Side Event – “Documenting Conflict and Atrocity-Related Sexual Violence Crimes in CAR, Iraq, Myanmar and Sri Lanka"

Country Supplements to the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict

(co-hosted by the United Kingdom, the Centre for International Law Research and Policy – Case Matrix Network, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, the Institute for International Criminal Investigations and Redress)

Overview by Adina Nistor, Affiliated Expert PILPG NL

Highlights:

  • When victim and documenter safety cannot be insured, the mindful decision is to choose not to document the perpetration of international crimes;

  • Guiding principle that cannot be emphasized enough: do no harm. Investigating international crimes and particularly crimes of sexual violence requires cultural sensitivity and a commitment to not further traumatize victims or put them (and documenter) at risk;

  • Taboos, strong cultural and religious beliefs, and investigators’ own prejudices can hamper the investigation of sexual violence crimes.

  • The Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict (the Protocol) is a useful tool for documenting conflict and atrocity – related sexual violence crimes, which should be adapted to match the specificity of the country where the crimes have been committed.

This side event offered a thought-provoking discussion on investigating sexual violence in various socio-cultural and economic contexts, on how it should be ideally conducted, and what the steps are to move further in a constructive way. The speakers explained the role of the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict (the Protocol) and how theory and practice related aspects of documenting conflict and atrocity – related sexual violence crimes can be strengthened. Through the development and application of the Protocol to four country-specific supplements (on CAR, Iraq, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka), the first steps into solidifying and increasing knowledge on this sensitive topic have been taken. Other states and relevant actors are encouraged to use the Protocol, and to transpose and adapt it to national practices.

The experts present at the meeting addressed weaknesses inherent to current practices prevalent in the work of those documenting sexual violence crimes, with a particular focus on over-documentation, inadequate coordination, and the lack of competence of (especially self-appointed) investigators to conduct such sensitive work. The Protocol has been therefore designed to guide practitioners in conducting the documentation of sexual violence crimes in a culturally sensitive and ethical manner, which concern for the mental and physical wellbeing of those interviewed, but also the wellbeing of themselves as investigators. Being aware of the context-specificity of sexual violence crimes is essential first of all for appropriately identifying the crimes committed, for addressing survivors with sensitivity and dignity, and for ensuring that they are not re-traumatized by the process of providing evidence. Given that each conflict and each country where such crimes take place have their own set of legal practices, cultural norms, and traditions that are locally specific, the guidelines offered in the Protocol serve as a starting point in having the awareness that is necessary to adapt to the given context and to the given conflict situation.

The speakers also discussed the four individual guides on the four different countries (CAR, Iraq, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka) more in-depth; they addressed issues concerning the countries’ common ground, but also their points of divergence. The stigmatization suffered by victims of sexual crimes for example is a particularly challenging issue from an investigative point of view. The stigma attached to these survivors has legal and social implications for how such crimes are being addressed. In the case of male victims of sexual violence in particular, in countries where sodomy laws are in place, this prevents them from coming forward about what they have suffered for fear of legal repercussions and double victimization (by the perpetrator(s), and by the legal system).

One aspect that was underlined by the practitioners present at the meeting was that the issue of over-documentation is increasingly problematic, especially when it is conducted by self-appointed, untrained investigators. Ad-hoc approaches to gathering and handling extremely sensitive evidence, and of gathering statements from survivors of sexual violence crimes can lead to further human rights violations and can jeopardize the process of justice delivery for the victims. Gathering evidence without having a clear understanding on why and how this evidence is collected leads to unnecessarily exposing survivors to risks (filming interviews with victims can endanger them and this aspect should be always considered by the investigator). Documenters and donors have to be mindful of the dangers of investigating international crimes and at times make the decision to not investigate when doing so is harmful. While all victims of sexual violence crimes are extremely vulnerable, the speakers addressed the fact that when it comes to children, collecting evidence from them is even more problematic and ethically challenging. 

The discussion ended with best way to look forward. Ideally, victims of sexual violence crimes should be empowered to fully know their rights. They should therefore receive clear, truthful and appropriate answers to questions such as: Who are you and why are you taking my statement? What purpose will it serve? In what way does it benefit me? Ultimately, the role of the investigators is not only to document what happened, by whom, and to whom, but also to protect those who have been victimized and not to produce further harm.

Side Event – “Realizing Victims’ Right to Reparation at the International Criminal Court”

(co-hosted by Chile, Finland, Switzerland, Redress and the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV))

Overview by Abby Roberts, Research Associate PILPG NL

Highlights: 

  • Redress views the Rome Statute’s treatment of reparations as comprehensive but feels that more needs to be done with regards to implementation and action. 

  • Many issues remain to be addressed in the reparations process, as it is a slow process in identifying partner organizations and identifying victims, and further efforts are necessary to fulfill the mission of the court. 

  • The assistance mandate of the TFV needs to start much earlier and needs to play a more central role, according to Redress. 

  • Several panelist suggested to look at the primary responsibility of states to provide reparations.

This event began with a brief speech by the Ambassador from Finland outlining their support for the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), which amounts to 800,000 Euros yearly earmarked for victims of sexual assault and gender-based violence, and urging other member states to consider contributing. 

Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Second Vice President of the ICC, was next to speak and he provided a background and overview of reparations. He began by explaining that the reparations phase takes place after conviction and sentencing and is a written process involving exchanges between the representatives of victims and the defense. The TFV intervenes when it is requested to do so. The reparations phase has had to address a multiplicity of legal questions and there is a managerial dimension when allocating reparations. The key issue is to determine the scope of the defendant’s liability for reparations: the reparations have to be proportionate to the harm caused and extent of the perpetrator’s participation. Moreover, assessing and identifying the victims is a key challenge to awarding reparations. However, being recognized as a victim by the ICC seems to be a positive experience for the victims. Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut noted that in order for reparations to materialize, the TFV will have to be involved in aspects of fundraising and motivating states. Another challenge is the determination of the types of reactions as there are both individual and collective reparations. Individual reparations can be tailored to the needs of the victims. All of his exchanges with victims have indicated that this type is preferred by the victims. Collective reparations, benefiting a group or category submitted to a common harm, are supposed to be the default type and are preferred by the Court. Many issues remain to be addressed in the reparations process, as it is a slow process in identifying partner organizations and identifying victims, and further efforts are necessary to fulfill the mission of the court, he concluded. 

Lorraine Smith van Lin of Redress followed by referring to a report compiled by Redress outlining what needs to be done to improve the reparations. The report contained numerous general findings, including that the ICC failed to implement the five imperatives of reparations. The ICC reparations system is an interplay of judicial and non-judicial elements and Redress was satisfied that the provisions in the text of the statute reflect the unique role which victims enjoy under the Rome Statute. They were also satisfied that this has been recognized by the chambers and that the ICC has consolidated its case law on reparations. However, the process has been protracted and has not been effective in the provision of reparations. The current system is inconsistent, characterized by delay, and does not allow the victims proper access to reparations. Lorraine emphasized that delivering prompt reparations to victims should be a priority. Redress felt that although significant time has been devoted to interpreting legal texts regarding reparations, the ICC victim’s strategy is outdated and they need a new comprehensive one that takes into consideration of questions such as where the reparations system fits into the broad scheme of complementarity and restorative justice. The general insights from Redress were that the assistance mandate of the TFV needs to begin much earlier and it needs to play a more central role.

Philipp Ambach from the Victims Participations and Reparations Section of the ICC Registry noted that the ICC procedural framework provides liberty for chambers to decide the scope and framing of reparations. He believes this has been done with the idea that the chambers need to be able to tailor the reparations to the case at hand. Here he believes we are looking at a tendency to streamline the technical aspect of the registry. The procedural system that is being applied is a healthy discourse between registry, victims, and chambers.  

Pieter de Baan, Executive Director of the TFV, spoke on the role of the TFV. The TFV has a role to the extent it is invited to do so prior to reparations order, but after the order the role expands. The TFV does not represent victims but it always has the responsibility to act in the interest of victims.  They are transitioning towards a more distant role under the assistance mandate and working with field partners. However, through direct engagement with counsel and victims, they have come to appreciate that the engagement is highly significant.  Much of the focus of the debate has been around reparation proceedings. Hopefully soon the debate will transition to the operational theater in which reparations are implemented, De Baan emphasized. The TFV are looking at conflict and post-conflict situations, which are highly volatile and force the fund to find other ways to interact with victims which may take longer. There have been extensive procedural discoveries since the outset and there will still be new and unforeseen situations.  The fund is optimistic they will respond with creative and proactive solutions.

Allan Ngari from the Institute of Security Studies was the last to speak. He noted that we have romanticized the standard set by the ICC for reparations, but states have not fully followed suit despite the fact that it is the primary responsibility of states to provide for these reparations. He suggested that the Kenyan chapter on reparative justice is extremely comprehensive and could be used as a model. Also, truth mechanisms are important due to the participation means for victims to craft their reparations needs. He believes that we cannot only look at the ICC as the frame through which reparative justice is issued, we need to look at it as a complementary method.

Tenth Plenary Meeting of the ASP17: Achievements and challenges regarding victims’ participation and legal representation after 20 years of the adoption of Rome Statute

Overview by Filipe Gomes Dias Costa, Research Associate PILPG NL

This plenary meeting aimed at addressing victim participation and legal representation in the 20 years of existence of the Rome Statute. For the occasion, a panel of stakeholders from the ICC, practitioners, and civil society reflected on what has been achieved since 1998, what challenges remain, and how these challenges can be overcome from a theoretical and practical perspective. 

The session was opened with introductory remarks by the moderators, Erica Lucero and Philip Dixon. They underlined that victims should be at the heart of everything we do and that it is both appropriate and necessary to put the issue of victim participation and legal representation in the spotlight this ASP. The panel started with a short film on victims of the LRA in Uganda and their perspectives regarding the ICC cases.

The first panelist was Mr. Hirad Abtahi, head of the legal and enforcement unit. In his speech, he noted that the number of victims applying for participation in proceedings has increased by 10 times in comparison to the initial days of the Court. This poses one of the ultimate challenges of effectiveness and efficiency according to him. 

The second panelist to address the Assembly was Fabrício Guaruglia from the Office of the Prosecution, answering how victim participation works at different stages of ICC proceedings. Mr. Guaruglia explained that victim participation mutates through the different stages of proceedings. For example at the preliminary examination stage, the OTP receives information from victim and therefore directly interacts with victims. He highlighted that victims shall not act as party to the proceedings and are actually not prosecutorial assistants since they have their own interest to pursue. Additionally, he underscored in light of the development of the Rome Statute during its 20 years that its provisions are heavily victim-centered.

Philipp Ambach, Chair of victims representation session followed by addressing the practical elements of how to make victims engage with the ICC. An obvious lesson, he mentioned, was that the one month period to receive the views of victims was simply too short. Moreover, engagement with external actors such as NGOs has proven to be essential. Finally, the shortening of the application form as well as the usage of online forms and other digital resources have been proven particularly efficient to make victims engage with the ICC. 

Next, Francisco Cox, counsel for victims in the Ongwen case remarked that in the end, financial resources are still the key elements in order to enhance victim representation.  Furthermore, victims are often confused by the whole procedure concerning reparations. This may lead to inconsistencies in their statements, since some may exaggerate the injuries suffered when reporting for reparation.

Speaking from the perspective of civil society, Christine Alai pondered that victims normally do not have access to key information on the consequences of the procedure it engages with. In this sense, the Trust Fund for Victims shall play a major role in strengthening the role of victims in order for them not to be seen as mere object and tools for the proceedings. Answering a question from the moderators with regard to challenges to victim participation, Ms. Alai reiterated the importance of recognizing that victim participation is not just a procedural issue but a question of quality, of substance and impact: how can we conduct it so it is meaningful and does not cause further harm. This also implies sufficient resources. 

Concluding the exposition of the panelists, Paolina Massida differentiated between the mandates of organizations related to victims that are acting within the ICC system. Moreover, the role of victims is essential not only for the proceedings, but for contributing to ease the deep trauma caused as a result of grave crimes. Answering a question by the moderators as to what the biggest achievement with regard to witness participation has been, Ms. Massida underlined that today it is not disputable anymore that victims have a central place in proceedings. 

After the panelists had addressed their issues, the interactive segment of the meeting started, allowing those states present to reflect upon the statements and ask questions. Most notably, Argentina inquired on whether states may contribute to the whole process in any other way than financially. Philipp Ambach and Christine Alai answered that states can provide operational and technical support as well as more engagement of their legal profession. Norway inquired into the use of modern technology for the purpose of victim participation. In response to this question, Ms. Massida answered that this is an important development for victim participation, referring also to the video shown in the beginning of the meeting. FIDH, after stating that wrong conceptions of participation are persistent, urged the Court to reflect on the practice and purpose of victim participation, noting that it is crucial to the efficiency as well as legacy of the Court. A representative of defense counsel, representing Yekatom, also criticized the lack of engagement of members of the defense in the panel and challenged the entwined relation between condemnation of the suspect and reparation for the victims. 

Side Event – “Victim Participation in the Transitional Justice Contexts” (co-hosted by the Netherlands, Avocats Sans Frontieres, Impunity Watch and Redress)

Overview by Isabella Banks and Juan Manuel Martinez Rojas, Research Associates PILPG NL

Highlights: 

  • Transitional justice processes that have been designed to benefit victims often heavily limit their engagement.

  • Meaningful victim participation in transitional justice can take many forms – it can be formal or informal, active or passive – and should be tailored to the local context.

  • Transformative transitional justice mechanisms should address the root causes of violence and focus on non-repetition.  

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, the Republic of Uganda, Advocats Sans Frontières (ASF), Impunity Watch, and Redress, this side event explored the challenges and opportunities for ensuring the active participation of victims in processes that have been designed for their benefit, but which often heavily limit their engagement. It focused primarily on lessons that the International Criminal Court (ICC) can learn from the experiences of two case studies: Uganda and Guatemala.

In her introduction to the event, moderator and Research Coordinator at ASF Elisa Novic noted that the inclusion of victim participation in the Rome Statute is innovative but not without its challenges. Among the greatest challenges is determining how meaningful victim participation can be ensured in contexts where systems are not prepared for it.

Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the ICC and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Paul van den IJssel followed Ms. Novic with opening remarks, highlighting the importance of ensuring victim participation at the ICC.

Ms. Marlies Stappers, Executive Director of Impunity Watch, spoke first, providing an overview of the challenges the international community has faced in its efforts to operationalize victim participation over the past decade. She pointed out that international actors now agree that victim participation is central to transitional justice and that this represents significant progress in the field. She attributed much of this progress to activism on the part of victims in the early years. Unfortunately, she noted, many of these mechanisms have become very bureaucratic, technical, and internationalized to the point that they exclude the victims who helped make them possible. She called for more meaningful victim participation at the early stages of transitional justice processes and emphasized the importance of transitional justice mechanisms that address the root causes of violence and focus on non-repetition as well as empower victims and expand their role in designing the mechanisms.

Ms. Stappers acknowledged that participation can take many forms and depends largely on the local context. She also distinguished between formal victim participation, including participation as ICC witnesses, parties to trial, or consultants to peace processes, and informal participation, including activism, advocacy, or involvement in memorialization projects. 

Ms. Patricia Bako, Project Officer of ASF, spoke next, sharing her experience as a civil society advocate of victim participation in Uganda. Her comments centered on her work with the victims of Thomas Kwoyelo, whose case is currently before Uganda’s High Court. After providing a brief history of the ICD (originally named the War Crimes Division) as well as the case of Mr. Kwoyelo (which began in 2010), Ms. Bako explained the ASF’s role in developing rules of procedure for the special division. Because Uganda is a common law country, victim participation was not part of the existing legal framework and had to be introduced. Beginning in 2016, ASF helped train lawyers appointed by the Court to serve on victim counsels. In partnership with Redress, ASF helped the lawyers identify the victims they were tasked with representing and conduct outreach to raise victims’ awareness of the case. ASF also worked with the Court’s registrar to develop and distribute a form through which victims could apply to be involved in the Kwoyelo case. The victim counsels conducted additional outreach to obtain information that was missing from the forms, and legal assistants were trained to help screen the applications.

Ms. Bako noted that throughout this process, victims often ask about the possibility of receiving reparations. She stressed that as the case moves forward, it is important that participation remains meaningful and that “the end game” for victims is clear. The rules and procedure of the ICD provides that reparations will only be addressed at the end of the case.  The victim counsels are therefore working towards holding outreach events that help to build trust among victims and give them hope throughout the process rather than focusing solely on information collection.

Elizabeth Ibanda-Nahamya, Judge of the Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and former judge of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of Uganda’s High Court, described the Ugandan experience with victim participation from an institutional perspective. She began by expressing how much her first-hand experience as a judge had affirmed the value of victim participation in the criminal justice system. Disapproving of victims’ marginalization, she also acknowledged that giving victims a voice in transitional justice processes is easier said than done.

Justice Ibanda-Nahamya highlighted two developments that have helped to broaden victim participation in transitional justice: the ICC’s legal framework and Uganda’s transitional justice policy. She pointed out that in developing new rules of procedure for victim participation, Uganda’s ICD drew significantly from the ICC rules of procedure.  Still, she stated that the victim counsels of the ICD were not well-equipped. Without sufficient funding, the Court’s victim application process was inefficient and its victim outreach strategy ineffective. To date, victims have received limited support from the Court. Justice Ibanda-Nahamya expressed regret that the ICC does not consider it within its mandate to support local institutions.

Uganda’s transitional justice policy emerged in response to the reality that formal justice mechanisms are not enough to fully address the needs of victims. It provides for judicial and non-judicial processes to fulfill victims’ right to redress. Justice Ibanda-Nahamya called the policy “a victim-centered document” in the sense that victims were consulted at various points throughout the drafting process. At the same time, she noted that it still needed to be passed into law and acknowledged that it may be excessively ambitious about what it can achieve. She stressed the importance of managing victim expectations around what benefits they will realistically receive through participation. In conclusion, she called on the international community to ensure that transitional justice processes are participatory and incorporate elements of restorative justice.

After the Ugandan experience section, Alejandro Rodriguez, human rights defender and researcher at Impunity Watch and also a Guatemalan lawyer presented 3 cases of transformative victim participation in the Guatemalan transitional justice process. 

In first place, he provided a brief context of the Guatemalan transitional justice system. According to Impunity Watch from all the gross human rights violations in Guatemala the cases brought to justice represent less than 1%, and there are just 25% sentences in those cases. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has established that Guatemala has a large impunity issue. Mr. Rodríguez added that 80% of victims are Mayan people and for them the language, social, and ethnic barriers are way bigger. 

About victims’ participation he said that they were able to take part in the processes, request and bring evidence, intervene in oral trials, submit requests for reparation in case of condemnatory sentence. Also, he noted that collective associations can be private accusers. He argued that there are 3 emblematic cases of strategic litigation that should be pointed out: The first one is the case against former dictator Efrain Ríos Montt for genocide against the Ichil people from 1982 to 1983 consisting of indiscriminate massacres, looting, and sexual assaults to women. The expert said that in 2013, Ríos Montt was sentenced to 80 years for genocide counts. Later, the sentence was annulated by the Constitutional Court due to high pressure from economic and political elites. Finally, he was convicted to 20 years of imprisonment for genocide through the Guatemalan army. For building up the case, Rodríguez said that the cultural perspective was a key issue and it facilitated establishing the litigation objectives. The legal support from the Asociación Justicia y Reparación(AJR) contributed largely to strength the process, after their intervention, the Public Ministry decided to create a ‘Transitional Justice Table’. Finally, Rodríguez mentioned that the judgment for genocide shocked the national consciousness and contributed significantly to the fight against racism.

The second case addressed concerned several widows that were taken as sexual slaves by the army in Sepur Zarco. For Rodríguez, the women were stigmatized after the war but with the support from several organizations they managed to organize human rights workshops in their region. Those responsible were sentenced for crimes against humanity, torture, and slavery. In the judgment a reparation section was included ordering the Government to build schools, health centers, and give scholarship for universities to the youth in the region, land restitution, and the women were able to transform their life and their own position within the community. 

Rodríguez finally addressed the case of the Molina Taissen family. Emma Molina Taissen was arrested and transferred to a military barrack, where she was victim of torture and sexual offences. She managed to flee the premises but in the recapture operative, her brother was kidnapped and disappeared. The Chief of the Army and Intelligence was convicted for being part of a joint criminal enterprise responsible for over 45.000 enforced disappearances. According to the expert, the case had serious implications for the Molina Taissen family and they had to live in exile form 1983. Finally, the IACHR called for an end to impunity in this case and after 14 years the case was brought before a Guatemalan court with several strong security measures in order to grant victims participation. After the judgement, civil society called for the passing of a law and a national policy plan to find the missing persons.

In conclusion for Rodríguez, transitional justice processes can only be successful if victims participate and transform their life to acquire prominence through a comprehensive strategy that includes psychological help and a litigation strategy. Also, transitional justice processes should have a political strategy, according to him. He moreover remarked that a communications strategy that is able to stand out in defense of victims in case they suffer revictimization and stigmatization is required. Finally, he affirmed that a security strategy that grants confidence and protection for victims is needed. With those elements, it is possible to conduct a real strategic litigation, which allows strong victim participation for promote their rights, he concluded.

An audience member asked if there was any interplay between the victims participating in the ICC’s Ongwen case and the victims of theKwoyelo case before the national court. Ms. Bako stated that the victims of Thomas Kwoyelo felt that the ICC case was moving faster than theirs and in their frustration, have said that they wished they were the victims of Ongwen.  Interim assistance and reparations from the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) is not available to the victims of Kwoyelo, and it is not clear where those victims benefits will come from.  With that said, organizations working on the two cases do interact, especially for victim participation trainings.

Ugandan Ambassador Mirjam Blaak Sow also noted that many victims who were asked to participate as witnesses in the Kwoyelo case refused on the basis that they were already witnesses in the Ongwen case. Uganda has worked with the ICC extensively around witness protection and information exchange in the two cases, seeing these efforts as a win-win form of complementarity.

Another member of the audience asked whether efforts were being made to support victims in Uganda who were not part of either case. She asked what kind of psychosocial support was made available to victims so that they – rather than civil society actors – could be the face of the movement. Ms. Bako responded that other organizations have done important work to rehabilitate victims in Northern Uganda, particularly with regard to medical surgeries for those whose faces were disfigured by members of the LRA. The TFV has played an important role in supporting these local organizations. However, Ms. Bako noted that government-funded victim assistance programs in these areas were excessively focused on development rather than reparations. As for psychosocial support, she replied that all victim outreach activities organized by civil society actors involve a counselor who works to build rapport with the victims. She stated that it is not yet clear how the ICD will be involved in delivering psychosocial support.

Justice Ibanda-Nahamya agreed with audience member about the challenge of bringing victims to the forefront and admitted that victim advocacy is progressing in baby steps. She also acknowledged that psychosocial support is not often available in Uganda and very much needed given the number of wars that have occurred. She called on civil society to take up the challenge of providing psychosocial support for victims before trials come up, and noted that they are currently working to identify and bring together experts in that area. 

Before closing, a Ugandan lawyer in the audience shared his own experience of victimization and intrusive flashbacks over the course of his life. He stressed that if it is not possible to deliver reparations to victims then at minimum, psychosocial support should be delivered. Ambassador Blaak Sow closed the event by stating that the legacy of the war in Uganda remains an enormous problem – particularly for the young people who have been affected and stigmatized by their communities. “We feel we have a lost a generation,” she said, emphasizing that hardly anyone had not been affected by the war and that it would take a long time for the country to recover. She concluded that she felt that the Ugandan representatives at the event had learned a lot from their colleagues in Guatemala.

Eleventh & Twelfth Plenary Meeting of the ASP17

Overview by Lea Schwagereit & Phedra Neel, Research Associates PILPG NL

The 11thplenary meeting of the 17thAssembly of States Parties concerned the adoption of three resolution. First, the draft resolution on the Remuneration of judges (ICC-ASP/17/L.7), presented by the facilitator at yesterday’s plenary meeting was adopted without a vote. Secondly, the draft resolution concerning Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (ICC-ASP/17/l.6) was adopted without a vote and without any party wishing to explain their position. Lastly, the draft resolution on cooperation (ICC-ASP/17/L.5) was adopted without a vote and without any party wishing to explain their position.  

At the following 12th plenary meeting, the draft resolution on the Budget as well as the draft report of the Working Group on the budget was introduced by the facilitator, H.E. Jens-Otto Horslund (Denmark) as ready for adoption at the next plenary meeting. The facilitator for the Omnibus Resolution, Mr. Vincent Rittener (Switzerland) introduced the draft Omnibus Resolution to the Assembly.