HRC58: Preventing Genocide – Root Causes and Early Warning Signs
The 58th Session of the Human Rights Council
24 February – 4 April 2025
Panel on Early Warning and Genocide Prevention
05 March 2025
By Muriel Imhof / GICJ
Executive Summary
On 5 March 2025, during the 58th Session of the Human Rights Council, expert panelists, country representatives, human rights organisations, and delegates engaged in a discussion on early warning and genocide prevention. The resolution on the Prevention of genocide, submitted under Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/RES/55/13 adopted on 3 April 2024, reiterated the responsibility of each individual State to protect its population from genocide, which entails the prevention of such a crime, including incitement to it, through appropriate and necessary means. The resolution explains that the identification of the root causes, as well as early warning signs, can assist in the prevention of genocide.
The panel underscored the collective responsibility to prevent mass atrocity and the need to strengthen the regional organisation, for example better access to the information flow, inclusion of civil society organisations in the decision-making process. The panel highlighted that the major block in preventing genocide is the lack of political will. They echoed the resolution in stating that violations of human rights and international humanitarian law can lead to genocide and pointed out that waiting until all elements of the definition of genocide are in place, the genocide has happened and cannot be prevented anymore. The panelists cautioned that selective application of international law erodes the credibility of the multilateral system and dilutes the protection regimes.
Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) supports the call to address risk factors before they escalate into more serious concerns, particularly the emphasis on the national risks assessments and the coordination with civil society in addressing identified risks. GICJ calls on States to address online hate speech by creating and enforcing domestic policies and regulations. GICJ also encourages that national legislations criminalise genocide and that States take on the ultimate responsibility for preventing genocide.
Background
The UN has a central mandate to prevent and address genocide, which is grounded in the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The UN's mandate includes both prevention and intervention measures when a state is unable or unwilling to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The legal framework consist of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), which defines genocide and commits signatory states to prevent and punish acts of genocide. The concept of R2P, as articulated in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (A/RES/60/1), emphasises the responsibility of states to protect their populations from genocide and other atrocities, and outlines the international community’s obligation to intervene when a state fails to do so.
The UN Security Council plays a critical role in taking action to prevent and respond to genocidal acts. It can authorise sanctions, peacekeeping missions, and military interventions if necessary, as seen in cases like Rwanda and Bosnia.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecutes individuals for committing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crime of aggression.
Despite the adoption of R2P and legal frameworks like the ICC, challenges remain in preventing genocide. The UN continues to grapple with issues of sovereignty, political will, and timely intervention. The international community remains divided over when and how to intervene in situations that risk genocide.
Summary of the Resolution on the Prevention of Genocide
Massive, serious and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law could lead to genocide. The resolution A/HRC/RES/55/13 adopted on 3 April 2024 made clear that in the prevention of genocide, the identification of the root causes, as well as early warning signs, are of major concern.
Genocide is typically preceded by widespread and systematic human rights violations and abuses of civil and political rights, as well as of economic, social and cultural rights, often linked to patterns of discrimination. This is often accompanied by public statements that express the superiority of a race or an ethnic group, while dehumanising and demonising persons belonging to minorities. The misuse of new technologies can spread hate speech, disinformation, and misinformation, and amplify polarisation. Early warning signs of genocide may also include an increase in serious acts of violence against women and children or the creation of conditions that facilitate acts of sexual violence against those groups.
The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech and the Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes were launched to fight incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. The Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes is one of the tools employed to assess the risk of genocide in any situation, and the resolution A/HRC/RES/55/13 encourages States and regional and subregional organisations to use relevant frameworks, as appropriate, for guidance in their prevention work.
The resolution reiterated the responsibility of each individual State to protect its population from genocide, which entails the prevention of such a crime, including incitement to it, through appropriate and necessary means. Combatting impunity and promoting accountability is a part of the prevention of genocide and comprehensive reconciliation.
The Secretary-General will prepare a follow-up report and recommendations based on information provided by States and other stakeholders for the HRCs sixty-second session.
Panel
Opening Statement
Ms. Nada Al-Nashif, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, started the panel with a remembrance that 76 years ago the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as its first human rights convention. She remarked that there are once again horrifying indications of atrocity crimes up to and including genocide in several regions of the world. She highlighted that prevention without action is “an empty slogan”. Ms. Nada Al-Nashif declared that States have the primary responsibility to prevent conflict and to build peace. Blatant disregard for rules of war has led to the current extremes of human suffering and risks of genocide and other atrocity crimes.
She subsequently presented the key issues for this panel discussion. Prevention means understanding root causes and responding quickly to early warnings of the risk of genocide. Genocide and other atrocity crimes are preceded by clear patterns of discrimination, of exclusion and incitement to hatred based on race, ethnicity, religion or other characteristics. Hate speech is often a precursor to genocide making the United Nations strategy and plan of action on hate speech all the more important. Digital technologies and AI have amplified the impacts of hate speech, often disproportionately targeting women and girls. In fact, some 70% of those targeted by online hate speech belong to minority communities. Early warning signs also include other systematic violations of human rights often perpetrated as a matter of policy against a people, a minority or a community.
The Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights explained that prevention means looking beyond the crimes themselves and considering activities that may enable or contribute to those crimes. Among these, arms sales and transfers, the provision of military, logistical or financial support to parties to conflicts that are marked by violations of international law; these are obvious examples that merit careful review.
She highlighted that accountability plays a critical part in prevention. It is essential that there is due reckoning through credible and impartial accountability processes.
She concluded the opening statement with an overview of the actions the office of the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights and the wider United Nations system have been taking at the global level to prevent and end genocide and other atrocity crimes through strengthening advocacy and accountability for violations of international law and by focusing on hate speech, the misuse of social media platforms and incitement to religious hatred. This includes a regional strategy launched two years ago in the Horn of Africa that aims to prevent the spread and dissemination of all forms of hate speech online and in real life as well as education programs on previous genocides to raise awareness and make people aware that such things can and do happen.
Panelists’ presentations
Professor Virgina Gamba, Acting Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, opened the panel via a video message by emphasizing that the devastating consequences of inaction are etched in the memories of Rwanda and Cambodia.
She explained that genocide takes time to plan and execute. The risk factors are present and visible. Therefore, early warning and prevention are critical components to prevent genocide. It is our collective responsibility to recognize the risk factors as the early signs of impending genocide and related atrocity crimes and take decisive and timely action. Professor Gamba declared that the early warning systems must be strengthened, international cooperation enhanced and accountability for those responsible ensured. Accountability remains critical because the absence of it constitutes a risk factor in itself. The UN framework of analysis for atrocity crimes provides a valuable tool for identifying risk factors and assessing the risk of genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing as well as crimes against humanity. However, the States must do more to address the root causes of genocide including hate speech, discrimination and impunity. Enhancing assessment and prevention capacity at the regional level will also be essential.
She urged the HRC to strengthen early warning systems and enhance international cooperation to prevent genocide and related atrocity crimes including working with Member States, who have the primary responsibility to protect populations as well as with regional organizations and mechanisms. Serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, when not halted, can lead to the commission of genocide and other atrocity crimes. She described the UN strategy and plan of action on hate speech as an essential tool to address and counter the root causes of genocide including hate speech and systemic discrimination.
The Acting Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide finished her message remarking that her office will remain available to continue providing assistance to UN country teams and Member States requiring and requesting support.
The floor was then given to Mr. Juan E. Méndez, Professor of Human Rights Law in Residence at the American University Washington College of Law, former Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and former Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. He emphasized that the two decades that have passed have not seen a great improvement in our collective ability to prevent mass atrocities.
Mr. Méndez stated that it is important to not get stuck on the definition of genocide as a prelude to any international action. Crimes against humanity or war crimes or serious human rights violations can escalate to genocide. The definition of genocide includes a specific intent that is almost never made explicit, though it certainly can be gleaned from the actions on the ground. He cautioned that if we wait until all elements of the definition are in place, we have not prevented genocide from happening.
He added that it is not enough to issue alerts to the international community about a situation that is trending towards mass atrocities. The warning has to be accompanied with suggestions for what the international community can and must do to reverse that trend. Furthermore, he went into detail about the necessary tools needed for early warning mechanisms including very fluid flow of information with instantaneous access to it. It also requires in depth analysis of the factors and circumstances that are pushing that particular situation in the direction of genocide. Examples and comparisons with other situations in other historical, geographical, cultural settings could also serve as useful indicators for potential crime of genocide. However, he stated that it is important to recognize that genocidal crises are very idiosyncratic and one set of circumstances may not be applicable in other situations. Therefore, the information gathered in early warning must be of a dynamic nature to reflect the ever-changing essence of each different crisis.
Mr. Méndez explained that it is vital to have access to the information flow, to reports from the ground by responsible actors and observers in the field, and to the institutions and decision makers. He highlighted that the major block is the lack of political will. Political will is constructed mostly through the mobilization of public opinion that can be made with sound information and viable proposals for action.
For Mr. Méndez four early warning fronts need simultaneous action: 1. Protection (in various ways: military development, civilian observers…), 2. Humanitarian assistance, 3. Accountability, and 4. Peace negotiation (in stages: ceasefire, armistice, demobilization, and disarmament).
He concluded his presentation emphasising the need to revert the tendency to refuse to use the word genocide. This previous collective reluctance was a way to eschew moral obligations. He appealed to the international community to be more willing to use the word genocide when appropriate and as a call for action.
Afterward, Mr. Sean D. Murphy, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law at the George Washington University Law School and former Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on crimes against humanity, spoke on the relationship between early warning and prevention of genocide and early warning and prevention of crimes against humanity.
He stated that crimes against humanity include acts identified as genocide. It follows that crimes against humanity can occur in a situation without genocide, but genocide cannot occur without crimes against humanity. He summarized that the prevention of crimes against humanity can serve as prevention of genocide.
Next, he described the 2019 draft Articles of the UN International Law Commission (ILC), which were the impetus for the UN General Assembly Resolution 79/122, which launched the process for a diplomatic negotiation of a new UN convention.
For example, Article 8 obligates each state to undertake a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that acts constituting crimes against humanity are being committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. The ILC's draft articles do not call for the establishment of an institutional mechanism for the new convention. However, they leave the responsibility to governments to address that issue in the course of diplomatic negotiations. A possibility would be to create a new Treaty Committee or to accord certain responsibilities under the convention to existing UN bodies. Adopting a new UN convention would be an important step in furthering international human rights law as well as international criminal law, but to truly succeed it should be done with an eye to the strengths and weaknesses of other areas of international law, in particular rules and mechanisms aimed at preventing genocide.
Ms. Savita Pawnday, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, spoke on bridging the gap between early warning and effective action. She marked the 20th anniversary of R2P in 2025 and reflected on the achievements of the doctrine.
She emphasized the importance of the work of civil society organisations, which provided an understanding of how atrocity crimes including war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed in radically different contexts, and how 21st century genocides have been orchestrated and committed. She named the genocides against the Rohingyas, the Yazidis, the Uyghurs or against the Palestinians in Gaza.
According to Ms. Pawnday, it is important to recognise the evolving methods. Accountability mechanisms include sophisticated ways to monitor and preserve evidence. She criticized that responses to atrocity risks are often too selective and shaped by political interests. She recounted the failure to acknowledge the genocide in Gaza and the crimes against the Rohingya, the Uyghurs or the non-Arab communities in Dafur.
The Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect explained that selective application of international law erodes the credibility of the multilateral system and dilutes the protection regimes. The divide between Geneva and New York also remains a barrier to the cohesive action. In fact, she explained that early warning information produced by Geneva-based mechanisms are not consistently funneled into decision making processes in New York.
To her, civil society organizations, human rights defenders and affected communities play a critical role in detecting and responding to early warning signs, documenting atrocities and diffusing tensions. Nonetheless they are often excluded from formal decision making processes. CSOs also are unclear on how to engage with the UN system.
Too often the initial actions, like rapid establishment of investigative mechanisms and fact finding missions by the Human Rights Council (HRC), are treated as the end of the process rather than the beginning of a sustained international engagement on a crisis. Meaningful political follow-up is frequently lacking.
She appealed to the international community with the example of Darfur, that more meaningful and timely political action must follow the establishment of fact finding missions.
She ended her presentation by explaining that R2P is not just a principle – it is a promise to the world’s most vulnerable populations. She urged all to honour that promise not with words but action and added that the credibility of the system depends on it.
Participating Countries
The representative of the European Union declared that the prevention of genocide and atrocity crimes form an integral part of the EU's policy. He followed the panelist’s presentations in stating that genocide is a culmination of deliberate and widespread violations of human rights. He asked after for elucidation about the best practices of cooperation with NGOs and human rights defenders in this area.
The representative of Australia on behalf of the group of friends of R2P reminded of the adoption of the 2005 World summit document which recognized the commitment to R2P. The UPR has opened space for dialogue on how to strengthen national resilience, whereas HRC mandated investigative mechanisms can help to achieve accountability and serve as an important deterrent of further atrocity crimes.
The group of friends renewed their commitment to the responsibility to protect and to realizing the potential of the HRC in preventing and responding to atrocity crimes. They urged the office of the special advisors to share its early warning assessments and recommendations with the wider UN membership, including the HRC. The representative asked the expert speakers how can the linkages between the UN office on genocide prevention, R2P and the HRC can be strengthened.
The representative of the Russian Federation on behalf of a group of countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) marked the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War. He recalled the acts of the major Nazi criminals that were recognized as criminals by the ruling of the International Tribunal in Nuremberg. In particular, he remembered the 27 million people from the multi-ethnic Soviet Union who died on the fronts under bombardment, in torment and occupation, and in concentration camps. The representative stated that the heinous crimes should be viewed as a genocide of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, he declared that it is unacceptable to glorify Nazis and that any attempt to place equal responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War on the Soviet Union is immoral and insulting to the memory of the dead.
The Representative of the Russian Federation on behalf of a group of countries ended his statement acknowledging the duty to preserve the truth about the shared victory over Nazism and to prevent a resurgence of the ideologies of hate, discrimination, ethnic, racial and religious hatred and any other inhumane acts.
The representative of Ghana on behalf of the Group of African states described the steps taken by the African Group to prevent genocide, including the establishment of the African Union Continental Early Warning System, which provides real-time alerts on emerging crises, and the Panel of the Wise, which engages in preventive diplomacy and mediation. She acknowledged that challenges persist and that strengthening coordination to ensure timely interventions and reinforce accountability is needed.
The African Union Group calls for stronger AU and EU cooperation and a renewed global commitment to end impunity for perpetrators of atrocities. She urged the international community to support African-led solutions to strengthening regional peace initiatives and enhance national and regional early warning mechanisms.
The representative of the State of Palestine began by stating that Israel is committing genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people. She reinforced that the international community must not embolden nor encourage crimes, but also must not stay silent. Silence is enabling the actions or implying consent to commit genocide. She expressed that providing military, economic, political support to Israel renders governments complicit.
The Representative of the State of Palestine emphasised that experts and international human rights organizations concluded that Israel is commiting genocide against the Palestinian people. Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found it plausible that Israel's act could amount to genocide and the ICC issued warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. She remarked that long before October 2023, the Israeli discourse has used racism, dehumanization, erasure and at times outright genocidal rhetoric . Finally, she criticized the total disregard for the international legal system by states who claim to champion it that either fail to act or support Israel by all available means.
The representative of Azerbaijan described the brutal discriminatory campaign carried out by Armenia against Azerbaijanis through military aggression, occupation of territory and ethnic cleansing of around 1 million Azerbaijanis. He emphasised that, due to the failure of mediators to put an end to the occupation, Armenia's officials pursued its discriminatory policy. The representative highlighted that the lack of condemnation of Armenia, double standards shown by mediators and attempts to equate the aggressor to the victim helped Armenia to avoid impunity over its genocidal policy against Azerbaijanis for more than three decades. He commended the unique legal process and prosecution of war criminals ongoing in Azerbaijan as the embodiment of historical justice. He suggested promoting regional respect for multiculturalism and diversity, encouraging interreligious harmony and abandoning ideas of monoethnicism.
The representative of Armenia echoed the resolution 55/13 of the Human Rights Council that genocide is preceded by warnings signals such as discrimination as well as systematic and widespread attacks. She described that in December 2024 Armenia hosted the fifth global forum on the prevention of genocide focused on early warning and swift action. She reiterated the panelists' emphasis on the need for dynamic changes in prevention tools and the development of new legal instruments. The representative of Armenia underscored the importance of the international legal system and implementation mechanisms.
The representative of the State of Bolivia reaffirmed the importance of prevention of genocide. Bolivia has enshrined in its constitution that genocide is a crime without a statute of limitations. She echoed the concern regarding the use of social media as an echo chamber for hatred and discrimination. She described that Bolivia tries to create safeguards against the spread of propaganda, hate speech and intolerance. Bolivia joined the request from South Africa against Israel regarding the genocide against Palestine.
The representative of the Russian Federation strongly supported efforts combatting genocide. He described that Russia works on a large scale in this regard to investigate newly identified evidence of Nazi crimes. Evidence of mass killings of Soviet civilians and prisons of war, torture, slave labour and other manifestations of the inhumane Nazi ideology point to a targeted planned and unprecedented genocide.
The representative of the Russian Federation stated that currently some states pursue their geopolitical interests by speculating about Russia's supposed violations of its obligations under the 1948 Convention in the context of events in Ukraine. He emphasised that in the decision of the ICJ of the 2nd of February, 2024, these accusations towards Russia were rejected. The representative concluded that only the issue of whether Ukraine committed genocide in Donbass remained. He ended his statement declaring that the Russian Federation completely disagreed with attempts to broaden the interpretation of the international legal term of genocide.
The representative of Cuba rejected the claims of some delegations to use the early warning concept as a reason for interventionist actions. He questioned why the responsibility to avoid genocide is not invoked in the case of Palestine. Additionally, he asked why the early warning mechanism is being used as a motivation for the cruel embargo against Cuba, which can be defined as an act of genocide under Article 2 of the Convention against Genocide from 1948. He concluded that R2P is invoked in a selective and opportunistic way as a tool to promote the hegemonic agenda of powerful states.
The representative of Panama reaffirmed that genocide is a process that rarely begins without warnings. She emphasised that intersectional analysis, the integration of a gender-based focus, and participation of women and young people are fundamental for early warning systems. She stated that it is crucial to examine the potential of new technologies to support these efforts.
The representative cautioned that the transfer and proliferation of arms and munitions not only initiates and exacerbates conflicts, but can also provide the means to which genocide is committed. In this context, she asked what recommendation the UN human rights mechanisms can offer to better understand the connection between arms and early warning.
The representative of Afghanistan criticised that the international community should pay serious attention to clear warning signs such as systematic killing of civilians in Gaza 2024.Afghanistan signed and ratified the convention [on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide], but there are warning signs that the de facto Taliban regime violated the convention. Such as the summary execution of prisoners of war and collective punishment in 2022, escalating systematic prosecution and exclusion of the Hazara community. He concluded that these patterns align with the recognized indicators of genocide.
The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela condemned the genocide that Israel is committing against the Palestinian people. He asked the panelists if they believe that the Palestinian case has seen double standards in not acknowledging that it is a genocide and why Europe and the U.S. are being complacent with Israel. The representative expressed that perhaps the non-recognition of genocide against the Indigenous Peoples of America or against the people of Africa by Europe can explain this behaviour in the face of the genocide in Palestine.
The representative of Ukraine reiterated that the prevention of genocide begins with recognizing its early warning signs. She stated that these signs are seen in Russia's war of aggression. She pointed out that Russia systematically spreads disinformation and incites violence in the media, attacks civilians deliberately and discriminatorily, uses sexual violence as a weapon of war and forcefully deports thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia. All acts that meet the definition of genocide under genocide convention. Russia pursued the erasure of the national identity of Ukrainian children by restricting Ukrainian language, culture, history and forced classification policies. The representative called for pursuing justice through the ICC and special tribunals and that Russia must bear full responsibility for the suffering it has inflicted.
The representative of Spain aligned himself with the statement of the European Union and the statement given by the group of friends for the responsibility to protect. He expressed the need to focus on the work of the council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and civil society in detecting the early warning signs for crimes of atrocity. Spain called for the strengthening of accountability mechanisms through the ICC and the ICJ. Finally, he asked Mr. Mendez if adhering to a strict idea of genocide legally speaking can lead to actually hamper the steps for prevention.
The representative of Cyprus echoed that the international community collectively failed to live up to the commitment of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. The representative highlighted that recent advancements in digital technologies have facilitated the dissemination of hate speech and discrimination, enabling exclusion and the targeting of specific groups. Precisely because of its dynamic nature, monitoring of such trends needs to be more meticulous and include a more diligent analysis.
The representative of Rwanda reminded of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. He described the multiple indicators of rising tensions and violent extremism including hate speech, political polarization and the accumulation of weapons. He expressed concern at the spread of disinformation and misinformation including on social media platforms aimed at misreading and propagating ethnic discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation, causing violence and abuse of human rights. He underscored the need for translating early warning assessments into concrete coordinated and timely responses and punish perpetrators of hate speech, the crime of genocide and genocide denial.
Non-Governmental Organisations
Delegates of Non-Governmental Organizations drew attention to restrictive interpretation of genocide. Firstly, the genocide convention excludes political groups in its protection and it ignores the complexity of non-European cultures perpetuating patterns of late colonialism. Secondly, they mentioned that widespread adoption of technology presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Hateful and inflammatory language can spread rapidly, but technology also offers powerful tools for identifying and addressing early warning signs of genocide.
The NGOs reminded the HRC and the attending State representatives of multiple mass atrocities. Some NGOs echoed the failure of the international community to act in stopping the genocide in Gaza and pointed out that the failure to act on genocide warnings undermines the international legal framework. Others pointed out the systematic destruction of an indigenous people, which may amount to genocide, and called for the establishment of a working group on indigenous peoples. The absence of follow-up on the 2022 report on the crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim populations that China may have committed was criticised. They also expressed grave concern over the ongoing crime of forced organ harvesting in China, particularly targeting Falun Gong practitioners and other persecuted groups. Multiple NGOs remarked on the failure to stop mass atrocities of the international community regarding the Armenian ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis and genocide in Khojaly.
A delegate warned of the overuse or misapplication of the term genocide in colloquial language as it risks diluting its gravity and undermining efforts to address actual atrocities.
States should increase funding to NGOs that work for the prevention of genocide, war crimes and crimes and raise awareness among the population to prevent genocide and related crimes.
Concluding Remarks
Mr. Mendez answered the question from the Spanish Delegation. They do not use a definition of genocide that is different to the 1948 Convention, but there is a contradiction between early warning and waiting for all of the elements for the definition of genocide to be fully evident. To other comments he answered that he believes that there is an efficient framework in international law, but concrete measures to be able to operationalize and give effect to these measures in practice within the UN and in particular in the international community are needed.
Mr. Murphy emphasised three areas to work on for early warning and prevention: 1. strengthening international organisations, 2. promoting cooperation among states and between international organisations and states, and 3. what states can do individually. About half of the countries of the world have no national law prohibiting crimes against humanity and he wouldn't be surprised to find that a very large number of countries have not adapted a national law criminalizing genocide.
States can adopt national laws, keep those laws and policies under continual review and improve them as needed. States can educate government officials, police officials, and military personnel about what is genocide, what are crimes against humanity and how might they be identified and prevented.
States can address hate speech and corporate activity in domestic policies and regulation.
Ms Savita Pawnday reflected on two landmark reports by the UN Secretary General, the Petri report on Sri Lanka and the Rosenthal report on Myanmar. Neither identified a lack of early warning, but pointed to the same systemic failures, lack of cohesion in the UN System, and the absence of political will from Member States. She concluded that there is enough early warning. The analysis produced by the system is centered better in the office of the special advisor on the prevention of genocide and R2P and the analysis produced by the advisory body of prevention of genocide and R2P is more centered in OHCHR.
She finished her statement by recognizing that the international community will not act swiftly or sufficiently but must never fail to do the bare minimum which is to acknowledge the harm that has been committed against multiple populations across the world.
Position of Geneva International Centre for Justice
Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) supports the call to address risk factors before they escalate into more serious concerns, particularly the emphasis on the national risks assessments and the coordination with civil society in addressing identified risks. GICJ advocates for tackling online hate speech in establishing domestic policies and regulations. GICJ also encourages that national legislations criminalise genocide and that States take on the ultimate responsibility for preventing genocide
GICJ supports the use of international bodies of justice like the ICJ in seeking an end to the impunity for perpetrators of international crimes. We continue to emphasise the importance of pursuing such mechanisms of redress to acknowledge the hardships faced by the Palestinian people in their search for recognition of their plight. GICJ denounces acts committed against civilians in Gaza and urges the global community to explore further legal and diplomatic solutions to the conflict.
#HRC58 #GenocidePrevention #PreventionMatters #Accountability #R2P #ResponsibilitytoProtect #HumanRights#Geneva4Justice #GenevaInternationalCentreforJustice #GICJ
