The debate focused on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, established by the Council in 2010 to carry out essential functions following the closure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Addressing the Council, Mechanism President Graciela Gatti Santana said the body had “effectively executed its mandate” and that only “limited but still essential work remains” following the referral of one of its latest contempt cases to a national jurisdiction.
“The future of the United Nations’ responsibility towards those under its duty of care – and indeed the future of international criminal justice – is now before the Council,” he said.
A significant reduction in personnel is proposed
Ms. Gatti Santana outlined a strategic plan that could achieve a nearly 90 percent reduction in staff resources while transferring some functions, including assistance to national jurisdictions and archives management, to the United Nations Secretariat.
However, it argued that a small number of judicial responsibilities should remain at the international level, including issues related to prisoner transfers and releases, witness protection and follow-up on referred cases.
“Durable justice does not conform to clear or finite deadlines,” he said, describing the proposal as a balance between “principles and pragmatism.”
Legacy problems
The Mechanism’s prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, also supported the transfer of certain non-judicial functions to the Secretariat, while maintaining international supervision of convicts serving sentences.
He highlighted the continued importance of the Mechanism’s legacy at a time when genocide denial and glorification of war criminals persist.
“The horrible atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were not random outbreaks of violence,” he said, warning that hate speech and propaganda had paved the way for violence and underlining the educational value of the archives.
Archives debate
The future location of court archives emerged as one of the most contentious issues before ambassadors on Friday.
Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General Emmanuel Ugirashebuja argued that the ICTR files should be transferred to Rwanda.
“For 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,” he said. Tanzania, which hosted Rwanda’s court in Arusha for two decades, responded that the archives were already housed in a neutral location with modern infrastructure and wide accessibility.
Similar disagreements arose over the future location of the former Yugoslavia tribunal archives. Serbia offered to preserve relevant materials, while Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina highlighted the importance of accessibility and expressed concerns about the political commitment to transparency.
Calls for closure and caution against rush
Council members generally agreed that the Mechanism was never intended to be permanent, but disagreed on the pace of its closure.
Several members, including Greece, Pakistan and Somalia, supported keeping a “small, temporary and efficient” structure. USA
He said the Council now faces important decisions to ensure “a responsible and rapid conclusion” of the Mechanism’s work.
Russia said the Mechanism “continues to stubbornly cling to residual functions” and called for further transfers of responsibilities.
At the same time, many delegations cautioned against moving too quickly.
“The objective must be the definitive and orderly closure of the Mechanism,” stated the representative of Colombia.