Opening Remarks by, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Side-event on the International Criminal Court 15 years after the Rome Statute at the 24th session of the UN Human Rights Council

10 September 2013

Excellencies,
Friends and colleagues,

I thank the European Union for holding this side-event on "The International Criminal Court, 15 years after the Rome Statute: Prospects for the Future" and for inviting me.

Fifteen years ago, in 1998, the world reached a defining moment in international law with the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

This was an extraordinary and momentous accomplishment earned through the relentless effort of not only States, but also of international and regional inter-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, and many committed individuals.

The ICC is the embodiment of the world’s hope for genuine accountability for the most heinous crimes, being genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. It represents the culmination of the evolution of international criminal law that I consider myself fortunate to have witnessed throughout my own career.

My experience has shown me again and again that failure to secure accountability for victims of human rights violations and other international crimes does critical harm to the victims and to society at large.

Excellencies, dear Colleagues,

Today, I will focus on two issues: The first is the importance of broadening the reach of the Rome Statute, and the second is the complementarity between national and international criminal jurisdictions, as enshrined in the Rome Statute, and the related obligations incumbent on all States to investigate and prosecute allegations of international crimes.

I start with the need to broaden the reach of the Rome Statute.

In 1998, in Rome, 120 States voted in favour of the adoption of the Rome Statute establishing the ICC. Today, 122 States are part to this treaty, only a few short of two-thirds of the UN membership. The 122th accession of the Rome Statute by Côte d’Ivoire, where it entered into force on 1 May 2013, represents an important milestone in advancing towards universal ratification of the Rome Statute.

I urge all the States who have not yet done so to ratify it. In this regard, I would like to commend States on the use of the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council to promote universality of the Rome Statute, in particular through providing recommendations on the ICC ratification.

My call to all States to ratify the Rome Statute may seem unrealistic at a time when a State party to this Statute is withdrawing from it. But it is my profound conviction that broadening the reach of the ICC Statute is necessary so as to turn the ICC into a universal court and close the loopholes of accountability at the international level.

Ratification of the ICC Statute is entirely in keeping with the commitment made by world leaders just a year ago, in September 2012, to combat impunity, as noted in the United Nations Declaration on the Rule of Law. This Declaration explicitly notes “the role of the International Criminal Court in a multilateral system that aims to end impunity and establish the rule of law” (Paragraph 23, A/RES/67/1).

The ICC, in addition to directly combating impunity, demonstrates through its activities that no one is above the law. The public trials of leaders or planners responsible for international crimes, televised across the world, can serve as an important deterrent to future abuses of power in all countries. However, the crime-prevention potential of the ICC depends upon its credibility and effectiveness. It also depends on the support it receives from States and also on the extent of its reach. The ICC can only act as a deterrent if its reach does not suffer exception: the Rome Statute cannot effectively deter crimes unless and until every State is prepared to respect and implement it.

This leads to the second key issue for my opening remarks: the importance of the complementarity between international and national criminal accountability.

States are obliged to investigate and prosecute international crimes. It is well known that the ICC is a court of last resort, and that the primary responsibility to prosecute international crimes continues to lie with States. A successful ICC will be one that sees universal acceptance of its jurisdiction and all of its States Parties fully engaged in concerted efforts to end impunity and ensure accountability.

This last August, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 67/295 by consensus, which emphasised, and I quote, that “States need to adopt appropriate measures within their national legal systems for those crimes for which they are required under international law to exercise their responsibility to investigate and prosecute”.

It is clear that justice should be achieved through national processes first. However, we must acknowledge the challenges that are frequently faced by States and other stakeholders, including victims, while pursuing justice at the domestic level.

Allow me to briefly mention a few of these challenges:

• The first challenge relates to the lack of clear political commitment to accountability. Our experiences show that justice initiatives in post-conflict situations generally take place in a highly politicized and often polarized environment. As far as possible, the pursuit of justice should be depoliticised and accountability addressed in a manner that respects - and enshrines - human rights norms, including the independence of judiciary and the presumption of innocence, and does not depart from fairness or the appearance of fairness.
• The second challenge is related to the lack of necessary capacity and technical ability to investigate and prosecute the crimes, and to understand their complexity and the need for specialized approaches. This challenge may be further exacerbated in the absence of a strong human rights commitment to due process and fair trial guarantees.
• The third challenge is inadequate or inexistent protection of witnesses and victims. If a justice system is unable to secure convictions because it fails to convince intimidated witnesses to present their evidence, its capacity to deal effectively with past abuses as well as the confidence of its people in the justice system are compromised. States must adopt appropriate national measures and mechanisms for the protection of witnesses and victims.
• The fourth and final challenge I would like to mention is the persistence in some national jurisdictions of the use of the death penalty. International and hybrid criminal tribunals, supported by the UN, for Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Rwanda and Sierra Leone do not provide for capital punishment. Nor does the International Criminal Court. It is our policy, and here I cite the Secretary General’s 2008 Guidance Note on the UN Approach to Rule of Law Assistance , that “the UN will neither establish nor directly participate in any tribunal that allows for capital punishment.”

Excellencies and Colleagues,

We live in a world where we only need to open a newspaper, turn on a television or click a link on the internet to witness the voices of victims from around the world crying out for justice. In conclusion, let me emphasize that our goal of a better and more peaceful world can only be achieved with justice. True justice must be systematic, ordinary, regular, fair, unremarkable, universal, and it cannot suffer any exception. The International Criminal Court, when supported by the entire world, might help achieve exactly that.

Thank you.