Today’s briefing occurs at an important time for the Mechanism.
In the first half of 2026 Council Members will engage in detailed discussions on the future of the Mechanism.
Whilst the details of those discussions will take place over the months ahead there are some general principles which, in our view, should guide the work of the Council.
First, and as the Council has agreed previously, the Mechanism should be a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and size diminish over time and whose staffing and structure should be commensurate with those functions.
Given the completion of the Mechanism’s core crimes work, it is natural and appropriate that, in future, the Mechanism should be a substantially smaller institution than has been the case to date.
This would be reflective of the truly residual nature of the institution at this later stage in the justice cycle.
In order to achieve this, it would be appropriate to transfer certain functions currently performed by the Mechanism either to States or to other institutional structures.
The UK is grateful for the work which the Mechanism and the principals have already undertaken in assessing how this could be achieved in practice.
We are pleased that there appears to be a considerable degree of agreement between the Prosecutor, President and Secretary General on this matter.
This is welcome and provides a strong starting point for the work that lies ahead.
There will, of course, be a range of proposals and we stand ready to consider those.
However, to comment briefly on a specific example, the UK can see a strong case for the transfer of work relating to the provision of assistance to national jurisdictions away from the Mechanism.
Such work remains valuable, as is attested to, by the ongoing demand for this assistance from States.
But such a workstream may not need to be provided by the Mechanism as currently structured.
Nonetheless, Mr President, it is also clear that some functions will, of necessity, need to remain at the international level.
This includes certain judicial functions, for instance, where there is a need for consistency in decision-making.
As we move ahead with this work, we look forward to receiving the upcoming OIOS and Secretary General reports, which we are confident will prove of assistance to Council Members.
In relation to the archives, we agree with the principle that, where possible, these should be housed as close as possible to affected communities.
We hope and expect that this will prove to be the case in respect of the archives of the ICTR.
We hope the same will also apply to the archives of the ICTY and, at minimum, we see a good case for these to be located in Europe.
Finally, and on a different note, we wish to extend our gratitudes to the Mechanism for facilitating a visit by representatives of Council Members to the UN Detention Unit in The Hague during this reporting period.
This enabled Council members to see for themselves the fully satisfactory nature of the provision there.
