Publications

The undersigned organizations and individuals — with representation from multiple geographic regions — express our support for a global convention on crimes against humanity, and urge states to utilize the 2024 April Resumed Session of the UN’s Sixth Committee to express strong support for a procedure to be adopted at the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly to move the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity forward to negotiations for a treaty. Throughout history, millions of people have been subjected to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution, and other atrocities that have shocked the conscience of humanity. Crimes against humanity continue unabated across the globe and the Draft Articles provide a timely and urgent opportunity for states to help end impunity. Although crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in international law, there has yet to be a treaty regulating their prevention and punishment. A treaty on crimes against humanity would close a crucial gap in the current international framework on mass atrocities as well as clarifying states’ duties to prevent such crimes and means to cooperate with each other. A crimes against humanity treaty can also rightfully contribute to global affirmation of the gravity of these crimes. In 2013, the UN’s International Law Commission approved crimes against humanity to be included in its programme of work. The Commission, in 2019, recommended the elaboration of a convention by the UN General Assembly or by an international conference.  In 2022, the UN’s Sixth Committee adopted resolution 77/249 to take forward steps for a treaty on crimes against humanity, including two interactive sessions in 2023 and 2024 on the Draft Articles, and a plan to take a decision on the ILC’s recommendation that a treaty go forward in the 79th session of the General Assembly. We believe the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles represent a strong starting point to open negotiations on a treaty. There is broad agreement that the Draft Articles contain a number of positive elements, and differences in perspectives on the existing Draft Articles should not be used to perpetuate inaction. Accordingly, we urge states to follow the Commission’s recommendation that a treaty on crimes against humanity should be negotiated, either by the General Assembly itself or in a Diplomatic Conference convened for that purpose. Our organizations also urge states at the April resumed session to identify important areas for further strengthening the Draft Articles. A variety of civil society groups have developed proposals toward this end. These include strengthening the proposed treaty by a variety of means. We urge states at the April resumed session also to express overall support for an approach to the development of a crimes against humanity treaty that is gender-competent, survivor-centric, and deploys an intersectional lens. This includes ensuring the inclusion of a non-discrimination provision to apply and interpret the treaty’s provisions consistent with international human rights law. We believe it is equally essential that the treaty-making process itself is inclusive. States should facilitate meaningful, inclusive, and safe public and civil society participation from across the region, in all stages of the treaty-development process, including by people of all gender identities, as well as victims, survivors, and affected communities, and ensure that their voices are adequately represented in the final provisions of the treaty. A full list of signatories can be found here.

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).

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.

Introduction On April 11, 2023, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations submitted in writing its proposal to include the slave trade as an enumerated provision in the Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (“Draft Articles”). In its current composition, the Draft Articles enumerate the prohibitions of enslavement and sexual slavery. The Draft Articles, however, omit the enumeration of the slave trade even though under international law the slave trade is a jus cogens or peremptory norm with erga omnes obligations. The status of the slave trade stands uncontested as a treaty-based and customary-based international crime, a crime against humanity, and a nonderogable human rights violation.The slave trade protects against serious conduct that requires redress in all circumstances, including during a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. This brief supports Sierra Leone’s proposal and advances the reasons for the Draft Articles to incorporate a provision for the slave trade as a crime against humanity.

Excellencies and Country Representatives: The undersigned respectfully bring your attention to a glaring and consequential gap in the current Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity: the omission of the crime against humanity of gender apartheid. By replicating the definition of “apartheid” as codified in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the draft treaty is needlessly constrained to a 25-year-old articulation of race-based apartheid. It fails to account for gender-based apartheid, which has long been recognized by the international community, including United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. The past decades have witnessed significant progress in recognizing gendered crimes, and codifying gender apartheid should be part of that continued progress. The failure to codify gender apartheid perpetuates an accountability vacuum that leaves many victims and survivors without remedy or reparation. The crime of gender apartheid is unique in animus and intent. It is distinct from other international crimes, including gender persecution, due to its dystopian ambition to maintain an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination, where the under-class is subjugated for the dominant group’s benefit and survival, dehumanized, and cut off from the resources and access needed to overcome their choreographed oppression. The Taliban’s ever deepening and institutionalized oppression of Afghan women and girls is a case in point. The codification of gender apartheid will assist victims and survivors holding perpetrators to account for the totality of crimes committed against them.

Palacio de Justicia de la Nación El 26 de noviembre de 2021, la Sala Segunda de la Cámara Federal en lo Criminal de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires inició un caso de jurisdicción universal (JU) contra las autoridades de Myanmar por el genocidio Rohingya, siguiendo una denuncia presentada por la organización Burmese Rohingya Organization UK (BROUK, por sus siglas en Inglés) en noviembre de 2019. La denuncia de BROUK alegaba genocidio y crímenes de lesa humanidad cometidos en Myanmar por la cúpula militar y civil contra los Rohingyas desde 2012, crímenes que inclyen asesinato, desaparición forzada, tortura, violencia sexual y encarcelamiento. En 2017, el ejército de Myanmar lanzó una campaña genocida que obligó a más de 800,000 Rohingyas a huir, en su mayoría hacia la frontera con Bangladesh. Estas llamadas “operaciones de limpieza” se llevaron a cabo a través de asesinatos generalizados y sistemáticos, violación y violencia sexual, y otros abusos. Las personas Rohingya que continúan viviendo en el estado de Rakhine enfrentan restricciones rigurosas a su libertad de movimiento, así como dificultades para acceder a servicios básicos como la educación y la atención médica. Esta situación se ha agravado aún más después del Ciclón Mocha en mayo de 2023. Además, en febrero de 2021, el ejército desafió los resultados de las elecciones democráticas, llevó a cabo un golpe de estado y se apoderó del poder en Myanmar en una campaña marcada por más atrocidades, incluidas aquellas contra los Rohingyas. Además del caso de jurisdicción universal (JU) presentado por BROUK en Argentina, actualmente existen múltiples esfuerzos internacionales en curso dirigidos a buscar justicia y rendición de cuentas en Myanmar por los crímenes contra los Rohingya. Esto incluye un caso de genocidio ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) presentado por Gambia (puede encontrar un documento de preguntas y respuestas sobre el caso aquí), así como una investigación realizada por la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) (puede encontrar un documento de preguntas y respuestas sobre la investigación de la CPI aquí). 1.  ¿Cuál es el principio de la justicia universal? ¿Cómo funciona en Argentina? La justicia universal es un concepto basado en el principio de que algunos crímenes son de preocupación global y son tan horribles que conciernen a la humanidad en su conjunto. Se consideran perjuicios contra la comunidad internacional; en consecuencia, todos los Estados tienen un interés en hacer responsables a los perpetradores. Todos los estados tienen permitido ejercer la jurisdicción universal sobre crímenes reconocidos por el derecho internacional. La jursdicción universal garantiza que, independientemente de dónde se hayan cometido el o los crímenes o la nacionalidad de las víctimas o sospechosos, las personas involucradas puedan ser investigadas y enjuiciadas por los crímenes atroces que han cometido, incluidos crímenes de guerra, crímenes de lesa humanidad, tortura, genocidio y desapariciones forzadas. La responsabilidad principal de investigar estos crímenes recae en el estado en cuyo territorio se cometieron los crímenes. Si esos estados no pueden o no quieren enjuiciar los crímenes, la jurisdicción universal existe como una herramienta adicional en el sistema de justicia penal internacional que permite a otros estados investigar y enjuiciar tales crímenes. La manera en que los estados aplican la jurisdicción universal puede variar. Estas maneras se han clasificado ampliamente en jurisdicción universal “pura” o jurisdicción “condicional”. Los estados que aplican jurisdicción universal condicional requieren que se establezca algún tipo de “vínculo de conexión” antes de que un tribunal nacional pueda iniciar una investigación. Por ejemplo, Alemania sigue lo que se puede clasificar como jurisdicción universal “pura”; es decir, no es necesario demostrar un vínculo entre Alemania y los graves crímenes internacionales cometidos en el extranjero antes de iniciar una investigación o enjuiciamiento. Sin embargo, los fiscales tienen la discreción de decidir si abrir o no un caso en el que no haya conexión con Alemania. Otros países requieren que se establezca algún tipo de conexión con ese país (nacionalidad de la víctima o el perpetrador, o intereses del país) antes de que se pueda iniciar una investigación. En el caso de los tribunales franceses, para ejercer la jurisdicción universal en ciertos crímenes, debe demostrarse que el acusado estaba presente en Francia; o para otros crímenes, los tribunales sólo tendrán jurisdicción si el acusado residía regularmente en Francia cuando se abrió la investigación. España también requiere actualmente algunos “vínculos de conexión”- el sospechoso debe estar presente en España y la víctima debe ser española, o debe existir algún otro vínculo relevante con España-. La ley Argentina consagra el principio de jurisdicción universal “pura”, incluido en el Artículo 118 de la  Constitución, que permite juicios por crímenes de derecho internacional público cometidos fuera de Argentina. Además, el Artículo 5 de la Ley 26, 200/06 otorga expresamente a los tribunales federales jurisdicción penal sobre los crímenes mencionados en el Estatuto de Roma de la CPI, entre otros. El caso de BROUK no es el primer caso en Argentina bajo el principio de jurisdicción universal. Durante finales de los años 70 y principios de los 80, la población Argentina sufrió graves abusos contra los derechos humanos y crímenes de lesa humanidad a manos de las fuerzas militares y de seguridad. Este período de dictadura, conocido como la ‘Guerra Sucia’, estuvo marcado por casos de tortura, asesinato y desapariciones forzadas, entre otros crímenes. Tras condenar a la junta militar en un juicio histórico, y a muchos otros responsables de cometer crímenes atroces durante este período en su propio país, Argentina sigue comprometida y ha sido reconocida internacionalmente por liderar esfuerzos de justicia y rendición de cuentas por crímenes contra la humanidad cometidos en otros lugares del mundo. En años recientes, se han llevado casos en Argentina contra individuos por crímenes cometidos en España durante el régimen de Francisco Franco y por persecución contra el movimiento Falun Gong en China. Recientemente, se presentó un caso ante un tribunal argentino relacionado con el genocidio y crímenes contra la humanidad cometidos contra los Uigures en China. 2.  ¿Cómo puede un tribunal nacional en Argentina enjuiciar crímenes en Myanmar? ¿Cuál es el estado actual del caso? En noviembre de 2019, BROUK, con el apoyo de otras organizaciones de derechos humanos, incluidas las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo y la Fundación Servicio Paz y Justicia, liderado por el destacado Premio Nobel de la Paz Adolfo Perez Esquivel, presentaron un caso bajo la jurisdicción universal ante un tribunal penal Argentino en relación con el genocidio y los crímenes de lesa humanidad cometidos contra los Rohingya. En diciembre de 2019, el tribunal rechazó el caso argumentando que los tribunales argentinos no eran el foro apropiado para una investigación de este tipo, considerando que la Oficina del Fiscal (OTP) de la CPI ya estaba investigando los crímenes cometidos contra los Rohingya. BROUK presentó una apelación contra esta decisión, y en agosto de 2021, la Cámara Federal en lo Criminal escuchó el testimonio de mujeres Rohingya que comparecieron de forma remota ante el tribunal para hablar sobre sus experiencias de violencia sexual y de género durante las “operaciones de limpieza” de 2017. En noviembre de 2021, el tribunal decidió iniciar una investigación penal contra los funcionarios militares y civiles de Myanmar. La investigación continúa progresando. En junio de 2023, las personas demandantes principales de BROUK, con el apoyo de Legal Action Worldwide (LAW) organizaron y facilitaron el testimonio directo de sobrevivientes que habían experimentado atrocidades, incluida la violencia sexual. Este testimonio fue histórico y estableció un precedente, ya que permitió a las víctimas del genocidio de 2017 participar directamente en un proceso judicial, además de construir la base de pruebas para los tribunales Argentinos. El tribunal también está considerando el impacto de las redes sociales en la difusión de discursos de odio contra los Rohingya que condujeron a las “operaciones de limpieza”, y ha enviado una solicitud a Facebook para que compartan sus archivos e información. 3.  ¿Qué crímenes específicos se están investigando? ¿Contra quiénes? El caso se refiere a los crímenes perpetrados contra los Rohingya por las autoridades de Myanmar en el estado de Rakhine. Específicamente, el caso solicita que los tribunales Argentinos investiguen y procesen a los altos mandos militares y civiles, así como a los perpetradores directos en Myanmar, por cometer genocidio y crímenes contra la humanidad contra las personas Rohingya en Myanmar. El General Min Aung Hlaing, Comandante en Jefe de las fuerzas armadas (o Tatmadaw), así como los ex presidentes U Htin Kyaw y U Thein Sein se encuentran entre quienes han sido mencionados en la denuncia. 4.  ¿Qué ley está aplicando el tribunal? Si bien el Tribunal deriva su autoridad para abordar el caso (jurisdicción universal) de la Constitución de Argentina (Artículo 118), aplicará el código penal de Argentina al decidir sobre la responsabilidad por los delitos cometidos (homicidio, violación, detención arbitraria, entre otros) y las respectivas penas, si las hubiera. El Tribunal también podría declarar que se cometieron genocidio y crímenes de lesa humanidad, aplicando las definiciones de estos delitos según el Estatuto de Roma, del cual Argentina es parte. 5.  ¿Qué sigue ahora? El caso se encuentra actualmente en la etapa de investigación y el Tribunal está llevando a cabo audiencias y recopilando pruebas, que incluyeron (como se explicó anteriormente) testimonios directos recientes de testigos sobre el genocidio y los crímenes de lesa humanidad cometidos contra los rohingyas en el estado de Rakhine. En esta etapa, a medida que el Tribunal continúa realizando audiencias y recopilando pruebas, podría haber también una oportunidad para que el Tribunal analice las pruebas recopiladas hasta ahora y para que los demandantes soliciten que se emita una decisión judicial sustantiva sobre los perpetradores de genocidio y crímenes de lesa humanidad contra las personas Rohingya, así como una solicitud de que se emitan órdenes de detención en su contra. El Tribunal también podría decidir viajar al extranjero para recopilar pruebas sustantivas adicionales. El Mecanismo Independiente de Investigación para Myanmar (IIMM), establecido por las Naciones Unidas (ONU) para recopilar y preservar pruebas sobre violaciones de derechos humanos en Myanmar, también está respaldando al tribunal Aargentino, incluyendo el intercambio de pruebas relevantes. El IIMM no es en sí mismo un órgano de rendición de cuentas, lo que significa que no tiene un tribunal ni un fiscal adjunto. En cambio, los expedientes de casos del IIMM están destinados a contribuir a procesamientos de individuos en procedimientos penales nacionales, regionales o internacionales. El IIMM ha compartido información y pruebas relevantes con la CPI, la CIJ y las autoridades Argentinas en los casos en curso relacionados con Myanmar, siempre y cuando las fuentes de la información hayan dado su aprobación para tal intercambio. En abril de 2022, el jefe del IIMM y miembros de su equipo visitaron Argentina para explorar oportunidades de asistencia en la investigación judicial, especialmente a través del intercambio de información relevante. El IIMM ha compartido información con el Ministerio Público Fiscal de Argentina y mantiene un diálogo constante con el mismo para determinar la manera más efectiva en que puede seguir respaldando el caso de jurisdicción universal. 6.  ¿Tienen los sobrevivientes de Myanmar algún papel en estos procedimientos? BROUK y Tun Khin (Presidente de BROUK), junto con otros representantes de la comunidad Rohingya, actúan como demandantes en el caso. En esa capacidad, tienen el derecho de solicitar al Tribunal que produzca más pruebas, así como de solicitarle que emita decisiones judiciales sustantivas, incluidas reparaciones. BROUK, como organización liderada por Rohingyas, y su equipo legal están llevando a cabo esfuerzos para asegurarse de que las víctimas sean puestas al centro del caso. Estos esfuerzos incluyen garantizar que las personas sobrevivientes puedan interactuar directamente con este Tribunal Argentino y sus procesos, con el objetivo de empoderar y darles voz, especialmente a las mujeres. Esto se refleja en el testimonio directo que testigos proporcionaron a la corte en junio de 2023 sobre violencia sexual y violencia basada en el género. La Corte brindó garantías de seguridad a los testigos, así como apoyo psicológico durante las audiencias (a través de CODESEDH, una ONG especializada), además de abordar con éxito desafíos logísticos que incluyeron la doble traducción del Rohingya al Inglés y luego del Inglés al Español. 7.  ¿Existen otros esfuerzos internacionales para buscar justicia y rendición de cuen- tas por la situación en Myanmar? Existen dos vías principales para la justicia y la rendición de cuentas por los crímenes cometidos contra los Rohingya: (1) la responsabilidad de Myanmar como estado; y (2) la responsabilidad penal individual de aquellos que planearon, participaron o autorizaron los crímenes. Estos esfuerzos son complementarios entre sí. En lo que respecta a la responsabilidad de Myanmar como estado, la demanda de Gambia bajo la Convención para la prevención y la sanción del delito de genocidio sigue en la CIJ. El 22 de julio de 2022, la Corte confirmó la capacidad de Gambia para presentar un caso contra Myanmar por incumplir las disposiciones de la Convención sobre el genocidio. Actualmente, se están completando los escritos de alegatos en el caso antes de que la Corte lo escuche sobre su mérito. Las posibles vías para responsabilizar a las personas incluyen los tribunales nacionales en terceros estados bajo la teoría de la jurisdicción universal, y la CPI. Debido a barreras estructurales y prácticas, los tribunales nacionales de Myanmar no son en este momento una opción para los esfuerzos de rendición de cuentas. La Fiscalía de la CPI está actualmente investigando la situación en Bangladesh/Myanmar. El 14 de noviembre de 2019, la CPI autorizó a la Fiscalía a investigar ciertos presuntos crímenes internacionales ocurridos durante una ola de violencia en el estado de Rakhine en 2016 y 2017. Si bien los actos relevantes para las deportaciones ocurrieron en el territorio de Myanmar, que no es parte del Estatuto de Roma, la Fiscalía argumentó que la CPI “puede ejercer jurisdicción” ya que “un elemento legal esencial del crimen – cruzar una frontera internacional – ocurrió en el territorio de un Estado que es parte del Estatuto de Roma (Bangladesh)”. Al conceder la  autorización, la Corte señaló que el Fiscal no está limitado “a las personas o grupos identificados en la Solicitud” ni “a los incidentes identificados en la Solicitud”. También autorizó al Fiscal a investigar crímenes cometidos “después del 1 de junio de 2010, fecha de entrada en vigor del Estatuto para Bangladesh”, así como crímenes que pudieron haber sido cometidos antes pero continuaron después de esta fecha. La investigación está en curso. También hay otros dos procesos de jurisdicción universal actualmente en curso relacionados con la situación en Myanmar. El primero es un caso presentado en marzo de 2022 por el Myanmar Accountability Project (Proyecto de Responsabilidad de Myanmar) ante la oficina del fiscal en Turquía para responsabilizar a la cúpula militar por su amplio uso de la tortura. El caso ha sido presentado en nombre de las víctimas que fueron torturadas en el centro de interrogación militar Yay Kyi Ai en el municipio de Mingaladon en Yangon. En enero de 2023, se presentó otra denuncia por Fortify Rights y 16 denunciantes de Myanmar ante el Fiscal General Federal de Alemania. La denuncia solicita al Fiscal que inicie un caso en Alemania contra altos generales militares de Myanmar y otros por crímenes atroces, incluidos genocidio, crímenes de guerra y crímenes de lesa humanidad. La denuncia proporciona pruebas detalladas, incluidas entrevistas a más de 1,000 sobrevivientes, y pide al Fiscal que realice una investigación sobre el genocidio Rohingya entre 2016 y 2017, así como sobre los crímenes contra otros civiles desde el golpe de febrero de 2021. Finalmente, en abril de 2023, la Corte Constitucional de Indonesia rechazó un caso para responsabilizar al ejército de Myanmar por crímenes contra las personas Rohingya. Los solicitantes habían argumentado que la limitación en la ley de jurisdicción universal de Indonesia que limitaba los casos a los perpetrados “por un ciudadano indonesio” debería declararse inconstitucional; sin embargo, el Tribunal Constitucional rechazó este argumento y sostuvo que al implementar los derechos humanos, cada tribunal debe priorizar los intereses nacionales según lo determine la Constitución de cada país. Por lo tanto, aunque la Constitución de Indonesia se refiere a “cada persona” al formular sus disposiciones de derechos humanos, el Tribunal sostuvo que esto no crea automáticamente una obligación en Indonesia de proteger los derechos humanos de personas que no son ciudadanos indonesios. 8.  ¿El caso en Argentina no duplica lo que están haciendo estos otros tribunales? Dado que evitar la duplicación de esfuerzos fue una de las principales preocupaciones de los tribunales argentinos antes de proceder con el caso de jurisdicción universal, el poder judicial argentino ha mantenido una comunicación diplomática con la CPI para asegurarse de que su caso de jurisdicción universal complemente, no duplique, la investigación de la CPI en Myanmar. El caso en Argentina tiene un alcance mucho más amplio, ya que abarcará una variedad de crímenes cometidos contra la población Rohingya en Myanmar. Esto contrasta con los esfuerzos emprendidos en la CPI, que se limitan a crímenes que han sido cometidos al menos parcialmente en territorio Bangladesí. Sin una remisión del Consejo de Seguridad, la CPI no puede investigar muchos de los crímenes cometidos por el ejército de Myanmar en el estado de Rakhine, que incluyen asesinato, desapariciones forzadas y violencia sexual, así como genocidio. El caso ante los tribunales argentinos tampoco se superpone con el caso presentado por Gambia ante la CIJ. El caso ante la CIJ trata sobre la responsabilidad estatal, mientras que el tribunal argentino investigará la responsabilidad penal individual de altos mandos militares y civiles, así como de perpetradores directos. Finalmente, por el momento la investigación en Argentina difiere de otros casos recientes de jurisdicción universal en términos de la identidad de las víctimas, así como de la cronología, ubicación y alcance de los crímenes. Además, al ser el primer caso de jurisdicción universal en Myanmar, el caso en Argentina se encuentra en una etapa más avanzada, la de investigación, en comparación con los otros casos. La comunicación regular entre las partes involucradas en estos casos puede contribuir a asegurar que estos y cualquier caso futuro sean complementarios

Palacio de Justicia de la Nación Argentina Court Considers International Crimes Against Rohingya On 26 November, 2021, the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court in Buenos Aires launched a universal jurisdiction (UJ) case against Myanmar authorities for the Rohingya genocide, following a complaint filed by Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK) in November 2019. BROUK’s complaint alleged genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Myanmar by the military and civilian leadership against the Rohingya since 2012, including murder, enforced disappearance, torture, sexual violence, and imprisonment. In 2017 the Myanmar military launched a genocidal campaign which forced over 800,000 Rohingyas to flee, largely over the border to Bangladesh. These so-called “clearance operations” were conducted through widespread and systematic murder, rape and sexual violence, and other abuses. Rohingya who continue to live in Rakhine State face stringent restrictions on their freedom of movement as well as on accessing basic services including education and healthcare, a situation that has only been exacerbated in the wake of Cyclone Mocha in May 2023. Additionally, in February 2021 the military defied the results of democratic elections, staged a coup, and seized power in Myanmar in a campaign marked by further atrocities, including against the Rohingya. In addition to BROUK’s UJ case in Argentina, there are currently multiple ongoing international efforts aimed at justice and accountability in Myanmar for crimes against the Rohingya, including a genocide case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) brought by The Gambia (a Q&A about the case can be found here), as well an investigation by the the International Criminal Court (ICC) (a Q&A about the ICC investigation can be found here). 1.  What is the principle of UJ? How does it work in Argentina? Universal jurisdiction is a concept based on the principle that some crimes are of global concern and are so horrific that they concern humanity as a whole. They are seen as harms against the international community; accordingly, all States have an interest in holding perpetrators to account. All states are permitted to exercise universal jurisdiction over crimes under international law. Universal jurisdiction ensures that regardless of where the crime(s) has been committed or the nationality of the victims or suspect(s), concerned individuals can be investigated and prosecuted for the heinous crimes they have committed, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, genocide, and enforced disappearances. The primary responsibility to investigate such crimes lies with the state on whose territory the crimes were committed. If those states are unable or unwilling to prosecute those crimes, universal jurisdiction exists as an additional tool in the international criminal justice system that allows other states to investigate and prosecute such crimes. The manner in which states apply universal jurisdiction may vary. These have broadly been classified into ‘pure’ universal jurisdiction or ‘conditional’ jurisdiction. Conditional universal jurisdiction states require some kind of ‘connecting link’ to be established before a national court can begin investigation. For instance, Germany follows what may be classified as ‘pure’ universal jurisdiction; that is, there is no need to show a connection between Germany and grave international crimes committed abroad before initiating an investigation or prosecution. However, prosecutors have the discretion to decide whether to open a case where there is no connection to Germany. Other countries require some connection to be established with that country (the victim’s or perpetrator’s nationality or the country’s interests) before an investigation can be initiated. For French courts to exercise universal jurisdiction for certain crimes, it must be shown that the accused was present in France; or for other crimes, courts will only have jurisdiction if the accused regularly resided in France when the investigation was opened. Spain also now requires some ‘connecting links’ — the suspect must be present in Spain and the victim must be Spanish, or there be some other relevant link to Spain. Argentinian law enshrines the principle of ‘pure’ universal jurisdiction, including in Article 118 of the Constitution which permits trials for crimes against public international law committed outside Argentina. Further, Article 5 of Law 26, 200/06 explicitly grants federal courts criminal jurisdiction over crimes mentioned in the Rome Statute of the ICC, among others. BROUK’s case is not the first case in Argentina under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Through the late 1970s and early 80s, the Argentinian population suffered grave human rights abuses and crimes against humanity at the hands of the military and security forces. This period of dictatorship that came to be known as the ‘Dirty War’ was marred by instances of torture, murder, and forced disappearances, among other crimes. Having convicted the military junta in a historic trial, and many others who were responsible for committing heinous crimes during this period in their own country, Argentina continues to be committed and has been recognized internationally for leading justice and accountability efforts for crimes against humanity committed elsewhere in the world. In recent years cases have been tried in Argentina against individuals for crimes committed in Spain during the rule of Francisco Franco, and for persecution against the Falun Gong movement in China. Recently a case was filed before an Argentinian court related to the genocide and crimes against humanity committed against Uyghurs in China. 2.  How is a domestic court in Argentina able to prosecute crimes in Myanmar? What is the current status of the case? In November 2019, BROUK, with the support of other human rights organizations including Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Fundación Servicio Paz y Justicia, led by prominent Peace Nobel Prize Adolfo Perez Esquivel, filed a case under universal jurisdiction before an Argentinian criminal court concerning genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya. In December 2019, the court rejected the case holding that Argentinian courts were not the appropriate forum for such an investigation considering that the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the ICC was already looking into crimes committed against the Rohingya. BROUK filed an appeal against this decision, and in August 2021, the Federal Appeals Court heard the testimony of Rohingya women who appeared remotely before the court to speak about their experiences of sexual and gender-based violence during the “clearance operations” of 2017. In November 2021 the Court decided to launch a criminal investigation against Myanmar military and civilian officials. The investigation continues to steadily progress. In June 2023, lead plaintiffs BROUK with the contribution of Legal Action Worldwide (LAW), organized and facilitated the direct testimony of survivors who had experienced atrocities, including sexual violence. This testimony was historic and precedent-setting, not least because it allowed victims of the 2017 genocide to directly participate in a court process, but also by building the evidence base for Argentinian courts. The Court is also considering the impact of social media in disseminating hate speech against Rohingya that led to the clearance operations, and has sent a request to Facebook to share their files and information. 3.  What specific crimes are being investigated? Against whom? The case relates to crimes perpetrated against the Rohingya by Myanmar authorities in Rakhine State. Specifically, the case calls for Argentinian courts to investigate and prosecute the senior military and civilian leadership, as well as direct perpetrators in Myanmar, for committing genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the Tatmadaw Commander-in-Chief, as well as former presidents U Htin Kyaw and U Thein Sein are among those who have been named in the complaint. 4.  What law is the court applying? While the Court derives its authority to deal with the case (universal jurisdiction) from the Constitution of Argentina (Article 118), it will be applying the criminal code of Argentina while deciding on the responsibility for crimes committed (homicide, rape, arbitrary detention, among others) and the subsequent punishments, if any. The Court may also declare that genocide and crimes against humanity were committed, applying the definitions of crimes under the Rome Statute, to which Argentina is a party. 5.  What comes next? The case is currently in the investigatory stage and the Court is in the process of holding hearings and collecting evidence, which included (as explained above) recent direct testimony of witnesses regarding genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya in Rakhine State. At this stage as the Court continues to hold hearings and collect evidence, there may also be an opportunity for the Court to analyze the evidence collected thus far, and for the plaintiffs to request that it deliver a substantive judicial decision regarding the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya, as well as a request that warrants be issued against them. The Court may also decide to travel overseas to further gather substantive evidence. The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), established by the United Nations (UN) to gather and preserve evidence on human rights violations in Myanmar, is also supporting the Argentinian court including by sharing relevant evidence. The IIMM is not an accountability body in its own right — meaning there is no court or prosecutor attached to it. Rather, the IIMM’s case files are intended to contribute to prosecutions of individuals in national, regional, or international criminal proceedings. The IIMM has shared relevant information and evidence with the ICC, ICJ, and Argentinian authorities in the ongoing cases related to Myanmar, provided that the sources of the information have given their approval to such sharing. In April 2022, the head of the IIMM and members of his team visited Argentina to explore opportunities for assisting the judicial investigation, especially through sharing of relevant information. The IIMM has shared information with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Argentina and maintains regular dialogue with the Office to determine the most effective way in which it can continue supporting the universal jurisdiction case. 6.  Do survivors from Myanmar have any role in these proceedings? BROUK and Tun Khin (BROUK’s President), along with others who represent the Rohingya community, serve as plaintiffs in the case. In that capacity they have the right to request the Court to produce more evidence before it, as well as to request the Court to pronounce substantive judicial decisions, including reparations. BROUK, as a Rohingya-led organization, and their legal team are undertaking efforts to ensure that victims are centered in the case. These efforts include ensuring that survivors are able to engage directly with the Argentinian court and its processes, with the view of empowering and giving voice to them, especially women. This is reflected in the direct testimony that witnesses provided to the court in June 2023 regarding sexual and gender-based violence. The Court provided security guarantees to witnesses as well as psychological support during the hearings (through CODESEDH, a specialized NGO), in addition to successfully addressing logistical challenges that included double translation from Rohingya to English, and then from English to Spanish. 7.  Are there any other international efforts to pursue justice and accountability for the situation in Myanmar? There are two major pathways to justice and accountability for the crimes committed against the Rohingya: (1) Myanmar’s responsibility as a state; and (2) individual criminal responsibility of those who planned, participated in, or sanctioned crimes. These efforts are complementary to each other. Concerning Myanmar’s responsibility as a state, The Gambia’s lawsuit under the Genocide Convention continues at the ICJ. On July 22, 2022, the Court upheld The Gambia’s standing to bring a case against Myanmar for breaching provisions of the Genocide Convention. Currently, written pleadings are being completed in the case before the court hears it on merits. Potential venues for holding individuals to account include domestic courts in third party states under the theory of universal jurisdiction, and the ICC. Due to structural and practical barriers, the domestic courts of Myanmar are not at present an option for accountability efforts. The ICC OTP is currently investigating the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar. On November 14, 2019, the ICC authorized the OTP to investigate certain alleged international crimes occurring during a wave of violence in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017. While the acts relevant to the deportations occurred on the territory of Myanmar, which is not a party to the Rome Statute, the OTP argued that the ICC “may nonetheless exercise jurisdiction” since “an essential legal element of the crime — crossing an international border — occurred on the territory of a State which is a party to the Rome Statute (Bangladesh).” While granting authorization, the Court noted that the Prosecutor is not restricted “to the persons or groups identified in the Request” or “to the incidents identified in the Request.” It also authorized the Prosecutor to investigate crimes committed “after 1 June 2010, the date of entry into force of the Statute for Bangladesh” and also crimes that may have been committed before but continued after this date. The investigation is currently ongoing. There are also two other universal jurisdiction processes currently ongoing concerning the situation in Myanmar. The first is a case filed in March 2022 by the Myanmar Accountability Project with the prosecutor’s office in Turkey to hold the military leadership accountable for their widespread use of torture. The case has been filed on behalf of victims who were tortured in the Yay Kyi Ai military interrogation center in Yangon’s Mingaladon Township. In January 2023, another complaint was filed by Fortify Rights and 16 complainants from Myanmar before the Federal Public Prosecutor General of Germany. The complaint calls for the Prosecutor to initiate a case in Germany against senior Myanmar military generals and others for atrocity crimes including for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The complaint provides detailed evidence including interviews of more than 1,000 survivors and calls for the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation into the Rohingya genocide between 2016 and 2017, as well as into crimes against other civilians since the coup of February 2021. Finally, in April 2023 the Indonesian Constitutional Court rejected a case to hold the Myanmar military accountable for crimes against the Rohingya. Petitioners had argued that the limitation in Indonesia’s universal jurisdiction law that limited cases to those perpetrated “by an Indonesian citizen” be declared unconstitutional; however, the Constitutional Court rejected this argument and held that in implementing human rights, every court must prioritize national interests as determined by each country’s constitution. Hence, even though the Indonesian Constitution refers to “every person” while formulating its human rights provisions, the Court held that this does not automatically create an obligation on Indonesia to protect the human rights of individuals who are not Indonesian citizens. 8.  Does the Argentina case not duplicate what these other courts are doing? Since avoiding duplication of efforts was one of the main concerns of the Argentinian courts before proceeding with the universal jurisdiction case, the Argentinian judiciary has maintained diplomatic communication with the ICC to ensure that its universal jurisdiction case would complement, not duplicate, the ICC investigation in Myanmar. The case in Argentina is much wider in its scope, since it will cover a range of crimes against the Rohingya in Myanmar. This is in contrast to the efforts undertaken at the ICC, which are limited to crimes which have been committed at least partially in Bangladeshi territory. Absent a Security Council referral, the ICC is unable to investigate many crimes committed by the Myanmar military in Rakhine State, which include murder, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence, as well as genocide. The case before the Argentinian courts also does not overlap with the case filed by The Gambia before the ICJ. The ICJ case deals with state responsibility, while the Argentinian court will be investigating individual criminal responsibility of senior military and civilian leadership and direct perpetrators. Finally, at present the investigation in Argentina differs from other recent UJ cases in terms of the victims’ identity, as well as timing, location, and scope of crimes. In addition, as the first Myanmar UJ case, the Argentina case is at a more advanced stage — investigation — than the others. Regular communication among stakeholders bringing these cases can help to ensure that these and any future cases are complementary.