Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Maria Zabolotskaya at UNSC briefing on the activities of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals
Mr.President,
We thank President and Chief Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) for their briefings. We studied carefully the fifth review and the semi-annual report on the activities of the Mechanism.
Those are lengthy documents, however they fail to answer to the key question as regards the ultimate and reasonable timeframe for winding down the IRMCT and/or transferring all its functions. Instead, the documents retain vague references to the year 2052, which cannot be considered reasonable as per the underlying UNSC resolution 1966 (2010).
We would like to highlight a number of facts in that regard. The Residual Mechanism currently employs 301 people and has an annual budget of more than $65 million. To compare, the budget of the International Court of Justice, the main judicial body of the United Nations, is half as much. During its lifetime, the IRMCT and its predecessor tribunals have spent $5 billion. Today we heard how many persons have been indicted by the Tribunal and the Mechanism. We did a rough calculation, and it turns out each indictment cost the international community $20 million.
A few more facts. When a strategy for the winding down of international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda was presented, it was argued that without the implementation of a completion strategy, the Tribunals would continue to exist until 2015 (it is 2024 already). Then, the 2009 report of the Secretary-General, which the Security Council requested in the context of transforming of international criminal tribunals into a residual mechanism, included an indicative date of 2030 for the closure of the IRMCT. Allocating 21 years to complete the residual functions seemed unreasonable and excessive even then. It looks the same now. However, it is already 2024, as we know, and the idea of winding down by 2030 has been dismissed. Now we are being told about 2052. Surely, if this logic persists, in 2050 they will say 2070 and so on ad infinitum.
The IRMCT should have closed long ago. Key trials have been completed and there are no “fugitives from justice”. However, the Mechanism continues to justify its existence through secondary tasks that can be handled by existing UN entities and national jurisdictions, such as “contempt cases” and archives management or technical assistance.
We would like to emphasize that none of this really needs the Residual Mechanism, especially in its current form. There are specialized units within the UN system that are ready to assist interested states upon request.
Given what has been said following the 5th review of the activities of IRMCT, we see no reason at all to agree to the renewal of its mandate. What is the point of renewing it? So that in 2026, two years from now, we once again hear a set of traditional excuses, vague forecasts and obviously unacceptable scenarios for the transfer of functions?
Nevertheless, we are ready to extend (on an exceptional basis) the mandate of the Mechanism only to help us summarize the work of this institution and state its completion. To that end, the leadership of the Mechanism should immediately begin to implement the most realistic scenario for the winding down of its activities - preparations for the transfer of the remaining functions to the national authorities of states and, where necessary, to United Nations entities. We are confident that the Security Council should issue a direct instruction to that effect.
This was the path followed by the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which remain an example of objective, unbiased, professional and swift justice for the most serious crimes in human history.
Some members of the Council have raised the issue of so-called information centers. In that context, we should like to say that the establishment and maintenance of such centers is not a matter of the Security Council or the IRMCT. These are initiatives of individual states, so it is up to them to decide on the future of such centers. At the same time, calls to preserve the “legacy” of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia look absurd. Russia’s position as regards the dubious trace that their activities have left in the region is well known. Moreover, we would like to recall that even the Nuremberg Tribunal does not have special custodians of its legacy. For some reason, the delegations here who worry about the glorification of criminals do not express the same concern when it comes to those sentenced by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
We are convinced that there is a simple solution to the issue of the Mechanism's documentation – the Council should hand it over to the United Nations. The United Nations keeps huge archives and has specialization on this issue. Moreover, if the countries that were involved in the conflicts wish to receive that documentation, it should be handed over to them immediately, because this documentation is important for these countries, and not just for the international community. We have proposed language to the resolution to that effect. We suggest that it should be supported.
There were proposals to again address the Mechanism and the Secretary-General on this issue. However, this issue has been under discussion since 2009. We have repeatedly reached out both to the Secretary-General and the Mechanism itself. All options are on the table.
IRMCT Prosecutor keeps complaining to the Security Council that decisions of the ICTY and IRMCT are not recognized by all countries in, for example, the Balkan region. A number of delegations have also spoken on this issue today. In our view, the root cause of this situation is quite obvious - the Tribunal tailored its decisions to fit a certain political narrative, attributing all responsibility for the events in the region to the Serbs. ICTY disregarded anything that did not fit that narrative. The perpetrators of the massacres against Serbs were never punished, just as, by the way, the representatives of the NATO countries that committed military aggression against Yugoslavia. We would like to recall that 14,000 bombs were dropped during that attack, there were numerous civilian casualties and evidence of war crimes. However, the ICTY decided that it had no legal basis and no right, for that matter, to hold anyone accountable.
For some reason, the Tribunal was interested only in Serbs: they accounted for 80% of those convicted, and the cumulative length of their prison sentences exceeded 1,000 years. The sentences of the representatives of other warring parties, whose cases came before the ICTY, were either considerably milder. Or they were completely acquitted.
In general, the situation in which the prosecution of persons who were fully under the jurisdiction of the ICTY is now being handled by a third-party entity, the EU’s Special Chambers for Kosovo, is very indicative of the quality and objectivity of the Tribunal's so-called “justice”.
The outcome of the UNGA vote on the draft resolution on the events in Srebrenica were very telling too. The sponsors presumed that since their “product” was based on the ICTY's rulings, its provisions could not be questioned. In fact, however, more than half of the UN members did not support the initiative. The initiative itself then led to escalation in the Balkans, which is another piece of evidence in favor of the fact that the ICTY has simply failed in its task of promoting sustainable inter-ethnic peace.
More than 30 years after the ICTY's creation, the page of its odious so-called “legacy” has yet to be turned. The flywheel of justice of its successor, the IRMCT, continues to crunch human destinies, now through poor performance of its function to supervise the execution of sentences.
For example, the former head of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić, is currently imprisoned in the United Kingdom. His rights are being grossly violated. Lately, he received a disciplinary punishment because, during a telephone call, a child cried out into the receiver at the interlocutor’s end. As seen by the prison management, that child was not on the “approved contact list”, hence the punishment. Several months ago, due to the unauthorized publication in the media of Karadžić’s letter to his relatives, he was subjected to additional disciplinary measures, mattress and pillow were taken away from him. Presently, he can only be visited by a priest.
Then there is Serb general, Ratko Mladić, who balances on the verge of life and death in the United Nations detention facility in The Hague. Seven medical experts have concluded that he should be transferred to Serbia to continue serving his sentence in his own country. Mladic's illnesses, and the fact that he is confined to bed, require the constant presence of trained staff, as well as assistance in his native language. His condition is so critical that he may not survive transfer to a country other than his home country.
However, contrary to the requirements of humanity, on 10 May the President of IRMCT rejected the request of R. Mladić's lawyers for early release on humanitarian grounds or permission to serve the remainder of his sentence in Serbia. We should like to recall that, according to the Mechanism's document of 15 May 2020, “any medical findings” are taken into account when making decisions in such cases. In that connection, we cannot fathom why the opinions of seven doctors were not taken on board.
We support R. Mladić's lawyers and family members in their struggle for his right to life and medical care. We note once again that the attitude of the IRMCT towards R. Mladić stands in stark contrast to the approach in the case of Félicien Kabuga. There, the Mechanism took into account the circumstances related to the defendant's state of health, freezing the proceedings and consenting to consider his release from detention on medical grounds. Double standards are evident.
We call for a decision to transfer Mr. Mladić to Serbia to serve the remainder of his sentence. This would meet the circumstances of his case, namely his advanced age, the fact that the trial against him has gone on for an unreasonably long time, during which three judges have been disqualified. The accused has suffered repeated violations of his basic rights under human rights treaties, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, relevant UNSC resolutions and the Mechanism's Rules of Procedure and Evidence. All have been violated in his trial.
We underscore that in the event of a negative scenario with regard to Mr. R. Mladić, it will be the responsibility of the Residual Mechanism.
IRMCT’s poor performance of its task to supervise sentence enforcement can be clearly seen in its latest report to the Security Council. The Mechanism does not deal with this function directly, but relies on reports from national penitentiary institutions. In addition, we are informed that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are allegedly involved in monitoring the rights of convicted persons.
This raises a number of questions. Why need the Mechanism itself? When we were considering the previous report, my delegation drew attention to the numerous violations of Mr. Karadžić's rights in the British prison. It would have been logical to assume that the Mechanism would send organizations involved in monitoring to visit the person whose plight was noted by a Security Council member. However, it has come to our attention that these organizations, as well as the IRMCT himself, made no queries as to the conditions of his stay in prison.
В этой связи твердо убеждены, что настало время принять решение о передаче всех отбывающих наказания лиц, в государства их гражданства на оставшуюся часть тюремного срока. Убеждены, что национальные юрисдикции смогут решить проблему с нарушениями их прав и унижающим достоинство обращением. Механизм справиться с ней не может. Подготовили соответствующие предложения к резолюции Совета, рассчитываем на их поддержку членами Совета.
We assume that our proposed option will help to take into account such factors as health status of inmates, age, language, cultural and religious peculiarities and needs, inability to communicate with loved ones due to distance from family, lack of social ties, and emotional problems. In addition, it will reduce the cost of the Mechanism. Most importantly, it will solve the issue of the most “long-lived” residual function, which is the reason why IRMCT’s activities are envisaged to last until 2052. Transferring this function will resolve the issue.
We reiterate our call for the Mechanism to prepare, without further ado, for the transfer of all its residual functions (contempt of court cases, assistance to national jurisdictions, victim and witness protection, supervision of the enforcement of sentences) to national competent authorities and, where necessary, to United Nations entities.
One can either do this an orderly and early manner, or, alternatively, one can find oneself in the same situation as UNITAD, the Investigative Team in Iraq, which is now being hastily phased out. The choice remains with the leadership of the IRMCT.
In conclusion, we should like to draw attention to the unacceptable situation that emerged yesterday with regard to the Working Group on the International Criminal Tribunal.
Serbia and Rwanda had requested to attend a meeting of the group. However, a number of delegations prevented that. It is not at all clear why this was done. Serbia and Rwanda are not states that could offer some theoretical considerations, but the countries in the region and even likely successors to some of the functions of the Mechanism.
We have heard from UNSC members that those requests for participation arrived too late. However, we would like to point out that we have a number of non-members of the Council taking part in our meeting today. A request from one of them came in an hour before the meeting, nevertheless we were pleased to grant all of them.
We expect and formally request the head of the working group to convene a special meeting where we can hear from the affected states, and where the heads of the Residual Mechanism can also participate, so that we can discuss the issue of the transfer of IRMCT’s functions in a very practical way.
Thank you.
