ASP18 Side Event: Turning Challenges into Opportunities: Rethinking the UN and Civil Society Cooperation towards accountability in Syria and Myanmar

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

Day 5 (6 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Turning Challenges into Opportunities: Rethinking the UN and Civil Society Cooperation towards accountability in Syria and Myanmar (Side Event co-hosted by the Netherlands and Switzerland)

Overview by: Francisca De Castro, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Summary of the Event:

This panel discussion on UN and Civil Society cooperation towards accountability in Syria and Myanmar was moderated by Nynke Staal, legal officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. Ms. Staal first noted that the name of the event reflects the situation perfectly, since a couple of years ago there was just hope that the situation in Syria would be referred to the ICC, and as the call is still there, in the meantime, the international community established accountability mechanisms like the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria. 

Ms. Staal touched upon several challenges the IIIM faces. During expert meetings, it became evident that there was a clear need for building trust between the international and Syrian community as after all these years civil society had lost trust. Communication was needed. The Netherlands and Switzerland organized meetings between Syrian civil society and the IIIM to see which relationships needed to be built. A second challenge of the IIIM was the clarification of its purposes and to manage expectations. This process continues to this day and has resulted in a protocol. Dialogues on specific issues continue, but one of the results the IIIM has taken upon itself is to take a victim centered approach. 

Ms. Catherine Marchi-Uhel, head of the IIIM, talked about the necessity of the IIIM and the challenges it faces. She stated that professionals in the international community have a certain prejudice that civil society doesn’t speak the same diplomatic and technical language and that they have unreasonable expectations. National organizations sometimes forget that international NGOs are at the forefront of shifting the attention of the international community through information and advocacy. Ms. Marchi-Uhel stated that international civil society organizations and national organizations are not mutually exclusive, they are in clear need of one another. CSOs role was not limited to documenting the atrocities, they play a critical role placing crimes in the relevant contexts. They provide feedback on lessons learned which proved extremely useful to the IIIM. The IIIM’s mandate focuses on filling gaps in targeted investigations and it assists courts and tribunals which prosecute or may prosecute in the future. Ms. Marchi-Uhel reminded participants that the IIIM can only assist prosecutions within jurisdictions that respect due process and human rights. She said that domestic jurisdictions are doing the utmost to make use of all possibilities for justice, including using universal jurisdiction to prosecute higher-ranking officials.

Mr. Refik Hodzic, communications advisor for the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), explained how his job is illustrative of the commitment to building the relationship between civil society and professionals of the international community. He was brought to the mechanism to try to conceptualize the strategy of engagement with civil society. Many lessons are to be learned from the IIIM. Around 80%-90% of efforts are currently made to populate the institution with staff that could competently carry out the mandate. Mr. Hodzic said that the crucial role of civil society plays is evident. It is unfolding in the context which is very challenging on various fronts. However, there are many other external challenges that impact the capacity of the mechanism to build a constructive relation with civil society. Mr. Hodzic mentioned that the IIMM focuses on establishing substantive relationships with people who are most affected by the success of the institution. Those people are also the main source for evidence collection. One of the challenges for the IIMM is the situation in Bangladesh. The possible repatriation of refugees in Bangladesh towards Myanmar means that witnesses might become inaccessible to the mechanism. Mr. Hodzic furthermore said that a problem for the victims is that they have to provide their testimonies continuously, to different organizations, without knowing what is being done with the information. The IIMM is thinking of ways to show results to those testifying so that progress can be followed. Mr. Hodzic mentioned how this can also give victims a space for advocacy for as they have the feeling that their work matters.

Mr. Christian Mahr, director of external operations at the ICC Registry, talked from the viewpoint of the Court. He highlighted the importance of victim participation and cooperation between civil society and the organs of the Court. He said that cooperation does not not only mean getting the victims to talk about their situation, but also bringing the Court outside of The Hague and into the field. He emphasized that during the preliminary examination stage, it is about trying to find partnerships with civil society to find credible information as to open an investigation. He highlighted that the ICC provides retributive and restorative justice (through the TFV) which is why this contact is important not only in the preliminary examination stages but also during and after potential trials. 

The last two panelists to intervene where Mr. Mazen Dawish from the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression and Ms. Razia Sultana, chairperson of the Rohingya Women Welfare society, who spoke about their experiences as both victims and members of civil society groups. Mr. Dawish was rejoiced to see that there is an increasing respect for civil society and acknowledgment of partnership between civil society and international institutions working towards accountability. He noted that the work of the IIIM has helped to create a partnership based on trust and cooperation. From the civil society viewpoint, he mentioned that civil society was at first reluctant to work with the IIIM because they feared that the IIIM would take resources in Syria without truly accomplishing anything. But he was rejoiced that cooperation with the IIIM bore its fruits. He said that the partnership has helped to increase civil society’s knowledge and professionalism, and it has helped the IIIM to better understand the needs of civil society, and thus being able to give more specific help. He noted that civil society remains to face some challenges, like expanding their tools and partnering with the right organizations that have the potential to be useful in achieving justice. Ms. Razia Sultana, talked about the dire conditions of women in refugee camps in Bangladesh, and how they are still being persecuted as women. In fact, reports have shown that there is systematic rape happening to the Rohingya. She said that victims want the criminal justice system to repair the harm that has been done to them, like the restoration of citizenship that was taken from them, and that only through the exchange with organs like the IIMM can they truly tell their story and help the international community understand their needs. 

ASP18 Side Event: Launch of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2019

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

Day 5 (6 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Launch of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2019 (Side Event co-hosted by Bulgaria, Finland, Niger, Senegal, Slovenia, Tunisia, Uruguay, and the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP))

Overview by: Rachel Grand, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights: 

• Current Preliminary Examinations – Venezuela, Colombia, Guinea, Republic of Iraq, Nigeria, Palestine, Philippines, Ukraine, and Bangladesh/Myanmar.

• Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda discussed 3 key themes of the 2019 report – the OTP’s approach and phase 1 analysis, finalization and abstract timelines, and operational capacity/prioritization.

• Questions  – on preliminary examinations in Latin America, Palestine, Nigeria, and the investigation into the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

• Read the OTP’s report Preliminary Examination Activities 2019 here. 

Summary of the Event: 

The ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, launched the Office of the Prosecutor's annual report on Preliminary Examinations (published a day earlier on 5 December) during this event. The Prosecutor first provided an overview of the OTP’s Preliminary Examination (PE) Activities of 2019, discussing the PE’s in Venezuela, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq/UK, Nigeria, Palestine, Republic of the Philippines, Ukraine, and Bangladesh/Myanmar. 

Regarding the PE into the situation in Venezuela, she said her office would conclude the subject matter assessment in early 2020. Following that, there will be an assessment of admissibility, and her office will continue to see if crimes committed fall under the Court's jurisdiction. The Prosecutor mentioned the UN's fact-finding mission in Venezuela and noted she looks forward to cooperating with them. She continued with the PE into Colombia, in which her office is currently assessing information from national authorities. The Prosecutor could not say whether the PE will conclude in 2020 since the reality of the long-term and complex proceedings in Colombia need to be reflected. However, she expressed hope to meet specific benchmarks if the present trend will continue, and the PE will conclude. Regarding Guinea, the Prosecutor mentioned the PE stage had been painfully long due to unrest in the country, and she expressed hope there are no further delays in the proceedings. Concerning the situation in the Republic of Iraq, the OTP looks at the admissibility requirement and domestic proceedings, as well as into allegations of the blocking of the investigations. For Nigeria, the Prosecutor noted that the conduct of national proceedings has been renewed this week and she stressed the urgency of the situation. Similarly, she noted the urgency of the PE into Palestine. She noted the criticism the office has received from both sides on the delay of a decision. She affirmed that her office plans to make a decision rapidly but has many facts to consider. The Prosecutor finally discussed the PE in the Philippines and Ukraine, for which determinations should follow soon. She concluded discussing the opening of the investigation into Bangladesh/Myanmar, for which the OTP has already taken measures for the roll out of the investigation, and the appeal hearings concluding today on the potential authorization of an investigation into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan. 

Following this overview, the Prosecutor discussed three key themes present in the 2019 report, concerning the OTP’s approach and a number of considerations and challenges. First, she touched upon the OTP’s approach and phase one analysis. She described how phase one is devoted to conducting analysis specifically looking at jurisdiction. This phase serves as a filtering process in which the OTP transforms the 795 Article 15 communications they received this year into detailed reports. Since 2012, her office has produced 50 of these reports. She emphasized the goal of providing greater transparency in this process. Further, she explained that phase two is a more detailed assessment of jurisdiction, phase three looks at admissibility, and phase four determines if the investigation would be in the interest of justice. All of the current PE’s are in phase three, except Venezuela. 

Second, the Prosecutor talked about the finalization of PE’s. She cited the several advancements made in multiple of the PE’s and said she hopes to reach decisions soon. She announced that she aims to reach a decision on all phase three PE’s before the end of her tenure, whether that be advancing to an investigation if criteria are met, not advancing to an investigation if criteria are not met, or publishing a detailed report if it is not yet time to make a decision. Regarding finalization, the Prosecutor addressed abstract timelines and noted they may fail to represent the complexities of PEs where more jurisdiction and admissibility issues need to be looked at. She lastly restated that many of the PE’s are in the stage in which a decision whether to proceed with an investigation is close to being reached.  

Third, the Prosecutor addressed the operational capacity of the OTP. She highlighted the fact that there are many PE’s, but that the capacity to address all of them is lacking. This leads to prioritization of the selection of cases. While prioritization is a key term, she noted that we must be certain about what it means and how to apply it. The Prosecutor further noted that her office is at the breaking point to sustain its current activities and faces increasing operational challenges of cooperation and interference. She emphasized that stakeholders and the review process need to consider the heavy burdens and complex problems of the OTP to meet its mandate.

The floor then opened to questions. A representative from a group of NGOs from Colombia, Venezuela, and Mexico made a statement about PE’s in Latin America. Rod Rastan, Legal Advisor to the Office of the Prosecutor, responded by saying that activity in the region shows progress, but the OTP is assessing what that progress means and if the activity is genuine. He noted regarding Mexico that the OTP continues to receive communication on preliminary examinations already decided on and can always revisit them with new information. This was also a point the Prosecutor reiterated later when Dr. David Donat Cattin, Secretary-General of Parliamentarians for Global Action asked about the reopening of PE’s and the permanent storage of evidence. 

Several participants, including Reuters Journalist Stephanie van den Berg, Raji Surani from PCHR, and a representative from Al Haq raised concerns over the Palestine PE. These questions focused on the length of this PE and the language the Prosecutor used in providing context for the situation in the report. Mr. Rastan and the Prosecutor responded to these questions by expressing their understanding of the deep frustrations felt, and noted they are trying to be as transparent as possible. They also reiterated that they are dealing with complex factual and legal issues and are grateful for the cooperation of the Palestinian authorities and NGOs. 

Netsanet Belay from Amnesty International enquired int the Nigeria PE. Mr. Rastan and the Prosecutor reiterated their recognition of frustrations and noted that a decision on Nigeria would come before the Prosecutor's tenure ends. Additionally, they emphasized the commitment of the new Nigerian authorities in prosecuting individuals who committed international crimes domestically. The Prosecutor also mentioned the frank discussion she had with the Nigerian Vice President and Attorney General recently. 

Deputy Prosecutor, James Stewart, took the opportunity to express his trust in the OTP’s staff. He noted that although the resources of the analysis section are few, they are of high quality. “The quality of the work done by the OTP is of the highest order,” he concluded.

The final question came from a legal advisor of the Polish embassy, who asked if the ICC would cooperate with the ICJ regarding the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation. Both the Prosecutor and Mr. Rastan, said they were two different institutions that follow their independent mandates. Nonetheless, they will follow each other's proceedings closely and will cooperate with all entities and fact-finding mechanisms in the process. 

The Prosecutor concluded the event saying that pressure to her office is present, but that this  pressure does not have any bearing on the work the OTP does in applying the law.

ASP18 Side Event: Establishing Reparative Justice for Victims of International Crimes in Africa

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

Day 5 (6 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Establishing Reparative Justice for Victims of International Crimes in Africa (Side Event co-hosted by Ireland and the Institute for Security Studies)

Overview by: Andreina De Leo, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Presentation of the Report Reparative justice: an afterthought in accountability for international crime.

• Discussion on the main shortcomings and challenges of the current reparation framework for victims of international crimes

Summary of the Event:

The side event began with an opening remark by the Ambassador of Ireland to The Netherlands, Kevin Kelly. He emphasized that the topic of the event is of vital importance for Ireland. Indeed, he mentioned that the Irish government contributes to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) as it believes in the necessity of supporting victims in their quest for justice and the need of states to take their responsibilities seriously in this regard.

The chair of the event, Allan Ngari, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), opened the discussion. He first presented the report he co-authored on the topic, titled Reparative justice: an afterthought in accountability for international crime, which analyses different methods for redressing victims of international crime. He stressed that an underlying problem of reparative justice is that states often do not consider reparation as part of accountability, but rather focus solely on prosecution, which may be problematic in terms of victims’ rights and their participation in the proceedings. He then introduced the panelists.

The first speaker, Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Second Vice-President of the International Criminal Court, reflected on the ICC’s approaches to reparative justice, in light of three cases: Katanga, Lubanga and al-Mahdi. In this regard, he recalled that the burden of reparation lies with the convicted person, that the identification of the victim and the determination of the harm is a judicial consideration and that victims have the right to participate in the proceedings. He also stressed that the legal role of the TFV is now clear: framing a Draft Implementation Plan for the approval of the Trial Chamber. However, implementation may lead to difficulties in certain situations, in particular in active or recurring conflict areas. Indeed, he emphasized that, even though a machinery for reparations has been put together, it is not entirely set up and there is still a long way to go to effectively deliver reparative justice to victims of international crimes. In this regard, challenges include the difficulties of the process of identification, as well as protection of vulnerable victims and the relationship between collective reparation and individual rights. In this context, it is particularly important to take the time to listen to the victims’ preferences concerning their expected form of reparation, which is usually monetary compensation, but at the same time managing expectations and convey the message that in certain situations it is just not feasible. He concluded his intervention by stressing that the biggest limit to the delivery of effective reparative justice lies in the fact that reparation is only considered after a conviction. He finally suggested that a fertile ground for solving shortcomings could be exploring the relationship between the reparations and the assistance programs of the TFV, with the idea of starting to prepare reparations on the ground from the very beginning of the procedure. 

The second speaker, Dr. Steven Kayuni, Advocate of the High Court of Malawi and ISS Consultant, also focused on the shortcomings of the reparation frameworks for international crimes and on the necessity to have an honest discussion about what is effective and what is adequate not to fail the expectations of the victims. He underlined that states have the main responsibility when it comes to deliver justice for victims and that the responsibility to repair should be conceived as a corollary of the principle of responsibility to protect. He also agreed with Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut in prospecting a change in thinking on the structure of the process of reparative justice, whereby reparations should be assessed at the beginning of the case, and not only after a conviction. Indeed, he stressed that acknowledging that people have suffered should be separated from convicting perpetrators. He suggested to introduce the idea of complementary reparations based on working with national institutions to provide redress for victims.

These two interventions were followed by a discussion. Pieter de Baan, Executive Director of TFV, underlined the challenges posed by the fact that victim participation is usually taken on by the heads of households, rather than by all members of the family, which excludes women from participation and Dr. Julie Fraser, Assistant Professor at Utrecht University and affiliated expert with PILPG, reflected on the adequacy of putting too much emphasis on ICC’s reparations. She questioned whether it may not be more appropriate to focus on a state’s human rights obligation, rather than individual criminal liability with regard to reparations. Furthermore, it was also noticed that reparation programs should be accompanied by the enhancement of governmental actions to ensure that victims receive appropriate redress. For example, the ministries of health could be supported in setting up clinics capable of delivering long-term support to traumatized victims.

Finally, Philipp Ambach, Head of Victims Participation and Reparations of the ICC, reflected once again on the importance of managing expectations. Alongside some of the shortcomings discussed, he mentioned that the lack of a direct liaison between the Registry and the victims’ community, as well as the limited information regarding the functioning of the Court, may lead to disappointments and misunderstandings concerning reparations, which needs to be taken into account and reflected upon.  

ASP18 Side Event: Paths to Justice and Accountability for Venezuela: Ongoing Initiatives by the International Community

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

Day 5 (6 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Paths to Justice and Accountability for Venezuela: Ongoing Initiatives by the International Community (Side Event co-hosted by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Defiende Venezuela and Sin Mordaza).

Overview by: Kelly van Eeten, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Rodrigo Diamanti, President of Un Mundo Sin Mordaza, noted that Venezuela has the second-largest migration crisis in the world and the situation gets worse every day.

• The office of the Prosecutor at the ICC proactively seeks information from various UN bodies and mechanisms, including the recently established Fact-Finding Mission.

Summary of the Event:

Simon Adams, Executive Director of Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, opened the panel discussion by explaining the context of the crisis in Venezuela. Génesis Dávila, founder and president of Defiende Venezuela, followed him and explained six different cases Defiende Venezuele worked on involving torture of the civilian population. She explained that in all cases, civilians were detained without an arrest warrant and were tortured during the period they were detained. 

Monika Le Roy, Advisor to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, took over from her and explained that the situation in Venezuela did not occur overnight and was a slow process in open sight. She referred to several rapports on the situation in Venezuela. Jared Genser, Adjunct Professor of Law from Georgetown University Law Centre, continued by stating that the crisis is impacting almost the entire population of Venezuela. He noted that millions of Venezuelans are suffering from the lack of food and medicine. 

Génesis Dávila, on a personal note, talked about how she kept losing weight while she was in Venezuela, since it is impossible to keep a healthy diet. She told the story of a 23 year old boy who had been detained for 15 days in the back of a truck with about 20 other students. He had told Génesis that his wards had randomly took one of them out of the truck and brought him to another truck with regular detainees. The wards forced the regular detainees to hit the student so hard that the truck moved. If the truck did not move the inmates would be beaten themselves. The students were tortured in other ways too, for instance their food included itching powder, they were attacked with tear gas, and their own faeces and urine were poured over them.

José Miguel Vivanco, Director of the American Division of Human Rights Watch, stated that the Venezuelan government uses its judicial system to prosecute opponents. He has been advocating on an international level, since he believes they have no chance to have a secure and proper investigation at a local level. 

Xabier Agirre, Head of Investigative Analysis Section at the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, stated that there are five pages on the situation in Venezuela in the recently published report on Preliminary Examination Activities of the Prosecutor. To continue with the ongoing preliminary examination, the OTP proactively seeks information from various UN bodies and mechanisms, including the recently established Fact-Finding Mission. Jared Genser and Xabier discussed the time span that the preliminary examination into Venezuela had cost. 

Rodrigo Diamanti, President of Un Mundo Sin Mordaza, showed heart-breaking pictures of the crisis. He said that Venezuela has the second-largest migration crisis in the world and that the country has collapsed. More than 80 percent of the inhabitants have no access to clean water and more than 60 percent have less than 6 dollars a month.

ASP18 Side Event: Enhancing Prosecution: A Crucial Factor in Cooperation for Core International Crimes

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

Day 5 (6 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Enhancing Prosecution: A Crucial Factor in Cooperation for Core International Crimes (Side Event co-hosted by Australia, Sweden, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), the International Nuremberg Principles Academy).

Overview by: Andreina De Leo, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Presentation of the ICTJ’s recent publication on Guiding and Protecting Prosecutors.

• Presentation of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy’s efforts towards improving cooperation between civil society actors and judicial mechanisms in the prosecution of core international crimes, including the updated version of the Guidelines for Social Workers and Care Providers in Germany: Refugees as Potential Witnesses of International Crimes.

• Discussion on the necessity to find strategies to limit political interference as an impediment to domestic prosecution of core international crimes, and the importance of offering support to victims and civil society in their fight against impunity.

• A reminder of the importance not to focus solely on legal issues, but also on finding ways to promote a democratic culture based on the rule of law in post-conflict areas to enable victims to trust the judicial system. 

Summary of the Event:

The side event began with two introductory remarks by the Ambassador of Australia to the Netherlands, H.E. Matthew E.K. Neuhaus, and the Ambassador of Sweden to the Netherlands, H.E. Annika Markovic. The former started by recalling the preamble to the Rome Statute and the link it draws between the effective prosecution of serious international crimes and the enhancement of cooperation at the national and international level. The latter, on her part, stressed the increasingly difficult challenges posed by the attempt to ensure accountability in transitional contexts, in particular when it is hard for prosecutors to access the territory and gather evidence.

Dr. Anna Myriam Roccatello, Deputy Executive Director and Director of Programs at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), opened the panel. She introduced the panelists and the issues to discuss during the event, namely the challenges to a fair and effective prosecution due to political pressures and the necessity to strengthen the role of civil society and other institutional organizations to advance complementarity.

The first panelist, Mr. Howard Varney, Senior Program Advisor with ICTJ, practicing advocate at the Johannesburg Bar, and former chief investigator for the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission, reflected on the outcomes of the ICTJ’s recent publication Guiding and Protecting Prosecutors: Comparative Overview of Policies, which he co-authored. In particular, he discussed the main challenges posed by domestic prosecution of mass atrocities.  He mentioned, among other things, the lack of guidelines and vulnerability faced by prosecutors in areas such as Sri Lanka, South Africa, and Kenia, where the duty to investigate, prosecute and punish is limited by a lack of evidence, resources, skills, and issues concerning safety and security. With regard to the latter, he explained that in situations characterized by charged political circumstances, prosecution is made difficult by political interference and intimidation due to the fact that the individuals who committed human rights violations can belong to powerful elites, such as the military or the government, which can make it unsafe for a prosecutor. Another factor to take into account is that there are always competing interests at stake with regard to the decision to invest money and resources on either prosecution or the reconstruction of the welfare system in post-conflict situations. Mr. Varney concluded his intervention by underlining that strategies should be implemented to adopt domestic laws protecting prosecutors, as well as enhancing transparency with regard to the legal framework regulating the prosecution of human rights violations arising from conflicts. However, he stressed that the law cannot resolve all problems since the major challenge in these contexts is the way in which prosecutors are chosen and appointed, which is ultimately a political choice.

The second panelist, Dr. Iván Velásquez Gómez, Colombian jurist and former Commissioner of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, focused on the situation in Colombia and Guatemala. In particular, he pointed out the challenges posed by the lack of trust in democracy as a system of government and the consequent disenchantment in the judicial system as a barrier to the effective prosecution of international crimes at the domestic level.  Indeed, he stressed that if the population believes that some people are above the law, there is no public participation in the democratic process and consequently victims of human rights violations would not be inclined in testifying in criminal proceedings involving the perpetrators of international crimes. As a consequence, he underlined the necessity of strengthening transparency and fairness of the judicial system before concentrating efforts on the prosecution.  He concluded his intervention by suggesting a complementarity approach with regard to the prosecution of international crimes in Latin America based on mixed systems, in which international institutions would guide and support domestic prosecutors. He added the importance of supporting civic movements of civil society and independent press.

Finally, Dr. Viviane Dittrich, Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy, stressed the importance of the fight against impunity in a historical period characterized by an increasing backlash against international and national courts and tribunals. Indeed, she stressed that international courts do not operate in isolation and, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the political environment in which they work. In this regard, the interplay between capacity and political will is vital as political interference, either real or perceived, can be detrimental to the effective prosecution of international crimes. After this introductory remark, she focused on three strategies undertaken by the Nuremberg Academy to promote international criminal law and the prosecution of international crimes and human rights violations. First, she stressed the value of cooperation between civil society actors and judicial mechanisms as lack of cooperation among actors involved can be a major bar to effective prosecution. In this regard, she mentioned that the Nuremberg Academy specifically works on enhancing cooperation between these stakeholders with regard to the prosecution of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence. Second, she reflected on the fundamental importance of exchange of information regarding international crimes and the principle of universal jurisdiction to enhance domestic prosecution of international crimes. In particular, she focused on a project undertaken by the Nuremberg Academy: “Refugees as potential witnesses of international crimes”, which aimed at drafting guidelines for social workers and care providers working with refugees in Germany on the international obligations to prosecute and punish international crimes, since refugees fleeing persecution are likely to have witnessed such crimes and posses vital information. The updated version of the guidelines in English can be found here.  Finally, she highlighted the significance of standard setting, in particular with regard to the collection and use of digital evidence in the proceedings, as well as the recourse of private investigation in international criminal justice.

The event concluded with a debate on the necessity of promoting a change of culture in certain countries, in which prosecutors are seen as part of the system.