Sixth Committee (Legal) — 77th session

Crimes against humanity (Agenda item 78)

«»

Documentation

Documents relevant to the resumed session

Additional documents from previous sessions:

Summary of work

Background (source: A/77/100)

At its seventy-fourth session, the General Assembly, under the item entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-first session”, took note of the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity contained in chapter IV of the report of the Commission (A/74/10), and decided to include in the provisional agenda of its seventy-fifth session an item entitled “Crimes against humanity” and to continue to examine the recommendation of the Commission contained in paragraph 42 of its report on the work of its seventy-first session (resolution 74/187). At its seventy-fifth session, the Assembly took note of the draft articles and decided to continue to examine the recommendation of the Commission contained in paragraph 42 of the Commission’s report (A/74/10) at its seventy-sixth session (resolution 75/136).

At its seventy-sixth session, the Assembly allocated the item to the Sixth Committee, where statements in the debate were made by 64 delegations (see A/C.6/76/SR.8 and 9). The Assembly took note once again of the draft articles presented by the International Law Commission and decided to continue to examine the recommendation of the Commission contained in paragraph 42 of its report (A/74/10) at the seventy-seventh session of the Assembly (resolution 76/114).

Consideration at the seventy-seventh session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 9th, 10th, 11th and 36th meetings, on 10 and 11 October and 18 November 2022. The views of the representatives who spoke during the Committee’s consideration of the item are reflected in the relevant summary records (See A/C.6/77/SR.9, 10, 11 and 36).

Statements were made by the representatives of Morocco (on behalf of the African Group), European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, the country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Georgia and San Marino, aligned themselves with the statement)), Sweden (on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), Canada [in English] (on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ)), Singapore, Jordan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) [in English] (on behalf of the Group of friends in defense of the Charter of the United Nations), Iran (Islamic Republic of), Philippines, Liechtenstein, Colombia, Hungary, Belarus, Italy, the United States of America, Austria, Mexico, Germany, Egypt, El Salvador, Brazil, Guatemala, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Ireland, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Burkina Faso, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Portugal, India, Senegal, Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Viet Nam, South Africa, Ghana, Armenia, Ecuador, Argentina, Mozambique, the Russian Federation, Chile, China, Nigeria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, France, Algeria, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Malaysia, Greece, Mauritius, Syrian Arab Republic, Türkiye, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, Romania and Sri Lanka. Statements were also made by the observers for the State of Palestine and the Holy See.

Delegations generally recalled that crimes against humanity were among the most serious crimes under international law and were of concern to the international community as a whole. Delegations emphasized the need to prevent such crimes and to ensure that their perpetrators are held accountable. The need for collective action by the international community to confront crimes against humanity was underscored.

Several delegations stated that the primary responsibility lies with the State itself for the protection of its population from such crimes. The commitment to protect the populations whose States fail to protect them in the 2005 World Summit Outcome was also recalled. A number of delegations noted the need for technical assistance to develop national capacities in the fields of investigation and prosecution of crimes against humanity. Support was expressed for strengthening international cooperation in the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Several delegations emphasized the importance of ensuring that efforts to prevent and punish crimes against humanity respect State sovereignty and avoid interference in States’ domestic affairs. Additionally, a number of delegations noted the importance of establishing safeguards against the abuse of the law concerning crimes against humanity to advance political goals. The importance of ensuring that international law is not applied in a discriminatory manner was also recalled.

Delegations generally expressed appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission on the topic., and the view was expressed that the draft articles provide useful practical guidance to States. Appreciation for the Commission’s efforts to accommodate the views of States in its work on the topic was also expressed. Several delegations highlighted the important role of the Commission in the codification and progressive development of international law, and a number of delegations expressed a desire for the Sixth Committee to re-examine its working methods in relation to the outputs of the Commission.

A number of delegations expressed support for the elaboration of an international convention on the topic on the basis of the draft articles, many of which noted with concern the lack of progress toward such a convention. In the view of several delegations, sufficient consensus existed on the core of the draft articles to allow for the elaboration of a convention. Several delegations shared the view that a convention would fill a gap in the international legal framework. Some delegations observed that a convention would consolidate international law in the area and contribute to legal certainty. Others noted that a convention could provide a legal framework to encourage national-level prosecutions of alleged perpetrators and international legal cooperation to that end. However, a number of delegations expressed the view that the draft articles could benefit from modification in certain respects.

A number of delegations expressed support for the opening of treaty negotiations to elaborate a convention, in particular through a diplomatic conference. Other delegations stated that additional time was needed to study further the draft articles and that a convention would be premature.

A number of delegations expressed support for the establishment of a process to allow for dedicated substantive discussion of the draft articles and the recommendation of the Commission; such process could address the concerns of States that have asked for clarification on some of the draft articles. To that end, several delegations expressed support for the establishment of an ad hoc committee with a clear mandate and time frame. It was highlighted that the establishment of such a committee would be consistent with the Sixth Committee’s past practice. A number of delegations indicated their support for a draft resolution proposed by a group of States to that effect. It was emphasized that the work of the proposed ad hoc committee would be without prejudice to States’ positions on the draft articles and on the question of the final outcome and whether to elaborate a convention. Support was also expressed for the establishment of a working group of the Sixth Committee for the further consideration of the draft articles. Several delegations emphasized the role of the Sixth Committee to consider the draft articles and the recommendation of the International Law Commission. The provision of written comments by States on the draft articles was also called for. Some delegations expressed a preference to keep the discussion on the topic within the Sixth Committee. The importance that any process towards a convention should be open, transparent and inclusive was emphasised. A number of delegations emphasized the need to take into account delegations’ legitimate concerns regarding the substance of the draft articles. Several delegations highlighted the desirability of a consensus-based outcome.

The view was also expressed that the elaboration of a convention was unnecessary in view of the existing legal framework. The relationship between the topic and the agenda item “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” was noted. The possibility for States to accede to the 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity was noted. Additionally, doubts were expressed concerning the prospects for the successful elaboration of a convention in light of the differing views of States on certain questions of substance. Some delegations highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency with existing legal instruments. Other delegations cautioned against imposing definitions from instruments that did not enjoy universal acceptance.

A number of delegations expressed their concern at the presentation of a proposal of a draft resolution by a group of States, which in their view had displaced the past practice on the item of acting through a Bureau-appointed coordinator. The unique competence of the Sixth Committee to produce international legal texts was emphasized. Several delegations stressed the importance of the practice of the Committee to adopt decisions by consensus. In this respect, it was noted that outcomes reached by consensus were often more widely accepted. Some delegations called for a consistent approach to all work products of the Commission. However, it was also recalled that the practice of reaching decisions by consensus was not required by the rules of procedure of the General Assembly.

Some delegations recalled the initiative for the adoption of a Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes. It was emphasized that the initiative would complement a new convention for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The importance of avoiding conflicts between the two initiatives was also highlighted.

The resumed session

The Sixth Committee held its resumed session during its 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th and 45th meetings, from 10 to 14 April 2023, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 77/249, in order to exchange substantive views, including in an interactive format, on all aspects of the draft articles, and to consider further the recommendation of the Commission contained in paragraph 42 of its report A/74/10. Informal meetings also took place on 10, 13 and 14 April.

At its 37th meeting, on 10 April 2023, the Sixth Committee approved the programme of work for the resumed session to take place at both the seventy-seventh and seventh-eighth session of the General Assembly, as well as the working arrangements. The Committee agreed to provide on the basis of five thematic clusters: Cluster 1, Introductory provisions (preamble and Draft Article 1); Cluster 2, definition and general obligations (Draft Articles 2, 3 and 4); Cluster 3, national measures (Draft Articles 6 to 10); Cluster 4, international measures (Draft Articles 13 to 15 and the annex) and  Cluster 5, safeguards (Draft Articles 5, 11 and 12).

Statements were made by the following representatives (arranged by thematic cluster):

Cluster 1, Introductory provisions (preamble and Draft Article 1): the European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries North Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia and the EFTA country Liechtenstein, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with the statement)), Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)), Latvia (on behalf of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania)), Egypt, the Philippines, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Malta, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Brazil, Hungary, Cuba, Portugal, Slovakia, Italy, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Türkiye, Australia, Ireland, El Salvador, Israel, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Austria, Romania, Japan, India, the United States of America, Slovenia, Poland, Mexico, Qatar, Bangladesh, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Gambia, the Russian Federation, Belgium, Chile, the Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, Singapore, Canada, the Russian Federation, New Zealand, Peru, Argentina, Slovakia and Eritrea. A statement was also made by the observer for the State of Palestine. The Co-facilitator (Ms. Anna Pála Sverrisdóttir (Iceland)) and the representatives of Brazil, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Portugal, Nigeria, Egypt, Slovakia, El Salvador, Portugal, Mexico, Switzerland and the Gambia, as well as the observer for the State of Palestine spoke in the interactive format.

Cluster 2, definition and general obligations (Draft Articles 2, 3 and 4): the European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries North Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia and the EFTA country Liechtenstein, member of the European Economic Area, aligned themselves with the statement)), Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)), Latvia (on behalf of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania)), Egypt, Germany, Czechia, El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Cuba, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, Italy, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Australia, Israel, Liechtenstein, Jordan, Indonesia, Romania, Japan, the United States of America, the Republic of Korea, Argentina, Mexico, Qatar, Sri Lanka, China, the Gambia, New Zealand, Colombia, the Russian Federation, Belgium, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Türkiye, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Peru and the Syrian Arab Republic. A statement was also made by the observer for the State of Palestine. The representatives of India, Egypt, Nigeria, Malta, Australia, the Czech Republic, Cameroon, Brazil and the Co-facilitators (Ms. Sarah Zahirah Ruhama (Malaysia) and Mr. Edgar Daniel Leal Matta (Guatemala)) spoke in the interactive format.

Cluster 3, national measures (Draft Articles 6 to 10): the European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries North Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia and the EFTA country Liechtenstein, member of the European Economic Area, aligned themselves with the statement)), Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)), Egypt, the Philippines, Germany, the Czech Republic, Colombia, Jordan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, Italy, Sierra Leone, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Cameroon, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Romania, Japan, the United States of America, Argentina, Mexico, Qatar, Belgium, Chile, Singapore, Canada, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Türkiye, Brazil (cluster 2 | cluster 3), Ethiopia, the Gambia, El Salvador, and China. A statement was also made by the observer for the State of Palestine. The representatives of Egypt, India, Portugal, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and the European Union spoke in the interactive format.

Cluster 4, international measures (Draft Articles 13 to 15 and the annex): the European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries North Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia and the EFTA country Liechtenstein, member of the European Economic Area, aligned themselves with the statement)), Iceland (on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)), Germany, Czechia, Colombia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil, Portugal, Slovakia, Italy, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Australia, Romania, Japan, the United States of America, Mexico, Qatar, Belgium, Chile, Canada, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Republic of Korea, China and Israel. A statement was also made by the observer for the State of Palestine. The representatives of Singapore, Cameroon, Senegal and Nigeria spoke in the interactive format.

Cluster 5, safeguards (Draft Articles 5, 11 and 12): the European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries North Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia and the EFTA country Liechtenstein, member of the European Economic Area, aligned themselves with the statement)), Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)), Egypt, Germany, the Czech Republic, Malta, Colombia, Jordan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Brazil, Portugal, Italy, Cameroon, Australia, Romania, Japan, the United States of America, Poland, Mexico, Chile, Singapore, Canada, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Türkiye, Belgium, Argentina, Mozambique, New Zealand, China and Sierra Leone.. A statement was also made by the observer for the State of Palestine. The representatives of Cameroon, Malta, France and India spoke in the interactive format. The representatives of Slovakia and Nigeria, as well as a representative of the Secretariat, also spoke.

At the 43rd meeting, a briefing on the recommendation of the International Law Commission was given by the Secretariat. The representatives of Mexico, Portugal, Egypt, China and Colombia spoke.

At its 45th meeting, on 14 April 2023, the Committee heard and took note of the oral report of the co-facilitators. The representatives of Singapore, Cameron, Egypt and Gambia spoke.

Archived videos and summaries of plenary meetings

Video   9th meeting (10 October 2022, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   10th meeting (10 October 2022, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary

Video   11th meeting (11 October 2022, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   36th meeting (18 November 2022, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   37th meeting (10 April 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   38th meeting (10 April 2023, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary

Video   39th meeting (11 April 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   40th meeting (11 April 2023, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary

Video   41st meeting (12 April 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   42nd meeting (12 April 2023, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary

Video   43rd meeting (13 April 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   44th meeting (13 April 2023, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary

Video   45th meeting (14 April 2023, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary


Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 36th meeting, on 18 November, the representative of the Gambia, on behalf of a number of sponsors, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Crimes against humanity” (A/C.6/77/L.4) and announced that Comoros, Djibouti, Japan, Samoa and Uganda had joined in sponsoring the draft resolution. The Committee then adopted draft resolution A/C.6/77/L.4 without a vote. The representative of Singapore spoke in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution. The representative of the observer delegation of the State of Palestine also spoke.

Under the terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would take note once again of the draft articles presented by the International Law Commission and also take note of the views, comments and concerns expressed in the debates of the Sixth Committee and the comments and observations received from Governments on the draft articles. It would also decide that the Sixth Committee would resume its session for five days, from 10 to 14 April 2023, and for six days, from 1 to 5 and on 11 April 2024, in order to exchange substantive views, including in an interactive format, on all aspects of the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, and to consider further the recommendation of the Commission, contained in paragraph 42 of its report A/74/10. The Assembly would further decide that a written summary of the deliberations during the two resumed sessions would be prepared by the Sixth Committee at the end of the resumed seventy-eighth session. It would invite States to submit, by the end of 2023, written comments and observations on the draft articles and the recommendation of the Commission, to be circulated in a compilation by the Secretary-General well in advance of the resumed seventy-eighth session. Finally, the Assembly would decide that the Sixth Committee would further examine the draft articles and the recommendation of the Commission at the seventy-ninth session and take a decision on the matter, without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action.

Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly

This agenda item will thus be considered at the seventy-eighth (2023/24) and seventy-ninth (2024) sessions.

Related links

Quick Links

Key Documents

Resources