ASP18 Side Event: 11 Years After the August War: Uninterrupted Story of Impunity

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 5 (6 December 2019)

Name of the Event: 11 Years After the August War: Uninterrupted Story of Impunity (Side Event co-hosted by the United Kingdom, Georgian Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and Justice International) 

Overview by: Sindija Beta, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• There are 3 aspects preventing 2008 war victims from living a normal life – lack of medical care, access to education, and unemployment. 

• International outreach to Georgian society is of the utmost importance because of the active politicization of human rights abuses and the role of the ICC. 

• Nika Jeiranashvili informed the participants that Georgia plans to nominate a candidate for the prosecutorial elections of the ICC next year. 

Summary of the Event:

The event started with an introduction by the moderator, Nika Jeiranashvili, on the general situation in Georgia – history of the conflict, the crimes committed, and the current situation. Mr. Jeiranashvili stated that the preliminary examinations began in 2008 and that the prosecutor further opened an investigation into crimes against humanity and war crimes in 2015. To start off the panel, he also flagged the many problems with the investigation. 

Nino Jomarjidze continued the discussion by outlining the crimes that have been committed in and around South Ossetia, as well as the efforts that international civil society has taken in prosecuting those responsible. She began her presentation with some facts about Georgia – Russia relations and further discussed the territorial and human rights consequences of the 2008 war, such as arbitrary detainment, torture, and ill-treatment of people in South Ossetia. Ms. Jomarjidze also explained the concept of borderization – marking the boundary of South Ossetia and Georgia with barbed wire fences. She noted that these fences are constantly being moved further into the de-facto territory of Georgia, which has led to people losing their main sources of income or even waking up in a different state overnight. Ms. Jomarjidze continued by describing the steps that civil society and the Georgian government have taken regarding the alleged crimes. Specifically, she outlined that they have submitted applications to the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court as well as conducted their own national investigations. She emphasized that continuing human rights violations are the result of 11 years of impunity. Accountability of the perpetrators may be a way for enhanced peace and security in the country and to stop continued human rights violations. 

A later speaker, Mariam Antadze, focused on the psychological and physical consequences for the victims of the 2008 war. She began by reading a story of a little boy – Giviko, who described the day the bombs started to fall on his home and how he lost his mother and got seriously injured himself. Mariam explained that there are large numbers of people who have been deeply traumatized by the war and have lost their homes as a result. She noted that there are three main problems these IDPs now face – lack of medical assistance, education, and unemployment. She also stated that victims who live with these unbearable situations must be shown that they are not forgotten and therefore the aid of NGOs does indeed help people. 

Greta Barbone turned the public’s attention to the role of media and international outreach for the prosecution of international crimes in Georgia. She spoke about the efforts which have been taken in order to facilitate the Court’s engagement with victims and the media. Ms. Barbone also introduced some future plans for more aggressive media engagement and international outreach, for instance by producing videos where answers are given to the most pressing questions about the Court. The main aim of these efforts, Ms. Barbone specified, is to establish sufficient knowledge about the Court within Georgian society and to counter some of the political attacks presented during election periods. 

The importance of outreach was once more reiterated by Nika Jeiranashvili, noting that the issue is even more pressing considering the level of misinformation and fake news coming from the opposing side. He emphasized that it is all about the narrative told at the end of the process – by victims, as well as the society at large. Mr. Jeiranashvili furthermore explained the political developments in Georgia since 2012 and how the participants from the 2008 conflict are now being targeted for taking part in the war not only in Georgia but also in other countries, for instance, in Germany.  Answering the questions from the public, Nino Jomarjidze acknowledged that so far efforts to prosecute perpetrators have not led to any positive developments. However, these efforts have neither escalated nor deescalated the ongoing tensions between all parties. 

Lastly, Nika Jeiranashvili informed the participants that Georgia plans to nominate a candidate for the prosecutorial elections of the ICC next year. 

ASP18 Side Event: The Politics of Peace: How ICC Intervention Impacts Accountability in Countries that Fail to Provide Justice to Victims

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day  3 (4 December 2019)

Name of the Event: The Politics of Peace: How ICC Intervention Impacts Accountability in Countries that Fail to Provide Justice to Victims (Side Event co-hosted by Norway, Justice International, and the Transitional Justice Coordination Group (TJCG)) 

Overview by: Keri van Douwen, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL  

Main Highlights:

• ICC denial to open investigation into Afghanistan leaves victims feeling betrayed by an institution that is mandated to deliver justice to the international community, of which Afghans are very much a part. 

• There is no reason to be cautious about the timing of seeking justice as the very little development happening at high political levels does not translate to the reality on the ground: for the people of Afghanistan, the war is only getting more brutal. 

• There will be no peace without justice and accountability: Afghanis have seen many peace negotiations, amnesty bills and peace deals while nothing has led to actual peace.  One cannot use the same failed formula over and over again and expect a different result. 

• Justice is at the core of Afghan culture and tradition.  Forgiveness as well. But so is revenge. 

Summary of the Event:

“If you are going to have a cup of tea with warlords, have a cup of tea with civil society as well.” (Janet Anderson) 

On the third day of the 18th session of the ASP a side event entitled “Politics of Peace” was (co-)hosted by Justice International and the Transitional Justice Coordination Group with support from Norway. Moderated by Janet Anderson (project manager at Justice Hub, international justice observer and host of podcast called ‘Asymmetrical Haircuts’), a panel including victims of the Afghan war, or human rights defenders, as well as experts on human rights and transitional justice, discussed the refusal of the ICC to open an investigation into the situation of Afghanistan, especially in relation to the desires of victims on the ground. The timeliness of the event was stark, given the ICC’s Appeals Chamber started hearing oral arguments on the same morning.

Amal Nassar, a jurist working for the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) as Representative to the ICC, emphasized the role that the denial to open this investigation has played in giving rise to discussions on reviewing the performance of the Court, a topic highlighted often during this year’s ASP. In several ways, the decision has shown light on the ICC’s many shortcomings. While the denial has been justified by the investigation not being ‘in the interest of justice’, Nasrina Bargzie, an Afghan-American attorney who represents seventeen different Afghan human rights organizations, argued that the Rome Statute should be closely studied to better understand with whom the authority to conduct an assessment of what is in the interest of justice lies. Horia Mosadiq, Afghan human rights defender and journalist who spoke passionately about her experience as a victim of war at the fourth plenary meeting earlier this week, explaining that she felt a sense of betrayal towards the ICC in deciding against investigating widespread atrocities committed in Afghanistan.  Her feelings of betrayal stem from the ICC’s denial to fulfill what she considers it is mandated to do, namely to deliver justice. She also feels betrayed by the fact that the United States has been able to bring a Court, supported by 123 Member States, “to its knees”. 

The panelists stressed that the ICC is part of a framework that Afghanistan has helped create (Afghanistan ratified the Rome Statute in February 2003) and that this is not a situation considered to be a foreign (western) interference. They noted that Afghan victims are asking for an impartial trial, as they realize that the discussion of whether or not peace should be sacrificed for justice is both irrelevant and mistaken. In the words of the late Kofi Annan, spoken by Amal Nassar, “justice and peace are not contradictory forces. Rather, properly pursued, they promote and sustain one another. The question, then, can never be whether to pursue justice and accountability, but rather when and how.” In the Afghan setting, where justice and peace have long been considered contradictory forces, it has meant that perpetrators turned high government officials or peace negotiators and that amnesty has been granted. For the panelists, this has put lasting peace far out of reach. The international community should learn from applying the same failed formula over and over and understand that a peace that is not inclusive, that is not addressing pain and grievances that Afghans have gone through, is not peace, but much more like a ceasefire. Amal Nassar, Nasrina Bargzie, and Horia Mosadiq stressed over and over again that victims do not have high expectations of the Court. On the contrary, they are very much aware that an investigation might not lead to arrests or prosecution. Rather, they seek to be heard, to make sure that diplomats understand that they should not only meet with warlords, but also with civil society.  They want the world to recognize their experiences and they want to know what happened to their fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, neighbours and whoever disappeared before their own eyes. Are they alive? Are they still being tortured? Where are their bodies? Nasrina Bargzie, in speaking of meeting ambassadors in Kabul, recollected that the only thing on their minds is the United States and what they might do, without any consideration of justice or accountability for the Afghan people. That is the politics of peace and quoting Richard Bennett “the politics of peace is as dirty as any other politics.” 

Having listened to the other panelists, Sari Kouvo (co-founder and co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network) argued that what is needed is for the ICC and other institutions to adopt (some of) the stubbornness that is widely and continuously demonstrated by (Afghan) human rights defenders. Even if the ICC does not open an investigation, as Nasrina Bargzie tells us, Afghan people are resilient and willing to do the work to build up their country, every single day.  Nevertheless, for her, denying the investigation into Afghanistan sends the message to the world that the ICC is in business for the easy cases only, while leaving the tough investigations unaddressed. The ICC should be an inspiring court, Amal Nasser argues “it could function as a catalyst for other cases to be opened on a domestic level”. The intention with which the Rome Statute was brought into force, bringing an end to impunity, is, in itself, not easy nor ever meant to be easy. That being said, Afghanistan has been ruled by a culture of impunity.  

While initiatives towards transitional justice have waxed and waned since 2001, the panel shared an agreement that very little has been done by the international community to establish some level of accountability. Failing to do so has left Afghans no other choice than knocking on the door of the international community’s ‘last resort’ for justice. The panel was clear on the challenge that the International Criminal Court is facing, but also clear that it should face it head on. While the Afghan war remains far from over, Horia Mosadiq stresses that forgiveness is a value at the core of Afghan culture, tradition and religion. However, if justice is not delivered, it will be impossible to forgive - and revenge is, also, very much a part of Afghan culture. 

ASP18 Side Event: Rights of Detainees before the International Criminal Court

18th Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute

Day 4 (5 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Rights of Detainees before the International Criminal Court (Side Event co-hosted by France, Senegal, and the International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA))

Overview by: Hester Dek, Intern PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• “Contact with family is a right, not a privilege that should be earned” - Mylène Dimitri.  

• Peter Haynes underlined the absence of the defense bar on the published list of independent experts on the ICC review.

• Mylène Dimitri highlighted the restriction of contact of detainees with their families and its breach of the presumption of innocence. 

• Marie-Hélène Proulx noted the lack of contribution of states to the Trust Fund for Family Visits. 

• Jennifer Naouri highlighted the absence of provisional release granted at the ICC.  

Summary of the Event:

This panel on the rights of detainees before the ICC consisted of Jennifer Naouri, Peter Haynes QC, Marie-Hélène Proulx, and Mylène Dimitri. 

Peter Haynes QC (ICCBA President) opened the event by stating that it was a considered decision to organize this event, as “the section that represents victims is represented well enough, but that of the defense not enough”. He referred to the published list of independent experts for the review of the ICC, which represents (former) judges, prosecutors, etc. but not one person who has ever had a client, has had to visit someone in a detention center, or work under a legal aid scheme. According to Mr. Haynes, it is “not just disappointing, but foolish that the court does not find that the defense bar is worthy of consultation.” 

Mylène Dimitri (Lead Counsel for Alfred Yekatom) discussed restriction of contact of detainees with their families in relation to the principle of presumption of innocence. “If we look at their conditions, it seems like they have lost their presumption of innocence”.  She discusses the current situation, where the court can prohibit, regulate, or set conditions for contact between detainees and their families, if they think that this contact could affect the proceedings. “Sometimes the request for prohibition on contact is requested prior to arrival, portraying the message: not only do we expect you to have committed these crimes, we also expect that you can affect the outcome, we don’t trust you.” According to Ms. Dimitri this breach is a breach of the presumption of innocence and often based on pure speculation, not clear information. “The detainee is put away as someone who is so guilty that there is ground to believe he will harm the victims and hamper the investigation, whereas the situation in the country is out of his control”. She further noted that while restriction on contact recently became the rule, instead of the exception, information on this is not publicly available, making it difficult to do something about the issue.  

Thereafter, Marie-Hélène Proulx (Associate Counsel for Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud) first discussed further the presumption of innocence. “There are five current detainees, only one has had a funded family visit. It is a real human drama”. She explains that the court has recognized the right to family visits, no one is disputing this, but that this right is currently not effective. Defendants rights are never a priority, raising the question how one can justify funding everything else, but leave detainees on the side. Only 5 out of 123 states have agreed to contribute to the Trust Fund for Families. 

Next, Jennifer Naouri (Associate Counsel for Laurent Gbagbo) discussed the length of trials, responding to the comment “this would all be less of an issue if the trials would not take so long.” After explaining that the length of a trial is trial-dependent, she highlights that there has been no provisional release granted at the ICC since it exists. She explains how case law allows for the Chambers to look at provisional release, but the language is so vague the judges can just decide not to grant it. Besides that, she raises the issue of a host state having to be willing to accept a detainee, and the relating responsibility. She concluded by proposing to amend the Rome Statute to remove Article 81(3). 

The floor was then opened for questions and comments. The reason for the confidentiality regarding detainees’ contact rights was first considered. Ms. Dimitri responded that this reason is unclear, stating that “confidentiality has become the rule at the ICC, and this has become part of the problem.” Another issue discussed was the question on shortening trials. The first response came from Mr. Haynes, who argued that one of the issues is the possibility for the Court to arrest someone without having confirmed the charges, which according to him should be crystalized on time. Ms. Naouri had a different view on the matter, she argued that this phase was essential, as “you can make a case out of it, you can gain a lot of time.” 

You can watch the full event here.

ASP18 Side Event: Investigating and Prosecuting Ecocide. The Current and Future Role of the ICC.

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 1 (2 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Investigating and Prosecuting Ecocide. The Current and Future Role of the ICC (Side Event co-hosted by Vanuatu, Ecological Defence Integrity, Green Transparency, Heinrich Böll Foundation, and Institute for Environmental Security)

Overview by: Emma Bakkum, Senior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Summary of the Event:

During the General Debate, Pacific Island state Vanuatu raised attention to the unprecedented threat of climate change and stated that “an amendment of the Rome Statute could criminalise acts that amount to ecocide. We believe this radical idea merits serious discussion". Just before Vanuatu called upon States Parties to amend the Rome Statute to include ecocide, a side event was held on the possibilities and challenges of prosecuting the crime of ecocide (co-hosted by Vanuatu, Ecological Defence Integrity, Green Transparency, Heinrich Böll Foundation, and the Institute for Environmental Security).

Moderated by ambassador John Licht from Vanuatu, the side event started with guest speeches of Ms. Losaline Teo (Crown Counsel of Tuvalu) and Nathan Brechtefeld Teewe (former Minister of Justice Kiribati). Both raised attention to some of the effects of global warming to Pacific Island States. Mr. Brechtefel Tweewe and Ms. Teo moreover underlined the lack of resources and capacity in small island states and the need for support from the international community in investigating environmental crimes. 

The panelists’ discussion focused around two ways in which ecocide could be prosecuted: 1) by using existing law, such as the Rome Statute, and 2) by introducing new laws or amending the Rome Statute. 

Richard Rogers (Global Diligence) focused on the second option. He discussed possibilities and limitations to prosecuting ecocide under Article 7 of the Rome Statute as an avenue for accountability and justice for environmental crimes. He referred to land grabbing in Cambodia. Acts often witnessed in the context to land grabbing are in fact enumerated in Article 7, such as illegal detention or persecution. According to Rogers, the ICC can make a real impact regarding environmental crimes as the Court, for example by issuing indictments, will have a deterrent effect. Rodrigo Lledó (FIBGAR) explored the OTP’s 2016 policy paper on case selection and prioritization and referred the crime of genocide, quoting Lemkin: “we must peel the law”. Valerie Cabanes (Earth Jurist) argued that the ecocide should be included in the Rome Statute with the objective to respond to the current climate crisis. She discussed some issues but also opportunities in this regard. For instance, creating a new institution would be a lot more ambitious than extending the ICC’s jurisdiction to include ecocide. Jojo Mehta (Ecological Defence Integrity) touched upon several opportunities “beyond the black letter of the law” that creating a more expansive law covering ecocide can bring. For instance, setting an example for domestic legal systems reduces the risks for domestic implementation of legislation and increases uniformity in the law.

Both panelists and participants agreed that the time is here for the law to adapt and fight against impunity for environmental crimes. However, panelists also underlined the importance of clearly defining the concept of ecocide (meaning “killing our home”)  and to be cautious with the way it is used. 

For more information on the crime of ecocide as a fifth Rome Statute crime, read for example: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/justiceinfo-comment-and-debate/opinion/43104-ecocide-atrocity-crime-idea-time-overdue.html and https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/justiceinfo-comment-and-debate/in-depth-interviews/39950-valerie-cabanes-icc-should-recognize-the-crime-of-ecocide.html. 

ASP18 Side Event: Should the ICC open a preliminary examination in Mexico? Discussion about allegations of crimes against humanity in Mexico?

18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE

Day 1 (2 December 2019)

Name of the Event: Should the ICC open a preliminary examination in Mexico? Discussion about allegations of crimes against humanity in Mexico (co-hosted by the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI)).

Overview by: Leonore ten Hulsen, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Main Highlights:

• Various panelists pointed out the problematic situation in Mexico and the lack of options for prosecuting crimes against humanity in the Mexican judicial system. Therefore, the panelists asked for a preliminary examination in Mexico.

• The Ambassador of Mexico to the Netherlands pointed out that the government and civil society actors are fighting for the same cause and are on the same side. Moreover, he nuanced that most of the homicides discussed today are taking place within the context of conflict between organized crime actors.

• Mr. Antoine Bernard responded to the ambassador’s statements by saying that a preliminary examination into allegations of crimes against humanity in Mexico would be in the common interest of both civil society actors and the government alike. 

Summary of the Event:

The first panelist, mr. Cesar Contreras Leon (FIDH) commented on the current state of affairs in Mexico concerning criminal prosecutions. He pointed out that little financial resources are available for the prosecution of cases involving torture, enforced disappearment, and murder, which amounts to approximately 8 euro’s per case per year. Moreover, there are currently only 143 human rights lawyers in Mexico, while there are over 16.000 cases involving potential human rights violations. This would boil down to each lawyer having the impossible task to take care of over 110 cases per year. Moreover, Mexico has a very high impunity rate, around 90%. Especially the lack of financial resources and human rights lawyers amount to a situation in which redress for human rights violations is increasingly difficult. 

The second panelist, ms. Jimena Reyes (FIDH) explained that a clear pattern of crimes against humanity arises, as FIDH researched the various crimes on both the national and regional level in order to find patterns between the various types of crimes. Ms. Jimena Reyes explained that in Mexico, torture is widespread and refered to comments made by the Special Reporteur of the Inter-American Court. She mentioned that the state of Baja California was one of the first states where armed forces were registered. Detainees were found to be transferred to military bases under the exclusive control of militaries, and 95 cases were documented of heavy torture and/or forced disappearance. Medical professionals were included to downplay the amount of harm that was done, covering up torture cases. These crimes have gone unpunished until now. In 2019, one of the perpetrators of these crimes ran for mayor in the same city and victims tried to organize to draw attention to the crimes he committed, resulting in one civilian being shot.

In Kwawila, through a collaboration of 100 NGOs, an analysis of over 500 cases on enforced disappearance and torture - amongst other human right violations - was presented to the office of the public prosecutor. Ms. Jimena Reyesr argued that these cases constituted proof that crimes against humanity had been committed. Investigations focusing on the macro-level, and going beyond the individual case-level is necessary. In Mexican (case) law, the concept of crimes against humanity has not yet been acknowledged. Therefore, she invited the Mexican government to a constructive dialogue and to submit this case for preliminary examination by the ICC, as it can constitute an important sign and change of the current state of being.

The third panelist, ms. Olga Guzman Vergara (Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH)), discussed the problems with the state of Chihuahua, as it is a key point for drug trafficking organizations as a result of its geographical location. Since 2008, the Calderón president created a joined strategy between civil and military forces in Chihuahua to combat distribution and consumption of drugs. However, since 2008 local NGOs have documented an increase in violence, (sexual) torture, and forced disapparences. These NGOs found that crimes were mainly committed by the security forces. For example, in the year 2005 there were 517 violent killings in the state. After 3 months of the implemented new strategy to combat the drugs violence, 2600 people were violently killed and by 2010, this was 4000 violent killings. The high number of victims and forced disappearances even created types of ‘ghost towns’, as many families and other people fled the violence. 

 Because of the joined strategy between civil and military forces in Chihuahua, the alleged crimes against humanity were committed by both actors. The University of Leiden found that the situation could amount to an international conflict situation, because of the drug trafficking organizations. Out of the nine drug trafficking organizations that are active in the region, eight fulfilled the requirements for international law. The War Academy of Geneva had similar findings, because drug trafficking organizations are armed groups with structures of command and control, and have weapons and capacity to carry out military operations. The drug organizations have the option to get into contact with governmental officials to bribe them. Furthermore, they control many important economic regions, mainly in the north and they operate military-like in the country. 

Ms. Olga Guzman Vergara continued by pointing out that the violence in Mexico has not seized. She discusses some of the most recent news in the country of Mexico, which includes the headline: ‘After Soldiers Surrender El Chapo’s Son, a Shocked Mexican City Sighs with Relief’. 

The fourth panelist, mr. Antoine Bernard (Deputy Director General at Reporters sans rontières/Reporters Without Borders (RSF)), focused on the vital role of journalists in a democratic society. He explained that 116 cases of crimes against journalists were analyzed, of which 101 were murders and 14 were disappearances. The data showed that journalists were targeted specifically in order to create terror and stop them from reporting on matters of public interests, like the drug cartels. Moreover, he pointed out that Mexico is currently the deadliest country in the world for journalists. The fact that journalists are still being killed, shows a deliberate failure of the federal authorities to research, prosecute, and protect journalists and their work, according to Mr. Bernard. Lastly, mr. Bernard asked whether we can afford another year of not acting, as so many journalists have died already. 

All panelists called for an international investigation of the ICC in order to show that justice will be done and redress will be made available for victims. 

Before the audience was given the opportunity to ask questions, Ambassador of Mexico to the Netherlands shared some comments, starting with a few disclaimers. The role that NGOs play in the effort of the Mexican state - which includes both the government and the society as a whole - to overcome the difficult situation Mexico is essential and fundamental, he stated. Moreover, he argued to not focus on a government and a society, but to see them as a whole: the government is not the enemy, the drugs are. The true enemies are the organized criminals that are challenging the state authorities and law enforcement and that are corrupting and endangering civilians. He expressed his hope for NGOs to see the government as an alley. Thirdly, he confirmed the serious situation in Mexico as a result of organized crime. However, he also spoke of positive situations that exist, like the government's commitment to combat corruption. Moreover, he spoke of the inclusion of human rights defenders in the current government, showing progress in the situation in Mexico. Furthermore, he spoke of the construction of a national guard that protects civilians and provides more law enforcement on both national and local level. Moreover, laws are being changed to protect human rights advocates and journalists. Lastly, he pointed out that around 90% of homicides are committed by criminal organizations against each other. Around 70% of the violence is committed in only 10 of all municipalities in Mexico. The ambassador stated that he does not want to diminish the seriousness of the issue as every innocent death is one too many, but he underlined that most problems are at the local level. He disagreed with the idea that there is a political motivation to this violence, as it is simply illegal criminal profit making according to him. This can therefore not be seen as a conflict situation, nor as a terrorist act, because violence’s motivation is not political.

Mr. Antoine Bernard responded to the ambassador’s statements that collusion and corruption on the local level are evident, but that special protection mechanisms that the ambassador referred to were created nearly 10 years ago. The special prosecutor of freedom of expression in Mexico states its inability, having opened more than 800 proceedings, and not once having been able to condemn the ones who ordered the murders. Mr. Antoine Bernard concluded that it will be in the common interest to start an ICC investigation and would send a clear message to local judges and prosecutors. Moreover, it would send a message of support to local law enforcement, instead of people having to listen to the temptation of corruption and bribery, according to mr. Bernard.

Afterwards, mr. Cesar Contreras Leon added that opening a preliminary examination into the situation in Mexico could also be important in light of the widespread corruption that Mexico faces. 

 Someone from the audience asked why the NGOs present consider it important that the ICC opens a preliminary examination, considering the fact that this might take years. Ms. Jimena Reyes answered that it could possibly trigger change in the legal system to include crimes against humanity. Moreover, a preliminary examination could encourage change in the way crimes are registered and prosecuted. Furthermore, a preliminary examination would mean some recognition for the victims. 

Finally, a participant referred to a similar situation in Colombia, on the failure of the judicial system and that the biggest challenge is to look at the macro-level of the violence. It is not simply the drug cartels that act as third actors, but they are also infiltrated in the government and therefore it involves corrupted state practice. If a state does not address this as a federal problem, this amounts to a lack of will to prosecute those who are responsible for the violence.