General Assembly: 21st plenary meeting, 81st session
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals - Item 130: note by the Secretary-General (A/81/287)
Debate on the item
Agenda item81st session
Item 130
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals
Source: United Nations (un.org, igov.un.org)
Rights of reply
7 replies by 5 delegations
🇮🇱 Israel, 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 🇰🇼 Kuwait, 🇷🇸 Serbia, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran
🇮🇱 IsraelFirst replyin response to Kuwait
Thank you, Mr. President. We are disappointed, but not surprised, by the blatant misuse of this important forum by the delegation of Kuwait to weaponize empty accusations against my country without any connection to the topic at hand. It is shameful how easy it is for a member state to take any topic out of its proper context, politicize this forum, turn its work into a political spectacle and contribute to the dissemination of disinformation. This is disgraceful. But since we find ourselves in these regrettable circumstances, we are compelled to respond and set the record straight. The term genocide is not a slogan. It is a legal term that entails specific legal elements, conditions, and circumstances that must be met for the crimes to be established. Needless to say, none of these conditions are met in the circumstances Kuwait referred to. No judgment has been rendered in this regard, yet Kuwait is treating this as an established legal conclusion. The irony could not be more striking. In a debate devoted to the careful transitional functions of international criminal justice, Kuwait demonstrates precisely the dangers of its politicization and misuse of both this forum and international triabonas. Such conduct does not merely undermine the credibility of this forum. It risks eroding the very legal principles, institutions, and safeguards that the international community has worked so hard to establish and protect. Mr. President, let us be clear. Israel categorically rejects these baseless accusations. Those who should be characterized as perpetrators of genocidal terrorist acts are the Hamas Nuhba combatants who committed abhorrent atrocities during the October 7th massacre with clear intent to annihilate the State of Israel. Furthermore, Hamas leadership openly, proudly, and repeatedly declares that if possible, they will repeat the October 7th massacre time and again until the complete annihilation of the State of Israel. This, colleagues, is a genocidal agenda and demonstrate clear intent to commit anthony cleansing. Destroying the Jewish state and the Jewish people is a genocidal agenda. Recycling fabricated narratives and spreading misinformation has become too easy. Repeating buzzwords like genocide or ethnic cleansing does not make them any more applicable or true of the situation in question. It only serves to undermine and erode the moral and legal weight of this incredibly important designation. The casual misuse of these terms serves as a stark reminder to all of us of the risk posed by the continuous undermining of the legitimacy of international tribunals. This is precisely the kind of politicization and abuse that the international community has repeatedly worn against. It must be recognized as such and it must not be tolerated. International justice deserves better than political manipulation, and this assembly must not allow the language of intern uh and this assembly must not allow the language of international law to be stripped of its meaning and moral force. Thank you, Mr. President.
🇧🇦 Bosnia and HerzegovinaFirst reply
Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to say that I absolutely agree with uh colleague who is representing Serbia and here that things related to war crimes, genocide, and other war crimes. In Bosnia and Herzegovina are a very sensitive issue, and there are no doubts about it. But today we are talking about international law, about respect of international law, about supporting of institutions that are basic pillars of international law established by this very United Nations. Today I heard in this reply a few things that I just want to point out. First thing is uh the genocide in Srebrenica is not a question of opinion. Or question of political debates. It's legally established fact. And denial of such a legally established fact is called denial of genocide and denial of the truth. Today we heard again that genocide in Srebrenica was not called that way, but as a question of opinion or political position, it is called differently. So I just want to reiterate and we again we heard that. Uh Serbia has nothing to do with it. I'm just quoting again one legal fact, which is not opinion, but legal fact, and I reiterate that the International Court of Justice found Srebrenica Serbia guilty of breaching of genocide convention by falling to prevent the Srebrenza genocide and failing to punish or transfer perpetrators such as Rat Komadic. And I quote, I just quote again the court decision was very clear. That Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that time, Serbia and Montenegro, was in position of influence over Bosnian Serbs who devised and implemented the genocide in Srebrenica owing to the strength of the political, military, and financial links between Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at one hand and Republika Srbska and Vojska Republika Srbsky on the other hand. Those are not my opinions. These are not quotes from some historical books. These are quotes from relevant jud convict relevant statements and final judicial. Facts established by ICTY, by International Court of Justice and International Court for Crime uh ICTY. And last point, to be very precise, maybe it it is uh the best example about the nature of the facts that we heard in replying to me. Uh I was called as a Mr. Zoran Lagumjia. And as fact as that is the fact which is the truth. Everything else is the truth. First time ambassador, I'm not Mr. in here. I'm ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina and permanent representative to the United Nations. And point number two, which is even more simple to remember, my name is not Zoran. So everything that I heard from my colleague from Serbia is as truth as my name is Zoran. For the record, my name is Zlatko Lagumja. Thank you.
🇰🇼 KuwaitFirst reply
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation takes its right to reply, to exercise it. And to start, uh Mr. Chair, it is beyond me and my delegation to listen to the representative of the occupying power advocating for international law. This is the true irony in this hall. Let me remind the delegation of the occupying power of what the ICJ is. It is the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the international community. And in July of 2024, it said its word crystal clear. It said that Israel's occupation to the Palestinian territories is illegal. That is international law, ladies and gentlemen. That is what we respect. That is what we uphold. Not proper propaganda. Fallacies and false narratives that this delegation is trying to spread in the United Nations will always be debunked. Because international law is very easy to defend. And Mr. Chair, when the delegation of the occupying power speaks about using words and narratives and Just calling things as they are. These are facts. Facts. How many ESS sessions have been held in this very own hall? Does he need a history lesson to be reminded of the numbers that were recorded? I don't believe so. The uh Palestinian uh situation, Mr. Cher is the easiest to defend because genocide is very blatant, apartheid is very clear, and double standards. Is extremely evident. So what the occupying powers trying to do in the occupied territories speaks for itself and gives us all what we need to debunk everything they have to say. And now, Mr. Chair, I'll move to what the delegation of Iran had to say about territories of neighboring countries being used against their attacks and them invoking Article 51. Three simple questions. Very simple. Is Kuwait International Airport a military installation? Is Kuwait's public institution for social security a military target? Alpha generation plants, water desalination facilities, and civilian oil refineries, military installations. These are among the civilian facilities struck against the attacks against my country, Mr. Chair. These are documented incidents. Not hypothetical examples. The Iranian delegation claimed to have evidence. If such evidence exists, let them present it. And thank you, Mr. Chair.
🇷🇸 SerbiaSecond reply
Uh I'll be very brief. Mr. President, uh first apology to uh his excellency's Latkolagum. Uh I misspelled his name uh in my address to this uh General Assembly, and uh uh when he has said that the International Court of Justice established the responsibility of the Republic of Serbia, I would like to see the part of the judgment where uh Serbian position toward the uh the fall of Srebrenica has been described in the judgment. What are the facts? If you read the judgment, you cannot see nothing about the events in Srebrenica, just qualifications that are taken from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. However, Serbia as a state is not responsible for those events. The facts established in the practice of in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the mechanism. might be qualified in a different manner. Many facts are not, let's say, properly established. Many crimes have not been established, particularly crimes against Serbs. And concerning the Srebrenice issue, serious crimes have been committed, but it is questionable whether it is genocide or not. Not even all the judges were of the same opinion concerning that. And I think that those issues we now need to put aside and to go for to go further with the mechanism and the rule of the mechanism, and there will be certainly time for the discussion of those very, very serious issues in other forums and on other occasions.
🇮🇱 IsraelSecond replyin response to Kuwait
Thank you, uh Mr. President. I will be brief. Um I just want to um reiterate very basics of uh international law. I think maybe it's the uh first lesson on the public international law basic course in any university. The uh main uh differences between advisory opinion and contentious cases. It's not surprising that the representatives of Kuwait haven't found any judgments. Refer to the uh accusations that he uh accused uh me during his main uh intervention or statement. There is no any judgment who deals uh with so called allegations about so called genocide, so called ethnic cleansing or apartheid, and because of that he used just um another uh another document or advisory opinion by the ICJ. Which uh with all the respect is not a contention contentious cases. And again, I think that maybe it's just like a mistake that he referred for another uh another um accusations or another uh topic and not for the uh topics that he referred uh at the beginning. Um for the ver at the very least it's a mistake or and another attempt for m um spread misinformation, disinformation, and another political manipulation. This is part of the problem. And with regard to these uh the accusations about the um the number of the ESS in this room, I think this is also part of the problem of the politicization of this uh of this hole and how easy is to convene uh to convene uh ESS in uh in uh in this hole. Thank you.
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of IranSecond replyin response to Kuwait
Uh the facts are clear and the law that is applicable thereon could not be changed by uh false narrative. On 28 February 2026, my country was subjected to a blatant aggression conducted by the United States and its accomplice, the Israeli the Israeli genocidal regime. And as we mentioned, unfortunately, these ag this aggression has been enabled and facilitated. Including through the aerospace and territory of the state of Kuwait. The involvement of Kuwait in the aggression against my country is not an allegation, it's a fact, acknowledged time and again by senior officials of the United States. I believe we're not here to respond to questions, but we expect uh delegation of Kuwait to respond uh why their territory have has been used uh for aggression against my country, which has resulted in the killing of thousands of our people, including 168 school children and teachers. But uh I would like to draw the attention of the delegation of Kobait uh to the submissions that we have submitted before the UN Security Council, which includes the examples of the use of territory of Kuwait for aggression against my country, including in those um information we have submitted. Uh it states that the Kobait territory and aerospace were were repeatedly used by US F 22 F 35. F-15E and F-16 aircraft to conduct attacks against Iran, while US AVACs and MQ-9 aircraft provided intelligence support, and KC-135 aircraft conducted aerial refueling operations from the area of Koweit against my country. And to point to other evidences for uh the use of the territory of Kovit against my country, I wish to refer to the official states of the United States, where they have thanked, including Kove. for helping them in attacking my country. So these are facts and these facts could not be changed. We expect good neighborliness from the state of Kuwait as we have always demonstrated that that throughout our history. I thank you.
🇧🇦 Bosnia and HerzegovinaSecond replyin response to Serbia
Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, I'm saying this. Because of the people who want to listen and who this what we are talking about may reach to for the sake of truth and uh legal facts. Uh to my distinguished representative of Serbia, I can say only that you can try to deny or completely revise history as you are doing again and again and again, and like some of your predecessors in this very hall and this very building, uh, to revise history, historical and judicial facts until. You are blown in the face, or whatever you have how long you want to do it. But the facts remain, are well known, and are easily accessible to all. So I refer to the distinguished colleague and everyone else who wants to listen and to want to know a little bit more about it to judge that everything I said can be found as a sense of legal facts on the website of ICTY and the ICJ. And I want to thank you, Mr. President, again. and there is gift for you from me, almost two minutes of my time that was available to reply. Thank you. Thank you. And uh now I call photo of the representative of uh Kuwait for the second intervention. Three minutes. Mr. Chair, it is very interesting to see what the occupying power is trying to do in this hall. That delegation loves uh media attention, but lately the attention they've been getting. in the realm of the international media is very eye-opening. And the level of shift in the opinion of the international community is something they find very, very uncomfortable. I'll tell you what they do not teach in universities when it comes to first lessons. They teach that permanent representatives should not stand on the podium of the United Nations and shred the charter. With that, I will end my reply to you and moving on to the delegation of Iran. I'm very glad they mentioned the Security Council. And speaking about the Security Council, it has spoken through Resolution 2817 of 2026. And let me remind the Iranian representative of one particular significant fact. A record number of 136 member states co sponsored that resolution. 70%, ladies and gentlemen, of the entire United Nations membership. That is seven out of every ten members. The resolution explicitly condemned Iran's attacks against Kuwait and other states in the region. So the narrative that the Iranian delegation is trying to spread here and across the board in all the different uh Committees of the General Assembly is merely false. It does not hold its weight beyond the ink on the paper. This is not merely Kuwait's position, nor is it a regional position. It is a position of the overwhelming majority of the international community. 136, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chen.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.
Speaking timeBosnia and Herzegovina (7.7%) · Garciela Gatti Santana (7.4%) · Russian Federation (6.8%) + 28 more · Unattributed (3.5%)
Plenary meetings, 21st meeting of the 81st session. Agenda items taken up: “International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals - Item 130: note by the Secretary-General (A/81/287)”; “Debate on the item”. 28 speakers were heard, representing 27 delegations. Rights of reply were exercised 7 times.
Rights of reply · 7
🇮🇱 IsraelFIRST REPLY · in response to Kuwait
Israel categorically rejected what it called baseless accusations by Kuwait, and stated that the term genocide is a legal term with specific elements that must be met, and that no judgment has been rendered in this regard.
Israel stated that those who should be characterized as perpetrators of genocidal terrorist acts were the Hamas Nuhba combatants of the October 7th massacre, and that Hamas leadership openly declares it would repeat it, which it called a genocidal agenda.
🇧🇦 Bosnia and HerzegovinaFIRST REPLY
Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the genocide in Srebrenica is a legally established fact, not a matter of opinion, and that denying it is denial of genocide.
🇰🇼 KuwaitFIRST REPLY
“Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation takes its right to reply, to exercise it. And to start, uh Mr. Chair, it is beyond me and my delegation to listen to the representative of the occupying power advocating for international law. This is the true irony in this hall. Let me remind the delegation of the occupying power of…”
🇷🇸 SerbiaSECOND REPLY
Serbia stated that Serbia as a state was not responsible for the events in Srebrenica, that many crimes against Serbs had not been established, and that it was questionable whether Srebrenica was genocide.
🇮🇱 IsraelSECOND REPLY · in response to Kuwait
Israel said that no judgment deals with the so called allegations of genocide, ethnic cleansing or apartheid, that the ICJ advisory opinion cited is not a contentious case, and that this was a mistake or another attempt to spread misinformation and political manipulation.
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of IranSECOND REPLY · in response to Kuwait
Islamic Republic of Iran stated that on 28 February 2026 its country was subjected to what it called blatant aggression by the United States and what it called the Israeli genocidal regime, enabled and facilitated, in its account, including through the aerospace and territory of the state of Kuwait.
Islamic Republic of Iran called for the delegation of Kuwait to explain why its territory was used for aggression against Iran, citing submissions to the UN Security Council on US aircraft operating from Kuwait, and expressed expectation of good neighborliness from Kuwait.
🇧🇦 Bosnia and HerzegovinaSECOND REPLY · in response to Serbia
“Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, I'm saying this. Because of the people who want to listen and who this what we are talking about may reach to for the sake of truth and uh legal facts. Uh to my distinguished representative of Serbia, I can say only that you can try to deny or completely revise history as you are do…”
Points of disagreement
Germany regretted that the Security Council had not adapted the mechanism's mandate this year and that the Russian Federation, in its letters, called into question the mechanism's continuation, stating that under paragraph 17 of Resolution 1966 the mandate continues.
Slovenia rejected any attempt to rewrite history for the glorification of convicted war criminals or the denial of atrocities, and reiterated its continued support for the mechanism in its residual phase.
Sierra Leone regretted that a new chair of the informal working group on international tribunals had yet to be selected, owing to the impasse on selecting chairs of Security Council subsidiary bodies.
Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that Ratko Mladič was buried with full military honors in the presence of six government ministers from the Republic of Serbia, and cited the International Court of Justice finding that Serbia breached the genocide convention by failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators.
Key points
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its Member States, urged the Security Council to adopt a resolution as soon as possible, saying it was a matter of political, legal and financial responsibility and was needed to appoint a prosecutor, give certainty to budgetary planning and determine next steps towards an orderly closure of the mechanism's activities.
New Zealand, on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, reaffirmed strong support for the work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and its vital role in preserving the legacies of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Latvia, on behalf of three Baltic states Estonia, Lithuania, stated that attempts by the Russian Federation to deny that the mechanism's mandate has been extended and that it continues to exist were inconsistent with Security Council Resolution 1966 2010, and that no decision to discontinue the mandate had been adopted.
Statement by statement · 28 speakers
European Union · on behalf of European Union and its Member States
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its Member States, urged the Security Council to adopt a resolution as soon as possible, saying it was a matter of political, legal and financial responsibility and was needed to appoint a prosecutor, give certainty to budgetary planning and determine next steps towards an orderly closure of the mechanism's activities.
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its Member States, stressed that the pursuit of accountability must continue at the national level, noting that more than 1,000 fugitive Rwandan genocidaires remain to be located and prosecuted, and urged States to intensify cooperation with the mechanism, including as enforcement states.
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its Member States, stated that a durable solution is urgently needed for the acquitted or released persons relocated to Niger in 2021, since the mechanism's financial support ends on 31 December 2026 and a solution requires the cooperation of Member States.
🇳🇿 New Zealand · on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand
New Zealand, on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, reaffirmed strong support for the work of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and its vital role in preserving the legacies of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
New Zealand, on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, welcomed the Secretary-General's recommendation that the technical function related to overseeing enforcement of sentences and supporting national authorities be transferred to the UN Secretariat, and the mechanism's commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.
New Zealand, on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, called for all Security Council members to engage constructively to fulfill the responsibility of an orderly transfer of the mechanism's functions.
🇱🇻 Latvia · on behalf of three Baltic states Estonia, Lithuania
Latvia, on behalf of three Baltic states Estonia, Lithuania, stated that attempts by the Russian Federation to deny that the mechanism's mandate has been extended and that it continues to exist were inconsistent with Security Council Resolution 1966 2010, and that no decision to discontinue the mandate had been adopted.
Latvia, on behalf of three Baltic states Estonia, Lithuania, stressed that completion of core criminal prosecutions did not mean the mechanism's functions were done, citing the continued protection of 3,200 witnesses and implementation of sentences in line with international human rights and security standards.
Latvia, on behalf of three Baltic states Estonia, Lithuania, called for a resolution allowing the proposed cost-saving reforms, and for financial support for the mechanism until it is adopted, to ensure the responsible transfer and conclusion of its functions.
🇩🇰 Denmark · on behalf of Nordic countries Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden
Denmark, on behalf of Nordic countries Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, reaffirmed appreciation for the work of the mechanism and stressed its continued essential functions in the international criminal justice system.
Denmark, on behalf of Nordic countries Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, emphasized the Council's important responsibility to resolve pending matters as soon as possible, stating that clarity on the mechanism's future arrangements is essential for effective planning, resource allocation and an orderly transfer and completion of residual functions.
🇩🇪 Germany
Germany stressed that any decision on the future location of the archives must preserve their integrity, their status as property of the United Nations, and their accessibility, calling this a matter of deep conviction.
Germany noted that three persons convicted by the tribunals are serving sentences in Germany, that a fourth is expected, and that Germany will thus have enforced nine sentences.
Germany regretted that the Security Council had not adapted the mechanism's mandate this year and that the Russian Federation, in its letters, called into question the mechanism's continuation, stating that under paragraph 17 of Resolution 1966 the mandate continues.
🇲🇻 Maldives
Maldives emphasized three priorities for the Mechanism's transition: ensuring continuity in national prosecutions, protecting the rights of victims, witnesses and convicted persons, and ensuring an orderly and accountable transition.
Maldives welcomed the strategic planning undertaken to identify functions that can be completed or transferred while retaining essential judicial responsibilities, and urged member states to cooperate with the Mechanism in finding a durable solution that respects fundamental rights.
🇨🇭 Switzerland
Switzerland stated that, as the mechanism enters a decisive phase, the priority was to ensure an orderly transition preserving the essential functions still needed for the responsible completion of the judicial process, and that Switzerland stood ready to make concrete contributions to facilitate future arrangements.
Switzerland underscored the importance of continuing to support national jurisdictions, which must be able to keep accessing the evidence, expertise and institutional know how accumulated by the two ad hoc tribunals and the mechanism, given that more than 1,000 fugitives and thousands of suspects still need to be prosecuted.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
United Kingdom stated that, in accordance with Security Council 1966 2010, the mechanism continues to operate unless the Security Council decides otherwise, and noted that the mechanism is now entering a new phase in which its structure, functions, staffing and resources need to be realigned with its reduced role.
United Kingdom stated that the United Kingdom will continue to play an active and constructive role in shaping the new phase and will oppose measures that risk undermining the independence and effectiveness of the mechanism's functions or its legacy.
🇦🇹 Austria
Austria recalled that in 2010 Austria chaired the Security Council's informal working group on international tribunals and introduced the draft resolution that led to Resolution 1966, establishing the residual mechanism for criminal tribunals.
🇧🇷 Brazil
Brazil commended the Office of the Prosecutor and Registrar Abu Bakar Tambadou for their work in ensuring that the mechanism fulfills its mandate, and stressed that preserving the legacy of the two tribunals is of the utmost importance.
Brazil stated that states bear the primary responsibility for holding accountable those who commit crimes in their territories, that international tribunals are supplementary to national judiciaries, and that the mechanism is a temporary body whose activities should be gradually discontinued according to clear timelines.
Brazil welcomed the mechanism's strategic plan and its reflection on transferring or completing residual functions, while noting that some should remain at the international level and that continued international support and cooperation are essential to overcome challenges.
🇸🇮 Slovenia
Slovenia stressed that the mechanism's residual functions are vital, that states primarily responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes require assistance with national proceedings, and that too many cases are still waiting to be processed.
Slovenia rejected any attempt to rewrite history for the glorification of convicted war criminals or the denial of atrocities, and reiterated its continued support for the mechanism in its residual phase.
🇰🇼 Kuwait
Kuwait stressed that the principles of international criminal justice should not be subject to selectivity or double standards, and that perpetrators of grave violations against civilians must be held accountable under international law without exception.
🇬🇷 Greece
Greece stated that, in its view, the criteria governing both the judicial and the prosecutorial functions should respect the rule of law, in particular equality of treatment of interested persons, by maintaining the international character of such functions.
Greece reaffirmed its determination to defend international criminal justice and to fight impunity, stating that there can be no lasting peace without justice and no justice without accountability.
🇮🇳 India
India emphasized the need for an efficient, orderly, and time-bound transition as the mechanism moves towards completing its mandate, without compromising judicial independence or the effective discharge of its remaining responsibilities.
India underscored the importance of the mechanism continuing residual functions, including protection of victims and witnesses, assistance to national jurisdictions, and preservation and management of the tribunal's archives.
🇸🇱 Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone reaffirmed commitment to the fight against impunity and to ensuring that those responsible for the gravest international crimes are held accountable in accordance with international law.
Sierra Leone underscored that any transfer or completion of residual functions must preserve judicial independence, due process, the rights of victims and witnesses, and the integrity and accessibility of the archives.
Sierra Leone regretted that a new chair of the informal working group on international tribunals had yet to be selected, owing to the impasse on selecting chairs of Security Council subsidiary bodies.
🇺🇾 Uruguay
Uruguay welcomed the Secretary-General's decision of the 30th of June to extend the mandates of the President, Judges, and Secretariat of the Mechanism for two years, and awaited the decisions by the Security Council and the Assembly on the availability of resources.
Uruguay acknowledged the importance of moving towards a more reduced and efficient structure, while preserving judicial independence and due process guarantees, with an orderly transition of certain technical and administrative functions to other UN structures.
Uruguay stressed the importance of the Mechanism's assistance to national jurisdictions, maintaining protection measures for victims and witnesses, and preserving the archives under UN responsibility with the necessary resources.
🇹🇿 United Republic of Tanzania
United Republic of Tanzania reaffirmed its unwavering support for the United Nations and the International Residual Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunal, and its commitment to comply with its obligations under the Host Agreement concluded on 26 November 2013.
United Republic of Tanzania expressed concern about the future and effective utilization of the mechanism premises in Arusha, Tanzania, given that judicial functions had significantly decreased and the residual role requires few staff and small premises.
United Republic of Tanzania urged the General Assembly and the Security Council to request that the Secretary-General consider reallocating some UN entities and functions to the mechanism premises in Arusha, and encouraged the Secretariat to undertake a feasibility study and cost-to-benefit analysis.
🇸🇳 Senegal
Senegal reaffirmed its commitment, as a state for the execution of sentences, to continue contributing to the implementation of the mechanism's judicial decisions, while strictly respecting international norms on the treatment of detainees.
Senegal called for decisions on the mechanism's future to be guided by the desire to preserve what has been achieved over three decades of international justice, while assuring responsible management of resources.
🇵🇭 Philippines
Philippines welcomed the substantial progress towards streamlining the Mechanism's operations and took positive note of the strategic plan for further restructuring, consolidation, and the transfer or completion of certain functions.
Philippines stressed that judicial independence, due process, legal certainty, and equality before the law must remain key central principles in determining future arrangements for residual judicial functions.
Philippines supported the progressive strengthening of national capacities, said the possible transfer of assistance functions to an appropriate UN structure merits serious consideration, and emphasized the importance of preserving the tribunals' archives.
🇷🇸 Serbia
Serbia urged the responsible United Nations bodies to intensify their efforts to ensure that the mechanism completes its work as soon as practicable, saying the mechanism ignored the time frames set by the Security Council.
Serbia stated that Serbia was ready to assume responsibility for enforcing the remaining sentences under appropriate United Nations supervision and to accept the archives of the ICTY and the mechanism, with Belgrade as a natural permanent location.
Serbia expressed concern over the mechanism's tightened early release criteria and the new conditional early release regime, which it said lacked adequate grounding in the mechanism's practice and normative framework and undermined equal treatment.
Serbia stated that Serbia as a state was not responsible for the events in Srebrenica, that many crimes against Serbs had not been established, and that it was questionable whether Srebrenica was genocide.
🇫🇷 France
France stated that the mechanism has a continuous mandate under Security Council Resolution 1966 adopted in 2010, and that its mandate and activities are not affected by the lack of a Council resolution, which it called a legal reality.
France called for the Security Council to adopt a resolution as soon as possible allowing a progressive and orderly transition, with the mechanism's remaining functions reduced or transferred and its budget considerably reduced.
France stressed political, legal and financial responsibility, including preservation of the archives and public access to them, oversight of the execution of sentences, and international assistance to national authorities investigating perpetrators of mass atrocities.
🇺🇸 United States
United States supported many recommendations in the review report's plan, including ending the mechanism's mandate to investigate, indict and prosecute core crimes, transferring day to day supervision of sentences to enforcement states, and transferring the national assistance function to the UN Secretariat.
United States regretted the Security Council's continued inability to adopt a resolution on the mechanism's closure, and stated it was imperative that the Council take the necessary decisions to facilitate responsible closure.
🇿🇦 South Africa
South Africa commended the mechanism for the significant progress reflected in its report despite financial constraints and reductions in human resources.
South Africa stated that under existing South African legislation the transfer of fugitives to international courts or tribunals other than the International Criminal Court is not regulated, and that a bill has been introduced in Parliament to address this.
🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina stressed that the legacy of the ICTY and the residual mechanism must be preserved, and that closure must be a carefully planned process safeguarding international criminal justice, victims' rights and the uninterrupted performance of necessary functions.
Bosnia and Herzegovina regretted the Security Council's inability to provide the mechanism with required resources, institutional arrangements and guidance on orderly closure, and urged the Council to act at the earliest on archives, assistance to national jurisdictions, and pardon or early release applications.
Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that Ratko Mladič was buried with full military honors in the presence of six government ministers from the Republic of Serbia, and cited the International Court of Justice finding that Serbia breached the genocide convention by failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators.
Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the genocide in Srebrenica is a legally established fact, not a matter of opinion, and that denying it is denial of genocide.
🇷🇼 Rwanda
Rwanda stated that more than 1,000 individuals suspected of participation in the genocide against the Tutsi remain at large, and urged states to act on outstanding indictments and extradition requests and cooperate with Rwanda's judicial authorities.
Rwanda stated that the Security Council, which established the ICTR and the Residual Mechanism, should listen to the countries concerned, particularly victims and survivors, as it negotiates a resolution on the mechanism's future.
Rwanda proposed that the ICTR archives be hosted in Rwanda, remaining United Nations property under arrangements preserving United Nations legal authority, confidentiality and witness protection, with Rwanda ready to meet the costs of transfer, preservation and digitization.
Rwanda reiterated Rwanda's readiness to receive convicted persons to serve their remaining sentences, subject to applicable legal frameworks and international safeguards.
🇭🇷 Croatia
Croatia reiterated its support for efforts to identify the most suitable and efficient way for the timely completion and transfer of the mechanism's functions, and said closure should not undermine the purpose for which the mechanism was established.
Croatia reiterated its readiness to assume responsibility for preserving the archives of the ICTY and the mechanism and to serve as long-term host of the United Nations entity maintaining them, stating that suitable premises were already available in Croatia.
🇮🇱 Israel
Israel categorically rejected what it called baseless accusations by Kuwait, and stated that the term genocide is a legal term with specific elements that must be met, and that no judgment has been rendered in this regard.
Israel stated that those who should be characterized as perpetrators of genocidal terrorist acts were the Hamas Nuhba combatants of the October 7th massacre, and that Hamas leadership openly declares it would repeat it, which it called a genocidal agenda.
Israel said that no judgment deals with the so called allegations of genocide, ethnic cleansing or apartheid, that the ICJ advisory opinion cited is not a contentious case, and that this was a mistake or another attempt to spread misinformation and political manipulation.
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran
Islamic Republic of Iran stated that on 28 February 2026 its country was subjected to what it called blatant aggression by the United States and what it called the Israeli genocidal regime, enabled and facilitated, in its account, including through the aerospace and territory of the state of Kuwait.
Islamic Republic of Iran called for the delegation of Kuwait to explain why its territory was used for aggression against Iran, citing submissions to the UN Security Council on US aircraft operating from Kuwait, and expressed expectation of good neighborliness from Kuwait.
Each line is checked against the transcript before it is shown and plays the moment it comes from. The transcript is the record.