Statement by Mr. Evgeniy Zagaynov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, during the Security Council meeting on International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991
June 8, 2016
We have studied the report of the President Carmel Agius of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (S/2016/454, annex), and the report of President Theodor Meron of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals with regard to the state of affairs of the bodies they head over the past six months.
It is encouraging that the ICTY report contains no direct information on further lags in judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, we would like to recall that resolutions 2193 (2014) and 2256 (2015) called upon the Tribunal not only to not delay proceedings but also to take look at accelerating the cases under its jurisdiction. It is unfortunate that has not happened yet. Furthermore, the Tribunal is duly resourced, including with staffing and financial resources, so as to expediently conclude its work. 08/06/2016 ICTY & ICTR S/PV.7707 16-16387 17/31
Against that backdrop, we are worried about the report’s hinting at possible further hindrances in the work of the ICTY. We think that the case of Goran Hadžić could have long since been terminated for humanitarian reasons, which in this case are irrefutable. Doing so would optimize the work of the ICTY and would allow for resources to be reallocated to other cases. That way, there would be no reason to talk about the impossibility of accurate forecasting of the dates for terminating this case.
With regard to the contempt case initiated by the Tribunal in the framework of the concluded proceedings against Mr. Šešelj, this type of case is not part of the Tribunal’s fundamental functions, nor is it decreed in the ICTY charter approved by Security Council resolutions. The jurisdiction in that regard has been instated by the Tribunal through its rules of procedure. In that regard, the ongoing operations of the ICTY due to what the report terms contempt cases are inadmissible by definition. There is a need to find other solutions.
In implementation of resolution 2256 (2015), the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) audited the work of the ICTY regarding implementation of the completion strategy. The conclusions of the inspectors are dismal. As noted in paragraph 54, the Tribunal failed to focus its work on a results-based strategy and to set clear goals for itself regarding time frames. On the whole, we agree with the recommendations of the OIOS auditors. The Office identified clear issues, which we have raised in the Security Council on several occasions.
In that regard, we were taken aback by the Tribunal’s negative reaction to the OIOS recommendations and by its refusal to implement them. We do not agree with the reference in the ICTY comments to the unique features of the Tribunal’s mandate. The difficult tasks facing the Tribunal are no justification for breaking with generally agreed upon standards of justice, including those relating to reasonable time frames for legal proceedings. Paragraph 11 of resolution 2256 (2015) instructs the Tribunal to report on the implementation of the OIOS recommendations in its future reports. We urge the ICTY to study and implement the recommendations of that oversight body. We would like to see substantive reporting on the matter in the next ICTY report.
Our delegation will follow closely the proceedings of the Residual Mechanism to ensure that there are no further mishaps in its activities. At this stage we think that the report of the Mechanism is not fully in keeping with the requirements of paragraph 20 of resolution 2256 (2015). In particular, the report contains no information on the staffing structure of the Mechanism or any details about the workload and related expenditures. Forecasts about the length of legal proceedings are really just estimates, and there is no information about other residual functions.
It should be recalled that the Mechanism was set up as a temporary and streamlined body. The period for its work is not determined by the Mechanism, but by the Security Council. Extending the operation of the Mechanism is subject to the Council’s review of its activities. We believe it would be appropriate to consider the OIOS conclusions during the next review, among other things.
