The Security Council considers the future of the UN war crimes mechanism as its closure approaches

Discussions focused on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, which was established by the Council in 2010 to continue important functions following the closure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Addressing the Council, Mechanism President Graciela Gatti Santana said the body “has implemented its mandate effectively” and only “limited – but still important – work remains” after one of its last contempt cases was handed over to national jurisdiction.

“The future of the UN’s responsibilities towards those in its charge – and, of course, the future of international criminal justice – now lies before the Council,” he said.

Major downsizing proposed

Ms. Gatti Santana outlined a strategic plan that could achieve a nearly 90 percent reduction in staffing resources while shifting some functions, including assistance to national jurisdictions and archives management, to the UN Secretariat.

However, he argued that a small number of judicial responsibilities should remain at the international level, including matters relating to the transfer and release of detainees, witness protection and monitoring of referred cases.

“Durable justice is incompatible with clear or limited time limits,” he said, describing the proposal as a balance between “principle and pragmatism”.

Inheritance issues

Prosecutor Serge Brammertz’s mechanism also supports the transfer of certain non-judicial functions to the Secretariat while maintaining international supervision of convicted persons serving sentences.

He emphasized the importance of the Mechanism’s legacy at a time when denial of genocide and the glorification of war criminals continues.

“The horrific atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were not random violence,” he said, warning that hate speech and propaganda had paved the way for violence and underscoring the educational value of the archives.

Debates over archives

The future location of the court archives emerged as one of the most contentious issues before the ambassadors on Friday.

Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, argued that the ICTR archives should be moved to Rwanda.

“For survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi, the transfer of the ICTR archives not only represents the relocation of archives – it also represents the return of an important part of their history,” he said. Tanzania, which hosted the Rwandan tribunal in Arusha for two decades, said the archives had been housed in a neutral location with modern infrastructure and wide accessibility.

Similar disagreements arise regarding the future location of the archives of the former Yugoslav courts. Serbia offered to preserve relevant materials, while Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina emphasized the importance of accessibility and voiced concerns regarding political commitment to transparency.

Calling for closure, be careful not to rush

Council members broadly agreed that the Mechanism was never intended to be permanent but differed in the speed of its closure.

Some members, including Greece, Pakistan and Somalia, support maintaining “small, temporary and efficient” structures. United States of America

said the Council now faced important decisions to ensure a “responsible and speedy conclusion” of the Mechanism’s work.

Russia said the Mechanism “stubbornly continues to maintain its remaining functions” and called for a further transfer of responsibilities.

At the same time, many delegates warned against acting too quickly.

“The goal must be a definitive and orderly closure of the Mechanism,” said Colombia’s representative.