ASP18 First Plenary Meeting

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 1 (2 December 2019)

Name of the Event: First Plenary Meeting of the Assembly of States Parties (‘ASP’)

Overview by: Francisca De Castro, Raghavi Viswanath, Junior Research Associates PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Opening statement by the President of the Assembly of States Parties, H.E O-Gon Kwon.

• ICC President Chile Eboe-Osuji and Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda delivered statements. Both of them discussed the recent threats to the integrity and independence of the Court and called for strong support from States Parties. 

• ICC Prosecutor Bensouda invited States Parties to attend the launch of the OTP’s 2019 PE report on Friday December 6. 

• The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims updated the ASP about developments relating to the TFV’s reparations and assistance mandate.

The President of the Assembly of States Parties, Mr. O-Gon Kwon, opened the 18th session of the ASP. Applause from the ASP followed after O-Gon Kwon invited States Parties to congratulate the Pacific Island state of Kiribati for acceding to the Rome Statute. The ASP President adopted the agenda for the week after a silent prayer. 

In his opening remarks, O-Gon Kwon touched upon the need for state cooperation, the election of a new Prosecutor in 2020, and the Review of the Court. Regarding the Review of the Court, O-Gon Kwon stated that the Court acknowledges challenges and the need to face them. He discussed efforts in this regard, including a retreat of the Bureau in June this year to consider review of the Court followed by the creation of the Matrix (“Matrix over possible areas of strengthening the Court and the Rome Statute System”) by the ASP presidency, which forms a starting point for constructive dialogue. A draft resolution on the Review of the Court, including Terms of Reference for an Independent Expert Review (IER) covering (1) governance, (2) the judiciary and judicial process, and (3) preliminary examinations, investigation, and prosecution, will be introduced during a plenary meeting later this week. On Tuesday December 2 at 08:30, informal consultations on this draft resolution will be held. 

Following the ASP President, ICC President Chile Eboe-Osuji took the floor. He lamented the recent threats against the Court’s integrity and independence, directly referring to threats made by the U.S. He urged States Parties to do “all that it takes – and be prepared to do more – to counter these threats, in all their ramifications.” He furthermore briefly touched upon the Review of the Court and Rome Statute System and urged states to keep the Review in the proper perspective. The value of the ICC should not be forgotten (“The ICC is indeed a most profound and valuable multilateral achievement”) and he urged states to see the ICC as an independent institution to give effect to the rule of law. States cannot demand ‘results’ that favor their interests in the ordinary sense. Instead, he stressed on the need to evaluate the Court’s performance objectively. He mentioned that the Court’s work had produced significant deterrence (especially in the context of the electoral violence in Africa).

The ICC Prosecutor, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, then updated the ASP on recent developments at the OTP. She welcomed the authorization to open an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar and stated that she has designated a team to prepare and commence work without delay. She furthermore informed the ASP of progress in the past year in investigations in for instance the situation in Iraq/UK, Colombia, and the Philippines. She highlighted the challenges of striking the right balance between the budgetary constraints faced by the OTP and the need to expand the reach of the OTP. Bensouda also touched upon threats against the Court and expressed the need for more robust, strong, and united voices from States Parties. She finally invited States Parties to attend the launch of the OTP’s 2019 Preliminary Examinations Report during a side event on Friday December 6.

Full statements of the ICC President and Prosecutor can be found here 

The Chair of the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), Mr. Felipe Michelini then reported to the ASP about the TFV’s work and developments in the implementation of the ICC’s reparations decisions. Notably, reparations have been disbursed to over 197 victims in the Katanga case. The TFV is currently collaborating with UNESCO to identify victims who are eligible to receive reparations in the Al Mahdi case. Michelini stressed the need to separate the reparations programme from the Court’s assistance mandate. In respect to the latter, he informed the ASP that progress had been made in identifying partners in Cote d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. The TFV also expects to release reports on the progress made in the situations in Kenya and Georgia. 

In the opening session, the ASP furthermore decided that the State of Palestine is set to replace Japan as a Bureau member from the end of the 18th session of the ASP until the end of the 19th session of the ASP, elected by consensus six members of the Committee of Budget and Finance (CBF), filled by consensus one vacancy in the CBF, and designated by consensus one member to the Advisory Committee on Nominations of judges. 

Finally, the first plenary meeting saw the start of the general debate with the EU’s statement by Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pekka Haavisto. Mr. Haavisto called upon States Parties to preserve the integrity and independence of the Court (and expressed concern about measures taken against ICC officials) – through financial contributions, increased ratification of the Rome Statute, and the adoption of more effective national legislation. The EU’s statement also touched upon the Review of the Court and the upcoming judicial and prosecutorial elections, which Haavisto indicated should both be transparent processes. 

ASP18 Side Event: Launch of the AFLA quarterly: Lessons from Gbagbo & Blé Goudé case and ICC Review

18th Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute

Day 1 (2 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Launch of the AFLA quarterly: Lessons from Gbagbo & Blé Goudé case and ICC Review (Side Event co-hosted by Uganda and Africa Legal Aid)

Overview by: Raghavi Viswanath, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

The Gbagbo and Blé acquittal calls for a more nuanced review of prosecutorial strategies and the sentencing practices of the Court. Importantly, the Court should steer clear of the risk of politicization. Instead, the Court should focus on the need to preserve the right to family life of the accused, encourage positive complementarity through domestic prosecutions and incentivize States to accept released/acquitted defendants.

Summary of the Event:

Ambassador Blaak-Sow (Ambassador of Uganda to the Benelux and European Union) and Ambassador van den Ijsel (Netherlands Ambassador to the ICC and OPCW) welcomed all participants to the launch of the AFLA quarterly, and spoke about how the 18th session of the Assembly of States Parties was expected to serve as a crucial signpost for the review of the Court’s performance. The first panelist was Dr. Namira Negm (Legal Counsel of the African Union). Dr. Negm first commented on the timeliness of the AFLA quarterly which exposes the Court’s prioritization of the situations in the African continent. In her view, Gbagbo was a tipping point in this trend. Notably, she discussed how Gbagbo prompted many allies of the Court to call for reforms in prosecutorial strategies. The case also warns of the damage that unsubstantiated indictments cause both to the reputation and the resources of the Court.

This was followed by a short presentation by Evelyn Ankumah (Executive Director, Africa Legal Aid). She emphasized on the need for nuance in criticism. The ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ standards are not new to criminal trials. However, the application of these standards in Gbagbo was unique – because of the heinousness and scale of the crimes, the interests of the victims, and the interests of States that often wish to see particular persons prosecuted. Therefore, the key question should be how to minimize the risk of politicization – both on the OTP and the judges. The political background of the case should not be the basis for reduced evidentiary standards. To this end, she warned against measuring the success of the Court by the number of convictions. In the long run, the Court will only have legitimacy if it gives due regard to the interests of fairness. 

Chief Taku (Immediate Past President, ICC Bar Association; Defence Counsel before the ICTR, SCSL and the ICC) and Mariana Pena (Senior Legal Officer, Open Society Justice Initiative) then called for a reconsideration of the arrest and detention policies of the Court. Gbagbo’s continued detention even after the acquittal would inevitably lead to double victimization. In her presentation, Mariana Pena highlighted how the calls for a review of the ICC were not triggered merely by the recent string of acquittals. These calls are grounded in broader systemic failures of the Court’s detention policies, its limited understanding of the limitations on the ground, and the strained relationship between the Court and the States Parties. These problems are further compounded by the uncertainty in the standards applicable to ‘no case to answer’ motions. In particular, she discussed the implications of the draft resolution of the creation of an expert panel to review the Court’s performance. In her view, it was important that the panel be encouraged to direct recommendations both at States Parties and the Court. In order to ensure independence and credibility, the review process must engage with the civil society.

Melinda Taylor (Defence Counsel at the ICC) then made a short presentation on the due process lessons learned in the wake of the Gbagbo and Ble acquittal. Significantly, the practice of acquittals is not unique to the ICC. Both the ICTY and the ICTR have famously acquitted many senior leaders involved in the Yugoslav conflict. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to infer that the heightened criticism directed at the ICC is in fact linked to the defendants being African nationals. She then spoke of how States could assist in undoing the trust deficit. In her view, releasing defendants should be considered as important as arresting and detaining them. However, releasing defendants/acquitting defendants does not serve the rehabilitative ends of justice if the defendant is already made to serve de facto punishment and denied the right to family life. Notably, Gbagbo was one of many cases where the accused was acquitted after having served nearly eight years in detention.  Therefore, more States should be encouraged to host the defendants released or acquitted by the Court. As of today, only two states have signed agreements with the Court to evince their interest in accepting released prisoners. In conclusion, she spoke of how the permanence of the Court should be used to its advantage. The Court, unlike its predecessors, had the opportunity to learn from the practices of the ad hoc tribunals and revise its working policies to keep up with the constantly evolving interests of justice.

The panelist presentations were followed by a brief floor discussion. Dr. Negm, in particular, was asked about the pushback from the African Union, and the futility of reform if African States choose to withdraw from the Statute. Dr. Negm acknowledged that withdrawal may be an extreme measure. However, reforms in the prosecutorial strategies could contain/undo this trend. The root of the problem was the target-based approach of the OTP – which has repeatedly failed, as seen in the Kenyatta and Ruto cases. Instead, the Court should draw on the success of the ad hoc tribunals and encourage domestic prosecutions at first instance. In so doing, the Court could also avoid creating unrealistic expectations for the victims and local communities. The event ended with comments from the counsel in the Gbagbo case, who discussed how the case prompted constructive exchanges between the Defence and the OTP, and internal policy reviews across all divisions. She voiced the agreement of the room that there was an urgent need to raise, and not lower, the bar for prosecutions.

Summarizing Developments at the International Criminal Court Before the 18th Session of the Assembly of States Parties

By Rachel Grand, Emma Bakkum, and dr. Marieke de Hoon

Between 2-7 December 2019, States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) convene in The Hague for the 18th Session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP): a key site for the politics of international criminal justice. In this post, we will provide an overview of recent events in preparation for this week’s developments. We will post daily summaries of the plenary and side event sessions here on our Lawyering Justice blog. Also follow us on twitter, via #PILPGatASP. 

The ASP functions as the management oversight and legislative body of the ICC and is composed of representatives of the States Parties to the Rome Statute. The ASP convenes annually in The Hague or New York to discuss and decide on issues that are relevant to the work of the ICC. These issues include the adoption of amendments to the Rome Statute or Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the ICC’s annual budget, judicial and prosecutorial elections, and questions relating to non-cooperation. A number of subsidiary bodies of the ASP report back to the ASP during the annual session, such as the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims and the Committee on Budget and Finance. During the ASP, States Parties furthermore discuss contemporary issues or challenges such as universality, complementarity, and victims and affected communities. Last few years, the ASP has in particular focused on threats to the integrity and legitimacy of the Court. 

To date, 122 states acceded to the Rome Statute. On 26 November 2019, Pacific Island State Kiribati deposited its instrument of accession to the Rome Statute. When its accession enters into force on 1 February 2020, Kiribati will be the 123rd State Party to the Rome Statute. 

Earlier this year, Malaysia was thought to become the 123rd state party, when Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah, signed the instrument of accession to the Rome Statute last March. However, on 29 April, Malaysia confirmed with the UN that it was backtracking on its accession. 

This year, the ICC also lost a State Party when the Philippines formally withdrew from the Rome Statute in March, a year after it deposited its notice to the UN Treaty Office, becoming the second country to do so after Burundi withdrew in 2017. This move came in response to the preliminary examination into accusations that President Rodrigo Duterte and other Philippine officials committed extra-judicial killings during the “war on drugs” campaign.  

 The ICC looks back at another eventful year. Below a summary. 

Cote d’Ivoire – Gbagbo & Blé Goudé

In October, the Prosecution appealed Trial Chamber I’s January decision to acquit Gbagbo and Blé Goudé of all charges of crimes against humanity. The Prosecutors’ appeal asks the Appeal Chamber to declare a mistrial. While judges consider the appeal, the Appeal Chamber ruled to keep Gbagbo in detention. 

Uganda – Ongwen

In February, Ongwen’s Defense presented Trial Chamber IX with reasons why Ongwen should not be charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In July, the Appeals Chamber rejected Ongwen’s appeal on the Trial Chamber IX’s decision to decline the requested dismissal of 41 of the 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In October, The Prosecutor announced that the trial of Ongwen is likely to conclude December of this year after the presentation of evidence. 

Libya – Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi

In April, Pre-Trial Chamber I confirmed that the case against Saif-Al-Islam Gaddafi is admissible before the ICC, rejecting the admissibility challenge presented by Gaddafi’s Defense in June of last year. The admissibility challenge asserted that Gaddafi was convicted by the Tripoli Criminal Court for the same conduct as charged by the ICC and that he was provided with a general amnesty.

Afghanistan 

In April, Pre-Trial Chamber II unanimously rejected the Prosecutor’s 2017 request to authorize an investigation into alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Afghanistan. The Chamber, despite finding that the jurisdiction and admissibility requirements were met, found that such an investigation “would not serve the interests of justice.” In September, the Prosecutor appealed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision to reject her request to open an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan. The Prosecutor’s appeal asserts that the Pre-Trial Chamber abused its use of discretion by not authorizing an investigation on the basis of an interests of justice assessment. In response to the appeal, on 9 October, the US announced it would remain to impose visa sanctions on ICC officials involved in investigations into US personnel. This announcement followed visa sanctions imposed on the Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, in March.

Bangladesh/Myanmar

In July, the Prosecutor requested the commencement of an investigation into the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar. In September, Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over alleged deportations of Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh. This ruling established a precedent on ICC jurisdiction since Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute, but Bangladesh is. Pre-Trial Chamber II ruled in November that the Prosecutor can proceed with an investigation into the alleged crimes, within the ICC’s jurisdiction, committed against the Rohingya people from Myanmar.

Democratic Republic of Congo – Ntaganda and Lubanga

In July, Trial Chamber VI convicted Ntaganda of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the DRC between 2002-2003. In September, Ntaganda’s Defense appealed the  guilty verdict and requested an acquittal of all counts citing procedural errors and violations of fair trial rights. In November, Trial Chamber VI sentenced Ntaganda to 30 years in prison. This is the highest sentence the ICC has ever handed down. 

In July, the Appeals Chamber confirmed that Lubanga is liable for US$10 million worth of reparations to victims of his crimes.

Central African Republic – Yekatom and Ngaissona

In September, Pre-Trial Chamber II began the confirmation of charges hearing in the case against Yekatom and Ngaissona. Both are accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the CAR. Pre-Trial Chamber II concluded its hearings determining if there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds for the charges against Yekatom and Nagaissona in October. The judges have 60 days to deliberate and present a written decision.

Mali – Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz

In September, Pre-Trial Chamber I confirmed that charges against Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, were substantial enough to put him on trial. The Court has not yet set the trial date.

Syria 

In March, evidence against senior Syrian officials who allegedly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity were filed with the ICC. However, there are various limitations remaining to the Court’s ability to prosecute individuals who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.

Election of a new Chief Prosecutor

Next year, the ASP will elect a new Chief Prosecutor, during the ASP’s 19th session taking place in New York. Ms. Fatou Bensouda took office on 15 June 2012 and her 9-year term will end on 15 June 2021. She cannot be re-elected. 

Article 42 of the Rome Statute provides that the Prosecutor shall be a person “of high moral character, be highly competent in and have extensive practical experience in the prosecution or trial of criminal cases.” The Prosecutorial election is facilitated by the Committee on the Election of the Prosecutor (CEP). The deadline for applications for the next Prosecutor was extended from 31 October to 25 November 2019. Reasons for extending the deadline include an under-representation of applicants from certain regions and legal systems, as well as gender representation.

In addition to the Chief Prosecutor, the ASP will also elect six new judges next year in New York. We can expect lobbying for each of these positions during this year’s ASP. 

Keep tuned to this blog to follow updates from the ASP in the days to come. 

#Lawyering Justice #PILPGatASP

Humanitarian Reality in Colombia: Saving Lives and Safeguarding the Future of Peace

By: Francisca De Castro, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Since the 1960s, Colombia has been faced with a situation of armed violence that has plunged the country in insecurity and crisis. Groups of farmers had created self-defense militias, which later turned into guerrilla groups, over agrarian disputes with the government. The violence turned into a conflict between state forces, paramilitary groups, and guerrilla groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), amongst others. In 2016, the Colombian government and the FARC signed a peace agreement which put an end to more than 60 years of civil war. However, three years later, the humanitarian reality in Colombia is still far from resolved. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that the humanitarian situation in Colombia had in fact decayed in 2018. According to the ICRC, this was a consequence of the five remaining armed conflicts with other groups that were running in parallel, and the ineffective state response to these conflicts in certain rural communities, such asthe Catatumbo and the Cauca regions.

The Colombian state’s inaction prompted social leaders, a term generally adopted in Colombian government and civil society to refer to people who are advocating for their communities social/civil rights, to proactively voice the concerns of minorities.  However, as a result, these leaders have become targets of aggression from unknown actors.  Reports suggest that these aggressions went from 82 recorded aggressions in 2008 to 174 in 2009, and have increased since then.  According to the NGO Somos Defensores, in 2018 alone, over 155 social leaders were assassinated.  However, the government has not been passive during this situation. It has established protection measures for social leaders which include private security officers as well as protected vehicles. 

The “Humanitarian Reality in Colombia” conference organized by Citizen Diplomacy (a group of Colombians living in the Netherlands and working towards bringing attention to the situation of social leaders in Colombia), provided a platform for social leaders visiting Europe to have an opportunity to share their stories. 

The first speaker was Nubia Russi, a leader from Tolima who has benefited from the security measures provided by the government.  Although grateful for the initiative, she pointed out several flaws in the system. Amongst those are the inequality of access to protective measures, as well as obstacles brought on by these measures, such as the difficulty of finding employment while being accompanied by officers.  She elaborated on how the budget of these measures could be better utilized to facilitate educational training for the beneficiaries. 

The second leader was Carlos Paez of the Tierra y Paz Organization.  Originally displaced from his land in Urabá in the 1990s, he has been fighting to regain access for over a decade.  This is a fight that has been affected by several laws, passed in 2007, 2009, and 2011, which claimed that any person forcibly displaced from their lands due to paramilitary activity had the right to regain access.  Yet Carlos is one of the few, as less than 10% of the regions’ displaced families have been able to return to their lands. 

Lastly, two leaders from the organization Movimientos Rios Vivos, Genaro Graciano and Milena Florez, explained what their lives have looked like since the 2018 Hidroituango catastrophe in which a poorly constructed dam suffered structural defects which resulted in the flooding of several communities in the area, resulting in over 120 people severely affected.  They seek reparations for the harm suffered by the communities inhabiting the affected areas, and call for independent investigations to assess liability for these harms. 

Citizen Diplomacy has put forward a four-pronged proposal to protect and enhance the lives of these social leaders.  It calls for decompression, empowerment, safe return, and creating safe spaces. 

The decompression component addresses how social leaders live under constant pressure and fear for their lives.  It aims to transport social leaders from high pressure to low pressure environments (often international destinations) for a short amount of time. This would, hopefully, be complemented with familial company and emotional support. 

The empowerment component stems from the social leaders’ motivation to defend human rights.  It seeks to provide training to improve the resistance capacities of social leaders, and organize conferences to raise awareness of the current situation of each defender. 

This ties into the organization’s  efforts to ensure safe return of those displaced.  As the threat persists upon return to Colombia, the role of organizations that provide international accompaniment is extremely important.  Many organizations across Europe work towards similar goals.

The last element is the promotion of safe spaces.  The international accompaniment is also extremely useful upon return to Colombia, as it can assist the social leaders’ efforts to create safe spaces for victims, and ultimately develop a self-protection strategy in consultation with the community.

Each Colombian social leader’s story is different.  Leaders represent different minorities with distinct grievances. In the recent past,  there has been an increase in the visibility of their fight compared to the situation during the FARC conflict. However, this fight will only achieve its full potential if it is accompanied by efforts to study and fix the issues hindering peace building in the state.

Creating a Virtual Human Rights Lawyer Week: Addressing Challenges

By Gabriella Gricius, Jasmijn de Zeeuw, and Bethany Houghton - PILPG-NL Senior Research Associates

Over the past six months, PILPG’s Netherlands Office has been working with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Knowledge Management Fund, InterCidadania Institute, the Legal Assistance Centre in Namibia and the VU Vereniging on the Virtual Human Rights Lawyer (VHRL) Chatbot. One of the main reflections from this project as well as the takeaways from our expert input sessions was how many challenges we first faced and later have overcome. 

At the beginning of this process, our team put together a list of some of the challenges that building the VHRL chatbot presented. For some of these challenges, we devised ways of meeting them, while for others we have adapted our approach to better take these factors into account. After much reflection at the end of the project period, we have determined some ways of adapting and meeting the most critical of these challenges. 

Challenge 1, 5 & 6: Internet, Adaptation to Local Customs, and Interacting with Victims

The first and most obvious challenge of the VHRL chatbot was that it relies on internet access. Victims of human rights violations often do not have internet access and therefore, a lack of internet access was a severe limitation of the chatbot’s usefulness. Furthermore, adapting the chatbot to local language presented another issue as many different cultures talk about certain issues such as rape in a roundabout way. Lastly, the challenge of how to interact with victims was one that we spoke to numerous experts about. 

To solve these three issues simultaneously, our team decided that to refine the focus on creating a tool for legally-minded civil society organizations (CSOs) rather than focusing on directly creating a tool for victims. Not only does working with legally-minded CSOs partially solve the challenge of creating a chatbot with understandable but legally accurate language, it also means that it is more likely that our target audience would have internet access. This ensures enhanced accessibility of our tool. 

Challenge 2 & 7: Building the Chatbot and Data Protection

Two separate but interrelated challenges are the actual construction of the chatbot as well as the question of data protection. Constructing the chatbot was a challenge that our team dealt with by working with InterCidadania Institute to create a first prototype. This version of the chatbot brought many further challenges to the forefront such as reflecting on whether we should be working with ontological or decision tree designs and how to create a sustainable backend that could be modified to use natural language processing once this technology is ready. 

The second challenge for our team was data protection. How would we make sure any data was securely stored? Did we want to collect data at all? Would the data that ran through Telegram as a third party be safe? Victims of human rights violations are particularly vulnerable and their data highly sensitive. Protecting this data is central to the development of the chatbot. To approach this challenge, we looked closely at data protection regulations throughout Europe and varying ways we could ensure that data would remain safe. We also examined at the possibility of not collecting data at all. Looking forward, we remain committed to making data protection and cyber security the most important aspect of the development of the VHRL chatbot.

Challenge 4: Domestic Remedies

The VHRL chatbot focuses on international and regional human rights mechanisms. These mechanisms in manyl cases ask applicants to first use all judicial proceedings available under domestic law before bringing a case or complaint before them. This poses a challenge for our chatbot - how can we ask users if they have exhausted domestic remedies? Which questions can help determine whether this is the case when domestic systems vary? And how to incorporate the exceptions to this requirement? 

Our choice for legally-minded CSOs addresses this challenge. The VHRL can assist those CSOs that work with clients who have already exhausted domestic remedies and are looking for another way to help them with their case. The chatbot aims to make information about mechanisms at the international level - information that is currently dispersed and often difficult to access - more accessible for these (local) organizations.