81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly
Agenda Item 128 “International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals”
Statement delivered by Elvira Cupika-Mavrina, Legal advisor of Latvia on behalf of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia
New York, 21 October 2026
Mister President,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the three Baltic States – Estonia, Lithuania and my own country Latvia. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the European Union.
The IRMCT and its predecessors have left a lasting legacy in international criminal justice by demonstrating that individuals, including senior political and military leaders, can be held accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 90 persons from the former Yugoslavia have been convicted, 61 have been convicted for their crimes in Rwanda.
The tribunals have also had an important role in the realm of gender crimes, an area left largely undeveloped in the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes proceedings. Beyond prosecutions, these institutions gave victims a voice: more than 4,650 witnesses testified before the ICTY and over 3,200 before the ICTR, allowing survivors to have their experiences officially recognized and preserved in the historical record. The Tribunals established important legal precedents and strengthened the rule of law by combating impunity for the gravest international crimes.
This is a legacy. A legacy we must respect, protect and preserve.
We wish to make three points.
First, attempts have been made by the Russian Federation to deny that Mechanism’s mandate has been extended and that it continues to exist. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the terms of Security Council resolution 1966 (2010).
Paragraph 17 of Security Council Resolution 1966 (2010) is clear: the Mechanism continues to operate for periods of two years following each Security Council review of the Mechanism’s work, unless the Council decides otherwise. The Council has reviewed the reports provided by the Mechanism and has engaged with its leadership. The whole UN Membership can attest to this; there was a public Security Council debate on 12 June this year. No decision to discontinue the mandate has been adopted. Thus, the Mechanism continues to operate under its extended mandate.
Second, it is clear that change to the Mechanism is needed to reflect the completion of its principal criminal proceedings and the evolving nature of its remaining functions. In the last two years the IRMCT has worked hard on completing all the criminal core crimes cases, disseminating more than 3 000 judicial filings, responding to 125 requests for assistance and providing over 120 000 judicial records for use in national proceedings in various Member States. Preserving access to these records and continued assistance to national jurisdictions remains essential for ongoing accountability efforts.
Third, the completion of its core criminal prosecutions does not mean that the functions of the Mechanism are a ‘done deal’; the UN remains responsible for the victims, the witnesses and the convicts tied to the authority to the Mechanism. 3 200 witnesses must continue to enjoy adequate protection measures. The implementation of the sentences of dozens of convicts must be carried out in accordance with international human rights and security standards. The justice delivered for these crimes and due process must be safeguarded.
The Mechanism’s Strategic Plan proposes that the Council amends the Mechanism’s mandate to provide for the completion and transfer of several of the Mechanism’s most resource-intensive functions while retaining a limited number of judicial functions at the international level. Proposed measures such as the removal of the two-branch requirement of locations in Tanzania and the Netherland and the reduction of staff by almost 90% demonstrate the preparedness of the Mechanism to change. Such reforms must ensure that essential judicial safeguards are preserved and that the transfer of functions is carried out responsibly, with the cooperation of Member States.
To conclude, rather than continuing the debate on whether the Mechanism “still exists”, the discussion should focus on passing a resolution which would allow for these important and cost-saving reforms that protect the Mechanism’s legacy. Until such a resolution has been adopted, the Mechanism needs to be financially supported to ensure the transfer and the responsible conclusion of its functions.
The fight against impunity has been a collective effort of the international community for the last three decades and we have the results to prove it. Justice for victims in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia is worth our continued determination and support.
I thank you.