Press conference by Catherine Marchi-Uhel, Head of the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to assist in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the most serious crimes under International Law committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011

Bonjour à tous,

Le deuxième rapport du Mécanisme international impartial et Independent pour la Syrie vient d’être rendu public. Il souligne les divers aspects de l’opérationnalisation du Mécanisme entre février et début août 2018 ainsi que les stratégies que nous avons mises en place pour répondre aux défis que présente l’ambitieux mandat que nous a confié l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies. Je vous le rappelle il s’agit assister de manière indépendante et impartiale, les enquêtes et la poursuite des personnes responsables des crimes internationaux les plus graves commis en Syrie depuis mars 2011.

Jusqu’ici le nombre d’instances ou justice a été rendue à certaines de ces victimes, est très, trop faible. Les enquêtes pénales en cours dans un certain nombre de pays notamment en Europe sont indéniablement source d’espoir pour d’autres victimes et le Mécanisme est d’ores-et-déjà engagé dans le soutien aux efforts de certaines des autorités de poursuite.

Mais la route est encore longue. Vous n’ignorez pas que pour la grande majorité des victimes, la désillusion reste immense devant l’absence actuelle de perspective tangible de justice au niveau international.

C’est aux victimes de ces crimes, de toutes les communautés affectées, que mon équipe et moi nous avons pensé pendant ces six derniers mois en faisant de la vision décrite dans le premier rapport du Mécanisme, une réalité. Je vais maintenant tenter d’illustrer cette réalité en vous en donnant quelques exemples.

Permettez-moi de continuer en anglais.

First, the Mechanism is to become a central repository of information and evidence of core crimes committed in Syria since March 2011. We have acquired secure and state-of-the-art evidence management systems. Our systems include the capacity to ensure that appropriate metadata are established, integrated and maintained, to facilitate analysis and corroboration of existing material. Methods for tracking duplicate material, linking translations and rigorously enforcing confidentiality restrictions, including using cutting-edge technology, are also being integrated.

Our collection activities have progressed at a rapid pace. At the time of submitting our second report at the end of July, the Mechanism had collected around 4TB of data consisting of almost 900,000 records.

We have focused on the acquisition of known high-value material held by other documenting entities, including from the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, as well as material not previously accessed by others documenting crimes concerning the Syrian Arab Republic or for which there is otherwise a pressing preservation need.
Second, among the Mechanism’s key priorities is supporting national jurisdictions’ efforts to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in Syria. To this end, we have continued to engage with national war crimes units in various States, both directly as well as in the context of relevant fora, such as the EU Genocide Network hosted by Eurojust in The Hague.

We are currently processing seven requests for assistance received from national prosecutors and our capacity to assist national jurisdictions will only improve as the collection grows in the coming months.

At present, the focus of these requests is on receiving information and evidence. In the coming period, we will expand this process to also include access to the analytical work product we are developing. Examples of such product include chronologies, organigrams, maps, specialized databases, thematic analysis of crimes and, importantly evidentiary modules for contextual elements. We know from a number of national war crimes units that having access to such materials would be valuable. At a later stage, the Mechanism will also be in a position to share with national and possibly international prosecutors the files it has built.

Third, we have identified the need for a structural investigation to ensure a broad, contextual understanding of the Syrian situation. This includes crimes cultural, historical, and gender dimension of crimes, crimes patterns, as well as the specific contextual elements of crimes, the structures of power and importantly linkages between crimes and individuals.

We have developed the overarching factual questions underlying these issues and, based on these factual questions, we have developed an information and evidence tagging system to process the material we acquire. These tags also include categories relevant to broader transitional justice objectives, such as the search for missing persons, to maximize the value of the Mechanism’s Evidence Collection for the affected communities.
Fourth, the first phase of case building is underway. Using the initial result of our structural investigation, we intent to FastTrack this case building activity by developing strategic lines of enquiries. We expect to open two or more specific investigative case files before the end of this year.

We have also developed internal strategies, policies and standard operating procedures, designed to ensure security, efficiency and quality control. Several examples are highlighted in the report, including the Mechanism’s strategies for addressing sexual and gender-based violence as a core part of the Mechanism’s work.
Fifth, as far as our engagement with various stakeholders, let me start with Syrian civil society actors. An important moment for us was the signature in Lausanne on 4 April with 28 Syrian NGOs of a protocol of collaboration outlining the principles that guide our respective engagement. We have identified ways whereby we can even more meaningfully engage with these and other Syrian NGOs and convince them of the added value of the work done by the Mechanism to support accountability for core crimes committed in Syria. This includes one-on-one consultations with NGOs in relation to specific operational issues and thematic areas of interest to our work. I wish to commend those NGOs that have undertaken to share their documentation of crimes with the Mechanism and thus to further contribute to the accountability process.

Other NGOs remain to be convinced of the value the Mechanism can add to their documentation. My team and I respond to questions they have in this respect. We have also been engaging with NGOs that are working on case file building and victim’s representation in proceedings before national jurisdictions. We are exploring circumstances where cooperation with such NGOs is possible beyond this collection and preservation aspect of the IIIM’s mandate without encroaching on our requirement of independence and impartiality cooperation with these NGOs is possible.
Regarding collaboration with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, following the decision of OPCW’s Conference of States Parties on 27 June, we have made significant progress towards the conclusion of a memorandum of understanding to permit access by the Mechanism to information and evidence in OPCW’s possession, including material collected by its fact-finding mission.

We also continue to engage with States regarding a broad range of areas of cooperation, from witness protection, to the provision of relevant information and evidence in their possession. Several States have already revised, or are in the process of revising, their national laws and procedures to allow full engagement with the Mechanism. Others have indicated an ability to cooperate without any further formal process, while others have indicated the need for the conclusion of a memorandum of understanding to this end.

Finally, on funding, following the call by the General Assembly for the Secretary General to include necessary funding for the Mechanism in his next budget proposal, the Mechanism is developing deliverables and indicators as well as working with UN budget officials to prepare a draft budget from 2020. It is clear that the Mechanism’s resource requirements for 2020 will exceed the approximately $14 million estimated for 2018, which is to be expected given the operationalization of the Mechanism and the impact of emerging factors. To cover those costs, several million dollars will be required annually in addition to the original budget estimates. We are working to keep this budget submission for 2020 within reasonable limits and to adopt strategies that will maximize returns on the investment of funds from Member States in the accountability process for Syria. Our funding for 2019 will remain under voluntary contributions and we hope that the 38 States and the EU that have been contributing to date will continue to do so in 2019 and that more states will join them.

In conclusion, in establishing the Mechanism, the General Assembly sent a strong signal to individuals from all sides who had or would continue to physically perpetrate core crimes in Syria and to those who are directing or using them, condoning their conduct or otherwise assisting in the commission of these crimes. A signal that there shall be no impunity for these crimes which gives victims hope for justice.

The Mechanism is tasked with essential preparatory work needed to support a comprehensive accountability process, for the benefit of all the affected communities in the Syrian Arab Republic. This work is now well underway, bringing the prospect of justice closer for the victims.

I thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions.

Geneva, 20 September 2018