July 2021

Monthly News Updates: Human Rights Institutions - July 2021

By: Irene Aparicio García, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

The following post summarizes and highlights the work of regional and international human rights institutions around the world in the month of July.

EUROPE 

European Court of Human Rights | Russia lodges its first inter-state complaint before the ECtHR against Ukraine

The ECtHR has registered a Russian inter-state application against Ukraine.  This is Russia’s first inter-state application before the ECtHR.  The case concerns the alleged systematized oppression by Ukraine of Russian-speaking individuals in Ukrainian territory.  Russia also complained about Ukraine allegedly shutting down the water supply of the Northern Crimean Canal.  Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Ukraine bears responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, due to its failure to close its airspace.  The ECtHR rejected Russia’s request for interim measures to protect Russian-speaking individuals in Ukraine.  [July 23, 2021]

European Court of Human Rights | The ECtHR finds a failure by Russia to provide a legal framework for the acknowledgment of same-sex couples

The ECtHR has issued its judgment on the Fedotova and Others v. Russia case.  The case concerned the lack of domestic law acknowledging the ability of same-sex couples to marry at Russian municipal registry offices.  The ECtHR found a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life.  [July 13, 2021]

European Court of Human Rights | The ECtHR declares inadmissible an application on the alleged murder of Yasser Arafat

The ECtHR has declared the application for the case of El Kodwa Arafat v. France inadmissible.  The applicants are the widow and daughter of Yasser Arafat, the previous Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization.  The applicants claimed that the refusal of French authorities to admit an expert report on the circumstances of the death of Yasser Arafat as evidence amounted to a violation of their right to a fair trial.  The ECtHR held that French authorities acted diligently upon the complaint.  [July 1, 2021]

AFRICA 

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights | The ACHPR expresses its concern over excessive use of force during protests in the Kingdom of eSwatini. 

The ACHPR has expressed its concern over eSwatini police’s excessive use of force and the human rights violations during pro-democracy protests.  These protests started after police forces killed a student on May 14.  Since this date, eSwatini has deployed further personnel to subdue the protests, resulting in more civilian deaths.  [July 17, 2021]

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights | The ACHPR and the UNHCR express their concern over the migratory crisis in Mozambique

The ACHPR and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have expressed their concern over the migratory crisis in Mozambique.  The number of internally displaced persons is consistently increasing due to the conflict in northern Mozambique, and the situation continues to deteriorate due to attacks by non-state armed groups.  Moreover, the ACHPR and the UNHCR have expressed their concern over the Tanzanian authorities’ pushbacks of Mozambican migrants who try to cross the border.  [July 16, 2021]

THE AMERICAS 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | The IAHCR and the IACtHR condemn the murder of the President of Haiti, Jovenel Moïse

The IACHR and the IACtHR have condemned the murder of the President of Haiti, Jovenel Moïse, by an armed group on June 7, 2021.  Both institutions have given their condolences to the family and have expressed their concern over the health status of the wife of the President, who was injured during the attack.  The IACHR has called on Haiti to continue to respect democratic principles and the human rights of its population.  [July 9, 2021]

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | The IAHCR publishes its observations and recommendations on a working visit to Colombia

The IACHR has published its report on its working visit to Colombia, which it conducted between June 8 and June 10 of this year.  The IACHR carried out the state visit following the reports of the security forces’ excessive use of force and human rights violations during the civilian protests that started on April 28.  The report includes the IACHR’s observations and recommendations, such as the need for inclusive dialogue and the consideration of human rights leaders.  [July 7, 2021]

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | The IAHCR refers the case of Fabio Gadea and Daniel Ortega to the IACtHR

The IACHR has referred the case of the Nicaraguan Fabio Gadea to the IACtHR.  The applicant was the political opponent of Daniel Ortega, current president of Nicaragua, in the 2011 presidential elections.  The case concerns the legality of the candidacy of Ortega in the elections since a decision by the Supreme Court of Justice determined that Ortega could participate again despite having already served two presidential terms.  [July 8, 2021]

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | The IACHR condemns human rights violations during the peaceful protests in Cuba

The IACHR and one of its Special Rapporteurs have condemned the Cuban authorities’ excessive use of force and the arbitrary detentions since peaceful protests commenced on July 11.  The protests started in reaction to decreasing access to food and basic provisions in Cuba since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The IACHR has called on Cuba to join the international human rights mechanisms and to respect the protestors’ freedom of assembly.  [July 15, 2021]

The IACHR’s Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has also expressed its concern over the human rights violations during the protests in Cuba.  The protests were followed by arbitrary arrests and improper safeguards ensuring due process and fair trial of the protestors.  The Office has called on Cuba to redirect its approach towards the protests and strengthen the respect for human rights.  [July 23, 2021]

UN MECHANISMS

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights | The High Commissioner for Human Rights expresses concern over the misuse of surveillance technology of the Pegasus software

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the widespread use of the Pegasus software for the surveillance of human rights advocates, journalists, and politicians.  The High Commissioner has stressed that the misuse of surveillance technology can lead to human rights violations and even murders of civil society actors.  The High Commissioner also stressed that it is the responsibility of surveillance technology companies to ensure that their software is not used for human rights violations.  [July 19, 2021]

Human Rights Council | Developments during the Human Rights Council 47th session

The Human Rights Council finalized its 47th session on July 14, 2021.  During the session, the Council created an independent expert mechanism on systemic racism in law enforcement.  The Council also extended the missions of the Special Rapporteurs on the ongoing human rights situations in Eritrea and Belarus.  [July 14, 2021]

Moreover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 presented his annual report during the Human Rights Council session.  The expert concluded that Israeli settlements in occupied territories amounted to war crimes under the Rome Statute of 1998 and the Fourth Geneva Convention.  The Palestinian representative complained that Israel did not send a delegate to attend the session.  [July 9, 2021]

Lastly, the chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic issued a statement during the Human Rights Council session on July 6.  The chair stressed the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected Syrian civilians amidst the ongoing conflict in the region.  The chair also stressed the need to design and implement a “mechanism on the missing” to register persons that cannot be found or who are detained, which could help in determining the number of deaths.  The Syrian representative complained of interventionism and alleged human rights violations by external actors, like the United States and Turkey. [July 6, 2021]

July 2021

Monthly News Updates: Domestic Prosecution of International Crimes - July 2021

By: Alexandrah Bakker, Research Associate, PILPG-NL 

The following post highlights developments from around the world in the domestic prosecution of international crimes.  This month saw developments at all stages of criminal proceedings, including the filing of criminal complaints, the strengthening of national legislation, and steps towards long-awaited convictions.

EUROPE

Bosnia and Herzegovina | Top Bosnian official implements ban on genocide denial

Valentin Inzko, High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, used his power to modify the state’s criminal code by imposing a ban on genocide denial and the glorification of war criminals. [July 23, 2021] 

Germany | Hamburg court sentences woman to extra jail time for use of Yazidi slaves

A Hamburg court has sentenced a German woman, who was already serving a sentence for membership of ISIS, to an extra six months’ imprisonment for the use of Yazidi slaves to clean her home in Syria. [July 22, 2021] 

The Netherlands | The Hague District Court convicts Syrian man of war crime

The District Court of The Hague convicted Ahmad Al K., a Syrian citizen, of a war crime for his involvement in the execution of a Syrian military officer being held as a prisoner of war.  The Court sentenced Al K. to 20 years’ imprisonment. [July 16, 2021] 

Kosovo | Pristina Basic Court issues first-ever conflict-related sexual violence conviction

The Pristina Basic Court convicted a former Serb policeman of rape and of the expulsion of Albanians during the conflict in 1999.  The decision marks the first time a Kosovar court has convicted a suspect of sexual violence in relation to the conflict. [July 5, 2021] 

France | Magistrates open investigation into fashion groups for complicity in crimes against humanity

French magistrates have opened an inquiry into four major multinational companies for complicity in crimes against humanity.  The investigation is a response to a criminal complaint alleging that these companies profited from the forced labor of the Uyghur minority in the Xinjiang region of China. [July 1, 2021]

The Netherlands | The Hague District Court convicts Dutch woman of war crimes

The District Court of The Hague convicted a Dutch woman of the war crime of outrage upon the personal dignity of deceased persons, as well as incitement to commit war crimes for sharing and commenting on videos depicting the execution of prisoners of war.  In the same judgment, the Court officially designated ISIS as a criminal organization with the purpose to commit war crimes. [June 29, 2021]

ASIA

The Philippines | Supreme Court rules that International Criminal Court has jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes of government actors during President Duterte’s “War on Drugs.”  The Supreme Court held that, despite statements to the contrary by the executive, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to the state’s withdrawal from the Court in 2019.  Ultimately, however, it is for the ICC itself, and not a domestic court, to determine its own jurisdiction. [July 21, 2021]

THE AMERICAS

Colombia | Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace makes “false positive” accusations

The Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), in two separate decisions, has accused 25 military officials of the murder of 247 civilians.  The murders are allegedly part of what is known as the “false positive” scandal, whereby the military falsely presented dead civilians as rebels killed in combat. [July 20, 2021]

AFRICA

The Gambia | High Court of Banjul sentences former minister to death

The High Court of Banjul convicted former minister Yankuba Touray of murder and sentenced him to death.  In an earlier stage of Touray’s case, the Supreme Court of the Gambia decided that, despite a constitutional provision providing amnesty to members of the former junta, there would be no immunity from prosecution for violations of non-derogable human rights.  Touray’s conviction comes as the Gambia’s Truth, Reparation and Reconciliation Commission prepares to publish its report and to make recommendations for the prosecution of other alleged perpetrators of the junta. [July 14, 2021]

The Responsibility of Royal Dutch Shell to Comply with Human Rights Obligations and Environmental Law Through the Unwritten Standard of Care

By: Jochem de Hoop, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) to reduce the CO2 emissions of the Shell Group by a net 45% before 2030, compared to 2019 levels.  The court considered that the CO2 emissions of the Shell Group, its suppliers, and customers exceed those of many states.  This contributes to global warming, which causes climate change and creates serious risks to human rights, such as the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life.  While individuals and civil society organizations cannot directly invoke international and European human rights obligations against companies, they still should respect human rights and apply the relevant standards.  The court decided that the Shell Group has an obligation to comply with international human rights obligations, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP), and the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement, in accordance with the unwritten standard of care under Dutch tort law.

This blog post focuses on the responsibility of the Royal Dutch Shell to ensure its policies comply with human rights obligations under international and European law and the interpretation of the unwritten standard of care under Dutch tort law. 

Background of the Case

In 2019, a group of seven NGOs, including Milieudefensie and Greenpeace, and 17,379 individuals filed a class-action lawsuit against RDS.  The claimants argued that RDS failed to reduce CO2 emissions by not investing more in renewable energy.  On this basis, they argued that RDS violated the unwritten standard of care laid down in Book 6 Section 162 of the Dutch Civil Code, which implies a duty of care for individuals and companies to act in accordance with generally accepted norms of social conduct, and the right to life and the right to family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

As one of the world’s largest producers and suppliers of fossil fuels, RDS, which is the parent company of the Shell Group and is headquartered in the Netherlands, is responsible for a significant amount of CO2 emissions that exceed those of many states, including the Netherlands.  RDS endorses the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and expressed support for the European Green Deal, which contains the European Union’s climate policies, and expressed support for the National Climate Agreement, which is part of the Dutch climate policy.  However, Milieudefensie et al. argued that RDS instead increases investments in oil and gas and therefore fails to adhere to the climate targets in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

Responsibility of Corporations to Comply with Human Rights Obligations

In the decision, the court addressed the question of whether RDS has a legal obligation to reduce CO2 emissions in accordance with the goals of the Paris Agreement.  The court decided that it would interpret the unwritten standard of care under Dutch tort law based on the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, scientific reports on climate change, the international consensus that human rights offer protection against climate change and environmental harm, and that companies must respect human rights.

Based on the Urgenda judgment, a climate litigation case against the Dutch government, the court reiterated that Articles 2 and 8 ECHR offer protection against the impact of dangerous climate change as a result of CO2 emissions.  Similarly, the UN Human Rights Committee determined that Articles 6 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) offer protection against environmental harm, climate change, and unsustainable development.  The court considered that the impact of dangerous climate change includes health risks and deaths due to heat waves, deterioration of air quality, increase of UV exposure and water-related problems due to rising sea levels.  These serious and irreversible consequences of dangerous climate change pose a threat to the human rights of current and future generations of Dutch residents and inhabitants of the Wadden region, an archipelago along the Northwestern coast of the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.  

In addition, the court followed the UNGP, which is an authoritative and internationally recognized non-binding instrument that outlines the responsibilities of states and businesses in relation to human rights.  Interestingly, the court considered that even though the UNGP does not create new rights or legally binding obligations, it can provide a guideline for the interpretation of the unwritten standard of care.  In accordance with the UNGP, the court decided that companies have a duty to respect human rights.  This duty requires companies to avoid causing or contributing to negative human rights impacts through their own activities.  Moreover, it requires companies to prevent or mitigate negative human rights impacts that result from their operations, products or services.  Even though the court acknowledged that RDS is not the only actor responsible for mitigating the impact of dangerous climate change, it concluded that RDS has an individual responsibility to respect human rights, which also extends to its suppliers and customers.  This means that RDS has to ensure through its corporate policy that its own activities result in a reduction of CO2 emissions.  Moreover, it has a “significant best-efforts obligation” with respect to its suppliers and customers, which means that RDS should try to mitigate or prevent the serious human rights risks resulting from the CO2 emissions generated by its suppliers and customers as much as possible.

Implications for Future Climate Litigation Cases

The decision by the Dutch district court has unprecedented implications for future climate litigation cases against big oil companies.  It is the first time that a court decided that a company has a legal obligation to reduce CO2 emissions in accordance with the goals of the Paris Agreement.  Furthermore, it is the first time that a court applied international human rights standards and soft law instruments to impose a legally binding obligation for a company to reduce CO2 emissions.  While the decision does not have direct consequences for climate litigation cases abroad, other domestic courts could replicate the arguments in relation to the application of international human rights standards and international environmental law.  Considering that the concept of a standard of care exists in other legal systems in Europe and other parts of the world, these courts could similarly apply international human rights standards and soft law instruments to companies.  For instance, French NGOs and local authorities have filed a lawsuit against Total for violating the duty of vigilance under French law, which stipulates that large companies have to take appropriate measures to prevent any human rights violations or environmental damage resulting from their activities.

Concluding Remarks
While there have been previous lawsuits against states for violations of human rights obligations and environmental law in relation to climate change, the Milieudefensie et al. v. RDS decision is the first case in which a court decided that a multinational company has the responsibility to reduce CO2 emissions in accordance with international human rights obligations and environmental law. The application of international human rights standards and soft law instruments in interpreting the unwritten standard of care provides an interesting approach to hold companies responsible using international law. While this could set a legal precedent for future climate litigation cases, it is important to note that RDS has announced that it will appeal the decision in the Dutch Court of Appeal. So it remains to be seen whether this decision will have a lasting effect on global climate litigation.

Nigeria’s Twitter Ban and its Human Rights Implications

By: Katherine Grzadkowska, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Since June 4, 2021, President Muhammadu Buhari has suspended the use of Twitter in Nigeria.  Buhari's move follows Twitter's removal of his tweet in which the president suggested that secessionists in the South of the country would be met with violence.  The social media platform swiftly removed the president’s post as it violated Twitter’s policy against expressing “a desire for death [or] serious bodily harm” against a group of people.  Buhari’s government insists that the Twitter ban is necessary, claiming that the social media platform is a threat to “Nigeria’s corporate existence” through the spread of “fake news.”  Users who circumvent the ban face prosecution and imprisonment.  The ban has sparked criticism worldwide from human rights organizations and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights as an infringement of Nigerians’ fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and access to information. 

This blog post will examine Nigeria’s Twitter ban through the lens of applicable international and regional human rights instruments.  It assesses whether Nigeria’s Twitter ban poses a severe infringement on Nigerians’ fundamental freedoms and socio-economic human rights. 

Freedom of Speech, Opinion, and the Right to Receive Information

Many international/regional treaties and national constitutions articulate the fundamental freedoms of speech, opinion, and the right to share information.  Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that everyone has the right to “hold opinions without interference” as well as “the right to freedom of expression.”   This includes the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds” in any form and through any media of the speaker’s or author’s choice.  Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) echoes the ICCPR and also enshrines the right to receive information and express and disseminate opinions.  Domestically, Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution provides for freedom of expression, opinion, and the right to “receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”

The Human Rights Committee (HRC) has said that freedom of opinion and expression is “the foundation stone for every free and democratic society” and integral for the enjoyment of other human rights.  As such, restrictions on free speech have to be narrow and limited to matters that threaten “the rights or reputations of others” or national interests such as security, public order, health, or morals. 

The Role of Social Media as a Human Rights Facilitator

All of the above-mentioned human rights instruments were enacted before the internet and Twitter existed.  Yet, today’s massive social media platforms have become a common means of sharing ideas, communication, and expression throughout the world.  All of these activities can be viewed as users exercising their fundamental freedoms of speech, opinion, and association, as well as their right to access information.  When social media platforms “are intentionally disconnected or disrupted through deliberate government intervention,” users’ human rights may be endangered.  The HRC has established that “internet-based modes of expression” are captured under Article 19 ICCPR and states have to refrain from banning access to social media platforms in a sweeping and indiscriminate manner.  The Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa also restricts states from interfering or disrupting public access to “digital technologies” like social media platforms, “through measures such as the removal, blocking or filtering of content, unless such interference is justifiable and compatible with international human rights law and standards.” 

The Importance of Twitter in Nigeria 

Twitter is an essential source of information, advocacy, and, at times, even livelihood for an estimated 40 million users in Nigeria.  Many Nigerians rely on Twitter to find jobs and promote their work, especially in the state’s growing tech sector.  As such, the Twitter ban also threatens Nigerian users’ socio-economic right to work as articulated under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 15 of the African Charter.  Moreover, Twitter is a favored medium of political discussion and activism in Nigerian as recently exemplified in the #EndSARS protests of October 2020 whereby Twitter served as an essential tool for communication and a trusted source for “real-time updates and unfiltered information.”  Moreover, according to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, social media, such as Twitter, serves as an integral informational forum in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, allowing users to access and share crucial information and news on the virus. 

Conclusion 

Social media platforms have become widely used fora for individuals to connect, communicate, and share ideas worldwide.  These platforms also allow users to socialize, make a living, and disseminate ideas that foster important political debate.  Measures and bans, such as the one imposed in Nigeria, can have a significant impact on users' human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in developing states and in the context of a global pandemic.  Currently, the Nigerian government is in negotiations with Twitter that may restore both access to the social media platform and the country’s obligations under international human rights law.

What the Closure of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Would Mean for its Cases

By: Henry Smith, Junior Research Associate at PILPG-NL

At the start of June, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) released a public statement announcing that it faced an unprecedented financial crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis in Lebanon, and would not be able to operate beyond July.  As a result of the lack of funds, the Tribunal, which had already reduced its budget by 37 percent for 2021 in relation to previous years, is facing imminent closure.  This blog will look at the possible consequences that the termination of the STL would have for its cases.

The financial crisis 

Upon the establishment of the Tribunal, the United Nations (UN) Security Council determined that Lebanon would bear 49 percent of the STL’s costs, and the remaining 51 percent would be borne by voluntary contributions of third-party states.  The Management Committee, composed of the ten largest contributors, would oversee and approve the annual budgets.  Until now, 29 states have contributed in total with over a billion dollars.

Since late 2019, Lebanon has been facing a serious economic and financial crisis, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the explosion at the Port of Beirut in August 2020.  As a consequence, it has been unable to provide its share of funds to the STL.

In 2021, the STL cut its budget by 35 percent in comparison to previous years, made significant cuts in staff, and received a subvention from the UN, which covered 75 percent of the Lebanese contribution.  However, the STL still fell short of the necessary funds due to the lack of contributions from third-party states.  Even members of the Management Committee failed to provide support, and commentators have suggested that this was due to the states’ frustration with the STL’s lack of effective results, having convicted a single suspect, who is still at large.

The cases

The UN established the STL in March 2009, at the request of Lebanon, to prosecute, under Lebanese criminal law, those responsible for the attack of February 14, 2005, that killed 22 people, including the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and injured 226 more.  The STL charged four suspects, Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hassan Habib Merhi, Hussein Hassan Oneissi, and Assad Hassan Sabra, who were tried in absentia in the Ayyash et al. case.  In 2020, the Tribunal issued its judgment on the case, acquitting three of the accused, but finding Mr. Ayyash guilty of all charges.  The Tribunal sentenced him to life imprisonment and issued an arrest warrant.  However, Mr. Ayyash has still not been arrested, and the case is currently being appealed by the respondent and the Prosecutor.  The Tribunal also has jurisdiction over other attacks that occurred in connection to the one that killed Hariri, and it had scheduled the beginning of the trial of its second case, the Ayyash Case, on July 16.

What the closure would mean for the cases

On June 1, the Registrar of the STL, Mr. David Tolbert, issued a notice to the Tribunal’s organs, informing them of the imminent exhaustion of funds, and of the activation of the plan to wind down its activities.  This would include the suspension of all cases, the initiation of procedures for the protection of witnesses, and a process to secure records, evidence, and sensitive material.  The following day, the Trial Chamber that was about to initiate the trial of the Ayyash Case announced the trial’s cancellation.

In previous closures of international adjudicative organs, such as International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and Yugoslavia (ICTY), the UN set up the International Residual Mechanisms for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT).  The IRMCT continued to hear appeals, track and prosecute remaining fugitives, and conduct retrials and reviews. 

The problem for the STL is that such mechanisms also demand funding.  Mr. Tolbert has said that he is drawing up plans along with the UN Secretary-General, but that these plans would not involve the same type of residual mechanism as the IRMCT, mainly due to the lack of financial resources.  Alternatively, perhaps the STL's cases could be mandated to the IRMCT.  However, the UN Security Council would have to restructure the Mechanism’s framework, currently divided into two branches, one for the ICTR and another for the ICTY.  The UNSC would also need to redistribute funds, which could be disruptive for the IRMCT. 

Another possibility would be to suspend the cases indefinitely in the hopes that they would be reopened in the future.  Although this is technically possible, experts believe it is unrealistic.  Therefore it is still quite hard to conclude exactly what will happen with the STL’s cases if the Tribunal effectively closes its doors.

Concluding remarks

While the STL makes plans to enter into a state of “dormancy,” determining what to do with its cases, and how to protect witnesses and archives, it is still seeking the funds it needs to conclude its pending cases.  If it fails to do so before the end of July, it will be forced to shut down.  It is still uncertain to conclude what will happen with its cases, but it is improbable that a residual mechanism like the one set up for the ICTR and ICTY will be established, due to the lack of financial resources.