Note: Single-source report; awaiting corroboration.
The United Nations Security Council met to consider the future of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, established in 2010 to carry out key functions after the closure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Mechanism President Graciela Gatti Santana stated that the body had effectively fulfilled its mandate and that only limited but essential work remained, such as handling a final contempt case referred to national jurisdiction. She emphasized the importance of the Council's decisions regarding the UN's ongoing responsibilities and the future of international criminal justice.
Ms. Gatti Santana proposed a strategic plan involving nearly a 90% reduction in staff and the transfer of some responsibilities, including assistance to national jurisdictions and archive management, to the UN Secretariat. However, she noted that judicial responsibilities related to prisoner transfers, releases, witness protection, and monitoring of referred cases should remain internationally controlled. She described the plan as an effort to balance principle with pragmatism, noting that durable justice may not fit fixed timelines.
Mechanism Prosecutor Serge Brammertz supported transferring non-judicial functions to the Secretariat while maintaining international oversight over convicted persons serving sentences. He highlighted the ongoing importance of the Mechanism’s legacy in fighting genocide denial and the glorification of war criminals. Brammertz stressed that the atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were not random and underscored the educational value of the archives.
The future location of the tribunals’ archives was a key point during discussions. Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, advocated transferring the ICTR archives to Rwanda, stating that for survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi, the transfer would reclaim an essential part of their history. Conversely, Tanzania, which hosted the Rwanda tribunal in Arusha for about two decades, argued that the archives currently reside in a neutral site with modern infrastructure and are accessible to all.