---

Bid to support probes into international crimes

A conference held in Prague has led to a statement that makes 12 recommendations aimed at strengthening the effective implementation of universal jurisdiction to support justice and accountability for international crimes.

The joint statement comes from International Bar Association (IBA), the CEELI Institute, and the Center for International Law & Policy in Africa (CILPA).

The Prague Statement on Universal Criminal Jurisdiction (the Prague Statement) was drafted last month with input and contributions from international-law experts, national prosecutors, and other legal advocates.

Legal frameworks

The statement backs the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression targeted at Russia’s leaders in the context of the war in Ukraine.

It also calls for “complementarity” between national authorities and international bodies involved in the investigation and prosecution of international crimes.

The statement urges the strengthening of international legal frameworks through the ratification and adoption of benchmark treaties on war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and enforced disappearances.

The recommendations also include more civil-society engagement on universal jurisdiction, and education for the public and other affected communities on the importance of justice and accountability for international crimes.

Hurdles

IBA executive director Dr Mark Ellis said that universal jurisdiction was, in principle, one of the best tools for ensuring accountability for serious international crimes.

“In practice, however, implementing universal jurisdiction faces many hurdles. The Prague Statement aims to address these challenges so that this key legal principle can be utilised more effectively to punish perpetrators and support victims of war crimes in Ukraine and beyond,” he stated.

The organisations say that their recommendations are aimed at outlining ways of overcoming some of the problems faced in utilising universal jurisdiction.

The issues they cite include:

• Establishing strong chains of evidence in challenging wartime conditions,
• Handling universal jurisdiction in absentia, and
• The immunity granted to leaders, soldiers, and other potential defendants.