Publications

Overview: States should adopt a survivor-centric approach to the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention States must take a survivor-centric approach throughout when considering the Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (the “Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention”). This is an essential approach in relation to all victims and survivors of crimes against humanity, particularly those who may face ongoing marginalization or risks, such as survivors of sexual violence and other gendered harms. A survivor-centric approach recognizes that victims and survivors of crimes against humanity will have suffered immense harm and trauma. It aims to put the rights and agency of each victim and survivor at the forefront of all actions and ensures that they are treated with dignity and respect and supported to make informed decisions with regards to accessing protection, support, justice, and remedy based on their own needs and priorities. Such an approach also requires states to keep at the forefront of their minds how the text of the treaty will actually affect victims and survivors, including consideration of how victims and survivors will be able to meaningfully and effectively access their rights through the treaty’s provisions and the institutions implementing them. It emphasizes that seeking justice is a right, not just a privilege, for victims and survivors. A survivor-centric approach thus requires states to ensure that victims’ and survivors’ rights are robustly protected and set out throughout the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention. International criminal law and international human rights law provide that victims and survivors have rights to: (i) effective protection; (ii) effective support; (iii) notice of their rights; (iv) timely notice of developments during proceedings, including those related to justice and remedy; (v) participate in criminal and other relevant legal proceedings; (vi) have legal representation during criminal and other relevant legal proceedings; (vii) obtain full and effective reparation; and (viii) have reparation awards enforced. Such an approach also requires that states ensure that all provisions related to protection, assistance, remedy, and reparations for victims and survivors respect and strengthen their autonomy and are provided irrespective of survivors’ ability or willingness to cooperate in legal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator. In line with the human rights law principle that requires all people to be involved in decision-making that affects them, a survivor-centric approach also requires states to meaningfully engage victims and survivors in treaty development, adoption, implementation and monitoring processes, participating in decisions that impact them, and ensuring that victims’ and survivors’ voices are adequately represented in the final provisions of the treaty. States must understand victims and survivors’ priorities at each stage of the process. For example, in other forums, victims and survivors have identified justice and accountability as a key priority, including by strengthening the ability of international and domestic justice systems to deliver justice for gender-based crimes. As victims and survivors are not a homogeneous group, when taking a survivor-centric approach, states must give particular consideration to ensuring the substantive equality of victims and survivors who are subjected to marginalization and discrimination, including intersectional discrimination. This brief first sets out the importance and potential avenues of state action to ensure robust, meaningful, and effective participation of victims and survivors in discussions and decision-making in relation to the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention (Section I). It then highlights specific ways in which the provisions of the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention should be strengthened to reflect international human rights law and standards in line with a survivor-centric approach, namely by: adopting a broad and unambiguous definition of ‘victim’ in the treaty that ensures all individuals harmed by crimes against humanity are included (Section II); and expanding the treaty’s reparations provisions (in present Draft Article 12(3)) to ensure all relevant victims and survivors have access to prompt, full, and effective reparations (Section III). It concludes with a non-exhaustive list of additional examples for consideration that states should include in discussions on the recognition and rights of victims and survivors (Section IV).

On October 17-18 in Geneva, the United States government faced questions from civil society and the Human Rights Committee on the country’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In addition to questions on immigrants’ rights, racial discrimination, and more, US officials were pressed repeatedly on the state of abortion access in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

We have witnessed unfathomable death and destruction in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Thousands of people have been killed, injured, displaced, and nearly two hundred remain held hostage, including children and elderly. In Gaza, the UN has said that water, food, fuel, medical supplies, and even body bags, are running out due to the siege. The UN warned that people – particularly young children – will soon start dying of severe dehydration. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed and turned into complete rubble. Palestinians in search of safety have nowhere to go. Many of those who relocated from northern Gaza to the south after the relocation order by the Israeli army were reportedly bombed as they attempted to flee or once they arrived in southern Gaza.   The events of the last week have led us to the precipice of a humanitarian catastrophe and the world can no longer wait to act. It is our collective responsibility. On Sunday, October 15th, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator to the Occupied Palestinian Territory appealed to all parties to the conflict, and to Member States with influence, to urgently agree to a humanitarian ceasefire. Today, we put our voices together and call on all Heads of State, the UN Security Council, and actors on the ground, to prioritize the preservation of human life above all else. During this ceasefire, we call on all parties to unconditionally: Facilitate the delivery of lifesaving assistance, including food, medical supplies, fuel, and the resumption of electricity and internet to Gaza, in addition to safe passage of humanitarian and medical staff   Free all civilian hostages, especially children and elderly Allow humanitarian convoys to reach UN facilities, schools, hospitals, and health facilities in northern Gaza and commit to protecting them along with the civilians and staff inside them at all times Rescind orders by the Government of Israel for civilians to depart northern Gaza Allow patients in critical condition to be medically evacuated for urgent care The UN Security Council, the UN Secretary General and all world leaders with influence must take immediate action to ensure a ceasefire comes into effect. It remains our only option to avert further loss of civilian life and humanitarian catastrophe. Anything less will forever be a stain on our collective conscience. Civilians are not bargaining chips. Families need a chance to bury and mourn their dead. The cycle of violence against innocent civilians needs to stop.

The June 2022 Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated federal constitutional protection for access to abortion in the United States. Following Dobbs, more than a dozen states fully banned abortion, and many others passed or proposed increased restrictions. On October 17-18, 2023, the Human Rights Committee will review US compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the impact of Dobbs on its human rights obligations.

Dear Secretary-General, In 2022 the Blue Smoke working group was formed by UNA-UK, Plataforma CIPÓ and Strategy for Humanity to shine a light on elections and appointments to senior positions within the United Nations. Working with civil society partners we have established the attached statement of principles which we believe should guide senior appointments at the United Nations and how states engage with appointment processes. We have the pleasure of sharing this statement with you, alongside the following list of civil society organizations that have endorsed them. Collectively we urge you to put them into practice, and in doing so, put inclusivity, transparency and fairness at the heart of UN appointment processes. We also urge you to champion these principles throughout the wider UN system.

Dear Ambassadors, We write to you ahead of this year’s annual Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) to urge you to take action to realize the foundational demand of Resolution 1325 (2000)—ensuring women’s full, equal and meaningful participation in peacemaking. For nearly 25 years, the Security Council, the UN and Member States have pledged their support for women’s full, equal, meaningful and safe participation in peace and security. Yet women’s rights today are under ceaseless attack in contexts marked by intensifying conflict, rising authoritarianism, militarization and backlash. Women’s participation in peace processes remains unacceptably low, and is decreasing even in UN-supported peace processes. Meanwhile the credibility of the UN and the Security Council to protect and uphold these rights has been fundamentally shaken by growing geopolitical divides and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Without principled and decisive action to protect women’s rights and ensure their full, equal and meaningful participation in all aspects of peace and security, we not only risk entrenchment of patriarchal norms, but jeopardize any chance of sustainable peace. We therefore call on you to demand, and to support, the full, equal, meaningful and safe participation and leadership of the women of Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Western Sahara, Yemen and all other crises on the Security Council’s agenda, in accordance with the standards set by the WPS agenda, in ending conflict and building peace in their countries.

Dear Excellencies, We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are writing regarding the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, currently under your consideration. We applaud the Sixth Committee’s leadership on and engagement with the draft articles. April’s resumed session discussion was an indisputable advance. Progress is being made to form the basis for actual negotiations of a new crimes against humanity convention that would have significant potential to advance protection for civilian populations at risk as well as justice for gender-based crimes. The current draft draws its definitional language from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The statute was an important step forward in the codification of atrocity crimes, including its explicit recognition of a range of sexual and gender-based crimes beyond rape. However, in the 25 years since the Rome Statute’s adoption, there has been significant progress in our understanding of sexual and gender-based crimes and notions of gender, and a new international treaty on crimes against humanity must reflect that progress. Indeed, the ILC itself noted that its objective in drafting the articles was not “codification of existing law,” but rather, to draft “provisions that would be both effective and likely acceptable to States, based on provisions often used in widely adhered-to treaties addressing crimes, as a basis for a possible future convention.” In that vein, we support the ILC’s decision to exclude the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘gender’ from the draft articles in recognition of “developments in international human rights law and international criminal law” that reflect “the current understanding as to the meaning of the term ‘gender.’”

Overview It is imperative that the 2019 Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (the “Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention”) protect the value of “reproductive autonomy,” meaning the right of every individual to exercise agency over their fertility; their choice about whether, and in what circumstances, to reproduce. Rights related to reproductive autonomy are protected in international and regional human rights instruments. In addition, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Trial and Appeals Chambers have affirmed that reproductive autonomy is the distinct value protected by the crime against humanity of forced pregnancy, demonstrating that this value is already embedded in international criminal law. However, forced pregnancy is only one of many violations of reproductive autonomy that impinge upon a person’s physical integrity and offend their human dignity. To be relevant to the lived experience of people whose reproductive autonomy is imperiled, particularly women and girls, the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention should protect against such violations by: Amending draft Article 2(1)(g) to refer to: “Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual or reproductive violence’’ (proposed additional text bolded); Removing the redundant and potentially confusing reference to national laws from the existing definition of forced pregnancy in draft Article 2(2)(f); and Using gender-inclusive language (“woman, girl, or other person” instead of “woman”) in the definition of forced pregnancy in draft Article 2(2)(f). For each proposed revision, this brief first summarizes the issue at a high level, provides detail on the reasoning and related jurisprudence in the following section, and is followed by the proposed recommendation.

Recommendation: To add forced marriage as a standalone violation to the list of prohibited acts in Article 2(1) of the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention. If deemed necessary, to add a definition – “compelling a person to enter into a conjugal union with another person by the use of physical or psychological force, or threat of force, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment” – to Article 2(2). Addition of Forced Marriage to Article 2(1) Under the crimes against humanity category of ‘other inhumane acts’, acts of forced marriage have been successfully prosecuted at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). In those cases, forced marriage was classified under the category of ‘other inhumane acts’ because it was not explicitly listed in the statutes of any of those tribunals. The drafting of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention represents an ideal opportunity to rectify this oversight and explicitly recognize forced marriage as a standalone prohibited act. In 2009, in Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., the SCSL Trial Chamber convicted the defendants of forced marriage, and this finding was upheld by the Appeals Chamber. This represented the first conviction for forced marriage as an ‘other inhumane act’ crime against humanity under international criminal law. In 2018, the ECCC Trial Chamber convicted defendants for forced marriage as the crime against humanity of ‘other inhumane acts’ and the crime against humanity of rape within the forced marriage context. This was confirmed by the ECCC Supreme Court Chamber in 2022. In 2021, in Prosecutor v. Ongwen, the Trial Chamber rendered the ICC’s first conviction for forced marriage, and this was confirmed on appeal in 2022. Over the last 14 years, international courts have consistently concluded that forced marriage constitutes the crime against humanity of ‘other inhumane acts’. These judgments covered forced marriage committed during a time span of more than four decades and in three different contexts. In each case prosecuted, defendants have questioned the validity of recognizing forced marriage because it is not an explicitly listed prohibited act under the crimes against humanity provision of the courts’ respective statutes. Inclusion of forced marriage in the list of prohibited acts would: (1) more directly reflect the gravity and widespread nature of forced marriage in armed conflict and atrocity situations; (2) recognize the strength of the case law described above; and (3) avoid continuous re-litigation on the nature of forced marriage and its status in international criminal law. We do not recommend adding forced marriage to the list of sexual and reproductive acts in Article 2(1)(g) as it is not only a sexual or reproductive violation, and does not require such a violation, as explained below.