Statement by the Cuban delegation under item 35 “Prevention of armed conflicts”, presentation of the eighth report of the “International, impartial and independent mechanism to assist in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011”. New York, 1 April 2022.
Mr. President;
During the adoption of resolution 71/248, my delegation remarked that Cuba will not support any mechanism that deliberately disregards the principles by which the Charter of the United Nations is underpinned.
The adoption and implementation of the Mechanism mandated by the aforementioned resolution is an unprecedented move in the history of the United Nations.
The deliberate undermining of the primary responsibility that rests with the Syrian Arab Republic and its judicial system in the investigation and prosecution of any crimes that may have been committed on its territory, constitutes a violation of the norms and principles of international law, and points to a dangerous course of action in the practice of the Organization.
Mr. President,
The concerned Mechanism´s mandate has no legal grounds and exceeds the powers and functions conferred upon the General Assembly in Articles 10, 12 and 22 of the Charter. In like manner, by giving it the name of subsidiary organ of the Assembly, the Mechanism and its staff are being granted legal personality, immunities and prerogatives that are not assigned to it.
To the above, it should be added that the basic terms of reference of this Mechanism were not even specified and that we, Member States, did not have the capacity to speak out in that regard and, much less to make decisions on them prior to their adoption.
On the other hand, the Mechanism is assigned functions similar to those of a prosecutor's office, with the purpose of establishing a link between the evidence of the criminal acts and those who may be responsible for them, in order to share the information with the national, regional or international courts or tribunals which, in its opinion, may exercise jurisdiction. This constitutes a judicial arbitrariness, inasmuch as not even in the classic judicial function, the same organ can be judge and party.
Mr. President,
The change in the IIIM funding model does not enjoy consensus either, as has been shown in repeated voting on the subject, both at the Fifth Committee and at the Assembly. Mechanisms of this nature should not be funded with the assessed contributions of Member States, particularly if they do not have the consent and involvement of the State concerned.
In view of the above, we consider that this Mechanism was flawed from its inception. The inconsistencies and contradictions reflected in the report presented today attest to this.
While a sovereign Member State such as the Syrian Arab Republic is unfairly singled out, a practice that we categorically reject, the credibility of the Organization and the objectivity and impartiality of its mechanisms are also being brought into question.
We therefore reaffirm our opposition to the Mechanism established by resolution 71/248, and reiterate that it will not be possible to prevent conflicts or ensure international peace and security without the strict observance of the Charter of the United Nations and International Law as an indispensable condition.
Thank you very much.