UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/sc/10170
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals - Security Council, 10170th meeting — Security Council — 12 June 2026
Language: en
Automatically generated transcript — may contain errors. Not an official United Nations record.

---
Security Council · President [0:00]:

Declaro abierta la sesión número—

I call to order the 10,170th meeting of the Security Council. The provisional agenda for this meeting is the following item: International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. The agenda is adopted. In accordance with Rule 37 of the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure, I invite the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Serbia, and the United Republic of Tanzania to participate in this meeting. It is so decided. On behalf of the Council, I welcome His Excellency Mr. Emmanuel Ugiirashie Bujja, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda. In accordance with Rule 39 of the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Judge Graciela Gatti-Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals; and Mr. Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. It is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of Item 2 of the agenda. I now give the floor to Judge Graciela Gatti-Santana.


IRMCT · President · Graciela Gatti-Santana [1:39]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Please allow me to congratulate you for assuming the presidency of the Security Council and wish you, um, my, um, constant support and thanks to you, um, to the council from the International Mechanism of Criminal Tribunals. In particular, in the current context of the review of the mandate of the mechanism, it's a privilege to take the the floor at the Council on behalf of the Mechanism and present the 6th report of the Mechanism that includes the Strategic Plan and its 28th Situation Report.

Mr. President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the future of the United Nations' responsibility towards those within its duty of care, and indeed the future of international criminal justice, now stand before the Council. The Council created the mechanism to discharge this responsibility and to preserve the unprecedented success of the Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in delivering justice in the aftermath of atrocity crimes. The mechanism has effectively executed its mandate thanks to its dedicated judges and staff and the cooperation of member states. As history teaches, The moral arc of justice is long, and as the Council considers the future of the mechanism, it is worth reflecting on its past. Every one of the more than 250 persons indicted by the Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia has been tried, convicted, acquitted, transferred to states for trial, or otherwise accounted for. Through decades of committed bilateral and multilateral cooperation, hundreds of international arrest warrants were executed by states. States respected privileges and immunities granted to both prosecution and defense counsel to allow for effective investigations. Thousands of witnesses, many granted judicial protection under powers you provided under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, traveled internationally to participate in proceedings and provide a comprehensive accounting of what transpired. Following agreements between states and the United Nations, over 100 convicted persons served their sentences in numerous enforcement states. The last hearing in the last case earmarked for trial before the mechanism recently concluded. With the referral of one of the final contempt cases to a national jurisdiction, only limited but still essential work remains. Thanks to the Council's enduring support, international criminal law is now fixed in the public consciousness. Implementing it has a detailed blueprint. Accountability for international crimes through trials that adhere to the highest standards is now an essential component of reconciliation and durable peace. Today, the Council is engaged in its sixth review of the mechanism's progress of work. To assist the Council, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, or OIOS, submitted this— its reports on the methods and work of the Mechanism. It concluded that despite steep resource reductions of over 40% in budget and staffing since 2021, the Mechanism has continued to deliver results across all its mandated functions. OIOS also observed that member states affirmed the continued necessity and relevance of the mechanism's work. Nevertheless, OIOS found that the mechanism's ability to continually evolve to achieve a small, temporary, and efficient structure is hampered by its mandated architecture, which has constrained opportunities for consolidation and cost savings. Building on OIOS's Evaluation and the reports of the Secretary-General of 1 December 2025, the Mechanism's principles have developed and shared with the Council an ambitious Strategic Plan for the future of the Mechanism and its operations. The Strategic Plan provides concrete proposals which, if adopted by the Council, will result in the completion and transfer of several Mechanism functions and the institution's substantial reorganization and physical consolidation to meet its projected workload. To put the scale of this proposal into perspective, the mechanism following such changes expects that it can achieve a nearly 90% reduction of staff and resources, that the President and the Prosecutor could serve on an ad hoc basis, that the Registrar's position will be downgraded to reflect the significantly reduced scope of activities and responsibilities, and that the mechanism would operate from a single location. Mr. President, aligned with the recommendations of the Secretary-General, the strategic plan proposes the transfer of assistance to national jurisdictions and the preservation and management of the archives to the United Nations Secretariat. While these functions are vital for closing the impunity gap and maintaining a reliable historical resource for research, education, and countering revisionism and denial, such technical activities need not to be embedded in a court. The Strategic Plan also supports the Secretary General's proposal that the day-to-day supervision of conditions of imprisonment, a largely administrative function, can be transferred to enforcement states, provided that international standards are maintained. In this respect, the mechanism has made substantial progress in preparing for this possibility. All current European enforcement states, namely Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom have confirmed that there are no practical or legal barriers to assuming this function. The United Kingdom and Poland have further confirmed their willingness to serve as temporary detention states should the need arise in the future following the closure of the United— the United Nations, sorry, Detention Unit in The Hague. Relatedly, Rwanda with which the UN has an enforcement agreement, has indicated its willingness to enforce sentences of persons convicted in proceedings deriving from the ICTR, and it— that it has the capacity and resources to do so in line with international standards. Consideration of this possibility is ongoing and will require confirmation that all necessary guarantees for the protection of the fundamental rights of the convicted persons are in place. The mechanism expresses its profound thanks to these member states and acknowledges their essential role in and substantial contribution to international justice. The strategic plan further recommends that terminate— the termination of center— certain resource-intensive prosecutorial and judicial functions, including in-court proceedings that can effectively be carried out by states are no longer required at the international level to protect the interests of justice and due process. Madam President, the Strategic Plan identifies a limited number of key judicial functions that should remain at the international level to ensure the responsible conclusion of the justice cycle. These include judicial functions related to transfer and release of prisoners, a convicted person's right to relief to avoid miscarriage of justice, Witness protection, non vis in idem, and the power to refer, monitor, and revoke cases. These issues concern the rights of convicted persons, the continued judicial protection of victims and witnesses, and the preservation of essential legal safeguards arising from the mechanism's duty of care to those over whom it has exercised criminal jurisdiction. They implicate core principles of legality, equality and due process, which are the bedrock of international criminal justice. Their retention at the international level is essential to consistent application of the law, legal certainty and fairness. The recommendations before the Council are comprehensive and the result of exhaustive consideration by the Mechanism, the Office of Legal Affairs and the Secretary-General. The Council has the necessary information to take decisive action and to further align the Mechanism with the Council's vision of it being a small, temporary, and efficient institution. I must stress that legal, legal certainty and continuity are key considerations for the Council as it deliberates on the forthcoming resolution. I take this opportunity to highlight a specific function under the purview of the President. Specifically, the mechanism supervises the sentences of 36 persons in 8 enforcement states and 2 persons detained in the United Nations Detention Unit. All prisoners, even those sentenced to life imprisonment, may become eligible for early release. In addition, the average age of our prisoners is 72 years, and it may be expected that release based on humanitarian grounds will become an increasingly significant factor in whether convicted persons can remain incarcerated. The need to adjudicate applications for release of prisoners who are eligible is a continuous obligation. The prospect for release based on humanitarian grounds can arise at any moment. The continuous and active, active ability to adjudicate such requests is a guarantee that cannot lapse. The Secretary-General's reports and the Strategic Plan uniformly support retaining this core judicial function among international judges.. There is consensus that this function cannot be effectively transferred to States or the Secretariat. The Secretary-General and the Strategic Plan propose that this function remains within the Mechanism. This is by far the preferred option. It is the most cost-effective and efficient when considering the resources required to create something anew. More importantly, It guarantees continuous oversight and consistent application of the law by a President who is bound to consult with judges who are members of the sentencing chambers or who have familiarity with the underlying conflicts and sentencing procedures. As noted by the Secretary-General, this function is not cost-intensive. A resolution before the end of this month is key to ensuring that the UN's its duty of care to those who have been imprisoned under its authority is effectively continued and implemented without gaps or legal uncertainty. Finally, and in connection with this function, I am aware that a recent decision on early release for Mr. Ratko Mladic has been raised as an issue before the Council. This decision, taken in consultation with 5 other judges of Mr. Mladic's sentencing chambers, involved all procedural guarantees and applied the general principles of law. I take this opportunity to emphasize that credible justice depends on judicial independence without undue political pressure. This is necessary to effectively implement the international community's will to ensure humane conditions of imprisonment and the effective implementation of sentences for those convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Madam President, durable justice does not conform to clear or finite timelines. However, the Strategic Plan, which balances principle and pragmatism, presents the Council with a viable path towards the responsible completion of the justice cycle. It entails substantial change while recognizing that the final phase of the justice cycle cannot be completed by relinquishing the guarantees that give international justice its legitimacy in the first place. The Mechanism stands ready to continue to impartially and efficiently execute these obligations on the Council's behalf and move steadily on the path towards closure. Finally, I take this opportunity to commend the dedicated and exemplary staff of the Mechanism. They represent over 50 nationalities and have effectively implemented the international community's will to achieve durable justice. Time and again, they have reaffirmed this commitment, notwithstanding continuous professional insecurity. Their excellence and accountability are admirable, and I extend my profound gratitude. I look forward to hearing your views and continue to engage. With you.

Thank you very much.


Security Council · President [14:52]:

Thank you very much. I thank Judge Gatti-Santana for her briefing. I now give the floor to Prosecutor Serge Brammertz for his briefing.


IRMCT · Prosecutor · Serge Brammertz [15:09]:

Madam President, Excellencies, thank you for the opportunity to brief you again. The details of my Office's activities and results are set out in my written progress report. My remarks today will focus on the Council's review of the mechanism. Madam President, Excellencies, for the last 18 years I have had the honor to be entrusted by this Council to serve as Prosecutor. I have always shared my opinion in a transparent way, which is even more important when this Council is considering strategic and institutional matters. Also, so I would like to share my analysis of the situation, hoping it will assist your deliberations on the way forward. Madam President, Excellencies, through the ad hoc tribunals and mechanisms, the Security Council and the United Nations have achieved an unprecedented record of accountability and justice: 154 perpetrators convicted, no fugitives at large. Through their cases, the tribunals and the mechanism establish the truth of what occurred in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. The ICTR determined that it is a fact of common knowledge beyond dispute that genocide was committed against the Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994. Likewise, the ICTY judicial record is clear that across the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, civilians were deliberately targeted in violation of the most fundamental rules of international law, while genocide was committed in Srebrenica. Finally, the Completion Strategy adopted by this Council ensured that international justice was temporary and not the end of the accountability process. Primary responsibility for prosecuting the remaining crimes has passed to Member States, who have demonstrated their willingness and capacity to carry this work forward. The results are a testament to the United Nations' commitment to justice and accountability. Madam President, Excellencies, the Council has made clear its expectations that the Mechanism bring its activities to an orderly closure. In this context, the Mechanism's Strategic Plan is a roadmap for fundamental change. It is a proposal for the Council to start from. The core point is that the Strategic Plan reflects a commitment by all principles. We are ready to move forward in a way— in a new way, with a fresh approach. Our focus now will be on only what is truly essential. We can transfer or terminate many mandates. We can dramatically reduce our footprint and requirements. From my perspective, there are three essential components to address: first, those persons convicted and serving their sentences; second, assisting Member States to achieve more justice for more victims; Third, education about what occurred and remembrance of those who suffered. Madame President, Excellencies, the Tribunals and the mechanisms are mandated to prosecute individuals and hold them personally responsible for their crimes. Their guilt is theirs alone. Their punishment is for what they did, the crimes they committed. Not collective responsibility, but individual criminal responsibility. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment and detained on the authority of the United Nations and the Security Council, enforced by Member States in their national systems. Imprisonment is the most severe sanction that can be imposed under international law. It expresses our shared condemnation of these crimes. As Prosecutor, I believe that the Mechanism should continue to bear ultimate responsibility for convicts serving their sentences. Their imprisonment is by our authority and decisions. According to the Statute, convicted persons are entitled to consideration for commutation and early release. Our system of justice provides them with the opportunity to demonstrate remorse for their crimes. The Council decided in Resolution 1966 that the Mechanism was best placed to deal with these matters. That was the right decision then. And it remains so today. So I would strongly recommend that the mechanism continue performing the early release function as its core judicial and prosecutorial activity. Madam President, Excellency, as I have regularly briefed you, I believe that one of the most important achievements of the completion strategies has been that member states fully assumed responsibility to continue the accountability process. International justice was always a temporary measure in the particular circumstances of the time. Today, national ownership of the justice process has been restored, and member states have achieved and continue to achieve impressive results. In Rwanda and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, domestic courts and post-conflict justice mechanisms have prosecuted thousands of perpetrators for their crimes. They have delivered justice to victims where it is the best served—in local communities most accessible to the public. In addition, trials have been held in many other states around the world where perpetrators have fled, often hiding their true identities and falsely claiming to be refugees. A clear message is being sent that those responsible for international crimes will be held accountable wherever they may be found. Of course, more work remains to be done at the domestic level. Rwandan authorities are seeking more than 1,000 genocidaires. In the country of the former Yugoslavia, more than 2,000 suspects still need to be investigated. Key challenges include complex cases against senior and mid-level perpetrators, crimes of sexual violence, strengthening international cooperation and tracking fugitives. As IOS reported in the most recent assessment, Member States consistently underscored the practical indispensability of my Office in supporting their work. Achieving justice in their courts depends on the evidence and expertise my Office provides. The obvious solution is to transfer this function to the United Nations Secretariat. As a technical function, this work falls squarely within the core competences of the Secretariat. The United Nations serves Member States, particularly by providing international expertise to strengthen national capacity. My Office prepared a clear and detailed proposal with budgetary and administrative implications, and is ready to discuss timelines. And so I would strongly recommend that the Council transfers this mandate to the Secretary-General, together with our evidence collection and some of my staff members. Madam President, Excellencies, the work of the Tribunal and the Mechanism is not just about the past, but also the present and the future. The victims and survivors have always been at the forefront of our efforts. We have endeavoured to provide them with some measure of justice for their pain and suffering. Equally, though, this work has increasing relevance to the next generations. For many, The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda are a matter of history, not lived experience. It is critical that the stories of the victims and survivors live on. It is by remembering them that we honor them. The mechanism archives have an essential role to play. The records of our trials contain the testimonies of so many courageous victims and survivors. They confronted those who wronged them and told the truth about what happened. This truth is needed now more than ever. Unfortunately, the denial of the crimes and glorification of war criminals persists. Reconciliation depends on full respect for the suffering of all victims from all groups. Memorialization is also vital to prevention. The horrific atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were not random outbreaks of violence. They were the result of organized plans by senior leaders who abused their authority and thought to achieve their political goals through the widespread commission of crimes. Hate speech and propaganda prepared the groundwork by dehumanizing other groups as foreigners and threats. Education about what occurred helps identify warning signs for the future, and it contributes to preventing future atrocities. So I strongly recommend that the archives of the tribunal and the mechanism are transferred to the Secretary-General so he can make them available to the public in the long term. This will ensure that the legacy of the tribunals and mechanism lives on for generations to come. Madame President, Excellencies, in conclusion, there is a path forward this Council can endorse. Addressing the three elements I have outlined will decisively advance completion of the Mechanism's activities in a responsible and appropriate way. Transferring the assistance function and archives to the Secretariat will ensure Member States and the global public continue to benefit from the work of the Tribunals and Mechanism. What will remain with the Mechanism can be the minimum possible that will create a sustainable foundation for the final essential work. The Council has provided its steadfast support to the tribunals and mechanisms since their establishment. Thanks to that support, many victims in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have received the justice they deserve. My office stands ready to assist the Council in its deliberations and provide any information that Council members may find helpful. Thank you for your attention.


Security Council · President [25:00]:

I thank Prosecutor Bramertz for his briefing. I now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements. I give the floor to the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [25:20]:

Madame la Présidente, Madame President, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thanks the Republic of Colombia for convening this important meeting. We welcome Madam Graciela Gatti Santana, President of the International Mechanism Engaging in the Residual Functions of the Tribunals, as well as Mr. Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the Mechanism. My delegation thanks them for their briefings as well as the detailed information brought to the attention of the Council this morning. Madam President, the Democratic Republic of the Congo takes note of the progress report on the functioning of the mechanism as presented this morning. Created by way of Resolution 1966/2010, the mechanism now is at a pivotal moment of its existence. This stage invites the Council not only to assess the progress made, but also to reflect with a sense of responsibility on the challenges that remain. Above and beyond its institutional dimension, the mechanism reflects a fundamental reality. Its existence is testament to, on the one hand, the ability of humanity to commit the most abject atrocities, as well as, on the other hand, humanity's determination to fight effectively against impunity and upholding law and justice. The successor of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the mechanism remains one of the most significant expressions of the commitment of the international community to international criminal accountability. Madam President, 16 years after it was created, the information presented today show substantial progress made in the implementation of the mandate entrusted to this body by the Council. It's evident at this stage that the main criminal procedures that come under the mechanism have now been concluded, and this evolution is an important step in the life of the institution. It shows that today it is playing a more limited role, and this, of course, is in line with its residual mandate. Yet, as underscored by the most recent activity report, There are still some very important functions that remain, in particular the management of the archives, assistance to national jurisdictions, the protection of witnesses, the supervision of enforcement of sentences, as well as certain judicial functions that continue to require particular attention. Furthermore, my delegation takes note of the work engaged in within the framework of the 6th biennial review of the mechanism, as well as the different assessments provided to the Council. These contributions are useful elements to guide the collective reflections of the Council on the future of the institution and on the most appropriate ways of supporting it in its institutional evolutions. In this regard, there are several questions that require our particular attention. First of all, the preservation, management, and accessibility of the archives. These do not only constitute considerable judicial and institutional legacy and heritage, but they are also an essential tool for memory research, fact-finding, and national procedures that could still require access to these resources. The second is the assistance provided to national jurisdictions. This function remains essential for supporting the efforts undertaken by states to fight impunity and to preserve the the achievements made over the years by the international jurisdictions. Thirdly, there are certain residual judicial functions that, due to their very nature, continue to require appropriate guarantees and sustained attention in order to preserve the credibility of the system put into place by the Council for victims, witnesses, and also the individuals that are currently serving their sentences. Finally, it's necessary to fully take account of the role played by states who have been cooperating for many years with the mechanism, in particular in the area of sentence enforcement. In this regard, my delegation wishes to underscore the important contributions of Benin and Senegal, whose constant commitment deserves to be recognized. Madam President, while the Security Council is preparing to continue its reflections on the future of the mechanisms, mechanism, it's important for our deliberations to be guided by a double imperative to preserve the achievements of international criminal justice while at the same time supporting with a sense of realism, lucidity, and responsibility the changes to the mechanism in line with the role allocated to it by the Council when it was created. The Democratic Republic of the Congo stands ready to contribute constructively to future discussions and calls all of the members of the Council to continue this exercise in a spirit of consensus, shared responsibility, remaining true to the principles that guided the creation of the international tribunals and the mechanism itself. Thank you very much.


Security Council · President [31:04]:

I thank the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for your statement, and I now give the floor to Liberia. The representative of Liberia, you have the floor.


Liberia [31:18]:

Thank you, thank you, Madam President. Liberia extends its appreciation to the President and principles of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for its 6th review report, which includes a comprehensive strategic plan intended to inform these deliberations. We also happily welcome His Excellency the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, as well as other distinguished colleagues, to this debate. Are pleased with the Secretary-General's report and recommendations, as well as the evaluation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services. Madam President, these reports, recommendations, and assessments signify that we are truly at a pivotal stage in our joint pursuit of accountability and justice for the gravest crimes, reflecting both the legacy of the ad hoc criminal tribunals and the continued evaluation and evolution of international criminal law. We recall that the establishment of the mechanism in Resolution 1966 of 2010 was a landmark in ensuring that the closure of the ad hoc tribunals would not signal an end to accountability, but rather a transition to a more streamlined and efficient framework. The strategic plan placed before us, supported by recent Secretary-General and OIOS evaluations, honors this mandate by proposing ambitious but yet pragmatic timelines for the transfer or completion of residual functions. Liberia welcomes the focus on consolidating judicial activities and transferring administrative and support functions to appropriate UN structures. We note in particular the intention to conclude outstanding mandates including the investigation and prosecution of core crimes. This objective upholds the principles of finality and legal certainty, both of which are foundational to international criminal justice. Further recalling lessons drawn from the Council's oversight, of past tribunals, Liberia supports the retention of key judicial functions: referral, monitoring, and relocation, as well as witness protection. As we are all aware, these functions are vital for upholding due process, fairness, and the protection of the rights of both victims and the convicted in accordance with international human rights law. Madam President, we are also mindful of the human rights obligations engaged by the mechanism's work, including the right to a fair trial, protection against double jeopardy, and the humane treatment of all individuals in its custody or under its supervision. Given this nexus, Liberia calls for strict adherence to applicable international human rights and humanitarian law standards throughout the completion and transfer of the mechanisms functions. In conclusion, Madam President, Liberia recognizes the Mechanism Strategic Plan as a responsible and necessary roadmap for the orderly completion of its historic mandate. As we assess the path forward for the transfer of the RRMCT's functions, Libera calls upon all Member States to provide full cooperation in implementing these transitions whilst ensuring the integrity and accessibility of the mechanism's legacy. I thank you for your kind attention.


Security Council · President [36:55]:

I thank the representative of Liberia. Thank you, Madam Secretary-General, for your statement. And I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [37:09]:

Madam President, today we have gathered here in order to discuss the 6th review and the regular semiannual reports on the activities of the residual mechanism. These documents, once again, are very verbose. Namely clarity on the timelines for the final closure of the mechanism, is still absent from them. The ornate and evasive answers of the leadership of this body to quite specific questions of Council members within the ongoing review procedure also do not help. And let me start by a comparison and recall here that that both ICTY and ICTR and the residual mechanism continuing their activity have been in existence for more than 30 years, whereas the Nuremberg Tribunal was functioning for 11 months. And after its closure, no one had the idea to keep the tribunal to supervise the implementation of sentences or to keep the archive or to carry, carry out other functions. In the review report, what we have presented is a so-called strategic plan, which is submitted as a single vision of the mechanism's leadership regarding its future. Such a plan could have been seriously considered about 15 years ago. Now it looks like a direct and undisguised disrespect towards the Council, the Council which originally established the mechanism as a temporary structure. The problem is that this is far from the first such plan or forecast. It is obvious that all previous ones were not implemented. Otherwise, today we would not be spending the Council's time to discuss this topic. We will remember how the leadership of the predecessor of the mechanisms, the Rwandan mechanism, the Yugoslav tribunals planned to fully complete their work by 2015. The creation of the residual mechanism in their presentation was supposed to further accelerate the process of the tribunal's final closure. But in reality, it turned out to be quite the opposite. Now, in 2026, the mechanism has long completed its main judicial functions but stubbornly continues to cling to residual ones in order to prolong its existence. Whether we should believe the forecasts and promises in the Strategic Plan, the question is rhetorical. On a separate note, we would like to comment on the so-called single vision of the mechanism's leadership. The ideas of unifying on the basis of the lowest common denominator is something that we from the beginning considered to be counterproductive and aimed at artificially prolonging the existence of the Mechanism. mechanism. In this regard, it is not surprising that the strategic plan prepared on such a basis presupposes in essence the further functioning of the mechanism, albeit in a reduced form, without clear prospects for its closure. This could not be an acceptable approach. The leadership of the mechanism again and again stubbornly tries to prove that it allegedly only recently became truly residual. Thus, in the latest semiannual report of the mechanism, the death of Mr. Kabuga in a hospital in The Hague is linked with the final completion of the last case concerning core crimes pending, uh, before the mechanism. At the same time, already in the report of the Secretary-General prepared in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2740, it was noted that in 2023 all main criminal proceedings were completed, and in 2024 the activity on tracking fugitives from justice. In connection with the fact that manipulation with statistics and dates and, well, this substitution of concepts have become the calling card of the mechanism, we would like again to remind the UN Security that the UN Security Council originally established the structure as residual and temporary, and its closure, closure has been excessively and unjustifiably delayed. In 2024, during the previous review of the mechanism, we, as an exception, did not block the extension of the mechanism's mandate because, quote, we did this only in order that this would help us to take stock of the work of this body and to note its completion. Two years later, there is still no talk of completion in the mechanism's reports. The leadership of the structure continues without justification requesting extension of its mandate for another 24 months. Please allow me to remind it once again that ICTY and ICTR and the residual mechanism is the longest international judicial mechanism in the history of humankind. And we continue being presented with proposals to extend its functions. Concrete decisions have long been overdue on the completion of residual functions or their transfer to new recipients, which would allow closing of the mechanism, especially since the leadership of the mechanism itself constantly asks the Security Council to take the necessary decisions. In general, it is our view that the Council at this stage should make a decision about the, um, conclusion of the activity of the mechanism and transferring the residual functions, many of which, by the way, I would like to recall, exist only on paper. And here, please allow me to provide a number of clarifications. Let's take, for example, the function of supervising the enforcement of sentences in third states. For years, we have drawn attention of the mechanism leadership to egregious violations of the rights of such persons, for example, the rights of Mr. Karadžić in a British prison. They— nothing specific was done by the mechanism to stop such violations, wasn't— didn't do or wasn't able to do. Its leadership each time referred to the fact that prison authorities who keep Mr. Karađić deny such violations. Was there any hope at any point that the authorities would admit anything themselves? And what kind of monitoring is this if the position of an interested side is taken on faith without the slightest attempt to establish an objective picture? Against the background of an absolutely negligent attitude of the mechanism to this function, um, its absurd proposal to fully hand it over to European states does not surprise. Such a step would allow them to continue to, with impunity, violate the rights of convicts. In our view, the only solution that would ensure the human rights of this category of persons is their transfer to states of nationality, together with a function of monitoring their conditions of detention. Another function, references to which the mechanism tries to justify its further existence, and it is the early release of convicted persons. The quality of its implementation is well established— well illustrated by the decision adopted on the 14th of May was unlawful, absurd, and simply inhumane. It was made by the president of the mechanism wherein she rejected the request for release on humanitarian grounds of Mr. Mladic. Those present could familiarize themselves with the content of our letter on this matter demanding an immediate release of the Serbian general and giving him the opportunity to spend his final days in his home country. Since we circulated this letter as an official document of the Security Council, I will only recall its main elements. This so-called decision by Ms. Gatti will become yet another stain on the reputation of the mechanism. In it, she openly acknowledges that the Serbian general is dying, does not deny the existence of humanitarian circumstances, as well as the practice of the mechanism and its predecessors, to release persons in such condition. The reasons, uh, which he uses to explain the refusal to apply a similar approach to Mr. Mladenić are beyond not just justice, but also elementary humanity. The president tries to draw an artificial distinction between an acute terminal illness and a combination of numerous chronic diseases. What difference does it make if in both cases the person is at death's door? There is a continuation of a politicized anti-Serb bias permeating all activities of the ICTY and the residual mechanism. The function of early release as a whole was carried out negligently and with bias. We remember how in some cases convicted persons were released a few days before death, is just simply to remove responsibility. And in this regard, to emphasize this function as a reason to extend the existence of the mechanism is simply not serious. Another function is witness protection. To an outside observer not, uh, well-versed in the work of the mechanism may, may seem that it is indeed important. However, let's look at the details. Um, the mechanism does not carry out physical protection of witnesses and in essence never did. It was de facto carried out by states. When witnesses among Serbs were being intimidated and systematically killed, officials of the ICTY merely shrugged their shoulders, declaring their lack of ability and instruments to ensure their safety. At present, the issue concerns exclusively the so-called judicial protection of witnesses. Within this framework, the mechanism, upon request of national competent bodies, gives formal authorization to disclose information about witnesses for whom non-disclosure decisions had previously been adopted. And here I would like to point out all of these three functions— supervising the implementation of sentences, early release, and witness protections— in many countries. These functions are not judicial at all. Why they should remain judicial within the mechanism is a question to which there is no answer. Two other quasi-judicial functions are non bis in idem, in other words, preventing double conviction for the same crimes, and transfer of convicted persons from one state to another in order to serve the sentence. These are purely technical functions. Are there any doubts here that non bis in idem is something that a national court cannot handle? Not clear. To summarize, in light of the frankly negligent attitude of the mechanism to the execution of residual functions, their transfer to new recipients can only improve the quality of implementation of these tasks. At the same time, we have taken note of the position of a number of Council members advocating for preservation of quasi-judicial functions at the international level, and we, on our part, propose an option that allows fulfilling this task while simultaneously closing the mechanism. Thus, the performance of such technical quasi-judicial functions could be entrusted by the Council to a designated res-responsible person with administrative and technical support from the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN Secretariat. And, uh, such a person could very well tackle such issues. We shared with colleagues in the Council our substantive considerations also regarding other residual functions, in particular the function of providing legal assistance, um, could be transferred to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime together with a strictly limited number of experienced staff of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Residual Mechanism. We support the proposal to transfer physical archives of the residual mechanism to interested states. There are such states and we know them very well. More than that, they are ready to even fund the preservation of archives and provide access to them to all interested persons. At the same time, we are in favor of making them as public as possible, all of the archive materials, including placing them in open access on the internet. This will ensure their accessibility both for representatives of affected communities and independent researchers from the— around the world. In order to protect the interests of victims and witnesses, publications with certain parts redacted could be envisioned. We count on constructive consideration of our proposals by colleagues in the Council so as to develop optimal solutions that will avoid further inefficient expenditure of funds by the mechanism and its extremely bloated staff. In general, We would like to recall that in accordance with the understanding which we have enshrined in the President of the Security Council SPRST 2015/21, its results, the results of the review must be reflected by the Security Council in an appropriate form. Thus, without another Security Council resolution following the review, it cannot be considered to have taken place. And without another review, the mechanism itself will cease to exist, as follows from operative paragraph 17 of Security Council Resolution 1966. More than that, the mechanism should have ceased existence long ago. But we would like to also recall here that closure of the mechanisms, judicial investigative functions without a decision of the Council is already a practice, existing practice. We have seen several examples of that, so this is an option that we have. At the same time, we stand ready to work together with all members of the Council so as to make the decision on the closure of the mechanism and the transfer of its functions in the best possible way. We cannot regard as a serious attitude to the review procedure the intention of Secretary-General to appoint a Ugandan judge to a vacancy in the judicial roster. We remain unable to understand why this is done a year after the vacancy arose and literally one month before the end of the mechanism review. And in light of the circumstances under which the vacancy appeared, we expect expected from the Secretary-General information on additional steps to ensure compliance of candidates with criteria. As we recall, a former judge of the mechanism was found guilty of modern forms of slavery and is serving a prison sentence now. We also will remember the clumsy attempts by the mechanisms to sweep the matter under the rug and conceal the situation from the Council. And in this regard, we did not agree with this intention on the part of the Secretary General and in the Council as a whole, there is still no consensus on this. In general, we believe that the fate of judges and the roster will be decided within the framework of the review and by the Council decision I just mentioned. We are committed to an active and constructive search for mutually acceptable options that will allow finally to close the ineffective, unwieldy, and extremely costly costly structure called the residual mechanism. This issue is acquiring particular relevance against the background of personnel and financial cuts taking place across the UN system within the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative, which is affecting the permanent, not temporary, and residual functions. I would like to, in conclusion, point out that if we are going to have conversations with delegations outside of the Council, then we will find out that they're surprised by the fact that the mechanism continues existing. Most of the delegations with the UN is of the view that the structure has been closed a long time ago. I thank you.


Security Council · President [55:31]:

I thank the Russian Federation for your statement, and I now give the floor to the delegation of Bahrain.


Bahrain [55:39]:

Thank you, Mr. Madam President. At the outset, I wish to thank Judge Graciela Gatti-Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, and Mr. Serge Bramertz, Prosecutor, for their briefings and for the comprehensive overview they provided on the progress made in implementing the mechanisms' residual mandate. We also welcome the presence of the representatives of Serbia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, Croatia, to this meeting. In light of the importance of this mandate, the Kingdom of Bahrain attaches great importance to the role of the mechanism in carrying out the remaining tasks of the ICTR and ICTY, and we commend the contribution the two tribunals have made to international criminal justice. Here, the Kingdom affirms that the international community needs to address the root causes of these crimes, including hate speech and the manifestations of discrimination and racism that inflame these. And we take note of the reports submitted to the Security Council on the work of the mechanism, including the sixth review report and the accompanying strategic plan. Including proposals for completing certain functions, transferring others, and reducing the size of the mechanism and its resources. The Kingdom also appreciates the importance of taking into account the views of those in charge of the day-to-day functions of the mechanism as a technical and operational assessment of the mechanism with respect to remaining tasks and means of carrying them out efficiently. At the same time, we say that the Decision on the future of the mechanism remains the responsibility of the member states of the Security Council, and it will be addressed within the framework of the draft resolution on the mechanism's periodic review by the end of this month. In this context, the Kingdom stresses the importance of adherence to the mandate set out in Security Council Resolution 1966, which established the mechanism as a small, temporary, and efficient structure and stipulated that the size of its functions should correspond to the diminishing volume of its remaining work. On this basis, the Kingdom considers it important that this process will be carried out in a measured and balanced manner, taking into account requirements of efficiency and rationalization of resources while ensuring the completion of judicial functions, the integrity of remaining legal proceedings, and the preservation of the credibility of the judicial legacy, including transparency and orderly arrangements. The Kingdom further affirms that any future arrangements in this regard must ensure the continued fulfillment of relevant legal and humanitarian obligations, particularly those relating to the protection of witnesses and victims, the enforcement of sentences, and the preservation of records and judicial archives and their availability in accordance with the agreed frameworks. Madam President, the Kingdom of Bahrain considers that effective cooperation on part of the member states, particularly those directly concerned with the relevant cases, remains an essential pillar enabling the mechanism to fulfill its remaining tasks Here we call for the continuation of efforts aimed at finding fair and practical solutions for the situation of acquitted and released persons in a manner that ensures respect for their rights, dignity, in accordance with international law. In conclusion, the Kingdom of Bahrain affirms that the primary responsibility for holding perpetrators of serious crimes accountable rests with states while recognizing the important complementary role played by international mechanisms and bodies in supporting the cause of justice. The Kingdom also affirms the importance of the current periodic review leading to a clear and balanced vision for the future of the mechanism, one that ensures the efficient and transparent implementation of its remaining mandate, as well as the rationalization of its resources and the completion of its core tasks in a manner that contributes to consolidating the rule of law and strengthening international justice system, I think.


Security Council · President [59:57]:

I thank the delegate of Bahrain for your statements, and I now give the floor to the representative of France.


France [1:00:05]:

Madame la Présidente. Madame President, I thank the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Ms. Cathy Santana, and the Prosecutor Serge Brammertz for their briefings and for the 6th review report of the mechanism. I also welcome the presence of the Minister of Justice of Rwanda, His Excellency Emmanuel Uregashibuja, and the presence of the representatives of Serbia, Bosnia and Mr. Governor, Tanzania and Croatia. Madam President, the first thing that emerges from the briefings and the report is that the mechanism has performed and continues to perform rigorously the task for which it was established. The second thing is that the mechanism has now reached a point in its work that requires major developments, and it is on these developments that I would like to focus my statement. For several weeks now, and, uh, as recently as yesterday at the meeting of the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals, the Council has been conducting the biennial review provided for in paragraph 17 of Resolution 1966, which established the mechanism. And at the end of In light of this consideration, France believes that the decision to be taken by the Council must be taken in a spirit of responsibility. And the primary responsibility lies with regard to history, that of the tragedies that occurred in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, and that of the response given to them by the international community by creating the ICTY and ICTR through their jurisprudence. These two ad hoc courts, the first ones created since the end of the Second World War, have left a deep mark on the history of international criminal law. By bringing to trial the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, they marked an essential step in fighting against impunity. To be responsible and to live up to history implies that as long as there are people convicted by these courts, there must remain an international judicial authority responsible for monitoring the execution of the sentences imposed. As long as there are people on trial, the same authority will be needed to ensure that they are not prosecuted again for the same facts. And as long as there are witnesses, it will be necessary to rule on the conditions that allowed them to cooperate with the courts in particular, the measures to protect their identity. Responsibility also means ensuring a continuous fight against impunity through providing assistance to the national judicial authorities responsible for— today, for prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes. And this assistance function is very relevant, could not be more so, More than 350 requests on average per year since 2021 have been sent to the mechanism. It is essential that this essential function endures, and we support the transfer of this function to the United Nations Secretariat under the conditions proposed by the Secretary-General and the mechanism. The Council's responsibility also exists with regard to memory and future of generations through the question of archives. In this regard, France considers— France's aspiration to host the ICTR archives on its soil legitimate on the understanding that they will remain the property of the United Nations, which will ensure their conservation and management. In the case of the ICTY, we believe that a location in a neutral country would be desirable. Financial responsibility will also be required. The retention of a small number of international judicial functions makes it possible to envisage that the president and the prosecutor will no longer be employed full-time and that they will be supported by a light administrative structure in one place, which could be Nairobi or Vienna. We're also prepared to consider a tighter timetable for the transfer and completion of functions than that proposed by the mechanism. It could be shortened by 6 months. Madame President, for all these reasons, France welcomes the reports of the Secretary-General and the strategic plan of the mechanism, which the latter reflects the unified visions of its presidents its prosecutor, and its registrar. And on this basis, we are ready to work in a spirit of responsibility on the adoption of a resolution to record, record these developments with a view to a gradual and orderly completion of the mechanism's activities in accordance with the cardinal principles of international criminal justice. I thank you.


Security Council · President [1:05:34]:

I thank the delegate of France. Thank you for your statement. And I now give the floor to the representative of Greece.


Greece [1:05:44]:

Thank you, Madam President.

Greece wishes to thank the President and the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for the briefings and the current progress report. We would also like to welcome the presence of His Excellency the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, as well as the representatives of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Croatia to this meeting. We further welcome the Sixth Review Report, including the submission to the Council of a strategic plan containing proposals for concrete timelines for the transfer and completion of the mechanism's functions pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2740. Regarding the current progress report, Greece wishes to underscore the following. First, regarding the execution of the arrest warrants in the Kayesema as well as the, uh, Jojits and Taradeta cases, we note that they relate to state obligations falling under the ambit of Chapter 7 of the Charter, which have not been fulfilled for a long period of time. Second, on the issue of our relocated persons, Greece notes the mechanisms' findings that its duty of care does not extend beyond the current calendar year. We also note the need to secure a durable solution in compliance with the agreement between the United Nations and NAIJER. Third, Greece underscores the support provided by the Office of the Prosecutor to national investigations and prosecutions with the aim of bringing to justice more than 1,000 suspects for crimes of genocide in Rwanda and an equal number of senior and mid-level suspects for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. In light of the above, Greece welcomes the strategic plan of the mechanism and agrees with its recommendations. We note in particular the proposed actions addressed to the Security Council, as well as the timeline for the transfer and completion of its functions. Regarding the future transfer of these functions, we wish to underscore the following issues which are of importance for combating impunity and ensuring assistance to national authorities in bringing fugitives at large to justice. In this respect, Greece notes the recommendations of the mechanism regarding the transfer to the United Nations Secretariat of the Office of the Prosecutor Assistance to National Jurisdictions. We equally note the recommendations concerning the transfer of international functions regarding early release, variation of protective measures, non-bis in idem, and referral. Greece supports, in line with the Security Council Resolution 2740, a small, temporary, and efficient structure, together with an ambitious and concrete timeline for the transfer of the functions of the mechanism, while respecting the principles of legality and due process. Furthermore, Greece wishes to address the pending issue of location of the archives of the mechanism, including those of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In our view, the Secretariat should be encouraged, in addition to the options already identified, to take practical steps aimed at narrowing down the available locations that could host the archives. In conclusion, Madam President, The mechanism pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1966 and subsequent resolutions has contributed to combating impunity for those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. Greece is confident that workable solutions can be identified to ensure the smooth and orderly transfer of its functions by achieving significant resource reductions while safeguarding the functions of international character and providing assistance to national authorities to render justice for victims. I thank you.


Security Council · President [1:10:10]:

I thank the delegate of Greece, and I now give the floor to the representative of the United States.


United States of America [1:10:18]:

Madam President, Thank you, President Gatti and Prosecutor Bremertz. We appreciate your briefings on the Mechanism's continuing efforts to advance justice for atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well as both of your contributions to the work underway to responsibly wind down the Mechanism's functions. The United States looks forward to a constructive conclusion to the sixth review period for the Mechanism. As a Council, we have important work ahead of us in the coming weeks to take the decisions necessary to pave the way for a responsible and expeditious conclusion of the Mechanism's work. We appreciate the materials the Mechanism has submitted to facilitate this effort, including the Unified Vision and Strategic Plan submitted in line with Resolution 2740. We also appreciate the Mechanism's offer to provide the Council with suggested text— to effectuate the termination and transfer of functions through changes to the current statute and mandate of the mechanism. For our part, we support the recommendation that the mechanism's mandates to investigate, indict, and prosecute core crimes, contempt, and false testimony crimes should be concluded at this time. We further concur with the recommendations to transfer the prosecutor's national assistance functions to the Secretariat. These functions continue to provide valuable support to national jurisdictions addressing atrocity crimes within their domestic systems. We appreciate the states that have stepped up to offer to host the Archives with the support of the Secretariat to preserve the legacy of the mechanism and its predecessor tribunals and facilitate digital access. The United States also supports the transfer of the day-to-day supervision of sentences to enforcement states and we support the enforcement of ICTR sentences in Rwanda. We urge the mechanism and the Secretariat to make arrangements to ensure such functions are transferred as expeditiously as possible. We are also pleased to see that these proposals would result in a major reduction in staffing, as well as the consolidation of the very limited judicial functions that will remain to a single location, with outsourced support services. These steps will achieve significant cost savings and accelerate wind-down. The United States has not yet determined whether we concur with all of the recommendations regarding the retention of limited judicial functions, particularly given the potentially indefinite nature of these functions. The United States would appreciate additional information as to why these functions could not be executed at the national level, transferred, or, with respect to referral, terminated at this time. It would also be helpful to receive additional information on the expected timelines, staffing, and budget for all potentially retained judicial functions. We are committed to continuing to actively work to address these and other outstanding issues as the Council completes this review.


Security Council · President [1:13:18]:

I thank you. Gracias al delegado de Estados Unidos.

I thank the United States And I give the floor to Somalia.


Somalia [1:13:31]:

Thank you, Madam President. I thank President Santana and Prosecutor Bramert for their comprehensive and insightful briefing. We welcome His Excellence Emmanuel Uchira Shuba, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, as well as the distinguished representative of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, United Republic of Tanzania, and Croatia in today's meeting. My delegation considers this debate to be of paramount importance as the Security Council conducts its biannual review of the mechanism's progress. We commend the mechanism's dedication and take note of the efforts made by the mechanism over the past biennial— biennium as it transitions fully into its residual phase. As we assess the path forward toward a closure of the mechanism, we take note of the proposal set forth in the Secretary-General's Strategic Plan. The proposed timelines offer a framework for the transfer of non-judicial functions to the United Nations Secretariat and member states. Regarding the future planning of the options outlined in the Strategic Plan, we note that it would require the Council's careful consideration. We are also encouraged by the positive evaluation of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, which affirmed that mechanism has successfully delivered on its core mandate despite experiencing extensive budget and staffing cuts over the past 4 years. On the final issue of assistance to national jurisdictions, we reiterate that the request for evidence and expertise remain crucial for domestic accountability efforts. Furthermore, we continue to support capacity-building assistance directly provided to all relevant Member States. In conclusion, Madam President, Somalia reiterates its support for the small, temporary, and efficient structure of the mechanism and the orderly completion of its mandate. The establishment of justice and the preservation of the rule of law remain essential elements in achieving accountability under international law and maintaining international peace and security. Security. I thank you.


Security Council · President [1:15:42]:

Thank you, Somalia, for your statement. I now give the floor to the delegation of Latvia.


Latvia [1:15:54]:

I also thank President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Ms. Gatti-Santana. And Chief Prosecutor Bramertz for their briefings, but also for their significant efforts in supporting the Security Council during this review. And I welcome the participation of His Excellency Emmanuel Ugyera Shibuya, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, and also the representatives of other member states at this meeting. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda And the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia and the mechanism have left a lasting legacy in international criminal justice, demonstrating that individuals, including senior political and military leaders, can be held accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The tribunals have also played an important role in the prosecution of sexual and gender-based crimes. An area left largely undeveloped in the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes proceedings. And beyond prosecutions, these institutions gave victims a voice through thousands of witnesses' testimonies, allowing survivors to have their experience officially recognized and preserved in the historical record. And the tribunals established important legal precedent incidents and strengthen the rule of law by establishing accountability for the gravest international crimes. And in the last 2 years, the RMCT has worked hard on completing all the remaining core crime cases. The archives, preserving all the documentation of the tried crimes, records, and objects, has served the cause of delivering justice for the victims and survivors. And the fight against impunity has been a collective effort of the international community over the last 3 decades, and we have the results to prove it. And this is a legacy, and the legacy we must respect, protect, and preserve. That is why Latvia is engaging in the review with the following priorities. First, ensure balance between efficiency and proportionality in completing and transferring the functions of the mechanism. The IRMCT has always been temporary in nature, and it is not our goal to prolong its existence arbitrarily. However, expediting the transfer of the remaining functions at this final stage risks undermining part of the hard work and accumulated legacy over the past decades, and we must guard against this. So we look forward to a zero draft that reflects strategic plan proposed by the mechanism as a good starting point for negotiations. And the Council must make decisions that guarantee realistic timelines and the transfer of essential residual functions. We have a responsibility towards this legacy and the convicts under the care of the UN. Second, secure the transfer of the archives to appropriate host countries while ensuring broad accessibility for victims, survivors, and diaspora communities affected by these crimes. And this is essential because these archives help individuals seek the truth, recognition, and a better understanding of what happened. Ensuring access helps counter denial, distortion, and revisionism while supporting education, memorialization, and intergenerational remembrance. And they stand as a precedent and symbol of accountability for crimes that continue to be committed in the ongoing conflicts and wars. Third, ensure that witnesses continue to enjoy adequate protection measures. The implementation of sentences must also be carried out in accordance with international human rights law and security standards. The justice delivered for these crimes and due process must be safeguarded. Madam President, the international community has fought hard to reach the juncture of justice at which we now stand. In service of victims and survivors, we must now secure this justice through the proper transfer of residual functions so that the legacy of the tribunals continues to resonate for decades to come. I thank you.


Security Council · President [1:20:25]:

I thank Latvia. I now give the floor to the delegate of Denmark.


Denmark [1:20:32]:

President, let me begin by thanking President Gatti-Santana and Prosecutor Bramertz for their informative briefings. I also welcome the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, as well as other national representatives to today's debate. Madam President, the IIIMCT and its predecessor tribunals are cornerstone institutions of modern international criminal justice, essential to ending impunity for atrocity crimes. The accountability they have delivered remains important to this day. We also note, however, that the long-term consequences of these conflicts remain starkly visible and continue to reverberate in this Council today. This is precisely why these institutions matter. Accountability does not end with the delivery of a judgment. It helps establish the facts, uphold justice, and create the conditions for lasting peace and reconciliation. Madam President, Denmark welcomes the progress made in the Mechanism's important mandated functions despite challenging circumstances. The Mechanism's extensive activities during the reporting period are testament to the continued importance of its prosecutorial role in supporting national jurisdictions, as well as its judicial and archiving functions. We agree with the Mechanism that these functions remain essential to the fair and just conclusion of the international justice cycle. Similarly, we share the view that a responsible and orderly transition is needed in order to safeguard the legacy legacy of the mechanism and its predecessor tribunals and ensure successful transfer into the national transitional justice processes. With regards to the location of archives, we agree with the considerations set forth by the Secretary-General. Secondly, Madam President, Denmark welcomes the mechanism's strategic plan reflecting the principles' unified vision for its future. The plan represents a solid basis for continuing the mechanism in a substantially reduced form, in line with the Council's vision of a small, temporary, and efficient institution. We are pleased to note that it contains detailed timelines for the completion and transfer of the majority of the residual functions, and we also welcome its recommendations for considerably streamlining, including through organizational restructure, physical consolidation, and personnel optimization. Denmark looks forward to continuing discussing the recommendations in the strategic plan with Council members in the context of the ongoing review of the mechanism. My third point, Madam President. We urge all states to promptly and fully cooperate with the mechanism in line with their international obligations, in particular the transfer of suspects subject to arrest warrants. This remains essential for the Mechanism's ability to fulfill its mandate, conclude its operations, and ensure justice for victims. And this includes notably the transfer of Mr. Kayishima to the Mechanism's custody so that he can be transferred to Rwanda for trial. Madam President, in closing, I wish to once again reaffirm Denmark's steadfast support for the work of the Mechanism and for the pursuit of international criminal justice. Our commitment to supporting the Council's efforts to combat impunity wherever it exists remains unwavering. We look forward to working with all Council members to this end. I thank you.


Security Council · President [1:24:13]:

I thank Denmark for your statement, and I now give the floor to the United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:24:25]:

Thank you, Madam President. Let me begin by welcoming His Excellency the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, Mr. Ugyre Ugyre Shibuja, as well as the distinguished representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Tanzania to today's Council meeting. I also thank President Gatti-Santana and Prosecutor Brammertz for their briefings and the principles of the mechanism for their reports to the Council. President, today's briefing occurs at an important time for the mechanism, with Council members currently undertaking the mandated review of the mechanism's work. In this context, I will make 3 points. First, as the Council agreed in Resolution 1966, the mechanism should be a small, temporary, and efficient structure whose functions and size diminish over time and whose staffing and structure are commensurate with those functions. As the President mentioned in her remarks, the mechanism has already rightly taken a number of steps in this regard, including staffing and budget reductions in recent years. However, much more needs to be done to ensure that the mechanism becomes a substantially smaller institution than has been the case to date, in light of its residual nature. So as we work towards the adoption of a resolution later this month, we should seek to ensure a more focused and substantially reduced mandate for the mechanism.— retaining what is necessary whilst safeguarding its important legacy. Second, the UK welcomes the strategic plan presented by the Mechanism's Principles. The plan provides a good basis for discussions and for achieving change in a responsible manner. Turning now to some of the specifics covered in the plan, in our view it's important that a small core of judicial functions should remain at the international level. However, this range of judicial functions should be much narrower than at present and could be performed by a roster of judges which is also reduced in number. We further recognise the continued value many states attach to the provision of assistance to national authorities provided by the Office of the Prosecutor. However, we agree that this function can be moved to the UN Secretariat and should reduce in size over time. In relation to the archives, we thank those states that have made offers to host these materials. The UK's view remains that the Mechanism's archives should be transferred to the UN Secretariat and should be housed as close as possible to affected communities, also taking into account cost-effectiveness and ease of access. We further call on the Mechanism to implement the outstanding recommendations in the recent OIOS report and welcome the steps outlined by the Mechanism in its own report, in its own report, in that regard. Finally, although there are historic reasons for the mechanism's two-branch structure, at this stage in its life cycle, the UK considers this is no longer necessary. In our view, it would be more cost-effective to remove this requirement from the mechanism's statute. In conclusion, Madam President, the UK will continue to work with others to secure the mechanism's legacy whilst ensuring that this is done in a way that appropriately reflects the residual stage of its its remaining operations.

Thank you.


Security Council · President [1:27:37]:

I thank the United Kingdom. Thank you for your statement. And I now give the floor to Pakistan.


Pakistan [1:27:44]:

Thank you, Madam President. We thank the President of IRMCT, Judge Santana, and Prosecutor Serge Bramertz. For their comprehensive briefings. We also take note of the reports and assessments submitted to the Security Council by the mechanism and the Office of Internal Oversight Services. Pakistan acknowledges the vital role played by IRMCT in preserving judicial continuity, upholding accountability, and in ending impunity for atrocity crimes. The work of the mechanism and its predecessor tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda sent a strong signal that grave offenses against innocent victims would not go unpunished. Security Council Resolution 1966 envisaged the mechanism to be a small, temporary, and efficient structure whose functions and size will diminish over time. Building on this vision, Council Resolution 2740 emphasized the need for the mechanism to complete its remaining functions expeditiously. Drawing guidance from the Council's resolution, and given that the mechanism has concluded its core judicial and prosecutorial work in 2023, it would be appropriate to take the further necessary steps towards the conclusion and transfer of the mechanism's functions. This is an onerous task which ought to be discharged with great care and sense of historic responsibility. The review process may ensure safeguarding the legacy of the ICTY, ICTR, and the IRMCT, and equal and uniform treatment of the convicted prisoners. We are confident that in pursuit of this objective, Council members would explore innovative solutions for the transfer of mechanisms' functions while taking into consideration the ideas presented in the Secretary-General's reports and proposals made in the Mechanism's Strategic Plan. Archival records of the Mechanism, currently preserved at The Hague and Arusha, carry immense educational and historical value for posterity. We agree with the Secretary-General's proposal that archives may be preserved under UN supervision. We appreciate the interest shared by several Member States for hosting the archives. Archives. While finalizing the new location of the Archives, consideration may be accorded to member states directly concerned and that can offer adequate infrastructure for the preservation of Archives without incurring significant financial implications for the United Nations. Madam President, the work of the mechanism, though concluded, cannot efface the horrid and painful memories of grave crimes committed against our fellow human Yet it also inspires us to exert ourselves to never allow the repetition of such grave offenses anywhere under any pretext. The best utility of Mechanism's legacy will be to apply it to future accountability efforts, particularly in the situations of prolonged illegal occupation where fundamental rights, freedom, and dignity of innocent humans is being trampled by oppressive and tyrannical measures, and where Security Council resolutions are being brazenly ignored and flouted. Pakistan will continue to engage constructively with the Council members to ensure that the work of the mechanism is concluded in a responsible, structured, and orderly manner, its legacy preserved, and the victims remembered. I thank you.


Security Council · President [1:31:32]:

I thank the delegate of Pakistan for his statement, and I now give the floor to the delegate of China.


China [1:31:44]:

Madam President, China thanks President Santana and Prosecutor Brahmus for their briefings and welcomes the reports submitted by the Secretary-General and OIOI's on the residual mechanism. We welcome the presence of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda and the representatives of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tanzania, and Croatia. In 2010, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1966 deciding to establish the residual mechanism and defining it as a small, temporary, and efficient structure whose functions and size will diminish over time. Over the past 16 years, the mechanism has contributed to international criminal justice and the prosecution of serious international crimes, and has played a positive role in promoting national reconciliation and restoring the rule of law in the countries of former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. China recognizes the hard work of the mechanism's President, Prosecutor, and Registrar in this regard. China notes that since 1993 when ICTY was established, the relevant work has continued for more than 3 decades. Currently, the mechanism has completed all core judicial cases. Its judicial and administrative functions have been significantly reduced. More favorable conditions are now in place for further transfer and streamlining of its functions even for its eventual closure. The ICJ report has provided observations and recommendations on the transition of the mechanism. The mechanism has provided— submitted a strategic report on this matter, which together provide useful reference for the Council's current review. China wishes to make following points. First, the functions of the mechanism should be transferred to the fullest extent possible. At present, the mechanism retains only functions such as supervising the enforcement of sentences, assisting national jurisdiction, and reviewing early release and sentence commutation. China supports on the premise of ensuring fairness, justice, and streamlined efficiency the transfer of those functions to the extent possible to relevant states or international institutions so as to avoid protracted and indecisive processes. China calls on all parties to heighten sense of urgency, formulate ambitious timeline and roadmap, ensure the mechanism work is brought to a successful conclusion, and complete the transfer function as soon as possible. Second, the archives of the mechanism should be properly preserved. The archives embody the institutional memory of ICTY, ICTR, and the mechanism itself. Serving as a vital testament to remembering history, combating impunity, restoring the rule of law, and promoting reconciliation. As property of the UN, the preservation of these archives should facilitate access to the case information for affected countries and their peoples while ensuring cost-effectiveness. We encourage countries in the region to strengthen communication and consultation to develop sound and reasonable arrangements for archival preservation. Third, all parties should strengthen cooperation and coordination. The transfer of the mechanism's functions involves inter-area, the conclusion and revision of cooperation agreements with relevant states, the referral of criminal cases, and the transfer of convicted persons. China encourages relevant states to strengthen cooperation with the mechanism, accelerate the transfer of functions, and provide solid support for the mechanism to fulfill its historical mandate and early date. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China is ready to join all parties in identifying the most viable approaches for the transition of the mechanism. Madam President, this year marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trial and the delivery of judgment in the Nuremberg Trials. The mechanism, as well as ICTR and ICTY, share a common legacy with these trials and have all contributed to combat impunity, achieving fairness and justice, and advancing development of international law. At this critical juncture in the mechanism's transition, China calls on all parties to reach consensus on the Security Council resolution as soon as possible so as to ensure that the mechanism's political and legal legacy is preserved and carried forward. In conclusion, China wishes to thank the Colombian presidency, the DRC as the coordinator of the Council resolution, and the Office of Legal Affairs for the contributions to facilitating the Council's review of the work of the mechanism. Thank you, Madam President.


Security Council · President [1:36:14]:

I thank the delegation of China for their statement. And I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Panama.


Panama [1:36:26]:

Thank you, Madam President. We thank Judge Graciela Gatti-Santana and Prosecutor Serge Brammertz for your valuable briefings and reports presented this morning. Panama appreciates the work of the mechanism, whose role has enabled to bring continuity to the judicial functions of the Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In this regard, it is essential that the legacy be preserved in line with the highest international standards. Therefore, and in line with our tradition as a party to the Rome Statute, we wish to reaffirm our firm commitment and support to the international criminal justice system. In this regard, we reiterate our consistent support to the international courts, recognizing their fundamental role in the fight against impunity and in ensuring accountability for the gravest war crimes and crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. On this basis, the mechanism is a key part of the international justice system since it provides continuity to the essential functions such as the enforcement of sentences, the protection of victims and witnesses, and the preservation of judicial archives. Our record of support is based on the rule of law. We firmly support the decisions adopted within the framework of these tribunals, which are based on independent proceedings, rigorous proceedings, and are based on extensive and credible evidence. Preserving these achievements does not only strengthen the integrity of international law, but also contributes directly to reconciliation and the prevention of future conflicts. In this context and seeking consensus, Panama particularly appreciates the strategic plan presented, which reflects It's a serious, responsible, and technically grounded approach. These measures show that the need for— in the future, to have an efficient process without compromising the ability to play with a sense of responsibility and respect for international law, the residual legal functions has been taken into consideration. On this basis, and given that the mechanism has concluded its main judicial role and has therefore become residual, we reiterate that the reduced nature of the work of the mechanism, which of course incurs lower costs does not reduce the importance of the mechanism given— with the definitive closure of it. This brings with it the needs to ensure that this next phase is managed in both an urgent and coherent manner, preserving its value for international justice and ensuring accountability. The legacy of the mechanism must be for it to be a benchmark. The preservation of the legal, evidential, and jurisprudence achievements of the mechanism is essential not only to properly conclude these processes, but also to serve as a basis for future international mechanisms or national jurisdictions that need to be seized of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and other grave violations of international law. Madam President, Panama reiterates its support for the mechanism and underscores that the end of its mandate must also come with preserving the— fully preserving its residual functions, the full validity of its legal decisions, as well as its contribution to international jurisprudence and the strengthening of international criminal law. It's essential for— and we owe this not only to the victims, but also to present and future generations as part of a collective responsibility that preserves the memory, that consolidates lessons learned, and that projects the progress of international law into the future when it comes to crimes against humanity and genocide, to ensure that they never happen again and that they never go unpunished again. Thank you very much.


Security Council · President [1:41:52]:

I thank the representative of Panama for his statement. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Colombia.


Colombia [1:42:10]:

Colombia thanks President Graciela Gatti Santana and the prosecutor, Mr. Serge Brammertz. And the Secretary-General for your reports, which we believe are very complete and that contain specific measures that will contribute effectively to ensuring that the activities of the mechanism are transferred in an orderly manner and that the closure takes place and that, that it is done as carefully as possible. The mechanism is a reminder of what the international community can achieve against impunity when there is a firm, coherent, and long-term commitment to it. Colombia recognizes that the mechanism has wholeheartedly fulfilled its mandate, largely thanks to the support provided to it by member states. Today, when the mechanism that was always designed to be a temporary institution is approaching its definitive closure, The support of this Council and of member states individually at these last moments remains essential. It's essential to ensure that the legacy of the mechanism and of the ad hoc tribunals is consolidated, supporting all of the mechanisms and measures designed to disseminate the rulings and proceedings and ensuring that access to the archives is preserved and maintaining the ongoing assistance that the mechanism provides to national jurisdiction. Thanks to our experience in transitional justice and reconciliation, Colombia particularly appreciates the disseminating of the legacy of the mechanism. This mechanism will become a powerful tool to counter hate speech, historical revisionism, and the glorification of war criminals, and will also enable the rights of victims to be protected on the long term. Generally, my country supports the proposals included in the strategic plan, which reflect a serious, coherent, and unified exercise that Colombia appreciates. Colombia is particularly grateful for the fact that concrete dates and specific proposals are included, as well as the openness of all of the main officials of the mechanisms to engage in dialogue with members in order to discuss these recommendations to respond to concerns and to make suggestions. Colombia, in this regard, stands ready to discuss these recommendations in full transparency. The goal must be the definitive and orderly closure of the mechanism to ensure that it is satisfactory for all of those involved. This goes beyond the members of this council because the legacy of the mechanism ultimately is the legacy of international criminal justice. Colombia therefore wishes to reiterate its gratitude to all of those who have contributed to this process, to those who have submitted their views on the best way to transfer certain functions, and to the states that have expressed their willingness to assume some of the mechanism's responsibilities. Columbia is very clear that all decisions taken by this Council in the coming two weeks must focus on the protection of the victims, the rights of convicted persons, and the mechanism's decisive contribution to peace, justice, reconciliation, and non-repetition. Finally, I wish to reiterate that in light of our experience, we assign the highest priority to this process, recognizing that justice is sustainable over time only when decisions are made in a transparent and inclusive manner, and when a sense of ownership is ensured for all of those who participated in the history of the tribunals and the mechanism. For these reasons, we will participate in these discussions fully aware of the historic responsibility entrusted to us as elected members of this Council. Thank you very much.


Security Council · President [1:47:19]:

I resume my function as President of the Council. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Emmanuel Ugyirasebujja, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda.


Rwanda · Minister of Justice and Attorney General · Emmanuel Ugirashebuja [1:47:42]:

Madame President, thank you for giving me the floor. Rwanda thanks President Graciela Gatti Santana and Prosecutor Serge Bremer for their briefings and for presenting the 6th review report of the International Residuo Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunal. Rwanda welcomes the progress reflected in the report. The mechanism has now completed the core elements of the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council. Madame President, Honorable members of the Security Council members, over the last 3 decades, Rwanda has worked closely with both the ICTR and the mechanism in pursuit of justice for the victims of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. During that period, Rwanda's institutions have evolved considerably. Today, Rwanda is not merely a beneficiary of of international justice efforts. It is a partner in preserving their legacy and ensuring their continued relevance. It is in that spirit that Rwanda wishes to address what it considers the most important issues before the Council. First, it is the future of the ICTR archives. Rwanda has carefully considered the options presented by the Secretary-General. Regarding the future location of the archives. We appreciate the efforts undertaken to identify possible arrangements. However, for Rwanda, this is not simply a technical or administrative matter. Rwanda fully recognizes that these archives remain the property of the United Nations. However, ownership alone should not determine their future location. Historical relevance, accessibility, and proximity to the people whose history they document must also be taken into account, and actually believe these are the main criteria that the Council should base on when arriving at a decision. Unlike other international tribunal archives that relate to multiple countries and multiple conflicts, the ICTR archives concern one country, one people, and one genocide. They are inseparable from Rwanda's history. Logic, principle, and historical reality, therefore, point in the same direction. These archives should be located where their significance is greatest, and where those most directly connected to them can preserve them. Rwanda has fulfilled all the requirements necessary to host the archives. It has established the required infrastructure, developed expertise in archival preservation and digitization, put in place the necessary legal safeguards, and stands ready to provide the resources required for their transfer and subsequent management, while fully preserving United Nations ownership and ensuring continued access for researchers and scholars. Indeed, relocating the archives to Rwanda would not impose an additional financial burden on member states. Rwanda is prepared to assume the costs associated with the transfer preservation, as well as digitization of the archives. Should the archives be relocated to Rwanda, the Council and the member states will not be called upon in the future to provide any additional resources for their digitization and management. Rwanda stands ready to undertake these responsibilities as part of its commitment to preserving the important legacy for future generations. The question before the Council, therefore, is no longer one of capacity or feasibility. These questions have already been answered. The question before us is one of principle. Where should the historical record of the genocide against the Tutsi be preserved so that it remains most meaningful accessible and relevant to those whose history it documents. For the survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi, the transfer of the ICTR archives will not simply represent the relocation of records. It will represent the return of an essential part of their history. Madame President, a second issue that will be considered here is that the report also highlights the continued importance of the assistance provided by the Office of the Prosecutor to national jurisdictions. Rwanda welcomes this recognition. More than 1,000 genocide fugitives remain at large around the world, and continued cooperation remains essential. The expertise, institutional knowledge,, and evidentiary resources accumulated over decades continue to play an important role in advancing accountability. Rwanda further strongly believes that the remaining Rwanda-related prosecutorial support functions should be situated closer to where they are most relevant and most frequently utilized. Rwanda is prepared to even host a small residual presence to support cooperation with national authorities and to facilitate fugitive tracking and ensure continuity in accountability efforts, and also, if necessary, cover the overhead costs. Madame President, the third issue that is before you is that Rwanda also reiterates its readiness to receive persons convicted by the ICTR for the enforcement of sentences, as well as its nationals who are acquitted or who have completed their sentences and continue to await a durable solution. The mechanism is familiar with Rwanda's correctional facilities and the standards under which they operate. These facilities provide appropriate accommodation, healthcare, rehabilitation programs, and independent monitoring consistent with international standards. Beyond its capacity to enforce sentences in accordance with international standards, Rwanda also has extensive experience in receiving and reintegrating former genocide and other returning nationals. Over the past 3 decades, this experience has contributed to reconciliation, social cohesion, and respect for human dignity. We therefore encourage the Council to give favorable consideration to Rwanda's longstanding offer, which is fully aligned with the completion strategy and the principle of national ownership. Madam President, finally, the strategic plan before the Council rightly points to the need for greater clarity regarding the transfer and completion of the mechanism's remaining functions. The mechanism was never intended to be permanent. Its success should ultimately be measured not by its its longevity, but by its ability to complete its mandate and ensure that residual responsibilities are managed in a sustainable manner. The Council has always exercised responsibility for the establishment, oversight, and evolution of the ICTR and its mechanism. The time has now come for the Council to take the next important decision. The question of the ICTR archives in particular calls for a decision guided not only by administrative consideration, but also by history, justice, and the interest of survivors whose voices these archives preserve. As the Council considers the next phase, attention should focus on practical arrangements realistic timelines, and the orderly transfer of responsibilities, including the future of the ICTR archives and other residual functions. These decisions require the guidance of the Council itself. Having created these institutions, the Council is best placed to determine how their remaining responsibilities and legacies should be carried forward. More than 30 years after the genocide against the Tutsi, Rwanda has the capacity, the experience, and the commitment to play an important role in preserving the legacy of the international justice and carrying forward the remaining work. Rwanda will continue engaging constructively with the Council members, the mechanism, and the Secretariat on the most effective way forward. I thank you, Madam President.


Security Council · President [1:57:46]:

I thank His Excellency Mr. Ugyra Shebuja for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Serbia.


Serbia [1:58:02]:

Madam President, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the Council on behalf of the Republic of Serbia regarding the reports before us today, including the semi-annual report on the work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and the strategic plan contained in the Sixth Review Report. We note in particular that the strategic plan reflects The Security Council's longstanding expectation that the mechanism functions and size should diminish over time and that the completion of its remaining functions should be pursued in a timely and efficient manner. Serbia remains firmly committed to international criminal justice, accountability for war crimes, and respect for the rule of law. At the same time, we believe that these objectives must always be pursued in a manner consistent with the principles of legal certainty, equality before the law, due process, and respect for fundamental human rights. The Republic of Serbia reiterates its long-standing position that sust— sustainability, reduced scope of mechanisms, remaining functions provides a basis for bringing its mandate to an end. In this regard, the transfer of residual functions to national authorities or other appropriate entities should be actively pursued without unnecessary delay. We particularly note the assessment that two key functions— the investigation and prosecution of contempt and false testimony, as well as the investigation and prosecution of core crimes, can now be considered completed. In the absence of future core crime cases, we see no compelling justification for maintaining permanent capacities in these areas. Consistent with this approach, Serbia reiterates its longstanding position that the remaining Joša and Radet that the case should be transferred to its national jurisdiction. Serbia remains fully prepared to assume responsibility for these proceedings and thus contribute to effective implementation of Security Council Resolution 2740. We also note that concerns previously raised by Serbia regarding the conduct of certain representatives of the mechanism remain unaddressed. We would like to welcome the proposal that the function concerning the review of final judgments may be addressed through the early release procedure. Madam President, Serbia also welcomes the discussion on the future disposition of archives and residual functions. We believe that the transfer of archival responsibilities should proceed without necessary delay and that appropriate consideration should be given to making relevant materials available to national jurisdictions, particularly states of origin. Such material constitutes an invaluable resource for judicial authorities, historians, and researchers. In this regard, Serbia reiterates its readiness to assume responsibility for the preservation and management of relevant archival material under internationally accepted standards ensuring security, professional oversight, and appropriate access. We likewise note with concern that certain projected timelines for the transfer of remaining functions appear unnecessarily prolonged. In particular, day-to-day supervision of sentence enforcement is already largely exercised by the states where sentences are served, and we see no evident legal or operational impediment to an earlier transfer of these responsibilities. Accordingly, Serbia reiterates its readiness to assume responsibility for the enforcement of sentences imposed by ICTI and the mechanism in full compliance with the highest international standards, including with respect to medical care, legal assistance, and independent supervision. Madam President, I would now like to turn to several broader issues concerning the enforcement of sentences under the authority of the Mechanism. In Serbia's view, these issues merit careful consideration, not only in relation to individual cases but also from the perspective of the consistent important application of the rule of law and internationally recognized legal and humanitarian standards. The first concerned access to effective legal assistance. Proceedings relating to sentence enforcement and applications for early release are often legally complex and may have significant consequences for the rights of convicted persons. It may therefore be important that those concerns have meaningful access to legal advice, and wear appropriate legal representation. Such assistance cannot responsibly be expected to depend solely on pro bono engagement. The recent case of Milan Martić illustrates this concern. His request for early release was submitted through the prison authorities but did not reach the president of the mechanism. It was only following the intervention of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia that the President became aware of the existence of that request. Regardless of the eventual outcome of any application, procedures should ensure that submissions are properly transmitted and considered by the competent authority. The second issue concerns the consistent application of human considerations in the enforcement of sentences. The average age of persons serving sentences under the mechanism is approximately 72 years, and many suffer from serious health conditions. This reality underscores the importance of ensuring that internationally recognized standards relating to medical care and human dignity are fully respected. In this regard, Serbia recalls the case of General Neboša Pašović, who had met the conditions for consideration of early release after serving two-thirds of his sentence as early as 2020. Nevertheless, his release was approved only after a significant deterioration of his health, and he passed away just 22 days after his release. Without questioning the authority of the mechanism, Serbia believes that such cases raise legitimate questions regarding the timely and consistent application of humanitarian considerations. The same principal concerns informed Serbia's humanitarian requests relating to General Ratko Mladic. They were based exclusively on medical considerations and accompanied by comprehensive guarantees, including strict supervision and the possibility of immediate return upon request. In Serbia's view, it's legitimate to ask whether sufficient weight was accorded to the principles reflected in internationally recognized standards, including the protection of life, human dignity, and access to adequate medical care. Our purpose in raising these issues is not to seek preferential treatment for any individual. but to advocate for a system that is predictable, consistent, and firmly grounded in the principles of legal certainty, equality before the law, due process, and respect for fundamental human rights. In that same spirit, Serbia believes that the enforcement of sentences should be organized in a manner that best reconciles the interests of justice with internationally recognized humanitarian standards and the effective administration of sentences. Against this background, and noting that arrangements remain to be made for the enforcement of the sentences of General Ratko Mladić and Miloš Stanisić, the Republic of Serbia reiterates its readiness to assume that responsibility in accordance with the highest international standards and the applicable supervisory arrangements. We remain convinced that States of nationality, where willing and able to provide the necessary guarantees, can contribute to the effective and humane enforcement of international criminal sentences while fully respecting the authority of the mechanism. Our objective is neither to revisit final judgments nor to seek preferential treatment for any individual. Rather, Serbia advocates for a system that is principled, consistent, and firmly anchored in the values of justice, humanity, and the rule of law. We believe that credibility of international criminal justice is strengthened not only through accountability, but also through the fair, humane, and even-handed application of legal standards to all persons under its jurisdiction. I thank you.


Security Council · President [2:07:51]:

I thank the delegate of Serbia for your statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina.


Bosnia and Herzegovina [2:08:05]:

We extend our best wishes for a successful presidency of the Council for the month of June. I wish to thank the President and the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for their continued commitment to the full and successful implementation of their respective mandates and for providing an overview of their activities in reports before us. Allow me at the beginning to repeat once again the importance we attach to the work and role of both the Mechanism and its predecessor. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, this is not an abstract legal undertaking confined to courtrooms, courtrooms, judgments, and legal archives. Rather, it is a process that resonates deeply in every unhealed wound, every family still searching for answers, and every community carrying the enduring scars of conflict. The judgments of the ICTY, safeguarded and upheld by the mechanism and the affirmation of victims' rights and experiences, have helped establish an autoritative historical record and have contributed to confronting denial, combating impunity, and preserving the truth for future generations. For the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, justice is inseparable from memory, dignity, and the acknowledgment of suffering. Madam President, the legacy of these judicial institutions extends beyond legal precedent. While recognizing that the mechanism must eventually close, it is vital to ensure the orderly and carefully planned execution and transfer of its residual functions. Doing so will honor that legacy, safeguard the credibility of the tribunals and the mechanism, and preserve their enduring contribution to international criminal justice. In that regard, we take note of the mechanism's continued efforts to reduce its mandate, workload, and resource requirements as it moves towards closure and welcomes the Strategic Plan in the context of the Security Council's review of the mechanisms work in progress, building on the Secretary-General's reports of December 2025. Consequently, Madam President, I wish to make the following points. One, the pursuit of accountability serves not only the interest of justice but also the broader aspirations for reconciliation, trust and lasting peace. And since that pursuit is now fully in the hands of national prosecutions, assistance to national jurisdictions in investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating complex war crime cases remains vital. To that end, the next few years will be critical to delivering more justice for war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and remain— as we remain confronted with a large number of challenging cases, keeping the caseload heavy and on the rise, and we will remain reliant on the invaluable expertise, support, and strategic advice of the OTP in completing our goal. Given the Secretary-General's recommendations as to the transferability of the prosecution's role in carrying out this mandate, we support a rational and responsible timeline for the proposed transfer of OTP's assistance functions to the Secretary-General to be assigned to the appropriate entity that will continue to execute this function expertly, urging that it is also accounted for the appropriate transfer of specialized expertise. Two, we further support the transfer of the day-to-day supervision of conditions of imprisonment to member states where convicts are serving their sentences, which already oversee convicted persons on a daily basis. It will positively reflect on the resource requirements of the mechanism as well as the administrative and financial obligations related to sentence enforcement. However, the authority to order the transfer of prisoners, designate enforcement states, and decide on application for pardon, commutation of sentence, and early release should remain at the international level with the continued involvement of the President, the mechanism judges, and the essential support staff. It provides neutrality, insulation from local political pressures, and uniform treatment across cases in accordance with international standards, helps safeguard against actions that undermine established judicial facts, including genocide denial, the glorification of perpetrators, or revisionist narratives, and ultimately prevents convicted individuals from benefiting from political influence influence within their home states or states that they may be sympathetic to. On that note, allow me one additional comment. It is always fascinating from a standpoint of credibility and moral integrity to listen appeals on behalf of convicted war criminals and genociders for the early release. Today we heard a new one, appeal for more elementary humanity. For the sake of clarity, we're speaking hear of the butcher of Bosnia, butcher of over 8,000 innocent people in Srebrenica, one who ordered the indiscriminate and merciless shelling of Sarajevo for 1,425 days, and his name is Ratko Mladic. I wonder if they ever looked into the eyes of a mother who lost her sons or the one who watched a daughter being repeatedly raped or the one who lost an entire family. With similar compassion and concern as they do for the monster that committed these crimes. At least once he is dead, he will have a grave, a tombstone, something to mark his remains, however despised. Many of the mothers died without ever being able to bury at least a bone of their children. So let me ask you, what humanitarian grounds are we speaking of? Was he concerned about anything remotely humane in relation to the crimes he was convicted of. Upon entering Srebrenica on 11th July, Ratko Mladic boasted that the town was now liberated for the Serb people. And I quote, "Here we are on the 11th of July in Serb Srebrenica, the day before one of the greatest Serbian holidays. We give this town to the Serbian people. The moment has finally come." after the uprising against the Dahi or the Turks, to take revenge against the Turks in this place. End of quote. And these are his words, not mine. This is not artificial intelligence. It is well recorded on cameras following his every move. Did he ever apologize? Did he ever atone? Did he by any chance divulge the location of mass crimes? Mass graves? Did he ever offer any indication of regret? On what should we base the compassion for his early release? We have every faith in explanation given by President Santana for refusal of Mladic's early release. On all accounts, the Mandela rules are fully respected. The same could not be said for those he imprisoned and executed in Srebrenica. So let me be clear. We wish him a very long life, at least long enough to account for at least 8,000 innocent people he mercilessly sent to death. That is all in terms of compassion we can muster. Now I return to the remainder of my statement. The archives of the ICTY and the mechanism constitute an author— or authoritative an irrefutable record of the recent history of my country. Moreover, Bosnia and Herzegovina still relies heavily on ICTY archives, evidentiary databases, witness materials, and legal findings developed over decades of prosecutions. Proper transfer and accessibility of these materials are essential for ongoing domestic proceedings against lower and mid-level perpetrators who were never prosecuted internationally. These archives constitute an invaluable resource whose significance extends far beyond their legal function. While they preserve the evidentiary record of investigations, prosecutions, and judicial findings related to serious violations of international humanitarian law, their importance is equally profound for education, historical research, and the promotion of truth, truth and accountability. Moreover, with proper preservation, management, and accessibility, they will provide scholars, educators, journalists, and future generations with access to authoritative records, testimonies, and judicially established facts, contributing to informed dialogue and critical inquiry, as well as a deeper understanding of the causes, dynamics, and consequences of mass atrocities, thereby supporting a deeper appreciation of international justice and the rule of law. In that regard, we emphasize yet again that maintaining and facilitating access to the ICTY archives is of lasting importance, not only for the purposes of justice, but also for advancing education, historical research, and the broader objectives of peace, dialogue, and respect for human rights. In terms of regional cooperation, challenges remain. Many suspects are not present in the territory where they are alleged to have committed the crimes, creating significant significant obstacles to effective investigation and prosecution. To overcome the burden of the past, we must pursue justice and accountability with renewed determination and in good faith. Political considerations must not hinder the pursuit of justice, nor should they obstruct victims' rights to truth, justice, and redress. Not to mention that 3 decades after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than 7,500 Families are still searching for answers about their missing loved ones. Despite legal frameworks and international support, political barriers and time threaten to leave these stories unresolved forever. Effective regional cooperation is not only a legal necessity, but also a moral and societal imperative. By demonstrating a shared commitment to accountability, states can help build public confidence in judicial institutions, counter denial and revisionism and foster a common understanding of the facts established through judicial proceedings. Finally, Madam President, we urge the Council to remain committed to supporting this transitional phase in this final and important stretch based on respect for international law in a way that guarantees the completion of the mechanism's mandate, preserves the integrity of the judicial process, and safeguards its legacy. Thank you.


Security Council · President [2:18:37]:

Doy la gracias.

I thank the delegate of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would like to remind all speakers to limit their statements to a maximum duration of 3 minutes so that the Council can deliver its work expeditiously. I now give the floor to the delegate of the United Republic of Tanzania.


United Republic of Tanzania [2:19:10]:

Madam President, Excellency, distinguished members of the Security Council, I thank you for inviting us to this important debate and the opportunity to share with the Council our views regarding the future of the International Residuum Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunals. I commend the President of the Mechanism, Judge Graciela Gattis Santana, the Prosecutor Serge Brammertz, and the Office of Legal Affairs for the job well done so far, and we welcome the strategic plan and the proposition therein. Following the Secretary-General's report, and particularly the call to interested member states to express interest to becoming the long-term host of the archives, The United Republic of Tanzania formally expressed its interest and readiness to serve as a long-term host of the archives of the International Residual Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunals. This is reflected in paragraph 66 of the Secretary-General's report contained in the document S/2025/785. In our submission, we will stick to the future of the IRMCT archives in Arusha and submit to you three main reasons for our humble request. Request. Madam President, number one, we wish to remind this Council that the United Republic of Tanzania hosted the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTARA, for 20 years, from 1995 to 2015, and the residual mechanism for more than 10 years. This totals 3 decades, or to put simply, 1 generation or 1/3 of a century. During all that time, the tribunal and archives have been kept safe and secured in a neutral country that ensured proximity to the affected population and unhindered access to all— I mean researchers, legal scholars, historians, and defense teams from all over the world. We have already proven by words and deeds to be a good host. Second, the United Nations and the government of the Republic of Tanzania have already heavily invested in state-of-the-art infrastructure in Arusha. The United Nations alone spent $6 million on a facility specifically engineered to preserve massive physical records and digital infrastructure. Moving these fragile historical assets would carry a logical risk and render a world-class facility redundant. On our side, the government alone invested around $2 million, which includes the provision of 16 acres of the prime land and the installation of supportive infrastructure for the facility, including building a tarmac road to the facility. This is evidence of us giving up— living up to the— to our promise and to your expectations. The only thing we request of this Council is to consider the investment already made and the commitment and trust our government has shown so far. Third, the government of the United Republic of Tanzania has formally and in writing committed to the Secretary-General through writing our readiness and willingness to meet the cost of maintaining the archives in Arusha. And this means if this Council decides the archives are to remain in Arusha, there will be no cost of transferring them. So far, the report estimated at $1.8 million. There'll be no future cost of maintaining them where they are in Arusha, and there will be no switching and hidden costs that may arise in that complex logistical operation. So to say, the United Republic of Tanzania is offering a stress-free, a cost-free, and a timeline-free solution to this transfer, while guaranteeing a long-term preservation, security, accessibility, and institutional independence of the archives. Madam President, Tanzania attached great importance to this matter, not as a national priority, but as a contribution to the broader interests of international community and the region. Much as the archives are about a particular country, The fact is they are primarily the United Nations repository and the common heritage to all humanity. We believe these archives constitute not only a repository of history and legal significance, but also a vital resource for ongoing and future efforts in accountability, reconciliation, and the promotion of rule of law at national and international levels. After 30 years of hosting both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Judicial Mechanism, Arusha Branch, we have been tested and proven our goodwill, our good faith, and our good intent. We appeal to your Council to accept our bid to become a long-term host of the Archives. This will be a strong gesture of appreciation for our modest contribution and the role well played in promoting international law, international criminal justice, and international accountability. Madam President, we are ready, we are willing, and we are reliable. Thank you so much for your kind cooperation.


Security Council · President [2:24:01]:

I thank the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, and I give the floor now to Croatia.


Croatia [2:24:11]:

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to also thank the president of the mechanism, Judge Gatti-Santana, and the prosecutor Brametz for the reports and today's briefings. Croatia supports the efforts to identify the most suitable and efficient way for the timely completion and transfer of the mechanism's functions. In that context, we welcome the mechanism's strategic plan, including its recommendations concerning the transfer and completion of all remaining mechanism functions. We also recognize it is essential to ensure that its future closure is carried out in a constructive way that will not in any respect undermine the purpose for which the mechanism was established. Croatia supports the continued exercise by the mechanism of the four judicial functions currently under its mandate, namely the early release, variation of protective measures, non-bis in idem, and referral. Madam President, regarding the future location of the Archives, Croatia reiterates its readiness to assume responsibility for the preservation of the archives of the ICTY and the Mechanism and to serve as long-term host of the United Nations entity responsible for their maintenance. To this end, suitable premises that meet all necessary technical, security, and operational requirements are already available in Croatia. Croatia further wishes to emphasize that the archives derived from the work of the ICTY and the constitute a unified body of records which, in accordance with the internationally recognized principle of provenance, should not be divided. We also recognize that safeguarding the integrity, authenticity, and credibility of these archives is essential for enabling researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders to effectively address persistent attempts at historical revisionism and to preserve an accurate historical record for future generations. In this regard, the eventual decision on the permanent location of the Archives should be guided by thoughtful considerations to ensure the broadest possible confidence in their impartial stewardship, long-term preservation, and accessibility. This decision will carry significance well beyond administrative arrangements, given the Archives' important role in upholding historical facts, supporting accountability, and and contributing to reconciliation and trust-building across the region. Madam President, regarding regional judicial cooperation in war crimes cases, Croatia reaffirms its commitment to professional, non-politicized, constructive, and fact-based cooperation. We would like to remind that in order to ensure the efficient and timely resolution of investigative and judicial cases, the cooperation in every case should meet international legal standards and established good practices, and be genuinely reciprocal and transparent. Madam President, we are compelled to once again draw attention to the issue of insufficient cooperation of Serbia in efforts to locate missing persons and their mortal remains. As the fate of 1,725 missing Croatian citizens remains unresolved, establishing the truth about their whereabouts and ensuring that they receive a dignified burial remains a matter of profound importance and a longstanding priority for Croatia. Regrettably, the absence of sufficient political will and commitment in Serbia to share relevant information and facilitate access to archives remains a significant obstacle to progress in resolving these cases. All progress achieved in recent years in locating and identifying the mortal remains of of missing persons has been achieved almost exclusively through the sustained efforts of Croatian institutions and experts, despite the fact that many records and sources relevant to these cases are likely to readily be accessible to authorities in Serbia. This makes the continued lack of cooperation all the more difficult to justify. A stronger engagement and greater readiness of Serbia to share available information would significantly contribute to advancing advancing these efforts. Every delay further prolongs the suffering of families who have waited for decades for answers and closure. Croatia therefore encourages the mechanism to continue giving due attention to the issue of missing persons and to support all efforts aimed at advancing the resolution of these cases during the remainder of its mandate. I thank you.


Security Council · President [2:28:41]:

Doy la gracia al delegado de—

I thank the representative of Croatia. For his statement. The representative of Serbia has asked for the floor to make a further statement. I give them the floor for the second and last time, and I kindly remind you of the importance to limit your speaking time. Thank you very much. You have the floor.


Serbia [2:29:14]:

Madam President, although my statement has already addressed some of the accusations made by Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and which are by no means new in these debates, allow me to briefly respond to them. First, Serbia fully understands the profound sensitiveness surrounding the crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the suffering endured by victims and their families. Those wounds remain deep through the region. Serbia is equally aware that painful memories and competing narratives continue to exist. They exist not only among Bosniaks, but also among Serbs, Croats, and other communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as across the region. However, this debate should not become an arena for competing narratives or historical grievances. As said, our statement today is not about revisiting judgments, questioning criminal responsibility, or diminishing the suffering of any victim. The issue we have raised is a legal and principled one. A system based on the rule of law is distinguished from a system based on retribution precisely because punishment is administrated within the framework of law and with the full respect of fundamental rights. The deprivation of liberty constitutes the punishment imposed by the Court. It does not extinguish the obligation to treat every individual humanely or to respect internationally recognized standards. That principle is reflected in the Nelson Mandela Rules, in international human rights instruments, and in broader legal traditions shared by the United Nations. These standards are universal by design. They do not depend of the nationality of the convicted person, of gravity of the offense, or the emotions that understandably surround particular cases. When Serbia referred to humanitarian requests in specific cases, it did so lay to illustrate broader legal principles. The same standards and the same legal principles should apply to any convicted person in comparable circumstances. Finally, Serbia rejects any suggestion that advocating for the consistent application of international legal and humanitarian standards amounts to celebrating crimes or denying justice to victims. Serbia has demonstrated its commitment to accountability through its undeniable cooperation with the ICTY. Our position today is entirely consistent with that record. We remain convinced that the credibility of international criminal justice depends on its ability to combine accountability with scrupulous respect for the rule of law, due process, and fundamental rights that international law guarantees to every human being. Justice and humanity are not opposing values. They are complementary pillars of the same legal order, and preserving both is essential to maintain confidence in international to criminal justice. Thank you.


Security Council · President [2:32:50]:

I thank the representative of Serbia for his statement. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. The meeting is adjourned.