Niccolo Fantin, Author at UpRights

On Friday, November 22, UpRights’ Co-Director Valérie Gabard took part in a conference on corporate human rights due diligence co-hosted by the University of Nîmes , Juristes sans Frontières, and with the support of the Montpellier, Nîmes and Alès Bar associations.

The conference brought together experts and practitioners to discuss the growing responsibilities of businesses to respect human rights and protect the environment.

As part of her panel, Valérie discussed the importance of conducting heightened human rights due diligence for companies operating in conflict zones or high-risk areas, focusing on its value to minimize risks of harms for civilians and for businesses to contribute by the activities to the commission of serious human rights violations.

Revisiting the Foundations: Heightened Human rights Due Diligence in Conflicts or High-Risk Zones

Valérie began by grounding her discussion in the standards set by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which codified the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Corporate responsibility requires businesses to conduct human rights due diligence, a process consisting of identifying, preventing, and mitigating risks of human rights harm. In this regard, Valérie notably stressed that traditional due diligence processes need to be tailored to high-risk areas where armed conflict, weak governance, and systemic violence exacerbate vulnerabilities.

Heightened human rights due diligence, as she explained, therefore emerges in the form of complementary UN guidelines proposing a more tailored approach to the human rights situation on the ground. This includes:

Understanding the local conflict context to anticipate how business operations might impact or exacerbate existing tensions.

Engaging meaningfully with affected stakeholders, such as displaced communities, local authorities, and, where feasible, even armed groups.

Applying a comprehensive legal framework that integrates international humanitarian law and international criminal law alongside human rights standards.

Planning a disengagement strategy in advance as an option for addressing adverse human rights impact but taking into account whether suspending or exiting could exacerbate tensions within populations and whether the harms outweigh the benefits.

Building on UpRights’ Work: The TotalEnergies Case

Valérie’s presentation drew from UpRights’ 2023 report on TotalEnergies’ natural gas project in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique—a prime example of the consequences of inadequate human rights due diligence in a conflict-affected region. Commissioned by Justiça Ambiental!, Friends of the Earth Europe, Friends of the Earth, Milieudefensie and conducted independently by UpRights, the report highlighted significant shortcomings in TotalEnergies’ approach to heightened human rights due diligence and conflict sensitivity.

The Cabo Delgado region has indeed been embroiled in an armed conflict since 2017, marked by egregious human rights abuses and violations, including mass killings, sexual violence, and forced displacement committed by both the armed group and the Mozambique armed forces. Despite these conditions, TotalEnergies failed to implement a heightened due diligence process when it became the operator of the project in 2019 but also in 2021 when it finally conducted its own human rights due diligence process.

This failure to conduct a heightened human rights due diligence process led to a disregard of whether the Project’s presence and activities may contribute to the conflict and to the serious human rights violations and abuses committed against local population.

For instance, TotalEnergies and the government of Mozambique signed a Memorandum of Understanding providing that the project’s area of operation will be secured by a Joint Task Force (JTF) composed of the Mozambican military and police force. This agreement includes material and financial support to the armed forces. If the HRRD process had conducted an heightened human rights due diligence process, it may have led TotalEngeries to realize that the relationship between the Project and the Mozambican armed forces could be considered as a form of assistance or support from the Project to the JTF part of the Mozambican armed forces, a party to the conflict.

UpRights’ report argued that a robust due diligence process could have anticipated these risks, mitigating harm to civilian populations and shielding the company from potential complicity in international crimes.

Valérie notably emphasized that these findings are not hypothetical concerns but a stark warning for businesses operating in similar contexts. The absence of proper due diligence not only exacerbates human suffering but also exposes corporations to significant legal and reputational risks.

Recent allegations of serious human rights violations involving the Mozambican military forces providing security for TotalEnergies’ project in Cabo Delgado have once again underscored that point and the importance of ensuring that HRDD frameworks fully consider the specific challenges of conflict-affected areas and of a thorough and sensitive approach in safeguarding communities.

Heightened human rights Due Diligence as a Preventative Tool

In her intervention, Valérie articulated a clear vision of what enhanced due diligence entails for businesses in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. Beyond traditional human rights assessments, it demands a nuanced understanding of local conflict dynamics and their interplay with business operations. For example:

Conflict-sensitive mapping: Businesses must identify root causes, key actors, and potential triggers of violence within the regions where they operate.

Holistic risk assessment that includes the conflict and human rights situation in the country: This involves evaluating the potential for operations to fuel existing tensions or create new grievances.

Proactive stakeholder dialogue: Companies need to engage directly with affected communities by the conflict and serious human rights violations and consider their perspectives in decision-making processes.

Valérie also highlighted the importance of planning for worst-case scenarios, such as the suspension of operations. TotalEnergies, for instance, lacked a responsible exit strategy when violence escalated in Cabo Delgado, leaving workers, subcontractors, and displaced communities unsupported.

Toward a Binding Framework

Valérie concluded her presentation with a forward-looking perspective, linking heightened human rights due diligence to emerging legal frameworks. While the UNGPs provide foundational principles, they lack binding force. However, the new European directive on corporate sustainability due diligence marks a significant step forward, making Human rights due diligence mandatory for European businesses. The European directive expressly mentions the importance of conducting this process in its heightened form for businesses operating in conflict zones and high-risk areas.

UpRights’ Vision for Change

Valérie’s intervention reaffirmed UpRights’ commitment to promoting accountability and the rule of law particularly in fragile human rights contexts.

The TotalEnergies case, she noted, is both a cautionary tale and a call to action. Heightened human rights due diligence is not merely a regulatory hurdle but must be seen as a moral imperative for businesses that wish to operate responsibly in a globalized world.

On Tuesday 19 November, Global Standard, the non-profit that manages the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), released its Due Diligence Handbook for Auditors Version 1.0 which is designed to support compliance with enterprises’ human rights due diligence obligations. UpRights is pleased to have supported GOTS in this process with research, analysis and drafting.

The Due Diligence Handbook for Auditors complements the Due Diligence Handbook for Certified Entities, which was released in 2023 and updated in September 2024 also supported by UpRights. Whereas the Handbook for Certified Entities requires enterprises to undertake six steps of due diligence in relation to their operations and supply chains, the Handbook for Auditors gives practical guidance on auditing compliance with such due diligence criteria, as well as GOTS’ wider human rights and social criteria. Both Handbooks bring the GOTS system closer to the system of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as well as legislative developments worldwide including the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

The essence of this initiative is to give auditors the support, techniques and knowledge they need, including on challenges and best practices, to promote the best possible audits of enterprises’ performance. This seeks to move business and human rights forward beyond mere labelling, beyond detailed codes of environmental, social and governance criteria, and towards having both enterprises and auditors ensure responsible business conduct. UpRights looks forward to continuing this trajectory with the Global Standard.

For further details see here

On October 21st, 2024, UpRights participated in the “Forum on Gender Persecution Principles”, a symposium organized by the Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice. The event explored implications of gender persecution in Afghanistan and Iran and potential accountability pathways.

During her panel, UpRights’ Co-Director Valérie Gabard offered insights into the Crime Against Humanity of Gender Persecution, emphasizing its ability to pursue justice for crimes related to systemic and deeply rooted discrimination against women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran.

This blogpost builds on the discussion held during the symposium to consider the importance of the crime of gender persecution. Although a relatively recent addition to the framework of international law, gender persecution has the potential to confront systemic gender-based discrimination by recognizing its deep entanglement with other forms of oppression. Its relevance to ensuring accountability and promoting justice lies not only in its capacity to prosecute overt human rights abuses but also in its ability to reflect the intersectional nature of oppression where gender discrimination intertwines with political, religious, or societal forms of persecution. By examining the differing yet similarly entrenched discriminations in Afghanistan and Iran, this blogpost illustrates how gender persecution can help to achieve accountability and enable an approach to legal analysis that captures the multi-layered motives of oppression.

The emerging importance of gender persecution can be seen, for example, in the commitment of successive ICC Prosecutors focusing their attention to this crime, the emerging jurisprudence of the Court, and the conclusions reached by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran that crimes against humanity of gender persecution may have been committed in the context of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement, open new perspectives and avenues for pursuing accountability.

Gender Persecution: Legal Definition and Framework

Since its adoption in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the crime against humanity of gender persecution offers the possibility to address entrenched discrimination and pursue prosecution of human rights violations based on gender. This framework is particularly relevant in contexts where such gender discrimination is embedded in societal norms, policies, and legal systems.

Gender persecution is defined at the ICC as the severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law against any identifiable group or collectivity on gender grounds in connection with any other underlying act of crime against humanity or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Like any other crime against humanity, it must be shown that the persecutorial acts are committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against any civilian population pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a State or organizational policy.

While the Rome Statute defines gender as “the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society”, the International Law Commission has not included this definition in its Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. In its Policy on Gender Persecution of 2022, the ICC Prosecutor defined gender rather as “sex characteristics and social constructs and criteria used to define maleness and femaleness, including roles, behaviors, activities and attributes” and the limited jurisprudence available from the ICC appears to align with the Prosecutor’s definition.

Gender persecution was recognized as a crime against humanity by Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute, constituting was the first codification of the crime under international law. Persecution has long been recognized as an underlying act of crimes against humanity under customary international law, and the adoption by the international law commission of the Rome Statute definition of gender persecution in the draft articles for a future treaty on crimes against humanity weighs in favor of the view that it reflects customary international law.

While the Rome Statute was adopted in 1998, there has been limited jurisprudence from the ICC so far on the crime of gender persecution. The first Trial judgement with a charge of gender persecution was delivered in late June in the case of Al-Hassan in relation to the situation in the Northern city of Timbuktu in 2012. While Al-Hassan was acquitted on the charge of gender persecution, the crime of gender persecution itself was considered established by majority. Indeed, as part of the ruling, a majority of Judges also recognized that the persecution was based on several grounds – in this case religious and gender grounds – that Judge Prost described in its individual opinion as “inseparable” acknowledging an intersectional approach to the crime of gender persecution.

Gender Persecution on the Ground: Afghanistan and Iran

Since the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021, the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan has worsened dramatically. The Taliban’s policies have systematically erased women and girls from public life, barring them from education, employment, and freedom of movement. Resistance to these oppressive measures has been met with intimidation, persecution, and violence by the Taliban authorities.

In Iran, following the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022, protests erupted in response to the country’s compulsory veiling laws and other political grievance against the Iranian government. These protests were met with excessive force by Iranian security forces, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians – men, women, girls, boys and LGBTQIA+ individuals – and the imprisonment of thousands.

In detention, protesters or persons detained in relation to the 2022-2023 protests have been subjected to torture and inhumane conditions in detention. The information available suggests a pattern of sexual violence specifically targeting women and girls. All these acts have taken place in the context of a discriminatory legal framework against women, girls and LGBTQIA+ individuals and a strengthening of restrictions imposed on women and girls, notably on the implementation of the compulsory veiling.

Gender Persecution as a Tool to Address the Systemic and Societal Discrimination Faced by Women, Girls, and LGBTQIA+ Individuals

The specificity of persecution is that it allows for severe human rights violations committed on a discriminatory basis to qualify as crimes against humanity. Such violations include those to the right to life, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment, the right to liberty, and freedom of movement.

But more importantly, acts of persecution are not limited to acts that otherwise constitute crimes against humanity or involve the use of physical violence.

They can include infringements such as the denial of education, public services, employment, of the right to due process, or the destruction or seizure of property.

In both the context of Afghanistan and Iran, gender persecution allows to encompass the systemic and societal discriminations against women and girls and LGBTQIA+ people.

For instance, in the context of Afghanistan, it is clear that Taliban’s policies banning education for girls are inconsistent with the right to education as reflected in international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the CEDAW.

The same would hold true for all the restrictions imposed by the Taliban on women and girls’ daily life, which individually or collectively undeniably amount to severe human rights violations specifically directed at women and girls.

In Iran, the crime of persecution stems instead from severe human rights violations related to the suppression of protests—acts that include murder, torture, rape, and other forms of inhumane treatment—combined with systemic infringements on women’s and girls’ rights entrenched within the national legal framework. These violations include restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, movement, and the right to privacy, as well as the right to participate in public affairs and pursue economic, social, and cultural development as outlined in Article 1 of the ICESCR.

As a result, gender persecution addresses a broad range of discriminatory practices, providing a powerful tool to combat both overt violence and restrictive societal norms that oppress women and girls.

Intersectionality as way to reflect more nuance realities and the multiple and intersecting nature of the targeting of women and girls

In the Afghanistan’s context, the discriminatory intent of the perpetrators, namely the targeting of women of girls because of their gender is not controversial. All the severe violations of fundamental human rights recorded stemmed from policies that explicitly identify women as the group targeted by such limitations and restrictions. The circumstances surrounding the acts of persecution also show that the Taliban’s acted with the specific intent to target Afghan women and girls on the basis of their gender.

Iran presents a much more nuanced context where political and gender persecution intersect. Civilian victims are not only targeted for defying gender norms but are also perceived as political opponents when they challenge the regime’s ideologies. The regime’s response to these challenges includes both political and gender-based discrimination. The intersectionality of these grounds allows for a more nuanced legal analysis, recognizing that persecution can be motivated by multiple discriminatory factors, including both political beliefs and gender.

Gender persecution, in this context, serves as a flexible tool to capture these layered forms of oppression and accurately reflect the regime’s intent to target those who defy both political and gendered norms.

Conclusion

While the situations faced by women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran differ significantly, both can be understood through the lens of gender persecution. UpRights has been collaborating with partner organizations to deepen the understanding of the situation of women and girls in both countries and show that it can, in both cases, qualified as the crime against humanity of gender persecution.

In March 2023, UpRights provided legal drafting support for a report published by Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, titled The Taliban’s War on Women, which provided a comprehensive legal analysis of the Taliban’s policies and crimes based on Amnesty International’s documentation. This report concluded that the severe human rights violations imposed on women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan amount to crimes against humanity, particularly gender persecution.

UpRights also worked alongside HRA and two other organizations to file a submission to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran (FFMI) in December 2023. The submission argued that human rights violations against women, girls, and LGBTQIA+ individuals, combined with the violent repression of the protests in the context of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement that started in September 2022, constitute crimes against humanity, specifically gender and political persecution. The FFMI’s final report concurred with this analysis, recognizing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that gender persecution as a crime against humanity has been committed by some members of the Iranian political and security apparatus since the beginning of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement.

At UpRights, we believe that the crime of gender persecution is an essential legal tool for addressing systemic and embedded discrimination against women and girls. While a lot remains to be done to fully utilize the potential of gender persecution, the understanding of the crime by the ICC Prosecutor summarized in its policy paper on the crime of gender persecution of 2022 and the limited ICC jurisprudence available suggests that gender persecution is by definition sufficiently flexible to offer a promising avenue for international and national criminal tribunals to address the severe violations of rights suffered by women, girls, and LGBTQIA+ individuals in different contexts, bringing us closer to achieving accountability and gender justice.

Photo Credits for Picture #1: Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice

On July 3, 2024, UpRights took part in the 7th edition of “Building the Capacity of Judges to Deal with International Crimes in Africa”, a training course for judges and prosecutors from French-speaking African countries organized in the context of the high-level training programme on international criminal law and transnational criminal law by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, the Antonio Cassese Initiative, and the International Nuremberg Principles Academy.

During her panel, UpRights’ Co-Director Valérie Gabard conducted an interactive exercise related to the investigation and qualification of conflict-related sexual violence, with a particular focus on the qualification of SGBV in the context of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Valérie’s presentation concluded the third day of the training, allowing participants to engage in discussions on the complex process of investigating and prosecuting sexual and gender-based violence.

Covering topics like the elements of international crimes, investigations and prosecution strategies, and the protection of witnesses and victims in international criminal law cases, the training course was developed to equip judges and prosecutors with practical skills, tools, and knowledge necessary to address international and transnational crimes effectively.

On May 16, 2024, UpRights’ Co-Director Asa Solway took part in “Interdisciplinary Dialogues: Can We Navigate Conflict Resolution in the Context of International Law?”, a conference organized by the Amsterdam Law Forum at the VU Campus in Amsterdam.

In a context in which effective justice and accountability mechanisms for victims of organized violence are at the forefront of global efforts, the Amsterdam Law Forum conference brought together researchers and practitioners from various fields, including criminology, psychology, and law to discuss the capacities and limitations of international legal frameworks in addressing armed conflicts.

Panel One focused on legal frameworks and the practical implications of international law in Ukraine. Among other topics, the discussion touched upon the difficulties of adjudicating international crimes during ongoing conflicts, underlining how Ukrainian judges face challenges in prosecuting war crimes and genocide, and stressing the importance of international support for judicial capacity building.

As part of his contribution, Asa Solway discussed the importance of supporting non-criminal accountability pathways in Ukraine to ensure justice for victims and comprehensive solutions to the armed conflict and UpRights’ participation in drafting the Benchbook on the Adjudication of International Crimes in Ukraine. The resource, which serves as a comprehensive resource for judges to adjudicate international crimes cases, was developed by Ukrainian judges, UpRights, and Global Rights Compliance, in cooperation with the Ukrainian Supreme Court, the National School of Judges of Ukraine and with the support of the MATRA-Ukraine Project and the USAID Justice for All Activity.

Reflecting on the discussions on the interplay between armed conflicts and international law, UpRights is pleased to have supported the Amsterdam Law Forum’s commitment to fostering interdisciplinary dialogue on the evolving landscape of international justice and accountability.

Read the Conference Report

Last week marked a significant milestone in the ongoing effort to promote peace, ensure the rights of victims and advance accountability for international crimes committed in Ukraine. UpRights, in collaboration with the Asser Institute and The Hague Academy for Local Governance (THALG), concluded a successful Training of Trainers (ToT) workshop in The Hague. The workshop, that brought together 16 government officials from different regions of Ukraine, represented crucial step in developing and implementing specialized training modules on transitional justice (TJ) in the country, aiming to support comprehensive accountability and justice processes across the landscape of Ukraine.

Long-term Goals and Objectives

Falling under the ‘Restoring Dignity and Justice in Ukraine’ programme funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it strives to strengthen expertise and contextualize mechanisms to pursue accountability for international crimes in Ukraine. By assisting government officials and increasing the capacity of national and local institutions, the project aims to incorporate transitional justice practices effectively in the framework of Ukrainian local governance.

Local Governance and Transitional Justice

Participants actively considered the importance and role of transitional justice in local governance. They discussed challenges experienced by local communities and the importance of cross-sectoral cooperation to address the multifaceted complications of the full-scale invasion. In a context in which war risks creating distance between the administration and its people, the participants understood transitional justice mechanisms as avenues through which to convey to the citizens that Ukraine is not leaving them.

“People at the local level experience problems that cannot be understood by other local people and governance. That is why the local level can see the problem much clearer than the national level and therefore act quicker and better,” emphasized one participant, underscoring the unique position of local authorities to address immediate and concrete challenges faced by communities affected by conflict.

Developing a Contextual Approach

A significant takeaway from the workshop was the necessity of developing a transitional justice approach tailored to Ukraine’s unique context. “It is very important not to use templates to answer the question; there is a need to find individual and context-specific ways to deal with the past,” one of the guest experts advised. This sentiment was echoed throughout the sessions, emphasizing the concept of transitional justice in Ukraine needs to be built on the country’s history, traditions, challenges, and needs. “The answers need to be contextual,” reiterated UpRights’ Asa Solway, while a truth commission might be an effective approach in certain contexts, Ukraine may require a different method for truth-seeking that resonates with its specific circumstances.

The Role of Transitional Justice During Conflict

Breaking down the misconception that transitional justice can only be implemented after a conflict ends, the lively discussions amongst participants underscored how much of what can be done post-conflict is determined by actions taken during the conflict. Documentation during conflict, for instance, sets the groundwork for effective truth-seeking and memorialization efforts later, while engaging with civil society, victim groups, and the broader population even during ongoing conflict can lay the foundation for future reconciliation and justice processes.

Moving Forward

Yet, as underlined by UpRights’ Asa Solway and Ciara Laverty at the opening of the ToT, the completion of the training and its workshops represented only the beginning of a journey. Indeed, the trainers, having exchanged with peers and colleagues on the mechanisms that constitute transitional justice processes, set out to deliver the online training modules to other national participants.

As Ukraine navigates its path towards justice and accountability, the collaborative efforts of UpRights, the Asser Institute, The Hague Academy for Local Governance, and Ukrainian government officials will be pivotal. By fostering a deep understanding of transitional justice and its practical applications, this initiative aimed to support Ukraine in addressing the reality and aftermath of conflict and building a just and resilient society.

Through continued collaboration and tailored approaches, we can hope to see meaningful progress in the pursuit of justice and reconciliation for the people of Ukraine.

The Training at a Glance

This project is part of the ‘Restoring Dignity and Justice in Ukraine’ programme, focusing on advancing accountability for international crimes committed in Ukraine. The full programme is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is implemented by the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO), in partnership with the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, the Center for International Legal Cooperation (CILC), and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC). The project aims at institutional strengthening and capacity development needs of various parties in Ukraine dealing with international crimes: prosecutors, police, judges, as well as journalists and civil society organizations. We believe that with the support of the international community, Ukraine can advance accountability for these crimes.

UpRights is pleased to announce the publication of its 2023 Annual Report.

As detailed in the report, in 2023 UpRights continued to develop its unique approach to promoting human rights which is rooted in building strong relationships with civil society, national governments, and organizations closely connected to those most affected by human rights issues. By actively listening to their needs, we strive to provide tailored support to use international law to help achieve our partners’ objectives.

Why does this matter? UpRights has found that despite most accountability efforts occurring at the local level, expertise often remains concentrated in traditional centers of power. We strive to make international law and pathways to justice more accessible to those undertaking the most critical and challenging work on the ground.

If national actors cannot access or fully harness how international law can benefit them, its impact will be limited. We are continually exploring models of support that emphasize local ownership by those best positioned to advance human rights.

We invite you to read our annual report and join us in our ongoing commitment to these vital goals.

Thursday, 16th of May, marked the inaugural session of the online training series jointly organized by the Asser Institute, Global Rights Compliance, and the Ukrainian Bar Association, as part of the MATRA-Ukraine Project.

UpRights Valerie Gabard and David Kinnecome delivered a presentation to explore the nuances of applying international law within the Ukrainian legal framework with a view to deepening knowledge among Ukrainian lawyers who represent the accused and victims in cases of crimes related to the conflict in Ukraine.

Building upon UpRights’ work on the Benchbook on the Adjudication of International Crimes under Ukrainian Domestic Law, developed by international and Ukrainian experts in collaboration with judges and with support from the USAID Justice for All Activity, Valérie and David notably underlined the role of international law in the adjudication of international crimes under Article 438 and Article 442 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2024, UpRights’ David Kinnecome took part in the event, “Sanctions, Remittances, and (in)Security: Legal Conundrums, Financial Paradoxes, and Humanitarian Puzzles,” organized by the Asser Institute and the University of Leiden.

Throughout the day, the conference brought together students, officials, practitioners, and scholars to explore the intricate interplay between international law and sanctions authority, the nuanced role of financial systems as conduits within the sanctions landscape, and the emergence of novel strategies employed by major powers to circumvent existing sanctions frameworks.

As part of the roundtable on ‘Sanctions and the Pursuit of Accountability for International Crimes: Critical Reflections’, David addressed the pivotal issue of utilizing sanctions-related funds to facilitate compensation for victims of such crimes, underscoring the imperative of ensuring tangible restitution within sanction regimes.

As we reflect on the rich discourse and insights garnered from yesterday’s proceedings, we are reminded of the imperative to continue fostering dialogue and collaboration within the realm of sanctions scholarship and practice.

From April 15 to 19, 2024, Uprights’ Valérie Gabard and David Kinnecome contributed as experts in a training for judges on the adjudication of international crimes in Ukraine and on judgment drafting in international crimes cases. The training was organized by the National School of Judges with the support from USAID Justice for All Activity, Global Rights Compliance and T.M.C. Asser Institute, which implements the Dutch-funded MATRA-Ukraine Project.

Alongside other experts specializing in international humanitarian law and international criminal law, as well as a judge from the International Criminal Court, UpRights’ Valérie Gabard and David Kinnecome shared their insights and subject matter expertise with participants.

During the training, 25 Ukrainian judges from throughout the country improved their knowledge, skills, and abilities in evaluating evidence in trials involving international crimes and applying international customary law in actual cases in Ukraine. Participants also discussed how to apply modes of liability to international crimes under the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the importance of taking victim-centred, gender-sensitive, and child-sensitive approaches in adjudicating war crimes cases.

The program further included interactive sessions on how to draft well-reasoned judgments in international crimes cases. Experts shared with participants guidance on judgment drafting for the adjudication of war crimes cases in Ukraine based on international best practices, covering issues related to presenting evidence and factual findings related to the crimes prosecuted under Article 438 of the Criminal Code, as well as findings on legal elements of international crimes and modes of liability, defences.

The training built upon the Benchbook on the Adjudication of International Crimes under Ukrainian Domestic Law developed by international and Ukrainian experts in collaboration with judges and with support from the USAID Justice for All Activity. All training participants were provided with a printed copy of the Benchbook.