United Nations

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

United Nations UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No.: IT-96-21-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 16 November 1998 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before: Judge Adolphus G. Karibi-Whyte, Presiding Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito Judge Saad Saood Jan Registrar: Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh Judgement of: 16 November 1998 PROSECUTOR v. ZEJNIL DELALI] ZDRAVKO MUCI] also known as “PAVO” HAZIM DELI] ESAD LAND@O also known as “ZENGA” JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Grant Niemann Ms. Teresa McHenry Counsel for the Accused: Ms. Edina Re{idovi}, Mr. Eugene O’Sullivan, for Zejnil Delali} Ms. Nihada Buturovi}, Mr. Howard Morrison, for Zdravko Muci} Mr. Salih Karabdi}, Mr. Thomas Moran, for Hazim Deli} Ms. Cynthia McMurrey, Ms. Nancy Boler, for Esad Land`o Case No.: IT-96-21-T 16 November 1998 i CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 A. The International Tribunal..........................................................................................................................2 B. The Indictment.............................................................................................................................................2 1. ESAD LAND@O .......................................................................................................................................3 (a) Wilful Killing and Murder.....................................................................................................................4 (b) Torture and Cruel Treatment .................................................................................................................4 (c) Causing Great Suffering or Serious Injury and Cruel Treatment.............................................................5 2. HAZIM DELI].........................................................................................................................................6 (a) Wilful Killing and Murder.....................................................................................................................6 (b) Torture and Cruel Treatment .................................................................................................................7 (c) Inhuman Treatment and Cruel Treatment...............................................................................................7 (d) Causing Great Suffering or Serious Injury and Cruel Treatment.............................................................8 (e) Unlawful Confinement of Civilians .......................................................................................................8 (f) Plunder of Private Property ...................................................................................................................8 3. ZEJNIL DELALI] and ZDRAVKO MUCI].............................................................................................9 (a) Wilful Killing and Murder.....................................................................................................................9 (b) Torture and Cruel Treatment ...............................................................................................................10 (c) Causing Great Suffering or Serious Injury and Cruel Treatment...........................................................10 (d) Inhuman Treatment and Cruel Treatment.............................................................................................11 (e) Unlawful Confinement of Civilians .....................................................................................................12 (f) Plunder of Private Property .................................................................................................................12 C. Procedural History.....................................................................................................................................12 1. Indictment-Related Issues........................................................................................................................ 14 2. Provisional Release and Fitness to Stand Trial.......................................................................................... 15 3. Matters Relating to the Detention Unit ..................................................................................................... 16 4. Assignment of Defence Counsel .............................................................................................................. 17 5. Matters Relating to Trial Proceedings ...................................................................................................... 18 6. Witness-Related Issues ............................................................................................................................ 21 (a) Protective Measures ............................................................................................................................21 (b) Video-Link Testimony ........................................................................................................................22 (c) Disclosure of Witness Identity.............................................................................................................23 (d) Additional Witnesses and Issuance of Subpoenae ................................................................................23 (e) Miscellaneous .....................................................................................................................................25 7. Evidentiary Issues.................................................................................................................................... 26 (a) Disclosure Requirements.....................................................................................................................26 (b) Admissibility of Evidence ...................................................................................................................27 (c) Evidence of Prior Sexual Conduct .......................................................................................................30 8. Miscellaneous Issues Relating to the Regulation of Proceedings............................................................... 31 9. Defence of Diminished or Lack of Mental Capacity ................................................................................. 34 10. Judges’ Terms of Office........................................................................................................................... 34 11. Motion for Judgement of Acquittal .......................................................................................................... 35 12. Sentencing Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 36 D. Structure of the Judgement........................................................................................................................37 II. BACKGROUND AND PRELIMINARY FACTUAL FINDINGS.................................... 38 A. Historical and Geographical Background of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.....................39 B. The Concept of All People’s Defence (Total National Defence) ................................................................40 C. Disintegration of the SFRY and Emergence of the New States.................................................................41 Case No.: IT-96-21-T 16 November 1998 ii D. Role of Military Forces in the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina..........................................................45 1. The JNA.................................................................................................................................................. 45 2. The HVO ................................................................................................................................................ 48 3. Paramilitary Groups................................................................................................................................. 48 E. The Konjic Municipality - Geographical, Demographic and Political Structure .....................................49 F. Fighting in Konjic and Existence of the ^elebi}i Prison-camp .................................................................52 1. Military Action........................................................................................................................................ 52 2. The Establishment of the ^elebi}i Prison-camp........................................................................................ 56 3. Description of the ^elebi}i Compound..................................................................................................... 57 4. The Arrival, Accommodation and Release of Prisoners ............................................................................ 58 III. APPLICABLE LAW........................................................................................................... 62 A. General Principles of Interpretation..........................................................................................................62 1. General Aids to Interpretation.................................................................................................................. 62 2. Other Canons of Interpretation................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Gender Crimes Under International Criminal Law Richard J
    New England Journal of Public Policy Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 8 9-21-2003 Engendering Accountability: Gender Crimes Under International Criminal Law Richard J. Goldstone Constitutional Court of South Africa Estelle A. Dehon Oxford University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp Part of the History of Gender Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Military, War and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Goldstone, Richard J. and Dehon, Estelle A. (2003) "Engendering Accountability: Gender Crimes Under International Criminal Law," New England Journal of Public Policy: Vol. 19: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol19/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in New England Journal of Public Policy by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Engendering Gender Crimes Accountability Under International Criminal Law Richard J. Goldstone Estelle A. Dehon Gender crimes, such as rape, sexual assault, sexual slavery, and forced prostitu- tion, have always been perpetrated during war, yet the laws of war have been slow to acknowledge these crimes and to bring their perpetrators to justice. This article examines the response of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to this lacuna in international law, and ana- lyzes the mainly positive developments they have made in this area in relation to the definition of rape and to the prosecution of gender crimes as crimes against humanity, war crimes, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and geno- cide.
    [Show full text]
  • Primera Sentencia De La Corte Penal Internacional Sobre La Reparación A
    Revista Española de Derecho Internacional Sección NOTAS © 2013 Asociación de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales ISSN: 0034-9380, vol. LXV/2 Madrid, julio-diciembre 2013 págs. 209-226 PRIMERA SENTENCIA DE LA CORTE PENAL INTERNACIONAL SOBRE REPARACIÓN A LAS VÍCTIMAS: CASO THE PROSECUTOR C. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO, 7 DE AGOSTO DE 2012* Ana Gemma LÓ P EZ MAR T ÍN Profesora Titular de Derecho internacional público Universidad Complutense de Madrid SUMARIO: 1. INTRODUCCIÓN.—2. BREVE RESEÑA DEL COMPLEJO PROCESO CONTRA THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO.—3. LA SENTENCIA DE 7 DE AGOSTO DE 2012 SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS Y EL PROCESO DE REPARACIÓN A LAS VÍCTIMAS DE LOS CRÍMENES DE THOMAS LUBANGA.—3.1. El derecho de las víctimas a la reparación.—3.2. Los princi- pios de reparación establecidos.—3.3. El proceso a seguir.—4. ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES ACERCA DE LA SENTENCIA SOBRE REPARACIONES. 1. INTRODUCCIÓN El año 2012 ha sido un año emblemático para el Derecho Penal Interna- cional; y ello, porque la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) —casi una década después de su puesta en marcha 1 — ha dictado dos sentencias históricas, que suponen un importante avance tanto en la consolidación de la responsabili- dad penal internacional del individuo, como en la consagración del derecho a la reparación de las víctimas de los crímenes cometidos por estos. El 14 de marzo de 2012, la Sala de Primera Instancia de la CPI consideró a Thomas Lubanga Dyilo culpable del crimen de guerra de «reclutamiento o ∗ Trabajo realizado en el marco del Proyecto I+D+I (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) referencia DER2010-15605, subprograma JURI.
    [Show full text]
  • IIDH in the Americas Bi-Weekly Newsletter of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights No
    IIDH in the Americas Bi-weekly newsletter of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights No. 252 – March 1 to 15, 2014 Contents: Honoring the work of former President Jimmy Carter. Panama City. The presence of the IIHR in South America. Montevideo, Uruguay. The IIHR signs a cooperation agreement with the Ombudsman Office. Bogotá, Colombia A UNIORE mission observes the second round of the elections. San Salvador, El Salvador. A UNIORE mission observes the Colombian legislative elections. Bogota, Colombia. Exchange of electoral experiences between Latin American and Arab countries. México City. The IIHR continues to promote education in human rights. Montevideo, Uruguay. Honoris causa degree to Elizabeth Odio Benito. Heredia, Costa Rica. IIHR and UARIV prepare commemoration with victims of conflict. Bogotá, Colombia. Conference on “The Rights of the Victims.” Bogotá, Colombia. Donation of institutional publications to the indigenous population of Bribri. Salitre, Buenos Aires de Puntarenas, Costa Rica. Announcement to participate in the international conference on electoral studies. México, D.F.; San José, Costa Rica. Follow our activities in Facebook. ************************************************************ Honoring the work of former President Jimmy Carter Panama City. March 14, a ceremony was held to honor the work of President Jimmy Carter of the United States. It was organized jointly by the Electoral Tribunal of Panama and the IIHR to recognize Mr. Carter’s commitment to human rights, democracy, solidarity, the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the world and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. High electoral authorities, former presidents of Panama, members of the diplomatic corps and interested public, attended the event. José Thompson, Executive Director and Director of its Center for Electoral Promotion and Assistance (CAPEL), conveyed the greetings of Claudio Grossman, President of the Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Resolution 808: a Step Toward a Permanent International Court for the Prosecution of International Crimes and Human Rights Violations Daniel B
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 25 Article 8 Issue 2 Notes and Comments January 1995 Security Council Resolution 808: A Step Toward a Permanent International Court for the Prosecution of International Crimes and Human Rights Violations Daniel B. Pickard Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel B. Pickard, Security Council Resolution 808: A Step Toward a Permanent International Court for the Prosecution of International Crimes and Human Rights Violations, 25 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1995). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol25/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pickard: International Criminal Court COMMENT SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 808: A STEP TOWARD A PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL COURT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION The United Nations recently created international tribu­ nals to prosecute international crimes and human rights viola­ tions in Rwandal and Yugoslavia.2 On February 22, 1993, the United Nations' Security Council passed Resolution 808 which proclaimed that "an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991."3 1. S.C. Res. 995, U.N. SCOR, 3453rd mtg. at 2, U.N. Doc. SC/4327 (1994).
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations
    UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-01-48-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 16 November 2005 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A Before: Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba Judge Amin El Mahdi Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 16 November 2005 PROSECUTOR v. SEFER HALILOVIĆ JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Philip Weiner Ms. Sureta Chana Mr. David Re Mr. Manoj Sachdeva Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Peter Morrissey Mr. Guénaël Mettraux PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/abda04/ I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. THE ACCUSED SEFER HALILOVIĆ.................................................................................................1 B. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE AGAINST SEFER HALILOVIĆ..................................................................1 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ...4 III. APPLICABLE LAW...................................................................................................................8 A. LAW ON ARTICLE 3 OF THE STATUTE...........................................................................................8 1. General Requirements of Article 3 of the Statute....................................................................8 (a) The Existence of an Armed Conflict
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations
    UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-01-48-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 16 November 2005 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A Before: Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba Judge Amin El Mahdi Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 16 November 2005 PROSECUTOR v. SEFER HALILOVIĆ JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Philip Weiner Ms. Sureta Chana Mr. David Re Mr. Manoj Sachdeva Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Peter Morrissey Mr. Guénaël Mettraux I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. THE ACCUSED SEFER HALILOVIĆ.................................................................................................1 B. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE AGAINST SEFER HALILOVIĆ..................................................................1 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ...4 III. APPLICABLE LAW...................................................................................................................8 A. LAW ON ARTICLE 3 OF THE STATUTE...........................................................................................8 1. General Requirements of Article 3 of the Statute....................................................................8 (a) The Existence of an Armed Conflict and Nexus of the Alleged Crimes with the
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights
    INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVISORY OPINION OC-25/18 OF 30 MAY 2018 REQUESTED BY THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR THE INSTITUTION OF ASYLUM AND ITS RECOGNITION AS A HUMAN RIGHT IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF PROTECTION (INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE OF ARTICLES 5, 22.7 AND 22.8 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Inter-American Court", "the Court" or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following Judges*: Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Chairman; Eduardo Vio Grossi, Vice President; Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Judge; Elizabeth Odio Benito, Judge, and L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire, Judge; Also present: Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, in accordance with Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the American Convention" or "the Convention") and with Rules 70 to 75 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter "the Regulations"), the Court issues the following Advisory Opinion, which is structured as follows: * Judge Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni did not attend the 124th Regular Session of the Inter-American Court for reasons of force majeure, which was accepted by the plenary. For this reason, he did not participate in the deliberation and signing of this advisory opinion. 1 Table of Contents I. THE APPLICATION FOR CONSULTATION 3 II. COURT PROCEEDINGS 7 III. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY 11 A. General considerations 11 B. The formal requirement to specify the provisions to be interpreted 15 C. Ratione personae competence 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter No 4.Pdf
    NEWSLETTER No. 4 Dear readers, PUBLISHER University of Sarajevo It is our sincere pleasure to introduce you the fourth Electronic Institute for Research of Newsletter of the Institute for the Research of Crimes against Crimes Against Humanity Humanity and International Law of the University of Sarajevo. and International Law We are exceptionally proud on the past 2017: the beginning of the year was marked with the drafting of the Application for revision of the Judgment in the case concerning the Genocide DIRECTOR Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia) at the Inter- Dr. Rasim Muratović national Court of Justice. During this year we have published important editions: “First Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, “Crimes against the Bosniaks of Ja- STAFF DIRECTORY jce, Jezera and Šipova 1992-1995”,”Genocide in Sanski Most”, MSc Ilvana Salić “Olovo 1992-1995 - the Suffering and Destruction of the Heroic Haris Suljović, M.A. Olovo”, “Enforced Disappearance of Persons in the Sarajevo Area Sead Muhić 1992-1995”, “Studies of Evil” – translation from Norwegian. Halisa Čengić In this year we have also redesigned our website, in Bosnian and English language, www.institut-genocid.unsa.ba. The end of the year was important from the international point TRANSLATION of research of the crimes against humanity. On 22 November Samir Kulaglić the Chamber sentenced Ratko Mladić, Commander of the Haris Suljović, M.A. Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska to the life impris- Halisa Čengić onment and found him guilty on 10 out of 11 counts of indict- ment: for participation in overarching joint criminal enterprise that includes committing crimes in 13 Municipalities, geno- PROOFREADING cide in Srebrenica, siege of Sarajevo, taking UN personnel hos- Sadžida Džuvić tage.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Social Council
    UNITED NATIONS Economic and Social Distr. Council GENERAL E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1987/26 31 August 1986 ENGLISH Original» ENGLISH/SPANISH ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Thirty-ninth session Item 13 of the provisional agenda ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF Study of the current dimensions of the problems of intolerance and of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief Report by Mrs. Elizabeth Odio Benito, Special Rapporteur GE.86-11939/5151E/5152E E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/26 page ii CONTENTS Paragraphs Pages Introduction , 1-33 1 Chapter I. CURRENT DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM OF INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF 34 - 155 7 A. Rights violated by manifestations of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief 41-44 8 B. Intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief in the contemporary world 45-82 9 * •• C. Relationships between State and Church . 83 - 88 19 D. Analysis of existing constitutional and legal guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief 89 - 155 21 II. ROOT CAUSES OF INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF 156 - 187 38 A. Ignorance and lack of understanding .... 167 - 169 41 B. Variations in religiosity 170 - 175 41 C. Developments of history 176 - 180 44 D. Social tensions 181 - 187 46 III. THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF> ITS NATURE AND JURIDICAL SCOPE 188 - 204 48 A.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS Case No.: IT-96-21-A Date: 20 February 2001
    UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No.: IT-96-21-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 20 February 2001 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: ENGLISH IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge David Hunt, Presiding Judge Fouad Riad Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia Judge Mohamed Bennouna Judge Fausto Pocar Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 20 February 2001 PROSECUTOR V Zejnil DELALIC, Zdravko MUCIC (aka “PAVO”), Hazim DELIC and Esad LANDŽO (aka “ZENGA”) (“^ELEBICI Case”) JUDGEMENT Counsel for the Accused: Mr John Ackerman and Ms Edina Rešidovi} for Zejnil Delalic Mr Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Mr Howard Morrison for Zdravko Mucic Mr Salih Karabdic and Mr Tom Moran for Hazim Delic Ms Cynthia Sinatra and Mr Peter Murphy for Esad Landžo The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr Upawansa Yapa Mr William Fenrick Mr Christopher Staker Mr Norman Farrell Ms Sonja Boelaert-Suominen Mr Roeland Bos CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2 II. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE STATUTE...................... 4 A. Whether the Trial Chamber Erred in Holding that the Armed Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Time Relevant to the Indictment was of an International Character..............................................................................4 1. What is the Applicable Law? .....................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth Odio Benito
    Judge, Elizabeth Odio Benito Costa Rica Current Position Judge, President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Other Positions Expert consultant of the University for Peace, United Nations, Costa Rica, Department of International Relations and Conflict Resolution. 2014 Expert Consultant, of the National University of Costa Rica, Heredia, Costa Rica, Department of International Relations. 2003-2012 Judge in the Trial Division of the International Criminal Court. 2003-2006 Second Vice President of the International Criminal Court. 1993-1998 Judge of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, N.U. 1993-1995 Vice President of the International Criminal Courtad hoc for the former Yugoslavia. Positions held in the Government of Costa Rica 1998-2002 Second Vice President of the Republic. 1998-2002 Minister of Environment and Energy. 1990-1995 Minister of Justice. 1978-1982 Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Republic. 1993 Ambassador Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geneva. - Labor Law. - Family Law. 1993 Ambassador Head of Delegation World Conference on Human Rights, United Nations, Vienna. - International Human Rights Law. - Economic and Social Organization of Costa Rica. Private Practice 1965-1977 Law Firm Odio and Partners, principal partner, Costa Rica. 1982-1990 Private Law (Commercial, Labor and Family Law). Education 1986-1987 Postgraduate studies in Gender, National University of Costa Rica. 1968 Postgraduate studies in Economic and Social Development, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Organization of American States. 1964 Degree in Law and Notary Public, School of Law, University of Costa Rica. Teaching Experiencie in Costa Rica 1968-1993 University of Costa Rica, School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Costa Rica WPS
    Ms. Chan (Costa Rica) (spoke in Spanish): Costa Rica congratulates Spain on having organized this debate and welcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 2242 (2015), which we co-sponsored. The adoption of resolution 1325 (2000) was a landmark in the history of the Organization. It marks a normative shift in the way we talk about women in the context of international peace and security. Resolution 1325 (2000) called upon Member States to prioritize women in peace and security processes and to stop talking about women as victims and, instead, to begin simultaneous conversations about the importance of promoting women’s agency and participation. Resolution 1325 (2000) established a bold agenda in which gender equality forms the basis of peaceful and inclusive societies. Despite the increased visibility of women in these processes, much work remains to be done in terms of impact. While a greater number of women participate in peace negotiations, nearly half of all peace agreements make no mention of women, and those that do, are often insubstantial. There may be an increase in the number of women’s groups in the field, but women still remain especially vulnerable in conflict situations. To remedy this disparity, the inclusion of women in peace and security processes must go beyond checking a box marked “women”. Costa Rica believes that the full and effective participation of women means much more than inserting women in the existing security structures and concepts. The original intention of resolution 1325 (2000) was never to promote women soldiers, but rather to reap the rewards obtained when women are granted space to participate as equals in the search for solutions.
    [Show full text]