Statement at the 74th session of the Sixth Committee, delivered by Ms. Cecilia Anderberg, Legal Adviser at the Permnanent Mission of Sweden to the UN. United Nations, 15 October 2019, New York.
Mr. Chair,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and my own country Sweden.
States have an obligation to protect populations from atrocity crimes. Yet, serious crimes continue to be committed with impunity.
As accountability for atrocity crimes becomes increasingly challenged at the international level, the principle of universal jurisdiction is an important instrument in the pursuit of ending impunity. The principle has been incorporated into many national jurisdictions and has become part of international efforts towards this goal.
Mr Chair,
While the Sixth Committee continues to discuss the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, the Nordic countries wish to underscore that universal jurisdiction rests with the national prosecutorial offices in those states where this principle has been incorporated. A discussion on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction will necessarily need to take into consideration the practices and processes of these bodies. This includes prosecutorial discretion and the mechanisms securing the independence of prosecutorial offices. National experiences on these matters may provide valuable contributions to the discussions in the Sixth Committee.
The principle of universal jurisdiction draws on developments in international law, including state practice and jurisprudence of courts and tribunals. This is a continuing development, that should be allowed to evolve further. Therefore, it is the view of the Nordic countries that it is not advisable to attempt to develop an exhaustive list of crimes for which universal jurisdiction would apply.
Mr. Chair,
At the international level, the International Criminal Court (ICC) plays an important role in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes. As a court of last resort, it seeks to complement, not replace, national courts. However, the ICC provides an avenue for prosecution when states do not exercise their jurisdiction.
The development of other bodies at the international level, such as the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria, the Fact-Finding Mission for Myanmar (IIFFM), the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) and UNITAD may assist criminal proceedings at the international, regional or national level that have or may have, jurisdiction in the future. Since these mechanisms do not have prosecutorial mandates, national prosecutorial offices, applying the principle of universal jurisdiction, can contribute to filling the current gap at the international level. The role of these evidence investigative bodies and other possible future mechanisms, may also help shape the development of the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Mr. Chair,
The primary responsibility for exercising jurisdiction for those responsible for international crimes, rests with states. The effective prosecution of these crimes must be ensured not only at the international level, but also by taking measures at the national level. The application of the principle of universal jurisdiction is becoming increasingly important in this regard. Holding those responsible accountable for their crimes may contribute to the prevention of future occurrences of these crimes and provides justice for victims.
The Nordic countries continue to follow this item with great interest and look forward to working with you and other delegations in the context of the working group.
Thank you.