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).

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.

Estados discutiendo el proyecto de tratado sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad en la sesión de seguimiento de la Sexta Comisión en abril de 2023 Un Nuevo Tratado Internacional Sobre Crímenes De Lesa Humanidad Un nuevo tratado sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad se está considerando en la Organización de las  Naciones Unidas (ONU). El tratado propuesto tiene un potencial significativo para promover la justicia en casos de crímenes basados en el género. Sin embargo, para lograr un tratado fuerte, que sea justo en términos de género y centrado en las personas sobrevivientes, diversas organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo deben participar en el proceso para desarrollarlo. Si bien el genocidio y los crímenes de guerra están codificados en convenciones independientes, no existe un tratado internacional individual análogo que codifique y establezca obligaciones a los estados para prevenir y castigar los crímenes de lesa humanidad. Para abordar esta brecha, la Comisión de Derecho Internacional (CDI) de la ONU preparó el Proyecto de Artículos sobre la Prevención y el Castigo de los Crímenes de Lesa Humanidad, que proporciona un punto de partida para la discusión y negociación de un nuevo tratado internacional sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad.  ¿Dónde Se Encuentra El Tratado Ahora? Actualmente, el proyecto de tratado se está considerando en la Sexta Comisión de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, que es su comisión legal. En abril de 2023, los Estados convocaron a una sesión especial de seguimiento de la Sexta Comisión, que duró una semana y estuvo dedicada exclusivamente al intercambio de opiniones sobre el contenido del proyecto de tratado. Una segunda sesión similar de la Sexta Comisión para discutir el proyecto de tratado tendrá lugar en abril de 2024, y los Estados tomarán una decisión formal sobre los próximos pasos en octubre de 2024.

The International Law Commission in 2012 | UN photo / Anne-Laure Lechat Se han cometido y enjuiciado crímenes de lesa humanidad en muchas partes del mundo, incluyendo en Camboya, Ruanda, Colombia, Yugoslavia y en el contexto de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, hasta el día de hoy, aún no existe un tratado internacional independiente que codifique los crímenes de lesa humanidad y establezca deberes de prevenirlos y castigarlos. En un marcado contraste, desde la década de 1940 han existido tratados para prevenir y castigar el genocidio y los crímenes de guerra. Esta brecha legal fomenta la impunidad para crímenes graves y crea una falsa jerarquía entre atrocidades igualmente graves. Un nuevo tratado, basado en el Proyecto de Artículos de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional sobre la Prevención y el Castigo de los Crímenes de lesa Humanidad, ofrece la oportunidad de llenar esta brecha. El tratado ofrecería beneficios tangibles para víctimas y sobrevivientes. Combatiría la percepción de que las víctimas de ciertos crímenes merecen más la justicia que otras. Además, el Tratado impondría obligaciones a los Estados para que, en primer lugar, prevengan los crímenes contra la humanidad, y permitiría que los Estados tengan responsabilidad ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) si no cumplen con sus responsabilidades de prevención. 1. ¿Qué son los crímenes contra la humanidad? ¿En qué se diferencian de los crímenes de guerra y el genocidio? Los crímenes contra la humanidad (CAH) se encuentran entre las violaciones más graves a los derechos humanos. Están definidos en el derecho internacional existente como uno o más actos específicos cometidos bajo ciertas condiciones. Los crímenes contra la humanidad incluyen: asesinato; exterminio; esclavitud; deportación o traslado forzoso de población; encarcelación ilegal u otra privación grave de libertad física; tortura; violación, esclavitud sexual, prostitución forzada, embarazo forzado, esterilización forzada o cualquier otra forma de violencia sexual de gravedad comparable; persecución; desaparición forzada de personas; el crimen de apartheid; y otros actos inhumanos. Para que cualquiera de los actos mencionados anteriormente constituya crímenes contra la humanidad, deben ser cometidos contra una población civil (en contraposición a soldados u otras poblaciones no civiles), y deben formar parte de un ataque generalizado o sistemático (no violaciones individuales). En otras palabras, los crímenes contra la humanidad se distinguen de los delitos “ordinarios” por la extensión o sistematicidad de las violaciones, y por quiénes son los objetivos de los ataques (las personas civiles). Los crímenes contra la humanidad están relacionados con los crímenes de guerra y el genocidio  – cada categoría de crimen se considera un crimen internacional “fundamental”, pero existen diferencias importantes entre ellos. Los crímenes de guerra, por definición, sólo pueden cometerse en el contexto de un conflicto armado. Involucran graves violaciones de las leyes de la guerra, cometidas contra personas o entidades protegidas por esas leyes (como civiles y sus propiedades) y/o el uso de métodos o medios de guerra prohibidos. Los actos que pueden constituir crímenes de guerra van desde el asesinato intencional hasta el saqueo, la violencia sexual y la declaración de que “no se dará cuartel” en una operación militar. Es posible que un mismo acto constituya tanto un crimen contra la humanidad como un crimen de guerra, o que sea solo uno de ellos. El genocidio se diferencia de ambas categorías de crímenes porque está motivado por una intención específica de destruir, total o parcialmente, un grupo nacional, racial, étnico o religioso. Algunos de los actos involucrados en el genocidio (como el asesinato o la violencia sexual) pueden también  constituir crímenes de guerra y crímenes contra la humanidad, pero para que estos actos sean considerados genocidio, deben ser cometidos con la intención de destruir. Aunque estas tres categorías de crímenes son diferentes, no existe una jerarquía entre ellas. Las distinciones entre estos crímenes reflejan categorías legales diseñadas para describir con exactitud la naturaleza de los crímenes y capturar los motivos y métodos distintivos de los perpetradores. 2. ¿Por qué necesitamos un tratado sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad? Aunque los crímenes contra la humanidad están definidos en varios tratados, incluido el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI), y están prohibidos bajo el derecho internacional consuetudinario, no existe un tratado específico que indique las responsabilidades de los Estados para prevenir o castigar estos crímenes. Esta brecha distingue los crímenes de lesa humanidad de los crímenes de guerra y el genocidio, y cada uno de los cuales tiene sus propios tratados específicos (las Convenciones de Ginebra y la Convención para la prevención y sanción del delito de Genocidio, respectivamente). Las Convenciones de Ginebra y la Convención sobre el Genocidio proporcionan definiciones unificadas de crímenes de guerra y genocidio. También indican las responsabilidades de los Estados y aclaran quiénes pueden ser acusados de estos crímenes. Por ejemplo, bajo ambos tratados, los Estados tienen la obligación de actuar para prevenir tanto el genocidio como los crímenes de guerra donde sea que ocurran. Los actos de genocidio y crímenes de guerra también deben ser penalizados en la legislación nacional. Un tratado sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad podría, de manera similar, aclarar las obligaciones de los Estados para prevenir y castigar estos crímenes. También podría requerir que los Estados adopten legislación nacional para prohibir los crímenes de lesa humanidad en sus códigos penales nacionales, que cooperen con otros Estados para extraditar o enjuiciar a los perpetradores a nivel nacional, que brinden protecciones para víctimas y testigos, que garanticen un trato justo para los acusados y que se proporcionen asistencia jurídica mutua. Aunque codificar estos crímenes no impide que ocurran, reglas legales claras a nivel internacional y nacional son un primer paso importante para responsabilizar a los perpetradores; lo que a su vez indica a todos los potenciales perpetradores que enfrentarán la justicia si cometen estos crímenes. De esta manera, un tratado sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad puede ayudar a reducir el número de personas que sufren estos crímenes en primer lugar. Un tratado también podría codificar los derechos de las víctimas y requerir a los Estados que las involucren para lograr la justicia. Finalmente, la negociación de un nuevo tratado es una oportunidad para incorporar los avances en el derecho internacional, incluido cómo se aborda la violencia sexual y de género, que se han logrado en las décadas desde que se redactó el Estatuto de Roma. 3. ¿Qué es el tratado preliminar sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad y cómo llegó a existir? La Comisión de Derecho Internacional (CDI) de las Naciones Unidas preparó el Proyecto de Artículos sobre la Prevención y el Castigo de los Crímenes de Lesa Humanidad para ofrecer un punto de partida para la discusión y negociación de un tratado internacional sobre el tema. El proyecto de artículos  incluye disposiciones: definiendo los crímenes de lesa humanidad, incluidos los crímenes de violencia sexual y violencia basada en género; expresando las obligaciones estatales para prevenir, penalizar, investigar y castigar estos crímenes; delineando los derechos de las víctimas y testigos, incluidas las compensaciones y reparaciones; abordando la cooperación entre los Estados, incluidas las obligaciones de extraditar o enjuiciar, y la asistencia legal mutua. El borrador final de la CDI es el resultado de seis años de trabajo, que incluyeron una amplia consulta y retroalimentación de Estados, expertos y la sociedad civil. En 2019, la CDI completó sus consultas y estudio sobre el tema recomendando un texto: el Proyecto de Artículos sobre la Prevención y el Castigo de los Crímenes de Lesa Humanidad. La CDI recomendó a la comunidad internacional que el proyecto de artículos sirva como base para un tratado que sea adoptado por los Estados, ya sea a través del marco de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas o de un proceso independiente de negociación de tratados. 4. ¿Qué hay de la Corte Penal Internacional y la Corte Internacional de Justicia? La CPI desempeña un papel vital en la impartición de justicia por crímenes de lesa humanidad y otros crímenes atroces. En la actualidad, la CPI es el único mecanismo permanente para determinar la responsabilidad penal individual a nivel internacional, y es el único tribunal permanente capaz de abordar crímenes contra la humanidad nuevos o en curso. Sin embargo, la CPI también tiene limitaciones sustanciales -procedimentales y prácticas- que pueden restringir la justicia y la determinación de responsabilidad por crímenes de lesa  humanidad. Nunca fue la intención que la  CPI fuera el único organismo responsable de buscar remedios judiciales para atrocidades masivas, ni tiene la capacidad para investigar cada situación o llevar a juicio a cada perpetrador. El proyecto de artículos complementa a la CPI al fortalecer y empoderar a las jurisdicciones nacionales para enjuiciar los crímenes de lesa humanidad. Dado que la CPI sólo puede actuar cuando un Estado no está dispuesto o es incapaz de enjuiciar, el fortalecimiento de la capacidad de la jurisdicción nacional para actuar es un complemento importante al trabajo de la CPI. También es importante señalar que la CPI sólo puede abordar un lado del panorama de la responsabilidad, la responsabilidad penal individual; dejando de lado la responsabilidad estatal por crímenes de lesa humanidad. El proyecto de artículos tiene esto en cuenta al detallar explícitamente no sólo las obligaciones individuales de los Estados para prevenir y castigar los crímenes de lesa humanidad, sino también proporcionando un mecanismo de resolución de disputas entre Estados ante la CIJ. Sin un tratado, los Estados no tienen recurso ante la CIJ para los crímenes de lesa humanidad. 5. ¿Cuál es el estado del proyecto de tratado? ¿Es este el texto final del tratado? Los Estados aún deben negociar el contenido del proyecto de artículos. Después de que la CDI adoptara el proyecto de artículos en 2019, la Asamblea General tomó nota de ellos y los remitió a la Sexta Comisión, el órgano de la Asamblea General donde se examinan las cuestiones jurídicas. Durante tres años, la Sexta Comisión tuvo el proyecto de la CDI “bajo consideración”. En noviembre de 2022, la Sexta Comisión finalmente aprobó una resolución para comenzar la deliberación sobre el contenido del texto, con miras a discutir la recomendación de la CDI de que se negociara un tratado sobre la base del proyecto de artículos. La resolución estableció un plazo de dos años para que los Estados “intercambiaran puntos de vista sustantivos” sobre “todos los aspectos del proyecto de artículos”, en dos sesiones de seguimiento. La Sexta Comisión se reunió para la primera “sesión de seguimiento” del 10 al 14 de abril de 2023, y se reunirá para la segunda sesión de seguimiento del 1 al 5 y el 11 de abril de 2024. Como se especifica en el programa de trabajo, las reuniones plenarias se transmiten en vivo y son abiertas al público, y los Estados consideran el proyecto de artículos en grupos temáticos. Al finalizar la primera sesión de seguimiento, los Co-Facilitadores de la Oficina de la Sexta Comisión  presentaron un informe oral resumiendo la sesión. Los Estados tendrán la oportunidad de presentar comentarios por escrito sobre el proyecto de artículos antes del 1 de diciembre de 2023, lo que ayudará a informar la estructura y el contenido de la sesión de seguimiento de abril de 2024. La Sexta Comisión también llevará a cabo un debate general sobre el proyecto de artículos, como es su práctica habitual, durante la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en otoño de 2023 y 2024, con miras a una posible acción para avanzar con el proyecto de artículos en 2024. 6. ¿Cuánto tiempo tomará esto? Como se detalló anteriormente, comenzando desde noviembre de 2022 cuando la Sexta Comisión aprobó la resolución para iniciar la deliberación sobre el contenido del texto, y concluyendo en otoño de 2024 cuando la Sexta Comisión se reúna durante la 78ª sesión de la Asamblea General para decidir  sobre los próximos pasos del proyecto de artículos, la fase actual del proceso tomará en total casi dos años. Se espera que en otoño de 2024, la Sexta Comisión siga la recomendación de la CDI de “elaborar… una convención por la Asamblea General o por una conferencia internacional de plenipotenciarios sobre la base del proyecto de artículos”. En la sesión de seguimiento de abril de 2023, la Secretaría de la ONU ofreció una presentación sobre esta recomendación. 7. ¿Cómo puede la sociedad civil participar en el proceso? A medida que la Sexta Comisión considera el contenido del tratado, este es un momento importante para que la sociedad civil se involucre. La sociedad civil puede alentar y apoyar a los Estados para que participen de manera significativa en las sesiones de seguimiento y demuestren su compromiso con el avance del proyecto de artículos, y puede proporcionar sugerencias y opciones a los Estados para fortalecer el proyecto de la CDI. Dado que el tratado final será el resultado de negociaciones entre Estados, es importante que los Estados escuchen a la sociedad civil tanto en lo que debe protegerse en el texto actual del proyecto, como en lo que se puede mejorar. Estas consideraciones pueden reflejar una variedad de perspectivas y conocimientos, incluida la forma de garantizar que el tratado sea competente en cuestiones de género, centrado en las sobrevivientes y tenga en cuenta la interseccionalidad. Estos aportes ya han contribuido a dar forma al proyecto de artículos. Por ejemplo, la participación de la sociedad civil durante el proceso de la CDI fue fundamental para eliminar del texto una definición regresiva de género que se heredó del Estatuto de Roma. Otras propuestas de la sociedad civil para fortalecer el proyecto incluyen reforzar los derechos de las víctimas y ajustar las definiciones de crímenes como el embarazo forzado, la persecución y las desapariciones forzadas.

The International Law Commission in 2012 | UN photo / Anne-Laure Lechat Crimes against humanity have been committed and prosecuted all over the world, including in Cambodia, Rwanda, Colombia, Yugoslavia, and in the context of World War II. Yet to this day, there is no standalone international treaty that codifies crimes against humanity and establishes duties to prevent and punish them. In stark contrast, treaties have existed to prevent and punish genocide and war crimes since the 1940s. This legal gap fosters impunity for serious crimes and creates a false hierarchy between equally egregious atrocities. A new treaty, based on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity offers an opportunity to fill this gap.  The treaty would deliver tangible benefits for victims and survivors. It would combat the perception that victims of some crimes are more deserving of justice than others. The treaty would also place obligations on states to prevent crimes against humanity in the first place, and allow for states to be held accountable at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if they failed to uphold their prevention responsibilities. 1. What are crimes against humanity? How are they different from war crimes and genocide? Crimes against humanity (CAH) are amongst the most serious violations of human rights. They are defined in existing international law as one or more specific acts committed under certain conditions. Crimes against humanity include:  murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; illegal imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution; enforced disappearance; the crime of apartheid; and other inhumane acts. In order for any of the above acts to constitute crimes against humanity, they must be committed against a civilian population (as opposed to soldiers or other non-civilian populations), and they must be part of a widespread or systematic attack (not singular violations).  In other words, crimes against humanity are distinguished from “ordinary” crimes by how widespread or systematic the violations are, and by who is targeted (civilians). Crimes against humanity are related to war crimes and genocide — each category of crime is considered a “core” international crime, but there are important differences among them.  War crimes, by definition, can only be committed in the context of an armed conflict. They involve grave breaches of the laws of war, committed against people or entities who are protected under those laws (such as civilians and their property) and/or the use of prohibited methods or means of warfare. The acts that can constitute war crimes range from willful killing to pillaging, sexual violence, and declaring that there will be “no mercy” in a military operation. It is possible for the same act to constitute both a crime against humanity and a war crime, or to be only one or the other. Genocide differs from both of these categories of crimes because it is motivated by a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, ethnical, or religious group. Some of the acts involved in genocide (such as killing or sexual violence) can also constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, but for these acts to constitute genocide, they must be committed with the intent to destroy.  Although these three categories of crimes are different, there is no hierarchy among them. The distinctions between these crimes reflect legal categories designed to accurately describe the nature of the crimes and to capture the distinct motives and methods of perpetrators. 2. Why do we need a crimes against humanity treaty? Although crimes against humanity are defined under various treaties including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and prohibited under customary international law, there is no specific treaty indicating states’ responsibilities to prevent or punish these crimes. This gap distinguishes crimes against humanity from war crimes and genocide, each of which have their own dedicated treaties (the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention, respectively). The Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention provide unified definitions of war crimes and genocide. They also indicate the responsibilities of states and clarify who can be charged with these crimes. For example, under both treaties, states have obligations to act to prevent both genocide and war crimes wherever they occur. Acts of genocide and war crimes must also be criminalized in domestic law. A treaty on crimes against humanity could similarly clarify states’ obligations to prevent and punish these crimes. It could also require states to adopt national legislation to outlaw crimes against humanity in their domestic criminal codes, cooperate with other states to extradite or domestically prosecute perpetrators, furnish protections for victims and witnesses, guarantee fair treatment of the accused, and provide mutual legal assistance. Although codifying these crimes does not stop them from occurring, clear international and domestic legal rules are an important first step to holding perpetrators accountable, which in turn signals to all potential perpetrators that they will face justice if they commit these crimes. In this way, a crimes against humanity treaty can help reduce the number of people who suffer from these crimes in the first place. A treaty could also codify the rights of victims and require states to engage with them to achieve justice. Finally, the negotiation of a new treaty is an opportunity to incorporate progress in international law, including on addressing sexual and gender-based violence, that has been made in the decades since the Rome Statute was written. 3. What is the draft crimes against humanity treaty and how did it come to be? The United Nations’ (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) prepared the Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity to provide a starting point for the discussion and negotiation of an international treaty on the subject. The Draft Articles include provisions: defining crimes against humanity, including crimes of sexual and gender-based violence; articulating state obligations to prevent, criminalize, investigate, and punish these crimes; outlining the rights of victims and witnesses, including to redress and reparations; and addressing cooperation between states, including obligations to extradite or prosecute, and mutual legal assistance. The ILC’s final draft is the result of six years of work, including extensive consultation with, and feedback from, states, experts, and civil society. In 2019, the ILC completed their consultations and study of the issue by recommending a text: the Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. The ILC recommended to the international community that the Draft Articles form the basis of a treaty to be adopted by states, either through the framework of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) or an independent treaty negotiation process.. 4. What about the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice? The ICC plays a vital role in delivering justice for crimes against humanity and other atrocity crimes. At present, the ICC is the only permanent mechanism for individual criminal accountability at the international level, and is the only standing court equipped to address new or ongoing crimes against humanity. However, the ICC also has substantive, procedural, and practical limitations, which can constrain justice and accountability for crimes against humanity. The ICC was never intended to be the sole body responsible for seeking judicial remedies for mass atrocities, nor does it have the capacity to investigate every situation or bring every perpetrator to trial. The Draft Articles complement the ICC by strengthening and empowering domestic jurisdictions to prosecute crimes against humanity. Since the ICC can only act when a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute, the strengthening of national jurisdictional capacity to act is an important complement to the work of the ICC. It is also important to note that the ICC can only address one side of the accountability picture — individual criminal responsibility — leaving state responsibility for crimes against humanity aside. The Draft Articles account for this by explicitly detailing not only individual states’ obligations to prevent and punish crimes against humanity, but also providing for state-to-state dispute resolution at the ICJ. Without a treaty, states do not have recourse to the ICJ for crimes against humanity. 5. What is the status of the draft treaty? Is this the final text of the treaty? States have yet to negotiate the substance of the Draft Articles. After the ILC adopted the Draft Articles in 2019, the UNGA took note of them and sent them to the Sixth Committee, the UNGA body where legal questions are considered. For three years, the Sixth Committee had the ILC draft “under consideration.” In November 2022, the Sixth Committee finally passed a resolution to begin deliberation of the substance of the text, with a view towards discussing the ILC’s recommendation that a treaty be negotiated on the basis of the draft articles.  The resolution established a two-year timeline for states to “exchange substantive views” on “all aspects of the draft articles,” in two resumed sessions. The Sixth Committee met for the first  “resumed session” on April 10-14, 2023, and will meet for the second resumed session on April 1-5 and 11, 2024. As specified in the programme of work, the plenary meetings are livestreamed and open to the public, and states consider the Draft Articles in thematic groupings. At the end of the first resumed session, the Sixth Committee Bureau’s Co-Facilitators produced an oral report summarizing the session. States will have the opportunity to submit written comments on the Draft Articles by December 1, 2023, which will help to inform the structure and substance of the April 2024 resumed session. The Sixth Committee will also hold a general debate on the Draft Articles per its normal practice during the United Nations General Assembly in fall 2023 and 2024, with a view to potential action to move the Draft Articles forward in 2024. 6. How long will this take? As elaborated above, beginning from November 2022 when the Sixth Committee passed the resolution to begin deliberation of the substance of the text, and ending in fall 2024 when the Sixth Committee meets during the 78th session of the UNGA to take a decision on next steps for the Draft Articles, the current phase of the process will take just under two years in total. In fall 2024, it is hoped that the Sixth Committee will follow the ILC’s recommendation to either “elaborat[e]…a convention by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries on the basis of the draft articles.” At the resumed session in April 2023, the UN Secretariat gave a briefing on this recommendation. 7. How can civil society engage in the process? As the Sixth Committee considers the substance of the treaty, now is an important time for civil society to engage. Civil society can encourage and support states to meaningfully participate in the resumed sessions and demonstrate their commitment to the advancement of the Draft Articles, and provide suggestions and options to states to strengthen the ILC’s draft. As the final treaty will be the product of state negotiations, it is important that states hear from civil society both on what should be protected in the current draft text, as well as what can be improved. These considerations may reflect a range of perspectives and expertise, including how to ensure that the treaty is gender-competent, survivor-centered, and intersectional. Such input has already helped to shape the draft articles; for example, civil society engagement during the ILC process was vital to removing from the text a regressive definition of gender that was carried over from the Rome Statute. Other civil society proposals to strengthen the draft include bolstering victims’ rights, and adjusting the definitions of crimes such as forced pregnancy, persecution, and enforced disappearances.