing escalation, promoting stability, and safeguarding human life. Where armed conflict occurs, international humanitarian law continues to apply. Protecting civilians and respecting applicable international obligations remain indispensable. The credibility of international law depends not only on the development of legal norms, but also on their consistent observance and non-selective implementation. For multilateralism to deliver, we must uphold international law and use every available tool to prevent conflict at every turn. Third, we must ensure international law can respond to a changing world. From artificial intelligence and new technologies to emerging domains of international cooperation, change is accelerating. The international legal order must respond to these dynamics while maintaining the clarity and predictability on which multilateral cooperation depends. Here, the Committee's long-standing culture of consensus deserves particular attention. This Committee is unique in this regard as compared to others. We must draw upon this strength. Preparations for the United Nations Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity and for the Conference on the Protection of Persons in the Events of Disasters illustrate the continuing importance of the Committee's contribution to international treaty-making. These processes call for careful legal consideration, broad participation, and a continued commitment to seeking outcomes capable of commanding the widest possible support. Looking ahead, the Committee's consideration of the reports of the International Law Commission offers another important opportunity to advance the progressive development and codification of international law. Constructive exchanges during International Law Week can bring the Commission's independent expert contribution into dialogue with Member States' views and practice, reflecting the diversity of legal systems and traditions around the world. Excellencies, Doug Hemmings once said, "The weakness of one is the weakness of all, and the strength of one is indirectly the strength of all." Multilateralism is indeed a shared enterprise, and international law provides predictability and stability that allow cooperation to succeed. The theme of this year, restoring trust, managing transformation, a United Nations that delivers for all, carries particular weight in this regard. Trust in international law depends on rules that are developed inclusively, observed consistently and applied for the benefit of all. Together, let's build on this Committee's legacy and ensure that the law we develop today is equal to the challenges of tomorrow, grounded in the Charter, shaped by Member States and capable of serving all people. I stand ready, Madam Chairperson, and to support this work and wish you every success in your deliberations. I thank you.

Mr. President, I thank you for your important statement. I am sure that we all took note of your message that we should strive to balance rigorous legal analysis consensus and maintaining that tradition, as well as advance the efforts on revitalisation and efficiency. I also took note of your charge to me about what my end-of-session report should look like, and I can assure you that the committee has been working together towards making our work more efficient and looking at time management. On behalf of the committee, I can speak on behalf of the committee in wishing you all the success in the exercise of your responsibilities as President of the 81st session. of the General Assembly. There is much work to be accomplished by the Assembly this year, and on behalf of the Sixth Committee, I assure you that the Committee will continue to make every effort towards the productive and timely completion of its work as we advance the progressive development of international law and codification. I am sure your presence today enhances our resolve in that regard. Once again, thank you very much. Thank you. Distinguished delegates, we will now 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 of the Sixth Committee. I remind you of the decision taken at our first meeting that statements delivered in a national capacity should be limited to seven minutes, while those delivered by groups of States will be limited to 12 minutes. As always, I encourage you to make sure that your statements are well within those limits. The first speaker on my list for this morning Is the distinguished representative of the United States of America. You have the floor, Madam.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. The United States appreciates the sixth committee's continued interest in this agenda item. Over the years, the committee has engaged in thoughtful discussions on universal jurisdiction, including on the concept's definition, scope, and application. We also thank the Secretary General for his reports, including his most recent report, which have usefully summarized the submissions made by states on this topic. While the United States remains interested in further exploring issues related to the practical application of universal jurisdiction, basic questions do remain about how jurisdiction should be exercised in relation to certain grave offenses. It is crucial to take into account states' views and practices in this regard. These considerations are particularly salient given the importance of this issue and its long history as a part of international law relating to piracy. In that regard, we note the utility of submissions made by states to date and the Secretary General's reports in helping us to identify differences of opinion among states, as well as points of consensus on this issue. The United States continues to analyze the contributions of other states and organizations And we look forward to receiving further input from states and exploring these issues in as practical a manner as possible, including through the working group to be convened during this session. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States of America for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Madam Chairperson, I thank you for giving me the floor. Zambia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of Cameroon on behalf of the African group, as well as the statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the non-aligned movement. We now wish to make the following remarks in our national capacity. Zambia thanks the Secretary-General for his report contained in document A/81/205, prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 80/168. The Secretary-General's report contains observations and proposals from across region of states and other relevant observers whose contributions we are grateful for. Madam Chairperson, the international legal order and multilateralism face severe tests today. It is disconcerting that the international rule of law and the protection of human rights are rapidly declining. It is in this context that the appropriate use of the tool of universal jurisdiction becomes all the more important. The principle of universal jurisdiction is subject to the fundamental principle that where a serious crime has been committed, the state with a direct connection to the crime bears the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting the crime in question. Universal jurisdiction is therefore a complimentary mechanism which closes a jurisdictional gap where a state in whose territory a serious crime has been committed or whose national has committed a serious crime, is unable and willing to prosecute the alleged perpetrator. Simply put, Madam Chairperson, universal jurisdiction is therefore subject to the territoriality or nationality principle. The primary responsibility for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is reposed in the state in whose territory the crime occurred or the state of nationality of the alleged perpetrator. Madam Chairperson, the notion underpinning the principle of universal jurisdiction is that certain crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are so detrimental to the conscience and safety of humanity that they affect the international community as a whole. Universal jurisdiction is therefore of practical value in the fight against impunity. Universal jurisdiction must be understood within the prism of the broader corpus of international law. This means that universal jurisdiction as a legal principle must conform to the other established principles of public international law. The principle of universal jurisdiction found early international recognition in the Nuremberg trials and in the Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law of 1949. The Geneva Conventions are explicit that all states parties to the conventions must prosecute war crimes in their domestic courts or surrender alleged perpetrators to another state that will prosecute the alleged perpetrators. Madam Chairperson, Zambia is a firm supporter of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Zambia is a state party to the Geneva Conventions, as well as Additional Protocols I and II, all of which explicitly reflect the principle of universal jurisdiction. Zambia is also a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which under Articles 5 and 7 requires states parties to either extradite an alleged offender found within its territory or to submit the case to its own authorities for prosecution. This is in accordance with the long established principle of aut dedere aut judicare, upon which universal jurisdiction is anchored. At the regional level, Zambia is a member of the African Union, whose constitutive act in Article 4H confers powers on the African Union to intervene in cases of grave violations of international law. Other instances of regional cooperation are the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group, which creates an important regulatory role in extradition frameworks across its 22 member states to combat serious offenses such as terrorist financing and money laundering. Zambia is also a party to the SADC Treaty on Extradition and has the principle of universal jurisdiction reflected in various pieces of legislation. Madam Chairperson, Zambia takes note of the concerns raised by the various groups and Member States on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The Republic of Zambia wishes to affirm its position that the exercise of universal jurisdiction must be governed by principles of strict consistency, and transparency, thereby safeguarding the doctrine against arbitrary application or exploitation for geopolitical objectives. Zambia looks forward to further refinements to the principle of universal jurisdiction and will work with all Member States in a constructive spirit for our collective benefit. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Zambia for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the non-aligned movement. Indonesia also thanks the Secretary-General for his report in document A/81/205. The report provides important updates on how states apply the principle of universal jurisdiction in their laws, treaties and courts, a useful step toward a common understanding of the issue. Madam Chair, universal jurisdiction allows a state to prosecute crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the offender or the victims. The purpose is clear, to show that those who commit grave crimes under international law cannot hide. However, such a far-reaching principle needs clear legal parameters, otherwise it can do more harm than good. In that spirit, Indonesia would like to stress three key points. First, sovereignty and non-intervention come first. Sovereign equality and non-intervention are at the heart of the UN Charter. Universal jurisdiction must work within these principles, not outside them. Indonesia believes universal jurisdiction should step in only when the state where the crime occurred or the state of the accused cannot or will not act as a last resort. Indonesia practices what it advocates through our Criminal Code Law No. 1 of 2023. In its Article 6, it applies our criminal law to anyone abroad who commits a crime under international law. Article 7 of the Criminal Code allows Indonesia to take over a prosecution on the basis of an international agreement. The code also criminalizes genocide and crimes against humanity in Articles 598 and 599, and piracy at sea in Article 542. Second, no room for political misuse. Universal jurisdiction loses its meaning when it is used to put pressure on countries, including developing countries. It must be applied in good faith and in line with international law. A shared understanding of which crimes it covers and under what conditions surely will help prevent abuse. Third, prevention and international cooperation. The surest way to end impunity is to prevent grave violations of human rights in the first place. When such crimes do occur, international cooperation will bring the perpetrators to justice more effectively. Suspects, evidence, and witnesses often cross borders, which makes mutual legal assistance and extradition indispensable. Indonesia, therefore, calls for stronger cooperation in these areas including support for states that need help investigating and trying these cases themselves. Madam Chair, we will continue to contribute constructively so that universal jurisdiction can be discussed fairly, responsibly, and in line with international law. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vietnam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The delegation of Vietnam aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished delegation of Iran.

On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. We also want to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary-General for his report on this item as contained in document A/81/205. In our national capacity, we would like to deliver the following remarks.

Madam Chair, Vietnam reaffirms that those responsible for the most serious crimes under international law, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, must.

Be brought to justice.

Universal jurisdiction, when exercised in accordance with international law, can contribute to this shared objective. We emphasize that the exercise of universal jurisdiction must be strictly consistent with international law and the fundamental principles.

Of the Charter of the United.

Nations, including sovereign equality, respect for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states, and non-interference in their internal affairs. Universal jurisdiction must be exercised in good faith and must not be applied arbitrarily in a discriminatory manner or for political objectives. Its exercise must also respect the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction as provided for under international law.

Madam Chair, Vietnam is also of the view that universal jurisdiction, where.

Recognized under international law, must be understood as an exceptional basis.

For the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by national courts over certain of the most.

Serious crimes under international law, complementing rather than replacing traditional bases of jurisdiction such as territoriality and nationality.

In our view, it should be exercised only as a last resort, with.

Due regard to the role and responsibilities of states with a closer connection to the crime. We maintain that the alleged offender should be present in the territory of the state exercising such jurisdiction. That state should first consult in good faith with the territorial state and the state of nationality of the person concerned on the possibility of extraditing that person to those states for prosecution. subject to the principle of dual criminality and other applicable requirements of international law.

Universal jurisdiction exercised by national courts must also be distinguished from the jurisdiction of international.

Criminal courts and tribunals, which rest on their respective constituent instruments. Vietnam underscores the need to distinguish universal jurisdiction from the obligation or the due or the care, or the obligation to extradite or prosecute. Universal jurisdiction provides a basis.

For the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, whereas the obligation to extradite or prosecute arises under applicable treaties or other.

Relevant rules of international law. and is subject to the conditions governing that obligation. The existence of such an obligation does not in itself establish a basis under customary international law for the exercise.

Of universal jurisdiction.

At the same time, this distinction is without prejudice to obligations under applicable treaties to establish jurisdiction and to extradite or submit a case to the competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Given the continuing differences among States regarding the definition, scope and conditions for the exercise of universal jurisdiction and the complex legal issues involved, Vietnam supports a cautious, step-by-step approach. Any future action on this topic should be guided by efforts to build a common understanding and consensus among States. Further discussions, including in the Sixth Committee's working group, should focus on clarifying outstanding legal questions, including the crimes covered.

The legal basis for jurisdiction, and the conditions governing its exercise.

Such discussions should draw on a careful assessment of state practice and relevant rules of international law. with due regard to the diverse legal systems and the views of Member States. We remain committed to combating impunity in accordance with international law, including through effective international cooperation in criminal matters. In this spirit, Vietnam will continue to engage constructively with all Member States in further discussions on this topic. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Vietnam for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation has reflected its views and observations regarding the scope and application of universal jurisdiction at the previous relevant meetings of the Sixth Committee. Our long-standing position on this matter has not changed and remains consistent. Madam Chair, it should be recalled that the very reason the African group requested the inclusion of this agenda item for the Sixth Committee in 2009 was the concern over uncertain scope and application of universal jurisdiction and its arbitrary exercise. As stated by the African group, the issue was the extent of its application and that there is no widespread state practice. The discussions in the six committee over the years have demonstrated that significant divergences persist among the states concerning the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, particularly beyond treaty-based obligations. These divergences are also reflected in judicial opinions and legal scholarship. In the Aras warrant case, several ICJ judges acknowledged the absence of the established practice of universal jurisdiction properly so-called. Moreover, scholarly examinations have similarly highlighted the limited treaty-based and often geographically concentrated nature of approaches in this regard. While some states invoke their national legislation or judicial practice in support of broader interpretation of universal jurisdiction, it is questionable whether many such instances actually constitute universal jurisdiction, rather than jurisdiction based on a specific nexus or the implementation of treaty obligations, particularly out de jure. In addition, other states expressly reject such expansive interpretations and consequently have no corresponding practice to demonstrate. The absence of such practice must not be construed as acquiescence or acceptance, nor can the practices of a limited number of states be presented as reflecting a general practice accepted as law, particularly in the face of objections, observations and concerns. The identification of customary international law requires sufficiently general and representative state practice accompanied by opinio juris. Neither unilateral national legislation nor isolated judicial proceedings can dispense with these requirements for universal jurisdiction. It is also essential to give due weight to the positions of states rejecting expansive interpretations. Madam Chair, the Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its concerns regarding the proclivity of few who tend to misuse universal jurisdictions as an arbitrary tool in person of unjust political objectives in violation of the fundamental principles of international law. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that the selective and politically motivated application of universal jurisdiction would be detrimental to the attainment of the very objective sought in establishing such jurisdiction, which is ending impunity. Also, in the application of universal jurisdiction, that is to be invoked on the basis of treaty frameworks to which the concerned states are parties. due regard shall be had to the fundamental principles of international law, in particular sovereign equality, non-intervention, and territorial integrity. Such applications should not encroach upon the principle of state sovereignty as the hallmark of international relations and the principle of immunity of state officials, which is a significant manifestation thereof. Madam Chair, in sum, The Islamic Republic of Iran views universal jurisdiction as a treaty-based exception in exercising national criminal jurisdiction. In other words, the prevailing principle remains to be the principle of territorial jurisdiction as the key to sovereign equality of the states. Given the divergence of views, incoherence, and lack of unanimous state practices, including accordingly non-formation of relevant customary rules of international law. We are of the view that referring this matter to the ILC for further examination would not produce satisfactory results. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Russian Federation places great importance on combating impunity for the most serious crimes under international law and international cooperation in this area. At the same time, such cooperation depends on compliance with international legal norms that define the basis and limits of a criminal jurisdiction. The lofty goal of bringing perpetrators to justice cannot in itself justify deviation from these norms. We read the latest report of the SG, which contains the positions of a number of states as well as observers, including the ICRC, on the concept of universal jurisdiction. The materials contained within it once again demonstrate that there are significant, sometimes irreconcilable differences in states' understandings of the legal basis, scope, and procedure for application of this concept. It's telling that even those states that consider universal jurisdiction to be a key component of international criminal justice acknowledge the lack of a universally accepted definition and the risk of procedural abuse and politically motivated criminal prosecution when it is exercised without justification and arbitrarily. Under these circumstances, we continue to believe it's unhelpful and premature to develop any unified criteria or other instructions with regard to the practical application of this jurisdiction. Madam Chair, I'd like to note that this issue appeared on the agenda of General Assembly at its 64th session on the initiative of Tanzania, speaking on behalf of the African group. The motivation for this was concerns about the abuse of universal jurisdiction with regard to African countries and their officials. The history of the issue is very important because in previous years, as well as during this discussion, we have repeatedly heard attempts to portray the topic as if the goal of our committee and the working group from the beginning were to promote the principle of universal jurisdiction. That is not the case. The main issue, the main problem or request of African states was to prevent a politicized and unjustified use of foreign criminal jurisdiction, and this has still remained unresolved. The group has not made any progress as far as developing even the most general concept of a set of guarantees to prevent this kind of abuse. Madam Chair, we believe that jurisdiction should remain based on international conventions and be exercised in accordance with international, applicable international laws. The powers that are provided for by concrete treaties in this regard should not automatically be extended to other categories of crimes, situations that are not covered by their provisions. Similarly, enshrining the relevant competences in domestic law cannot address the international legality of the exercise of this jurisdiction with regard to foreign citizens. National law cannot serve as a justification for violation of international obligations of states. principle importance here is the principle of sovereign equality of states, noninterference in internal affairs, and of course, the compliance with the norm of customary international law and immunity of state officials. We note that the report mentions that in keeping with our approach, there's the absolute need to take into account applicable norms about these immunities. And we can note that these norms about immunities have a robust basis in customary international law and create a necessary balance and predictability in international relations. History has shown us that abuse of universal jurisdiction could significantly complicate interstate relations. Politically motivated criminal prosecutions can undermine trust, hinder official contacts, and make cooperation between competent bodies more difficult as a result. This fight against impunity suffers as well, the very cause that is often used to justify the actions of universal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, we would like to point out that, as mentioned in the SG's report, there is a great deal of praise for the Hague Convention and international cooperation, as well as articles on the prevention of crimes against humanity and punishment for these crimes. We don't see any justification for that kind of positive evaluation. We believe that the Hague Convention lays out extremely unorthodox mechanisms for entry into effect. Only three ratifications are necessary for it to enter into effect. And even under this low threshold, it still has not entered into force as of today. And this fact speaks volumes about the real level of international support for this document. And yet another convention has been overlooked about the inapplicability of such limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity of 1968, which entered into effect already. The growing number of overlapping international treaties with very similar goals and subjects and very different participants, we talked not just about the Ljubljana, the Hague Convention, and the future convention on crimes against humanity, they simply lead to fragmentation and erosion of international law instead of international international universal conventions, we are seeing proliferation of instruments that bring together clubs of states. These mechanisms will inevitably be used selectively and in bad faith, paving the way toward further abuse of this concept of universal jurisdiction. All of the aforementioned weakens instead of bolsters prospects for ensuring the inevitability of punishment for international crimes. By the way, the real risk of the misuse of universal jurisdiction and politicization were eloquently demonstrated during current discussions on this topic by a number of Western states, which often referred to absolutely legitimate bodies that were established in violation of international law and in violation of the founding documents of the Council of Europe. This is an obvious and glaring demonstration of the problem that was mentioned by African countries. when this topic was included on the agenda of the Sixth Committee. This problem has not gone anywhere and over time has only become more acute. We also regret that the delegation of Ukraine decided to politicize this platform as well and instead of pertinent professional discussions on a specialized topic, decided to spread anti-Russian fake news and to brand their so-called investigations nothing to do with actual justice. Madam Chair, in closing, I'd like to once again emphasize that the main focus of the Special Political and Legal Committee and this working group as well ought to remain the prevention of abuse of universal jurisdiction. And it is by the ability of our practically oriented and effective response for the concerns of African states that our success will be measured. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh.

Ms. Mollah Rahman-e-Rahim, Madam Chair, Bangladesh aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Bangladesh comes to this item with two experiences that may seem at first to pull in opposite directions. On the first hand, it is the experience of a people who waited for justice, We have seen grave crimes go unanswered for years, and the Rohingya, who shelter on our soil, live with that still. We know what impunity does. It teaches perpetrators that time is on their side, and it tells victims that the law is not. On the other hand, our concerns of selectivity and sovereignty. We understand the concern voiced by many in this room that universal jurisdiction can be invoked selectively against some states and never against others, and that it can be used for political ends rather than for justice. That concern is not new. In the Arrest Warrant case, Judge Gilbert, the President of the ICJ of that time, warned that giving courts of every state jurisdiction over such crimes, whoever their authors and victims, would risk creating total chaos and encourage the arbitrary for the benefit of the powerful. There is also the claim by some states that universal jurisdiction undermines the sovereignty of the state where the crimes have occurred and whose nationals have perpetrated or has been affected by the crimes. Bangladesh believes there is no conflict between national sovereignty and universal jurisdiction, nor is it a selective tool when it is exercised in accordance with clear shared rules. Our constitution joins the two. Article 25 of the Constitution bases Bangladesh's international relations on respect for national sovereignty and equality, and on respect for international law and the principles enunciated in the United Nations Charter. Our commitment to the rule of law at home and abroad rests on both. Universal jurisdiction is not a new idea. For centuries, the pirate was treated as the enemy of mankind, whom any state could try. Since 1949, the Geneva Conventions, to which every state is a party, have obliged each state to search for those alleged to have committed grave breaches and to bring them, regardless of nationality, before its own courts. What is new is not the principle, but its reach. We have, Madam Chair, we have seen what universal jurisdiction can achieve. In February 2025, a court in Argentina issued arrest warrants against senior Myanmar officials, including the commander-in-chief, in a case brought by Rohingya survivors under the principles of universal jurisdiction. For the more than 1 million Rohingya in Bangladesh, that decision said something vital, that the crimes committed against them have not been forgotten and that distance need not be a barrier to justice under international law. We have also taken on new obligations ourselves. In 2024, Bangladesh acceded to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances. That convention obliges each state to establish jurisdiction over an alleged offender present in its territory unless it extradites or surrenders him. As the ICJ held in Belgium v. Senegal, under such a treaty, Extradition is an option offered to the state by the convention, whereas prosecution is an international obligation under that convention. This is the model we find most persuasive, and it works. In 2016, the extraordinary African chambers sitting within Senegal's courts, with the support of the African Union, convicted Hissene Habre, the former president of Chad, the first time the courts of one country convicted another country's former leader under universal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, Bangladesh believes the following principles should or can guide the working group. Complementarity comes before all else. Universal jurisdiction is a last resort. It should be exercised only when the state with the closest connection is unable or unwilling genuinely to act. In the words of Judge Rosalyn Higgins and others in their joint opinion in the arrest warrant case, a state contemplating such charges must first offer to the national state of the prospective accused the opportunity itself to act upon the charges concerned. We also need a narrow list of crimes. Universal jurisdiction should be confined to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. for piracy, for genocide, for crimes against humanity, and war crimes, it rests on customary international law as well as on treaty. Beyond those crimes, it should rest only on the consent of states expressed in treaties they have freely accepted. There must be safeguards against abuse. Charges should be brought only by a prosecutor or investigating judge who acts in full independence. and prosecutorial decisions should be open to review. Every trial must meet the highest standards of fairness, an independent tribunal, a public hearing, the right of counsel to one's own choosing, and the right to challenge an arrest warrant. And above all, constituency and consistency. A principle applied selectively for political expediency undermine international law. The same rule must apply where the victims are Rohingya or Palestinian. If universal jurisdiction is to command the confidence of all regions, it must be seen to be applied with impartiality, predictability, and without selectivity. Madam Chair, after 17 years on our agenda, this item needs conclusion. Bangladesh encourages the Working Group to move from a general exchange of views towards a concrete outcome. an agreed understanding on the conditions for and limits of universal jurisdiction. With clear and shared rules, universal jurisdiction can serve both justice and sovereignty, rather than setting them against each other. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh for the statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Botswana.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Madam Chair, as my delegation takes the floor for the first time, we wish to congratulate you, Madam Chair, and the members of the Bureau on your appointment. Please be assured of Botswana's full support and cooperation. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and we have the honour to deliver this statement in our national capacity. Botswana welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the consideration of this important agenda at this 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. Botswana has followed the consideration of the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction with keen interest, including since the item was placed on the agenda of the General Assembly and the initiative of the African Group. My delegation takes note of the report of the Secretary General contained in document A/81/205, which provides a useful overview of national legal frameworks, relevant international treaties and judicial practice, as well as the different views of member states on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, Botswana recognizes universal jurisdiction as an important principle of international law and an important tool in combating impunity and promoting accountability for the most serious international crimes. We recognize that the principle that provides a basis for investigating and prosecuting crimes of exceptional gravity and international concern, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. Botswana firmly believes that such crimes must not be allowed to go unpunished and that the investigation and prosecution require the collective commitment of international community. At the same time, my delegation recognizes that important questions remain regarding the precise scope and application of universal jurisdiction. We therefore consider the ongoing consideration of this agenda item an important opportunity to develop greater common understanding of its legal basis, scope, limits, and relationship with other bases of jurisdiction. In this regard, Botswana considers that the exercise of universal jurisdiction should be consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including respect for state sovereignty, due process, applicable rules of jurisdiction, immunities, and the fundamental principles of fairness and non-discrimination. Botswana further considers that universal jurisdiction should operate as a subsidiary and carefully circumscribed basis of jurisdiction, particularly in circumstances where a state possessing the primary jurisdiction is unable or unwilling genuinely to investigate and prosecute the alleged crimes. Its application should in all circumstances be undertaken in good faith and in accordance with international law. Madam Chair, Botswana welcomes the establishment of the working group during the 81st session. We see this as an important opportunity to advance our collective consideration of the issue, including the question of how universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts and to identify areas of convergence and divergence among member states. Botswana attaches particular importance to ensuring that the application of universal jurisdiction is consistent, predictable, non-selective and not susceptible to abuse or politically motivated application. Greater clarity on the scope and limits will, in our view, strengthen confidence in the principle and contribute to the effective administration of international justice. We therefore encourage constructive, inclusive and good faith engagement by all delegations. Botswana stands ready to contribute to efforts aimed at building greater common understanding and ultimately broad consensus on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Botswana reaffirms its support for accountability for the most serious international crimes and for combating impunity. At the same time, we underscore the importance of ensuring that the exercise of universal jurisdiction is firmly anchored in international law, applied in a non-selective manner and subject to appropriate legal safeguards. Botswana looks forward to engaging constructively in the working group and the Sixth Committee with a view advancing a clear, balanced, and widely accepted notion. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of Botswana for her statement. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Madam Chair, Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes and to access to justice for victims. In this context, we have taken note of the Secretary General's report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, and we're grateful for the contribution of some states who have enriched this debate. Venezuela is approaching this issue with a constructive spirit in the new stage of renewal put forward by the President of the Republic, Delci Rodrigues, based on strengthened dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect. Madam Chair, although there is no consensus on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, we believe that it's valuable for this committee to continue to review it from a technical and open point of view, finding points of convergence between different positions. frank and serene debate is the best way to give this principle the clarity and legitimacy that it requires. In this regard, legal certainty is essential. Crimes that are likely to be subject to universal jurisdiction must be duly defined in international law and be limited to those that, due to their seriousness, affect the international community as a whole. Its exercise must be based on the norms of international law and benefit from clear and transparent safeguards that guarantee impartial, objective and predictable application. Madam Chair, this issue was included on the agenda of the General Assembly following the concerns expressed by the African Union. The consolidation of a coherent, predictable and universal application of international legal principles is a fundamental element for strengthening trust between states and promoting more constructive international relations. Therefore, the exercise of universal jurisdiction must be harmonized with the principles of the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in internal affairs to preserve the stability and predictability of international relations. Madam Chair, it's the role, the primary role of each state to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those that commit crimes on their territory or over their nationals. And that's why it's necessary to work to strengthen national legal systems and cooperation between states. Madam Chair, by way of conclusion, Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to international law, multilateralism, and to the respect for the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. We are convinced that it is only through dialogue, cooperation and strict observance of the Charter that we will be able to move towards an international justice system that serves peace, truth and the dignity of peoples. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Venezuela for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mozambique.

Madam Chair, Mozambique associates itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, and wishes to contribute in its national capacity to the ongoing consideration of this important legal question. Mozambique underscores the importance of the principle of universal jurisdiction as a vital instrument in the fight against the impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern. We believe that when applied properly and in the line with international law, it can reinforce accountability, uphold justice, and contribute to the lessening peace and security. Mozambique believes that the African perspective can make an important contribution to assuring that the principle is developed and applied in a manner to promote accountability while fully respecting the sovereignty and equality of states. The fact that this agenda item was originally placed on the General Assembly's agenda at the initiative of an African country demonstrates strong political will and commitment with this, an important factor in the fight against impunity. The exercise of universal jurisdiction by national courts must take due account of the principles of sovereign equality of states, territorial integrity, political independence, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Mozambique, therefore, attaches particular importance on achieve a greater clarity and common understanding regarding the scope, legal basis, and condition for the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Debates on this topic have been long and intense. However, no significant steps have been reached in addressing the misuse and abuse of the universality principle. which should be on concern for all member states of the United Nations, including the African member states. The real concerns which led to the inscription of this item on the agenda of our committee still remain to be resolved. Hence, the scope of universal jurisdiction remains uncertain. In this regard, Mozambique believes that the Sixth Committee provides the appropriate forum for an inclusive, transparent, and objective exchange of views among member states. The discussion should be guided by international law and should seek areas of convergence rather than prematurely establishing conclusions where sufficient consensus has not yet emerged. Madam Chair, Mozambique also attaches importance to the principle of complementarity of the primary role of national jurisdictions. States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes committed within their jurisdiction and to ensure that their national legal system are capable for addressing serious international crimes. The exercise of universal jurisdiction should therefore be undertaken in a manner that strengthens rather than undermines national justice system and international cooperation. Mozambique also emphasized the importance of appropriate procedural safeguards. The application of universal justice should respect due process, the rights of the accused, the principle of legality, judicial independence, and fundamental guarantees recognized under international law. Furthermore, the issue of immunities and international law requires careful consideration. The exercise of criminal jurisdiction of a foreign official must be consistent with the applicable rules of international law concerning immunities and with the relevant decision and just jurisprudence of competent the international justice and institution. We therefore encourage member states to continue in going constructively in the work of the sixth committee and its working group with the view of identifying areas of agreement and clarifying outstanding legal questions. Madam Chair, in conclusion, universal jurisdiction should be exercised in the good faith and with the due regard to the other principle of international law in order to avoid misuse and abuse. In this context, agreed norms must be established regarding the scope of application of universal jurisdiction. We would like to state that Mozambique reaffirms its commitment to combating impunity for the most serious international crimes. I thank you all. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mozambique for the statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guinea.

Madam Chair, my delegation licenses itself with the statements delivered by the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. We note with satisfaction the report number A/81/205 of the Secretary-General of the United Nations entitled "Scope and Application of the Principle of Jurisdiction." In this framework, we would like to make a few comments in our national capacity. Madam Chair, the principle of universal jurisdiction is one of the most effective means for preventing and punishing the most serious crimes that affect all of the international community, in particular those laid out in the Statute of Rome on the International Criminal Court. In addition here, the subsidiary principle of universal jurisdiction remains an imperative for bridging legal gaps, developing legal cooperation, and thus effectively combating impunity with regard to the commission of crimes without such limitations. Madam Chair, my delegation welcomes the idea of creating a working group in accordance with resolution 7579/127. To examine the issue of how the principle of universal jurisdiction is different from other related concepts, we therefore urge the International law commission and the working group established to continue to work to provide more clarification on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction and related concepts to avoid its abusive interpretation, risk of politicization, and a frequent use of double standards. Madam Chair, the Republic of Guinea has already incorporated into its domestic law provisions relating to the implementation of the Rome Treaty establishing the ICC through laws number 059 and 060 that relate to our criminal code and criminal procedure code. We also have eliminated such as limitations on serious crimes that shock the conscience of humanity with severe sentences and long periods of imprisonment without possibility of parole with regard to those that perpetrate these crimes. In addition, Guinea has also enshrined in its laws the principle on the lack of relevance of the official status of those that commission or carry out these aforementioned crimes. This lack of immunity means that the immunities or rules, special procedure that could usually be evoked due to the official status of a given individual under internal law or international law should in no case prevent the state from prosecuting or extraditing a person that committed one of these crimes. Madam Chair, Guinea has enshrined in its law the punishment of these most serious crimes, and thus my delegation favors the principle of universal jurisdiction, as long as it is strictly applied based on subsidiarity, when there is a clear unwillingness or inability to judge or extradite perpetrators of these serious crimes through criteria based upon the law. As a result, my delegation would also support the prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of these crimes in application of the out detere out judicari principle, the obligation to extradite or judge. This is why Guinea organized the events of September 28, 2009, to combat impunity. Madam Chair, the principle of universal jurisdiction ought to be applied while strictly complying with the primacy of law without prejudice to the obligations stemming from the legal instruments to which states are parties. Similarly, a cooperation between states, the requesting and requested state, is crucial under the provisions of the Liubljana-The Hague Convention on International Cooperation for the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crimes of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and Other International Crimes. To achieve this, and a balanced approach based upon consensus, allowing the subsidiary application of universal jurisdiction while respecting sovereignty, nationality, and territorial integrity of states, as well as the immunity of state officials, would be key. In closing, my delegation supports continuing discussions within the working group in order to overcome obstacles in terms of substance and procedure, as well as divergences in views of States. Lastly, my delegation reaffirms the willingness of Guinea to continue to contribute to the work of our Committee and to the International Law Commission as it works to codify and progressively develop international law to better guide the practice of States in a non-binding manner. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Guinea for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mali. Distinguished delegates, we will move on. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. and Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Sierra Leone thanks the Secretary-General for his report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, as well as the Member States and observers that submitted information on their national legislation, treaty obligations and judicial practice. These contributions underscore both the growing relevance of universal jurisdiction and the continued need for greater clarity consistency, and mutual confidence among states. Sierra Leone regards universal jurisdiction as an important principle of international law in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. For a country that experienced the horrors of civil war and established a special court for Sierra Leone to address grave international crimes, the principle has particular significance. Accountability is not an abstract ideal. It is a foundation for reconciliation, the rule of law, and durable peace. At the same time, Sierra Leone believes that universal jurisdiction must be applied carefully, predictably, and in full conformity with international law. It is not a license for political interference, selective enforcement, or disregard for the sovereign equality of states. Any exercise of universal jurisdiction must respect the Charter of the United Nations including the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. CILDR considers that the core of universal jurisdiction lies in the prosecution of the most serious international crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, slavery, and piracy. These crimes shock the conscience of humanity and must not go unpunished merely because they were committed beyond the territory of the state where the perpetrator is found. Sierra Leone applies the universality principle within a defined and limited scope. Under our Geneva Convention Act of 2012, Sierra Leone criminalizes specific grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. The Act covers offences committed by Sierra Leonean nationals or on Sierra Leonean territory and also permits the prosecution of persons of any nationality who commit those enumerated offences within or outside Sierra Leone. Where such an offence is committed outside Sierra Leone, the person may be tried and punished as if the offence had been committed in Sierra Leone. This approach reflects Sierra Leone's conviction that universal jurisdiction should be anchored in a clear domestic legislation, treaty obligations, and established principles of international criminal law. Legal certainty protect both victims and accused persons and strengthens the legitimacy of national courts when they assume responsibility for prosecuting international crimes. CRU supports the view that universal jurisdiction is, in principle, a complementary and exceptional mechanism. Primary responsibility for investigation and prosecution rests with the territorial state and the state of nationality. Universal jurisdiction becomes especially important where those states are unwilling or unable generally to investigate or prosecute, or where no other competent forum is available. In exercising such jurisdiction, States should apply rigorous safeguards, including judicial independence, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, due process, protection against arbitrary detention, respect for applicable immunities, and appropriate regard for the principle of ne bis in idem. Universal jurisdiction must be exercised impartially, on the basis of evidence and law, not political expediency. concerned about the potential misuse or abuse of universal jurisdiction. Such abuse undermines confidence in the principle and risks transforming a tool designed to combat impunity into an instrument of political pressure. We therefore urge States to apply universal jurisdiction transparently, consistently, and with due respect for the rights and interests of all States concerned. Cherie welcomes the establishment at the 81st session of the Sixth Committee Working Group to continue a thorough discussion of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, including how the principle is distinct from other related concepts. We encourage the Working Group to focus on practical points of convergence, the categories of crimes to which the principle may apply, the relationship between universal jurisdiction and treaty-based jurisdiction, the role of subsidiarity evidentiary and procedural standards and the proper treatment of immunity. We must also distinguish carefully between universal jurisdiction exercised by national courts and the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals, which rest on separate foundations. CEREN further reiterates a strong interest in ensuring that accountability mechanisms address sexual and gender-based crimes. Survivors of sexual violence deserve access to justice, effective remedies, reparations, and assistance. Universal jurisdiction, where properly grounded in law and applied fairly, can help close accountability gaps for these grave offenses. Sierra Leone remains committed to advancing international cooperation in this area, consistent with General Assembly resolution 76/304. Finally, CILEM believes that the Sixth Committee should continue to separate the legal questions from the broader policy concerns surrounding this agenda. The Committee can address policy and state practice, while the International Law Commission should usefully assist with technical legal analysis, subject to its independence and programme of work. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Czechia. It seems the representative is not there. We move to the next speaker on our list, the distinguished representative of Belarus. You have the floor.

Distinguished Madam Chair, Ladies and gentlemen, the delegation of Belarus aligns itself with the statements made by Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and in our national capacity, with the following: We continue to support the need to end impunity and ensure inevitability of punishment for crimes Our state believes that using universal jurisdiction to ensure this inevitability of punishment is only appropriate for cases and certain categories of crimes for which there are general norms of international law that arise from universal international agreements and norms of customary international law. in light of the disagreements and fundamental disagreements sometimes in the purchase of states toward universal jurisdiction and attempts to apply it in the broadest sense without taking into account international legal obligations on immunities of state officials, we have to note that the status of the norm of criminal prosecution based on universal jurisdiction is hardly-- it comes from the customary norm of international law. We believe that the main criteria for universal jurisdiction ought to be whether it is in the interest of every member of the international community. It's clear that at this stage, it's useful to continue our discussions on universal jurisdiction while understanding that this principle can have legal effect only if the international community acknowledges Yet the crime in question has a universal danger that would justify limiting sovereignty of states. In the quickly evolving world, there is a major risk coming from crimes that take place in cyberspace, from fraud and money laundering to recruitment of children to criminal groups and cyberterrorism. And we're especially concerned about the use of AI for criminal purposes. Cybercrime has truly global scope and may be a threat regardless of the location, political or religious views, and other beliefs, as well as regardless of the state or group concerned. Belarus welcomes any de-politicized initiative to consolidate efforts to make cyberspace safer. One positive example of successful cooperation in the international community to create a universal norm of international law is the adoption on December 24th 2024 of the UN Convention against cyber crime strengthening International cooperation to combat these crimes that are committed with the use of icts as well as the exchange of electronic evidence with regard to serious crimes. Belarus calls on all representatives in the Sixth Committee, as well as participants of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee, to focus their efforts on discussing the application of universal jurisdiction to crimes committed in cyberspace. We call on all parties not to forget the importance of fulfilling their obligations under international agreements on the provision of mutual legal assistance, which is the foundation for successful application of universal jurisdiction. Over the last few years, due to fundamental disagreements in the position of states, work on the issue of application of universal jurisdiction has come to an impasse. We hope that the Institute of the Republic of Belarus will help us to work constructively in this area. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus for the statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania.

Madam Chair. While delivering this statement at its national capacity, Tanzania aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, respectively. Equally important, my delegation commends the Secretary-General for his detailed report containing document A/81/205. At the outset, I wish to reaffirm Tanzania's commitment to compliance with international law and the rule of law in the fight against impunity in all its forms and to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter that guarantees the sovereign equality of states. We, however, warn that fighting impunity ad hocly and selectively may lead to even more atrocities, more impunity, and defeating our genuine pursuit of ending impunity. We believe that our fight against impunity must be structured and properly governed. Justice cannot be served in chaos. Justice served in chaos is a kangaroo justice, meaning justice can be best delivered in an orderly legal environment. It is on this understanding, Tanzania pioneered this agenda item for the first time in the agenda of the 64th session of the General Assembly on behalf of the African states, following a thorough deliberation within the African Union. We share our frustration that today, 17 years later, there is no meaningful progress to prevent misuse and abuse of the universal jurisdiction. African Union member states, including Tanzania, were and are still concerned about the principle's uncertain scope and application and its abuse. Madam Chair, the principle of universal jurisdiction is a vital instrument in combating impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern. When applied properly and in conformity with international law, it can strengthen accountability, uphold justice, and contribute to lasting peace and security. If not carefully defined and regulated within acceptable norms and other principles of international law, The unilateral, selective and arbitrary application of the principle of universal jurisdiction by some States and some international institutions may threaten national stability, democracy and international peace and security. My delegation believes that any application of universal jurisdiction must respect the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the sovereign equality and the political independence of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Moreover, care should also be taken so that in its application does not violate the immunities granted under international law. to the heads of state, diplomatic personnel and other serving high-ranking officials. Tanzania believes that domestic courts are the courts of first instance in the fight against impunity and offences of international concern. As such, the principle of universal jurisdiction may be invoked only when domestic authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute the alleged offenders. Therefore, the principle of universal jurisdiction should be applied only as a complementary principle. Any state seeking to exercise universal jurisdiction must have a concrete link to the facts or the parties concerned, such as the presence of the accused or the victim in its territory. Universal jurisdiction should not justify prosecution in absentia, forum shopping, or the unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of other states. Madam Chair, It is within this understanding that my delegation welcomes the decision of the General Assembly at its 79th session to establish a working group to continue to undertake a thorough discussion on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, as well as to consider and comment on the question how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinctive from other related concepts. We look forward to further constructive debate on this question in a collective bid to reach consensus on the application of this principle. Madam Chair, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction is complex. Therefore, ensuring clarity and applicability in applying universal jurisdiction is critical to safeguarding the rule of law and maintaining international peace and security. In this regard, the universal jurisdiction must not be invoked without due regard to other principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, such as sovereignty, sovereign equality among states, the principle of non-interference, and immunity of state officials. I thank you for your kind attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of Tanzania for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair, Kenya aligns itself with the statements delivered by the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and the distinguished delegate of Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and wishes to add the following in its national capacity. Universal crimes are often subject to universal jurisdiction and the law of nations, meaning that nations have the right or indeed the duty to prosecute offenders regardless of where the crime is committed or took place. This law of nations is synonymous with the customary international law, which derives from the general concept, customs, and shared practices of states. The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any nation to try certain offenders who have committed international crimes, even if the crime, The defendant and the victims have no nexus with the state carrying out the prosecution. This is meant to ensure that perpetrators of the most heinous crimes do not escape justice or punishment. Madam Chair, for hundreds of years, the doctrine applied exclusively to maritime piracy. In recent decades, however, universal jurisdiction has been applied by national courts to prosecute other core crimes, that is, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and torture. While its original application to cases of piracy appear to have fallen into disuse, now universal jurisdiction has the potential to come full cycle to help address other international crimes of universal nature. Kenya has for years recognized the principle of universal jurisdiction in regard to maritime piracy and has since 2009 adopted the definition of piracy under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Merchant Shipping Act. And other core crimes have been recognized under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Universal jurisdiction must, however, be applied with circumspection. Not every international crime must be prosecuted on this principle. Latitude must be given to local circumstances, considering that in some cases, prosecuting foreign nationals under domestic law can clash with the local reconciliation or amnesty efforts in post-conflict states or situations. It must be demonstrated that the objectives being pursued would not be sufficiently addressed or achieved by member states at national, regional or local levels. Further, there is the risk of retaliatory indictments by adversarial foreign courts or jurisdictions. The temptation to invoke universal jurisdiction for political and ulterior motive is real. Care must be had to the risk of selective or pretext of application of the principle to advance selfish ulterior motives. For a country or court to exercise universal jurisdiction, the principle must of necessity be integrated into the state's national legislation and not applied automatically from international law instruments. Universal jurisdiction is not meant to supplant the principles of complementarity and subsidiarity, but to complement them. In conclusion, Madam Chair, my delegation reiterates our commitment and appreciates the principles of universal jurisdiction as an important principle of international law meant to combat impunity and as a complementary mechanism to ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes. However, we would like to emphasize that the legitimacy, credibility, and utility of universal jurisdictions are best ensured by its responsible, judicious and fair application in accordance with international law. Kenya is ready to work with other countries to ensure a common and acceptable understanding of this principle and definition of crimes that must necessarily fall within this principle. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya for the statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, my delegation wishes to thank the Secretary-General for presenting report A/81/205 on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. And we wish to reaffirm the following considerations on this agenda item. The normative framework and jurisprudence of El Salvador recognise and permit the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. In particular, article 10 of the criminal code that is currently in force establishes the possibility of applying El Salvadorian criminal law to certain crimes, regardless of the place where the alleged crimes were committed or the nationality of the persons involved. And this as long as said crimes affect legal goods protected by international law or if they involve grave violations of universally recognized human rights. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador has recognized the subsidiary nature of this principle. In resolution 24 S 2016, of 21 August 2016, the court stated that one of the manifestations of that principle consists in its complementary nature, pursuant to which universal jurisdiction can be activated or used only when, in the state where the alleged crimes occurred, there is an obstacle to their prosecution or trial, or there is no specific interest in prosecuting those crimes. Madam Chair, these normative and jurisprudential developments highlight the way in which some of the essential parameters concerning the scope of this principle have been regulated. In this context, and while there may not be any uniform practice between states, given that this issue is closely linked to normative and jurisprudential developments of each legal order, there are at least two fundamental elements that we can highlight. First of all, the consideration of the fact that universal jurisdiction is based on the commitment made by states to punish the most serious crimes of international concern, and second, its subsidiary nature, under which the primary jurisdiction always must lie with the state that has the closest link to the crime. Factors such as territoriality and nationality are relevant for determining said link and must be borne in mind when assessing the primary jurisdiction. Only when the state of territory or state of nationality is not prepared or is not able to exercise their jurisdiction can a third state invoke universal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, my delegation will closely follow the discussions to take place in the working group set up to review this agenda item and reiterate the fact that we stand ready to participate constructively in the analysis of the principle of universal jurisdiction as well as its possible relationship with other factors or agenda items. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished permanent representative of Namibia. You have the floor, Amas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia aligns itself with the statements delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and by the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Namibia takes note of the General Assembly resolution A/77/140 res/79/127, entitled The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, as well as the Secretary-General's report A/81/205 on the same subject. We express our appreciation for the report's presentation of the diverse national perspectives on the application of universal jurisdiction. At the outset, Namibia recalls that under its supreme law, principles of international law apply directly, subject to the Constitution and acts of Parliament. Consistent with the Constitution and the rules of Namibian courts, cases involving universal jurisdiction elements are approached with due caution so that foreign or international jurisdiction is not improperly displaced. This approach reflects respect for judicial sovereignty and the proper administration of justice. Namibia has demonstrated this commitment not only through the management and adjudication of cases, but also through its own statute law of extradition, bilateral extradition and mutual legal assistance agreements with peace affirming states and participation in regional and international adjudicative mechanisms. Where some states have shown little regard for the proper scope and application of universal jurisdiction, Namibia has remained steadfast in its adherence to the law, guided by legitimate legal principles rather than political expediency. Madam Chair, in this spirit, Namibia affirms its commitment to international law applied in harmony with its municipal laws. However, Madam Chair, our principal concern, particularly as a small State, is the risk that the principle of universal jurisdiction may be misused. Namibia observes that the challenge lies not only in defining the scope of universal jurisdiction, but also in preventing its use for political purposes. Accordingly, while this august House considers the scope of the principle, we recommend that this implementation should remain within the confines of recognized international law and institutions, rather than being driven by the preferences of individual states. Its abuse undermines the very norms of international justice that the principle is intended to serve. The issue is therefore one of both scope and application. even where jurisdictional threshold has not been met. Namibia, therefore, further proposes a system of universal jurisdiction founded on complementarity and coordination between credible, recognized international institutions, including International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and individual states. Such an approach would promote greater legitimacy, predictability and acceptance amongst all states. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Namibia considers it an abuse of legal principle for any state acting unilaterally to impose its domestic practice in place of universally recognized principles in a manner that undermines established international law and institutions. Namibia discourages such conduct and calls for the principled, consistent, and lawful application of universal jurisdiction. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Congo.

Madam Chair.

Thank you for giving my delegation the opportunity to speak on item 85 on universal jurisdiction. My delegation lines itself with a statement delivered by the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of Republic of Cameroon on behalf of the African group, as well as by Iran on behalf of the non-aligned movement. And we'd like to say the following in our national capacity. Congo welcomes the report of the Secretary-General of the UN on universal jurisdiction, that is, report A/81/205. Madam Chair, let us recall that universal jurisdiction is a principle of law that allows a state to prosecute the perpetrators of serious crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, a crime of genocide and torture, even if these crimes were committed in a different country and the perpetrator and victim are both nationals of a different state. In any case, the battle against impunity has no limits and produces erga omnes obligations for all member states of the international community. Universal jurisdiction is subject to the principle of subsidiarity. which requires that national courts should be seized of cases before the application of universal jurisdiction. In light of this principle, while encouraging the prosecution and extradition of individuals who have committed the most serious crimes, states have the opportunity and even the obligation to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes who are located on their territory, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. Madam Chair, I'd like to mention that universal jurisdiction draws its significance from international law after the Second World War. It has been recognized in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which define the rules of armed conflict. This principle has been consolidated and enshrined in other conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture of 1984. Congo believes that it is important to protect universal values by prosecuting perpetrators of all war crimes that fall under universal jurisdiction. This is why Congo signed in 1998, as well as ratified and deposited the instruments of ratification in May 2004 of the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court. In the same vein, Congolese law has domestic mechanisms with immediate effect regarding the punishment of crimes. with regard to the principle of universal jurisdiction. My delegation therefore encourages the ILC for all of its work to consolidate the primacy of law in international affairs, as well as to combat impunity. And we also commend the recent SG's report on this topic. Madam Chair, we are committed to the principle of zero tolerance toward impunity, but we'd like to make the following recommendations. exercising universal jurisdiction in accordance with the law respecting the principle of subsidiarity and complementarity, which encourages the primacy of national courts for prosecution, encouraging accountability when necessary at the national and international levels, maintaining and applying the principle under which universal jurisdiction is applicable when the states concerned do not take action in accordance with the principle of complementarity, and considering the legal more than the political situation, which otherwise would lead to discriminatory practices. And lastly, the application of the principle of fair and equitable trials, presumption of innocence and responsibility, as well as the access of victims to justice. In closing, Madam Chair, Congo remains committed to ending impunity, recognizing the competence, the primary competence of national jurisdictions. We would like to support all states that call for accountability when it comes to impunity, as long, of course, that it is based upon respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states as enshrined in the UN Charter. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Congo for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates.

Thank you, Chair. We express our appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. We emphasize the importance of ensuring that our discussions contribute to clarifying the scope of this principle in a manner that prevents its politicization, preserves trust, and strengthens cooperation among States to prevent impunity. We believe that the principle of universal jurisdiction can play an important role in preventing impunity and ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes. This requires that its scope and application be properly defined in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, including sovereign equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, as well as the immunities accorded to state officials. We stress the need for ensuring complementarity between universal jurisdiction and other forms of jurisdiction, so that it is not exercised in a manner that undermines the foundations of other forms of jurisdiction, including territorial jurisdiction, as well as jurisdiction based on the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. In this regard, We believe it is important to strengthen legislative frameworks in criminal matters, including extradition and mutual legal assistance, with a view to facilitating investigations, prosecutions and the exchange of evidence and information among competent judicial authorities, in accordance with the relevant legal safeguards. My country has taken steps in this regard by concluding more than 140 bilateral agreements with 53 countries, covering extradition, mutual legal assistance, the collection of evidence, the freezing and confiscation of assets, and the transfer of sentenced persons. We are also working to enhance the use of digital services for international judicial cooperation, thereby facilitating the secure exchange of judicial requests and important documents, simplifying procedures and expediting their processing in support of effective responses to requests for mutual legal assistance. At the multilateral level, we recently hosted the 15th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Abu Dhabi. We look forward to working together with you to build on the Abu Dhabi Declaration to strengthen international cooperation in this field, alongside efforts to advance the Pledge for Justice initiative and translate its commitments into practical measures. My country was the first State to make a pledge under this initiative. In conclusion, Madam Chair, the UAE reaffirms its commitment to working constructively with Member States to strengthen a common understanding of the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction and to enhance international cooperation in criminal matters in the pursuit of justice. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the UAE for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senegal lines itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon and Iran, respectively, on behalf of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement. I would like to add the following comments in its national capacity. The delegation of Senegal thanks the Secretary-General for his report containing information and observations presented by a limited number of states. Madam Chair, the principle of universal jurisdiction remains one of the key tools for combating impunity for the most serious crimes that shock the conscience of humanity as a whole. Senegal incorporated this principle into its domestic law, Law No. 2007-05 of February 2007 on the implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC. confers on Senegalese jurisdiction's competence for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and certain acts of terrorism. Similarly, Law 2002-408, which repeals Law 2008 on Combating money laundering and financing of terrorism in Articles 139 and 140 lays out extraterritorial jurisdiction allowing Senegalese courts to be seized of these offenses when the perpetrators are located on Senegalese territory or under certain provisions linked to international conventions. In addition, Senegal is party to various international instruments that encourage states to establish their competence when the presumed crime took place on their territory and not to extradite. We also are parties to the Convention on Enforced Disappearance, the International Convention on Combating Financing of Terrorism, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols, the UN Convention against Corruption, and the Liubliana-The Hague Convention on International Cooperation. with regard to the investigation and prosecution of the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other international crimes. Madam Chair, the delegation of Senegal reaffirms firmly that the exercise of universal jurisdiction must absolutely and strictly respect the fundamental principles of international law, including the sovereign equality of states, respect for national sovereignty, and noninterference in the internal affairs of states. The legitimacy and credibility of this principle is based upon its subsidiary and complementary nature. Universal jurisdiction cannot be invoked when the -- only be invoked when the state concerned is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute. It should in no case replace national jurisdictions, nor serve as an instrument for political pressure. The SGE's report also highlighted the diversity of national approaches. Certain states have developed active case law based upon subsidiarity and obligations deriving from the relevant treaties. Others have adopted a more cautious approach, expressly limiting jurisdiction to certain offenses such as piracy and war crimes, and subordinating the exercise of any extraterritorial competence to the existence of a tie or link with the state involved. This highlights the need to continue to progressively clarify the conditions for exercising this principle. In this regard, Senegal remains convinced that pursuing discussions within the Working Group of the Sixth Committee, especially on the distinction between universal jurisdiction and related concepts, is crucial. Thus, the International Law Commission, when the time is right and under consensus, contributes greatly to clarifying the legal aspects of this principle. Madam Chair, the requirements of justice for victims and the need to effectively combat impunity require us to ensure the principle is used in a responsible, impartial way without double standards. Only under these circumstances can it fully play its role in the international system for criminal justice. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Sovereign Order of Malta.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the Sovereign Order of Malta thanks the Secretary-General for his report and welcomes the continued consideration of the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Impunity for the gravest crimes is a profound failure of our collective conscience. The prosecution of those who commit torture remains alarmingly low, largely because of lack of evidence and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators. Across the world, from Syria, where tens of thousands have disappeared since 2011, to other contexts of conflict, families continue to wait for truth and justice. We at the Order see this reality through the people we serve. Many are refugees and displaced persons living far from the places where they suffered. Through Malteser International and its local partners, and through the Order's national associations and relief corps, we provide medical care and psychosocial support to survivors of violence. In Ukraine alone, where the bulk of the work on the ground is carried out by the Order's Ukrainian Relief Corps, our professionals have worked with tens of thousands of children who carry the trauma of war. For many survivors, justice must be possible wherever they find refuge. Universal jurisdiction can help close this gap. To retain its legitimacy, it must be exercised in good faith, in full respect of international law, including the sovereign equality of states, and in a manner that is neither selective nor politically motivated. It should complement the primary responsibility of the state where the crime occurred, with fair trial guarantees respected at every stage. The Order also wishes to offer a humanitarian perspective. Humanitarian workers are often present where these crimes occur, and their access depends on the trust of all parties. Efforts to pursue accountability should therefore protect the neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian personnel so that justice for victims never comes at the cost of aid of those in need. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, as Pope Francis reminded us in Fratelli Tutti, Every human being has the right to live with dignity. The Order of Malta supports every lawful effort to ensure that the gravest crimes do not go unpunished and that victims are not forgotten. I thank you.

Thank the distinguished representative of the Sovereign Order of Malta for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the ICRC. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, welcomes the continued interest of the United Nations General Assembly in the principle of universal jurisdiction would like to share its observations on the importance of universal jurisdiction as it relates to international humanitarian law, IHL. Certain crimes committed during an armed conflict are so grave that they affect the international community as a whole. Universal jurisdiction over international crimes regardless of where they occur, seeks to end impunity and to prevent those who commit such serious crimes from evading accountability in third countries. In other words, universal jurisdiction is a key tool for ensuring that serious violations of IHL are deterred and, when they do occur, investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. Chair, Universal jurisdiction is closely linked to the obligations of states to respect and ensure respect for IHL and to repress serious violations of IHL. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977 require that states establish universal jurisdiction in their national legislation for certain violations of these treaties, which are known as grave breaches. Additionally, under customary IHL, states may establish universal jurisdiction for all other serious violations of IHL committed both in international and non-international armed conflict. Other international instruments contain similar provisions. Several treaties require states parties to vest their courts with some form of universal jurisdiction over serious violations of the rules contained in these instruments. These include, for example, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Second Protocol, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The Lugano-The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes and Other International Crimes bolsters the application of universal jurisdiction by enabling cooperation among states on various aspects of investigating and prosecuting international crimes. Chair, states have a responsibility to investigate war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. A growing number of states are using universal jurisdiction to effectively close prevailing accountability gaps for serious IHL violations that were perpetrated beyond their borders in past or ongoing armed conflicts. The Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2026, published by Trial International and covering the year of 2025, tracks these actions. According to the report, authorities in two states took steps to exercise universal jurisdiction for the first time in 2025. Moreover, according to the report, 2025 saw 34 new cases opened or made public and 23 convictions entered on the basis of universal and other forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction. These efforts send an important message to affected people and survivors. It demonstrates that accountability is not just an aspirational goal, but a tangible commitment made by the international community. However, the ICRC notes that universal jurisdiction is not currently applied evenly across all armed conflicts. Consistency in the application of universal jurisdiction is an important part of enforcing IHL. States exercising universal jurisdiction should pursue accountability impartially and without bias. The ICRC calls on States to reaffirm their commitment to combating impunity for war crimes by fulfilling the obligations they have already undertaken under treaty and customary IHL. The ICRC continues to support States in fulfilling their obligation to repress serious violations of IHL. The ICRC provides legal advice and technical assistance to governments, lawmakers, and the judiciary on the national implementation of IHL and the ratification of treaties. The ICRC also develops specialized tools to assist states to understand and implement their obligations under IHL, such as public databases, reports, and fact sheets. Chair. Against the backdrop of the rising numbers of armed conflicts around the world and the disastrous humanitarian consequences we are witnessing, six states, Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa, together with the ICRC, launched a global initiative to galvanize political commitment to IHL. During discussions in the seven different work streams of the initiative, several states reflected on the importance of accountability for grave breaches and other serious violations of IHL. They highlighted that accountability serves to counter impunity, protect respect for the law, and deter future violations. Importantly, they also emphasized that accountability is an important component of building lasting peace in the aftermath of conflict. Chair. For accountability to effectively deter IHL violations in armed conflict, strengthen the rule of law, and foster sustainable peace, states need to put the right apparatus in place. They need to ensure that national authorities have the jurisdiction and capacity to investigate and prosecute grave breaches and other serious violations of IHL before their own courts. The ICRC reiterates its readiness to continue engaging with and supporting states' efforts to ensure greater respect for IHL, including through the application of universal jurisdiction. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the ICRC for her statement. We heard the last speaker on the list for this agenda item. It is my understanding that the delegation of the State of Palestine wishes to exercise the right of reply. Before we proceed further, I remind the committee that in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex 5 to the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the number of interventions in exercise of the right of reply for any delegation at a given meeting is limited to two per item, and the first intervention should be limited to 10 minutes, while the second limited to five minutes. I encourage delegations exercising a right of reply to please be as brief as possible and to remain well within these time limits. You have the floor.

Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Ambassador, for giving me the floor. In their statement, the Israeli representative said that no one abuses or uses international law and international justice more than the Palestinian delegation. The use of the word "abuse" is troubling, especially because it's coming from a representative of a state that is single-handedly destroying the international law-based order. A state who for 80 years violated international law and abused international law in order to cover up for its violations instead of protecting the international law-based order. And a state that attacks. and intimidates judges, international courts, human rights defenders, international organizations, member states, the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council. A state whose declared enemy is the law and is the truth and the facts, and it attacks anyone that exposes its crimes. A state whose violations of international law has haunted the international law-based order for over 80 years. But what makes the use of the word abuse a little bit more troubling, it indicates a deep lack of understanding of historical context. After the horrors of World War II, the international community promised never again, and it collectively built the international law-based order. The International Court of Justice, the United Nations, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, all these were not built by the Palestinian people. They were built by you, the international community. They were built by humanity collectively. They were not built by one state against the other, and they were not built for one people or the other, but for everyone, and everyone includes the Palestinian people. They were built to fulfill the promise of never again. And they are built, they are not a threat to law-abiding states like the majority of member states in this room. And stemming from our commitment and the commitment of the State of Palestine to the UN Charter, to its purposes and principles, and to international law, we resort to the cornerstone of this international law-based order, which is the peaceful settlement of dispute in accordance with the UN Charter. I do understand that the concept of a peaceful settlement of dispute is a foreign concept to the Israeli representative. whose state is committed not to the law, but to its destruction, whose state fears the law. Resorting to the peaceful settlement of dispute is not an abuse of international law. If Israel doesn't want to be standing trial for genocide before the ICJ, maybe it should not be committing genocide. and if it's officials and if it doesn't want its officials to be internationally wanted fugitives maybe they should not be committing war crimes and crimes against humanity if Israel doesn't want Commission of Inquiry reports maybe they should not be committing violations of international law and if it doesn't want General Assembly resolutions maybe they should not be committing violations of the UN Charter including the self-determination of the Palestinian people the problem is not the resorting to international peaceful settlements of dispute. The problem is not international law. The problem is not the ICJ, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. The problem is committing violations of international law. The problem is Israel's 80 years long of violations of international law. But Israel wants to commit crimes. It wants to get away with it and wants its victims to die in silence and not defend themselves or seek justice. So in response, we say that we are proud that we use international law over bombs, and that we are proud that we choose civilization over barbarity, and we are proud that we use peace over destruction, and that we are proud that we use justice, not vengeance. And I dare the Israeli representative to say the same. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine for the statement. The delegation of Israel wishes to exercise the right of reply. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, we have witnessed how the Palestinians turn any subject or legal item, regardless of its nature, into yet another opportunity for politicization. They cannot engage with legal issue without manipulating it, stripping it for its proper context and attempting to distort it to fit their own political interests. This is precisely why any consideration of International Law Commission's work and its potential outputs in this committee must be approached with the utmost caution. There will be always Irresponsible actors like the Palestinian delegation, eager to take legal products, distort their meaning, strip them for their context, and weaponize them for political purposes. When we work on the development of international law, we must look beyond narrow, short-term interests. We must think about future generations and long-term integrity of international law. the Palestinians have demonstrated once again that their only contribution is yet another round of inflammatory rhetoric and politicization. If this is not the politicization of international justice, I do not know what it is. We categorically reject these empty accusations And in order to spare this committee yet another unnecessary exchange, we will respond to them at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum. If the Palestinian delegation wishes to raise political allegations, the appropriate venue is the Security Council Middle East Open Debate, which is taking place right now in the room next to this door, not this committee, whose mandate is to address legal questions. The Palestinians claim to deplore the politicization of international justice. They would do well to begin by looking in the mirror and examining their own contribution to precisely that phenomenon. They would also do this committee a favor by sparing us yet another round of right of replies. But let us be clear about something else. If the Palestinians want to talk about peaceful settlements of dispute, they should condemn their own terrorists, their own Palestinian terrorists. Hamas committed some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, not only during the horrific massacre of October 7, but together with other Palestinian terrorist organizations that terrorized the region and the state of Israel for decades before the October 7th massacre. I grew up in Israel with the fear of boarding the bus, wondering whether it would be blown up by Hamas terrorists in Tel Aviv, in Haifa, or Jerusalem. And to this day, the Palestinians continue to glorify terrorists, pay them salaries, and celebrate their attacks. There is nothing for us to learn from the Palestinian delegation about international justice while it continues to shield and protect terrorists and those responsible for the gravest crimes. If the Palestinian delegation truly cares about international justice, They should start by condemning terrorism unequivocally, condemn the October 7 massacre, ending the glorification and financial rewards for terrorists, and ensuring that those responsible for these heinous crimes are held accountable. Only then might we begin to have a serious conversation about international justice. Until then, they can spare this committee the empty lectures on this subject. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel. The delegation of the State of Palestine has requested the floor in exercise of the second right of reply.

Thank you, Ambassador. It's very difficult to keep track of the Israeli representative's statement between the incoherent yelling and shouting. We do sit in a legal committee that discusses international law, and international law is not a technical matter. It's a lived reality for millions of people around the world, including for the Palestinian people. And we are committed to international law, to the UN Charter, to its purposes and its principles. It's something that I dared the Israeli representative to say and has not said. In response, He said that they will respond in the appropriate time and the appropriate forum. And we always say that the appropriate time and the appropriate forum is now. And the appropriate time and the appropriate forum is on the ground. Prove to the international community that you are committed to international law. Prove to the international community that you are committed to the international justice. Do not attack international courts. Do not attack the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly or the Security Council for exposing your crimes. Prove to all of us in the international community that you are committed to the law. Thank you.

I thank the State of Palestine for the statement. And the delegation of Israel wishes to exercise second right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not take much more time of this committee just to say that I think that, you know, lowering down the level of the discussion in this room and to start with personal accusations or exchange between the Palestinian representative and myself would be another bottom low of this level of the discussion in this room. So I will not cooperate with her intention or new method of bullying or try to move to another round of personal accusation. I think that, you know, when we are sitting in this room, everyone representing its own delegation, and I think that at the very least, we should be respect or respectful to one each other. Everyone has its own interests. We have some conflicts. We have some disagreements. But I have never talked directly about the Palestinian representative herself. I have some things to say, but I keep it to myself. I think this is not the right forum and not is the right way. And I think that everyone should behave in this forum and not let the hand of like lowering down the discussion even more. If the Palestinian wants to talk about human rights, about human dignity, about how we behave in international forum, I think that the very, the first stage could be to know how to react to each other. Because at the end of the day, all the people who are sitting in this room whether a representative, the Palestinian delegate, the state of Israel, or other delegates which recognize me as a state or not, I always try to be respectful to them and not to lowering the level for empty personal accusations. We are not like bullying in the school or high school. This is not another scene of Mean Girls or other movie. I think that we should behave and we deserve more. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the delegation of Israel for the statement. I remind delegations, in the exercise of their rights of reply, but also in the delivery of their statements, to maintain the decorum of this committee. to avoid statements beyond the scope of the subject of this committee and to maintain the atmosphere of respect. And this goes to all delegations. That was the final statement in exercise of the right of reply. Distinguished delegates, we have thus concluded our debate on agenda item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. I remind that the working group under this agenda item is scheduled to meet on 23 October and 6 November this year. I wish to inform you that the draft resolution for this agenda item will be coordinated this year by Mr. Marvin Ikondere of Uganda. I invite Mr. Ikondere to give us a brief indication of his plans and, if possible, to already introduce the initial draft proposals for the draft resolution. I give you the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, dear colleagues, I have followed with great interest the debate and the statements delivered by delegations. As the coordinator for the draft resolution on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, I have the honor to speak about the zero draft resolution on this item. My intention is to circulate a zero draft resolution today containing the necessary technical updates. The first round of informal consultations will take place on 23 October at 1:15 in this room. Madam Chair, allow me to thank sincerely all delegations in advance for their cooperation and support on this item.

I thank you.

I thank Mr. Ikander for his update. Distinguished delegates, this is sixth committee will now commence its 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. The committee has before it the report of the Secretary General in document A/801/290, which is available on the website of the Sixth Committee. As mentioned earlier, please be reminded of the time limits that we have agreed to work with. The first speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of the European Union.

Madam Chair, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries Montenegro, Albania, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as San Marino, align themselves with this statement. Madam Chair. We thank the Secretary-General for his report and all the Member States and the International Committee of the Red Cross that provided relevant information. We commend in particular the ICRC and humanitarian organizations, which, unwavering in their commitment, are strengthening the implementation of international humanitarian law and delivering humanitarian assistance to the many affected by armed conflicts. We recognize the extremely difficult conditions in which they act every day, and we pay tribute to them. This is a time of unprecedented humanitarian needs and a critical moment in our history. As conflicts proliferate and become more complex, international humanitarian law is increasingly disregarded, despite its undisputed relevance. We are deeply concerned about the brutality of warfare in current conflicts in which IHL, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution, is not respected. Civilians, including humanitarian workers, medical facilities and personnel, and persons hors de combat, are increasingly falling victim to serious violations of international humanitarian law. The EU is engaged on this front in diverse contexts to counter such trajectory. In 2025, we funded projects to close gaps in monitoring violations of international humanitarian law, strengthen data collection, and reinforce evidence-based advocacy. Across contemporary conflicts, we consistently call for the protection of civilians and civilian objects, the humane treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of civilian infrastructure, and strict application of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols, regardless of context. We strongly condemn violations of the rules pertaining to military occupation and recall that occupying powers must fully comply with their obligations under applicable international humanitarian law. In particular, we reaffirm the prohibition on the transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory. We also reaffirm the right of families to know the fate and whereabouts of their missing relatives and call upon occupying powers to fulfil their obligation to search for missing persons and provide relevant information to their families, including after the end of hostile activities. We condemn that a decade on from the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 2286 of 2016, co-sponsored by 84 Member States, attacks against medical facilities and personnel have continued unabated and significantly increased in numbers. This trajectory must be reversed. We also condemned the targeting of journalists and media professionals in conflict areas and call on all states to uphold the protection of civilians, recognizing the essential role in informing the public on the realities of armed conflicts. In this very context, the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, I quote, "For her efforts to promote peace and international law," unquote, is particularly timely. Ms. Pillay has devoted her life to justice, and her unwavering commitment, dedication, and courage serve as a precious compass for all of us in the current challenging times. Madam Chair, in 2026, more than 239 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance and protection. The European Union, together with its Member States, is among the leading humanitarian donors in the world, providing over 40% of global humanitarian funding. We remain committed to ensuring that in all humanitarian settings, the needs for those in the most vulnerable situation are appropriately addressed in accordance with the humanitarian principles. For this, We are continuously calling for parties to conflict to ensure rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access, and we are committed to do our share and support humanitarian organizations in their work. This entails continued support to increase data collection, better analysis, and support of practical measures to enhance the protection of humanitarian and medical support. The European Union and its member states remain committed to using all available mechanisms at national, regional, and international levels to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. This includes efforts to build close cooperation with regional organizations and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The EU and its member states will continue to adopt the necessary legislative, administrative, and practical measures to ensure and further strengthen domestic implementation of international humanitarian law. Since 2005, the European Union implements its guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law. These guidelines have provided operational tools to pursue this work in a visible and consistent manner. Furthermore, the 27 EU member states have joined the global initiative to galvanize political commitment for IHL, which seeks to develop a set of concrete and actionable recommendations to ensure the impartial, consistent, and universal application of existing IHL obligations, including in the face of new and emerging challenges. We call on all States to join the initiative and attend the Global IHL Dialogue taking place on 3 to 4 November 2026 and the High-Level Conference to Uphold Humanity in War taking place in Jordan on 7 December 2026. Madam Chair, there must be no impunity for grave breaches of international humanitarian law. We welcome the Security Council's recent unanimous adoption of Resolution 2823, co-sponsored by a record-breaking 153 Member States, calling on accountability for crimes committed against UN peacekeepers. The decisions and judgments of international courts and tribunals must be respected and implemented. We underlined that States are primarily responsible for prosecuting individuals suspected of great breaches of international humanitarian law under their jurisdiction. In this context, we reaffirm our unwavering support for the International Criminal Court, our commitment to the Rome Statute and to preserving its independence and integrity. Attacks or threats against the Court its elected officials, personnel, or those cooperating with it, including civil society representatives and service providers, are not acceptable. While we urge the United States also to reverse its latest measures, we welcome its readiness to discuss its concerns with the States Parties to the Rome Statute and to take note of the US decision to delay the entry into force of these latest measures. The operationalization of the Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine within the Council of Europe framework also enjoys the EU's strongest support, in line with our consistent commitment to international law and accountability mechanisms. Madam Chair. In closing, the EU and its Member States call on all States to respect and ensure respect of international humanitarian law in all circumstances and to protect space for principled humanitarian action. Looking ahead to 2027, which will mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of Additional Protocols I and II, we renew our commitment to their universal adherence and full implementation. In this context, we welcome Andorra's accession to all three additional protocols in 2025, and we also call on all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions. Also, we again underscore that most provisions contained therein have attained the status of customary international law. Madam Chair, I thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and my own country, Sweden. The Nordic countries welcome the report of the Secretary-General, A/81/290. The universalization and full implementation of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is central to ensuring compliance. Madam Chair, next year marks the 50th anniversary of the first two Protocols. The Additional Protocols further strengthened the protection of victims of war, and we call today on those states that have not yet ratified them to do so. We are experiencing a sharp rise in both the number of active armed conflicts across the globe, as well as the number of civilians affected. Civilians, and in particular women, children, and persons with disabilities, are disproportionately suffering the grave consequences of violations of international humanitarian law. The need to strengthen efforts to protect civilians has never been more urgent. Let us take the 50th anniversary of the Protocols as an imperative to amplify our efforts to collectively work towards strict adherence of our international humanitarian law obligations. The Nordic countries commend the ICRC and the six founding states behind the Global IHL Initiative. The Nordic countries have actively engaged in the initiative. In a world with increasing numbers of armed conflicts, the initiative is a vital contribution to galvanizing political commitment to and restoring respect for international humanitarian law. One example is the focus on work stream three on implementation of IHL as an important factor to reestablish peace and security. Another example is the measures proposed in work stream four and five to help protect civilian infrastructure and hospitals and medical units and to keep them operating under the most challenging and adverse conditions. We also value the important reminder in work stream six that international law, including international humanitarian law, applies in cyberspace as it does elsewhere. Madam Chair, the unique mandate of the International Committee of the Red Cross in armed conflict is more needed than ever. We must do what we can to safeguard that the International Red Cross and the Red Crescent Movement as well as other humanitarian organizations, are able to deliver support in a neutral, impartial, and independent way. It is also crucial to ensure that journalists have access to conflict zones, that they are protected, not attacked, and that they can share information independently. Shutting down internet and hindering and threatening members of the press from reporting is completely unacceptable. We are deeply concerned by the risks journalists must endure to uphold the freedom of the press. We commend these journalists who daily defy threats and violence for our right to impartial information. Madam Chair, persons of different genders can be affected by armed conflict in different ways. This influences their needs and perspectives in situations of armed conflict. Gendered impacts of armed conflicts also often coincide with and may be enforced by other factors, such as age or disability. Promoting practices that take account of these differences to safeguard adequate protection for all, independently of a person's gender, is key. When it comes to occupation, international humanitarian law is clear. Occupying powers must ensure the safety and welfare of the civilian population in the territories they occupy. Occupying powers must also respect the fact that occupation, by its nature, is a temporary situation and that they are obliged to preserve the status quo ante in the occupied territory. International law is also clear in that occupation cannot serve as a lawful basis for territorial acquisition. Thus, an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory, and attempts to annex occupied territory are both unlawful and without legal validity. Madam Chair, serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and those responsible held to account. Accountability is essential, both to provide victims with justice and redress and to prevent and deter future violations. These efforts should primarily be pursued at the domestic level. Where appropriate, the international community can and should support national efforts through financial or in-kind assistance. When states are unwilling or unable, accountability can be achieved through the exercise of jurisdiction by other states, including through universal jurisdiction or through the ICC. Madam Chair, let me lastly mention the Nordic governments' long engagement in issues concerning protection of the environment in armed conflicts. Armed conflicts may cause serious damage to the environment and have severe and long-lasting consequences to the nature and to populations that depend on it. Environmental effects of armed conflict also continue to be felt in its aftermath, and timely action to address them may prevent greater harm and facilitate the transition to sustainable peace. Protection of the environment is thus necessary to effectively protect civilians in times of armed conflict. In addition, awareness of how international law protects the environment in areas affected by armed conflict is a must. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada on behalf of CAHNS.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I will commence in English and conclude in French.

I have the pleasure of delivering this statement on behalf of Cairns, Australia, New Zealand, and my own country, Canada. We meet at a time of multiple ongoing armed conflicts with devastating humanitarian consequences. Reports of attacks directed against civilians, humanitarian personnel, and civilian objects have become so regular as to be almost unremarkable. As an international community, we must find in such acts further motivation to take steps to strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law in order to save lives, alleviate immense human suffering, and make the world a safer and more humane place. Madam President, the legal norms needed to ensure the protection of the victims of armed conflict have long been in place. The Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols provide an extensive and enduring framework for the protection of persons affected by armed conflict. Designed to withstand the test of time, They remain capable of addressing the realities of armed conflict, including as the means and methods of warfare evolve.

At their core is a fundamental humanitarian purpose to protect those.

Who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities. The Geneva Conventions enjoy universal acceptance and the Additional Protocols are an important part of the IHL framework. We strongly encourage states that have not done so to become parties to the Additional Protocols and other relevant IHL.

Treaties.

CAHNS also firmly believes that accountability for violations of IHL is critical to achieving lasting peace and security. This includes support for competent judicial bodies and justice mechanisms.

The Cannes.

Countries further recognize the relevance and potential of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established under Article 90 of Additional Protocol I as an available mechanism under the existing framework to inquire into alleged grave breaches or serious violations of IHL. We encourage states to consider making the necessary declaration accepting the competence of the Commission. Effective implementation begins before armed conflict occurs. States must take the measures necessary to give effect to their obligations, including through the dissemination of IHL and its integration, as appropriate, into domestic.

Law and military doctrine, training, and instruction.

We welcome the resolution's continued emphasis on the wide dissemination and full implementation of IHL, and recognize the important contributions of the International Committee of the Red Cross, national IHL committees, and similar bodies supporting these efforts.

Madame la President.

Madame Chair, our priority must be to ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law that already exist. Greater compliance with these rules would strengthen protection for those affected by armed conflict. It is here that our collective efforts must be focused. A reaffirmation through action and advocacy of our unwavering commitment to the implementation of IHL. We are pleased to note that many states have joined Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the global initiative to galvanize political commitment to IHL. We thank the ICRC and organizing states for their leadership on this initiative. We welcomed the launch of the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel in 2025 and the renewed international focus it brings to their protection. Humanitarian personnel are the lifeline to millions of civilians affected by armed conflict, and they must be protected. CANS is committed to translating these commitments into action. More than 130 states have now endorsed the declaration. and we encourage others to join. Madam Chair, Canada, Australia and New Zealand remain committed to the protection of victims of armed conflict, and we encourage all States to do the same. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Chair. Chair, humanitarianism is the broadest consensus uniting different civilizations. As the cornerstone of international humanitarian law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols provide fundamental guidelines for governing the conduct of parties to armed conflicts and protecting civilians in times of war. embodying humanity's shared commitment to safeguarding life and upholding conscience in the midst of war. At present, the international landscape remains volatile, armed conflicts persist, and emerging technologies are frequently used on the battlefield, posing new challenges to the application of international humanitarian law. To promote its full and effective implementation, China would like to propose the following. First, we must uphold the ideals of peace and do our utmost to eliminate or reduce armed conflicts. The humanitarian spirit embodied in the Geneva Conventions is fully consistent with the principle at the beginning of the UN Charter to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our time has brought untold sorrow to mankind. Protecting civilians in armed conflict ultimately requires ending hostilities and achieving lasting peace. The international community should uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, uphold the concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, and resolve disputes through dialogue and consultation to address conflict risks at their source. Second, we must uphold international rule of law and safeguard the authority of international humanitarian law, which is a matter of life and death. The Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols are among the most widely ratified international conventions. All parties should faithfully fulfill their obligations, respect the conventions in all circumstances, and ensure that the conventions are respected. China opposes selective application and double standards, and opposes the politicization and instrumentalization of humanitarian issues, as well as interference in other countries' internal affairs under the pretext of humanitarianism. Third, we must strengthen governance and jointly address the challenges posed by new technologies. In response to the threats to civilian safety from the misuse and abuse of AI and drones, China advocates a people-centered approach and the principle of technology for good. We must ensure that relevant weapon systems remain under human control at all times and comply with international humanitarian law and other applicable international law. China supports the UN's central role in regulating the use of new technologies and upholding humanitarian principles. Chair. In 2024, China, together with relevant countries and the ICRC, jointly launched the International Humanitarian Law Initiative, reaffirming the state's primary responsibility for upholding and implementing international humanitarian law and calling on all parties to armed conflicts to comply with it. To date, 122 countries have formally joined the initiative. In December, the initiative will convene a high-level conference on humanity in war in Jordan to promote wider dissemination and implementation of international humanitarian law. China is a committed advocate, participant, and a contributor to international humanitarian law. We stand ready to work with all countries to uphold the authority and vitality of the Geneva Convention systems. and to keep advancing the international humanitarian cause and the development of international humanitarian law. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for her statement. We heard the last speaker on this item for this morning. We will continue 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 next meeting. tomorrow morning. Before I close, there are a few announcements. Please recall that tomorrow morning, the Sixth Committee will 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. The Working Group on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission will hold its first meeting this afternoon at 3 p.m. The meeting will be in this room. Please also be reminded that the informal consultations on agenda item 112, Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, will be held during the lunch break today, starting at 1:15 p.m., while the informal consultations on agenda items 79, United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, will be held at 2:00 p.m. Next, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a revised programme of work of the Sixth Committee for the remainder of the session proposed by the Bureau, which was circulated to all delegations earlier this morning and posted on the website. The revised programme is designed to bring the debate back on track. Among other things, it seeks to respect the tradition of the report of the of UNCITRAL being considered on the Monday of the third week. The key decision is to postpone the debate on agenda item 83, report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, to Thursday and Friday next week. Please also note that the Bureau has recommended that, in the interest of making more progress in our debate, The Sixth Committee should seek to hold a meeting during the morning of Wednesday, 21 October, after the conclusion of the debate in the General Assembly on the residual mechanism. Finally, delegations are reminded that, as was decided at the first meeting of the Committee, the deadline to inscribe for the debate on the following agenda items to be considered by the plenary next week is tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 p.m. The agenda items are as follows: Agenda item 76, report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its 59th session. Agenda item 150, administration of justice at the United Nations. Agenda item 82, consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security, and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives. Agenda item 80, expulsion of aliens. Agenda item 87, responsibility of international organizations. and agenda item 77, United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law. Clearly, there is still much work to be done in this committee, and you have a long afternoon ahead. The meeting is adjourned. Okay.