The Human Rights House Foundation welcomes the UN Commission of Human Rights’ adoption of the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. (25-APR-05)
Across the world, impunity for grave violations of human rights and international law is widespread. During this year’s session that ended last week, the UN Commission on human rights debated how to combat impunity. The Human Rights House Foundation (HRH) followed the debates around the drafting of a number of resolutions on impunity in Geneva.
Principles updated and adopted
The impunity resolution coordinated by Canada, on behalf of a large number of co-sponsors, supports exposing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, bringing perpetrators of serious international crimes to justice, and obtaining an effective remedy for victims through domestic and international mechanisms such as courts, special tribunals, and truth commissions, in order to promote accountability, respect for international law, and just reconciliation. The principles on impunity, adopted by the Sub-Commission in 1997, were updated in 2005 and adopted.
Reinforce the rights of victims
There were several other resolutions on impunity. Switzerland sponsored a new resolution on human rights and transitional justice. Argentina sponsored a resolution on the right to the truth, while Chile sponsored a resolution on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. HRH appreciates these initiatives that reinforce the rights of victims.
Background
In the past, the UN Commission on Human Rights has underlined the importance of combating impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In its recommendation to the Norwegian government, the Norwegian NGO Forum for human rights, including the Human Rights House Foundation, has argued that the progress in fighting impunity for such crimes recently seen at the international level and under several national jurisdictions requires the continued support of the Commission.
After years of work and struggle, the promise of an International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction to try genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity has become a reality. In 1998, the statute of the Court was approved in Rome and it has entered into force the first of July of 2002, when the required number of country ratifications was attained. The Court holds a promise of putting an end to the impunity that reigns today for human rights violators and bringing us a more just and more humane world.
The NGO Forum argued that the Commission should underline the importance of the Security Council referring situations to the International Criminal Court in which one or more of such crimes [e.g. genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes] appears to have been committed (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 13(b)).
Earlier this year, the Security Council referred the Darfur situation to the International Criminal Court. The US resisted, but did not veto the decision.
US initiatives to ensure immunity for its citizens from International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction through bilateral agreement may undermine the legitimacy and universality of the court, as does the failure of major powers such as the People´s Republic of China, India and the Russian Federation to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Universal ratification of the Rome Statute should be encouraged, the NGO Forum argued.
