The Security Council convened to discuss the future of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), established in 2010 to carry forward the essential functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) after their closure. IRMCT President Graciela Gatti Santana stated that the institution has “effectively fulfilled its mandate” and, following the referral of one of its last cases to national jurisdiction, has “limited but still important work” remaining. “The future of the UN’s responsibility – and indeed, the future of international criminal justice – now lies before the Council,” Santana remarked.
Significant Downsizing Proposed
Gatti Santana presented a strategic plan proposing a reduction in personnel resources by approximately 90%, with certain functions such as assistance to national jurisdictions and archival management to be transferred to the UN Secretariat. However, she advocated for a small number of judicial responsibilities, including the transfer and release of convicted persons, witness protection, and monitoring of referred cases, to remain at the international level. “Perpetual justice does not adhere to clear or definitive timelines,” Santana said, describing the proposal as a balance between “principle and pragmatism.”.
Legacy Matters
IRMCT Prosecutor Serge Brammertz also supported the transfer of some non-judicial functions to the Secretariat and the continuation of international oversight for convicted persons serving sentences. Brammertz emphasized the importance of the Mechanism’s legacy amidst ongoing genocide denial and the glorification of war criminals. “The horrific atrocities in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia were not random acts of violence,” Brammertz stated, warning that hate speech and propaganda lay the groundwork for violence and underscoring the archival materials’ educational value.
Archives Spark Debate
The future location of the tribunals’ archives emerged as one of the most contentious issues before the ambassadors on Friday. Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, argued that the ICTR archives should be transferred to Rwanda. “For the survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi, the handover of the ICTR archives will be more than just the relocation of records – it will represent the return of a significant part of their history,” Ugirashebuja stated. Tanzania, which hosted the Rwandan tribunal for twenty years, noted that the archives are already in a location with modern infrastructure, neutrality, and broad accessibility. Similar disagreements arose regarding the future location of the ICTY’s archives, with Serbia offering to preserve related materials while Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina stressed the importance of accessibility and expressed concerns about political commitments to transparency.
Calls for Closure, Warnings Against Haste
While Council members generally agreed that the Mechanism was never intended to be permanent, opinions differed on the pace of its closure. Some members, including Greece, Pakistan, and Somalia, supported maintaining a “small, temporary, and efficient” structure. The United States indicated that the Council now faces significant decisions to ensure the “responsible and expeditious conclusion” of the Mechanism’s work. Russia called for further transfer of responsibilities, stating the Mechanism had “stubbornly clung to residual functions.” Simultaneously, many delegations cautioned against moving too quickly. Colombia’s representative stated, “The objective should be the definitive and orderly closure of the Mechanism.”
