Summary Report of the Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Geneva,

27-29 October 2010 Introduction The Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the implementation of International Humanitarian Law, organized by the Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), took place from 27 to 29 October 2010 at the International Conference Centre (CICG) in Geneva, Switzerland. Participated 78 National Committees for the implementation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), government representatives from countries who have not yet established such a structure but have demonstrated interest in doing so, the representatives of international and regional organizations with expertise in the field of IHL, members of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, along with various other experts and civil society members. It was the third time that the ICRC Advisory Service on IHL brought together National Committees for the implementation of IHL from all regions of the world two similar meetings had previously taken place in 2002 and 2007. Objectives The objectives of the meeting were twofold: practical and thematic. On the one hand, the aim of the meeting was to provide a forum for IHL National Committees to meet and exchange on their respective mandates, operations, and activities as well as to discuss the successes and the challenges encountered in their efforts to implement IHL at a national level. On the other hand, the meeting aimed to explore the important role of domestic law in preventing and responding to serious violations of IHL. More particularly it addressed the legal measures and mechanisms required to support an "integrative" system for the repression of these violations, with a particular emphasis on the role of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Integrative Approach The ICRC promotes an approach where the different national and international jurisdictions complement each other to ensure an effective fight against impunity of the most heinous crimes of interest to the international community as a whole. This approach, which was discussed during the Meeting, respects and reinforces the principle of complementarity upon which the ICC Statute is framed.

Summary Report of the Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Geneva, 27-29 October 2010

The objective is to encourage States to take into account all their international obligations related to criminal repression - arising from both conventional and customary sources of IHLwhen implementing the provisions of the Statute into their domestic law. Work Schedule The methodology chosen to conduct the work was participatory. This gave rise to numerous interventions from the participants and therefore produced a fruitful and constructive debate. In each working group, panellists initially led the debates; interactions from participants roused and nourished the discussions, which were guided by a moderator. The summaries of the discussions held in each working group were reported in plenary sessions by a rapporteur. The meeting was articulated around four working groups, which examined: 1) the methods of incorporation of international obligations into domestic systems; 2) the ways and solutions to address challenges linked to such incorporation; 3) the jurisdictional perspective; and 4) the preventive role of repression of violations and sanctions on individual behaviour. Two plenary sessions allowed participants to exchange views on the role of National Committees in the establishment of an effective system of repression of IHL violations and on the tools available to assist and support the efforts of these structures in the incorporation of IHL crimes. Mr Philip Spoerri, Director for International Law and Cooperation at the ICRC, opened the meeting. Mr Yves Sandoz, Member of the Assembly of the ICRC, pronounced the conclusions of the meeting. This summary report proposes a summary of the discussions that have taken place both in the working groups and in the plenary sessions, in the order they have taken place. Overview of Discussions The Methods of Incorporation The implementation of prosecution for war crimes (or other international crimes) into the domestic legislation may be achieved in a number of different ways. Although there is no unique tailor-made solution, common trends in challenges and practices were shared. The diversity of State practices reflects the fact that there are various methods for implementing an effective system for the repression of IHL violations at a domestic level. However, there was consensus amongst participants that neither the sole application of military and ordinary criminal law, which is already in force, nor the direct application of provisions of international law into national law, offers a comprehensive and sustainable solution for implementation. Since there is no perfect correlation between national systems and international law, a minimal adaptation of the national criminal legal framework is necessary (i.e. constitutive elements of international crimes, definitions of sanctions, etc.), with the view of sending a strong dissuasive message to all, including weapons' bearers. Criminal procedure also needs to be adapted in order to take into account the participation of victims and the protection of witnesses.

Summary Report of the Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Geneva, 27-29 October 2010

The ways and solutions to address challenges linked to incorporation The participants then examined a number of challenges to the implementation of an effective system for the repression of serious violations that can be encountered at a domestic level. The participants largely agreed on the advantages of an integrative approach to the implementation of the ICC obligations and other obligations related to the repression of IHL violations at the domestic level. Such approach would take into account, not only the obligations deriving from the Statute itself, but also all of the States' obligations under IHL relating to criminal repression (i.e. obligations related to all war crimes and international crimes and the effective protection of the victims of armed conflict). However, this implies a prior exercise of stocktaking of all obligations arising from IHL, both conventional and customary, and a subsequent harmonization by addition or clarification of the national laws. For example, some constitutional obstacles might need to be lifted in order to ensure that crimes are prosecuted and judged (i.e. immunities from prosecution for government officials, prohibitions against extradition of nationals). The lack of political will and competing priorities on the agenda were mentioned as factors hampering an effective implementation. Sensitizing and training both parliamentarians and judges to international law were identified as elements fostering an effective incorporation. Finally, some States pointed out the financial implications of implementation as a challenging reality. The jurisdictional perspective Apart from the regime of "grave breaches" found in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocol I, discussions also addressed the extent of the bases of jurisdiction that ought to be attached to ICC crimes in order to ensure full respect of the other IHL national obligations at stake. The majority of States have opted for approaches that focus on crimes committed on their territory or exercise the principle of active personality jurisdiction. In this regard, the discussion revolved primarily around the exercise of some form of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Some participants, forerunners in exercising such jurisdiction, shared their experience. In some cases, a broad reading of the approach was initially adopted, but practical difficulties were encountered and the legislation was amended in order to introduce some limitations, such as the presence of the alleged offender on the State territory. Similarly, some participants included limitations in procedural law. The search of the right balance between an effective form of extra-territorial jurisdiction and the conditions that could be attached to it to ensure greater predictability was at the centre of discussions. Participants agreed that the exercise of universal jurisdiction involves many technical, political and constitutional challenges. It also requires judicial cooperation, at the bilateral, regional and international levels; for example when dealing with extradition cases. Concerning the jurisdictional basis of IHL, the questions of civil or military jurisdictions and of specific or ordinary criminal jurisdictions have been evoked without being settled. Jurisdictions designated to deal with international crimes have to embody principles of independence, efficacy and fairness.

Summary Report of the Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Geneva, 27-29 October 2010

The preventive role of repression of violations/sanctions on individual behaviour A discussion took place on the sanctions of behaviours that amount to international crimes, which revolved around three topics: knowledge, adherence and characteristics of sanctions. Apart from its prescription in national law, the severity of the sanction (to be adapted to the gravity of the facts and the level of responsibility), its immediacy and its application in situ (where the crimes have been committed) have been pointed out as key elements of its dissuasive effect. Because the primary responsibility to prosecute and punish the suspected offenders is incumbent on the national authorities, the effectiveness of sanctions requires sensitizing and training both judges and political stakeholders. In that sense, the jurisprudential corpus of the international criminal tribunals should play an educational role. Although the penal sanctions have generally been considered as adequate measures to repress all violations of IHL, it has been widely recognized that they are not exclusive and that other sanctions disciplinary, financial or others can have an important deterrent effect. When crimes touch whole communities, penal sanctions should be part of a broader approach where the voices of those that have been affected are fully heard. Often, this is achieved through transitional justice processes. The participants pointed out that sanctions and criminal repression cannot be dissociated from the efforts made in the field of reparation of victims.

First Plenary Session Tools to assist the incorporation of IHL crimes The first plenary session allowed the introduction of tools to assist and support the relevant stakeholders in their efforts to implement an efficient system for the repression of serious violations of IHL or ICC crimes. Whatever the form it takes (i.e. model laws, guidelines or technical advices), the assistance provided to the organisations, intergovernmental bodies, the civil society or National Committees in that regard has been praised. The ICRC remains conscious of its role in facilitating the National Committees work by the development of tools or other forms of support depending on the specific needs of the Committees. There was a consensus on the fact that each situation had its own particularities, and that the measures to be adopted and mechanisms to be implemented have to be determined in function of these particularities. On that issue, National Committees have an important assessment role to play in order to find solutions that correspond best to their State. Cooperation can certainly be established at national level as it was widely demonstrated, but examples of cooperation between Committees of different regions also raised some interest.

Second Plenary Session Enhanced Role of National IHL Committees The second plenary session tackled the question of the role of National IHL Committees in supporting the establishment of national mechanisms of repression of international crimes and violations of IHL.

Summary Report of the Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Geneva, 27-29 October 2010

The meeting confirmed the utility of the National IHL Committees, even if their composition, functions, mandates and activities vary. The numerous interventions of members of these structures on their experiences, best practices and the obstacles they have faced during their work were appreciated. The complexity of the task of implementing the international obligations arising from IHL and international criminal law into the domestic jurisdiction was underlined, especially given the increasing number of subjects that a global implementation of IHL requires to tackle including defence, justice, finances, external affairs, education, health, culture and even protection of infancy. In practice, these capacities are spread throughout different State organs and specialized institutions. Hence, it stands out from the meeting that the National Committees can play a role in ensuring the coordination, support and training of concerned actors for an optimal allocation of the oftentimes scarce resources, but also in the dissemination of IHL. Committees can only do so if they are endowed with all the competencies required, which includes a true political willingness. Discussions also stressed the importance that Committees or similar structures remain both active and dynamic and act in the long term as national focal points of expertise in IHL. Next Steps A report of the meeting is being prepared by the ICRC Advisory Service on IHL. It will include an overview on States best practices in the domains discussed.

ANNEXES: Agenda of the Meeting List of participants

Summary Report of the Third Universal Meeting of National Committees for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Geneva, 27-29 October 2010