President, today’s briefing occurs at an important time for the Mechanism, with Council Members currently undertaking the mandated review of the Mechanism’s work. In this context, I will make three points.
First, as the Council agreed in resolution 1966, the Mechanism should be a small, temporary and efficient structure, whose functions and size diminish over time and whose staffing and structure are commensurate with those functions.
As the president mentioned in her remarks, the Mechanism has already rightly taken a number of steps in this regard, including staffing and budget reductions in recent years.
However, much more needs to be done to ensure that the Mechanism becomes a substantially smaller institution than has been the case to date, in light of its residual nature.
So as we work towards the adoption of a resolution later this month we should seek to ensure a more focussed and substantially reduced mandate for the Mechanism, retaining what is necessary, while safeguarding its important legacy.
Second, the UK welcomes the Strategic Plan presented by the Mechanism’s Principals.
The Plan provides a good basis for discussions and for achieving change in a responsible manner.
Turning now to some of the specifics covered in the Plan, in our view, it is important that a small core of judicial functions should remain at the international level.
However, this range of judicial functions should be much narrower than at present and could be performed by a roster of judges which is also reduced in number.
We further recognise the continued value many States attach to the provision of assistance to national authorities provided by the Office of the Prosecutor.
However, we agree that this function can be moved to the UN Secretariat and should reduce in size over time.
In relation to the archives, we thank those States that have made offers to host these materials.
The UK’s view remains that the Mechanism’s archives should be transferred to the UN Secretariat and should be housed as close as possible to affected communities, also taking into account cost-effectiveness and ease of access.
We further call on the Mechanism to implement the outstanding recommendations in the recent OIOS report and to welcome the steps outlined in the Mechanism’s own report in that regard.
Finally, although there are historic reasons for the Mechanism’s two-branch structure, at this stage in its lifecycle, the UK considers this is no longer necessary.
In our view, it would be more cost-effective to remove this requirement from the Mechanism’s statute.
In conclusion, Madam President, the UK will continue to work with others to secure the Mechanism’s legacy whilst ensuring that this is done in a way that appropriately reflects the residual stage of its remaining operations.
