Ambassador Delattre is a graduate of the École Nationale d’Administration (National School of Administration, ENA). He earned a German language diploma from the University of Munich, a license degree in law and a final diploma from the Institut d’études politiques. Ambassador Delattre was, among other things, Consul General in New York (2004 to 2008), Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States between 2011 and 2014, French Ambassador and Permanent Representative of to the United Nations in New York City (2014 to 2019), and has been Ambassador to Germany since 29 September 2022.
France is one of Saxony-Anhalt’s most important partner countries on various levels. The bilateral cooperation takes place predominantly – but not only – within the framework of the regional partnership between Saxony-Anhalt and the French region of Centre-Val de Loire. The Magdeburg-based Institut français Sachsen-Anhalt celebrated its 20th anniversary last year. The conversation was primarily about deepening bilateral cooperation between France and Saxony-Anhalt.
Following the inaugural visit, Ambassador Delattre partook in the ceremony in the State Chancellery on the occasion of the awarding of the State Order of Merit to President of Centre-Val de Loire, François Bonneau.
Every year, EBCO produces its Annual Report on conscientious objection to military service in Europe, gathering input from member states’ governments, national human rights institutions, as well as international and national non-governmental organisations and solidarity groups. The culmination of this work comes with its presentation to the European Parliament, to the Parliamentary Assembly and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, and to various State authorities. In each case EBCO accompanies its report with a set of targeted recommendations.
Executive summary (slightly shortened by HRWF)
EBCO-BEOC (15.05.2024) – For the second year, this report is necessarily dominated by the war in Ukraine, with a large part of the space being taken up with reports of developments in Ukraine, Russia and Belarusand the situation of refugees from these countries.
EBCO continues working on the #ObjectWarCampaign, which was jointly launched by Connection e.V., War Resisters’ International (WRI), International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR), and European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO).
Within Europe, the clouds of war are gathering. It is not just in the belligerent countries, and Belarus which seems poised to join directly in support of Russia; elsewhere there is talk of preparedness for war, of increasing military spending, recruitment (e.g. Denmark), of bringing back conscription (e.g. Latvia) or extending it to women. The very right of conscientious objection to military service is coming under threat.
Last year EBCO reported on the case of Tetlianikov v Lithuania in which the European Court of Human Rights found that the alternative service which had been made available since the reinstatement of conscription in 2014 was in effect unarmed military service.
In other countries, too, notably Latvia and Sweden, and under proposals which keep being revived in Switzerland, there is talk of integrating alternative service for conscientious objectors more closely with civil defence, and thus into the system of national preparedness for war.
Programmes of military training within the secondary school system are being introduced and expanded, usually with no provision for conscientious objection. So are voluntary − or in the case of France, potentially compulsory programmes for youth which prepare for and encourage military recruitment (Service National Universel).
The whole justification for conscientious objection in time of peace is that the raison d’être of armed forces is to prepare for war. It is therefore paradoxical that as war looms, the right of conscientious objection should come under threat. With a view to the actual and potential risks in this regard, we introduce in this year’s report an important new section on “Conscientious objection in time of war or other national emergency“.
To an extent far greater than ever before, we have to report the harassment of EBCO members and contributors to this report for their work associated with EBCO.
In Ukraine,Yurii Sheliazhenko, Executive Secretary of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement and EBCO Board member, has been placed under continually extended house arrest and suffered the seizure of his computer and smartphone while investigated by the state security service, seemingly on ridiculous charges of “justifying Russian aggression”, and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine initiated prohibition of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement.
In Russia, the Movement of Conscientious Objectors to military service in Russia and its Director and EBCO Board member Saša Belik, have been declared a “foreign agent”, severely hampering their ability to raise funds and to operate in support of conscientious objectors.
And Olga Karatch, Director of the Belarusian organisation “Our House” and EBCO Board member, who already faces long imprisonment should she return to Belarus on charges springing from her overt anti-regime activism, is finding her sanctuary in Lithuania threatened by the authorities’ refusal to grant her asylum, seemingly because of her tireless advocacy for Belarusians fleeing the possibility of military mobilisation.
Amid these new and growing threats, we must also not forget the continuing denial of the right of conscientious objection to military service in Azerbaijan and Türkiye, where those who have not performed military service continue to live in an indefinite state of civil death.
However, let us end on a positive note with our report of yet another European Court of Human Rights judgement in a conscientious objection case against Türkiye, this time for the activities of the self-styled “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus“, which also denies the right of conscientious objection in a case concerning Murat Kanatlı, EBCO Board member and Co-coordinator of the Initiative for Conscientious Objection in Cyprus. This is a case which broke new grounds in international jurisprudence, firmly confirming that the right of conscientious objection to military service applies equally to reserve mobilisation as to first-time call-up.
The Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in The Hague, in partnership with the Indonesia Investment Promotion Centre (IIPC) London and the Bank Indonesia Representative Office London, will host the Indonesia – the Netherlands Trade, Tourism, and Investment (TTI) Forum on 28-29 May 2024 in Amsterdam. This significant event aims to foster a cross-stakeholder dialogue and business networking opportunities between Indonesia and the Netherlands, enhancing investment, trade, and tourism cooperation between the two nations.
Forum Agenda and Highlights
The TTI Forum will officially commence on 28 May 2024, at Hotel Okura, Ferdinand Bolstraat 333, 1072LH Amsterdam. The event will begin with an inaugural address by H.E. Mayerfas the Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Following the opening, a High-level/Ministerial Forum will take place to discuss the current outlook of Indonesia’s economy. A panel discussion will follow, focusing on enhancing bilateral cooperation between Indonesia and the Netherlands in the dynamic global context.
On 29 May 2024, the forum will shift to the Indonesia House Amsterdam, Brachthuijzerstraat 4, 1075EN Amsterdam, where a bilateral investment forum will be held. This segment will delve into strategies for boosting bilateral investment performance, particularly in three priority sectors: sustainable infrastructure and transport, renewable energy, and sustainable tourism.
Attendees and Side Events
The Forum is set to attract a distinguished array of participants, including ministers, ambassadors, senior officials, experts, and business leaders from both Indonesia and the Netherlands. In addition to the main forum events, several side activities are planned. These include Trade Business Matching sessions between Indonesian sellers and Dutch buyers, dialogues with Indonesian MSMEs, one-on-one and one-to-many investment project meetings, and TTI exhibitions at the Indonesia House Amsterdam.
Economic Resilience and Investment Opportunities
Despite global economic uncertainties, Indonesia has demonstrated strong economic resilience. The country’s economy is projected to grow between 4.7% and 5.5% in 2024, buoyed by robust domestic demand and substantial investment in infrastructure and private sector development. In the first quarter of 2024, Indonesia’s goods trade balance maintained a surplus, contributing to a healthy current account. The manufacturing and construction sectors are expected to sustain solid growth, supported by strategic national projects and favorable government incentives that have spurred significant growth in building investment and household consumption.
Inflation, as monitored by Bank Indonesia, has been effectively managed within the target range of 2.5%±1%, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation at 3.00% as of April 2024. Looking forward, Indonesia is confident that CPI inflation will remain under control and within the target corridor for 2024.
The Netherlands has consistently ranked among the top 10 sources of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) entering Indonesia globally. Over the past five years, it has been the European country with the highest investment realization value in Indonesia. Known as a trade hub to greater Europe and a global advocate for the green and circular economy, the Netherlands presents a strategic partner for Indonesia.
Investment Projects and Opportunities
Indonesia has developed Investment Projects Ready-to-Offer (IPRO) with a potential investment value of USD 16 billion, inviting Dutch and European investors to collaborate and invest in key sectors. These sectors include manufacturing, infrastructure, renewable energy, industrial estates, food, and agriculture. More than half of these projects are situated in East Kalimantan, supporting the development of the new capital city, Ibu Kota Nusantara (IKN).
To bolster foreign reserves and stabilize the Rupiah, Indonesia is committed to supporting its MSMEs in accessing international markets, including Europe. A dedicated side event will showcase premier products from Indonesian MSMEs, highlighting their potential to international buyers.
The Indonesia-the Netherlands Trade, Tourism, and Investment Forum promises to be a very important event in strengthening the economic and business ties between Indonesia and the Netherlands.
As it happened in 2022 and 2023, those who invoked “respect for their beliefs” are stigmatized and threatened. But the case is less simple than it may seem.
Bitter Winter (21.05.2024) – It would be much easier to remain silent on a delicate case of conflict between two different human rights, freedom of religion or belief and the right of the LGBT persons not to be discriminated against and targeted by violence. Yet, the case is important and needs to be publicly discussed.
For the third consecutive year, in France the Football League has asked the players in the country’s top soccer championship, Ligue 1, to wear a rainbow badge on their shirts, this year in the games of May 18 and 19, to celebrate the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia. And, again for the third consecutive year, some Muslim players refused to participate in what they perceived as a promotion of homosexuality forbidden by their religion.
As he did last year, Mostafa Mohamed of FC Nantes refused to play. Mohamed Camara of AS Monaco did play, but covered with tape the rainbow badge. As he scored and celebrated, what he did became visible. Camara also refused to participate in a group photo celebrating the Anti-Homophobia Day. Other players who had boycotted the Day in 2023 probably did not change their mind as they were either injured, suspended, or no longer playing in France.
Since pretty much everybody (including the undersigned) agrees that violence and discrimination against LGBT persons should not be tolerated, it would seem that the Minister and those who denounced the Muslim players who boycotted the Day, and called for sanctions, are right about a case that is basically simple.
In fact, it is less simple than it may seem. The players have been very careful in releasing statements where they expressed their respect for those with a different sexual orientation and stated that they do not promote or condone violence or discrimination. At the same time, they called for their religious beliefs to be also respected. It should also be noted that Mohamed and Camara are not French. Mohamed is Egyptian and Camara is Malian.
The two players, as did their Muslim colleagues in previous years, implied that they have no problems in condemning discrimination and violence, while wearing a badge with the rainbow symbol would have been tantamount to expressing their support for behaviors and lifestyles their religion does not approve of.
One question is whether their interpretation of the badge was correct. One of those who promoted the initiative stated that players were asked to “repudiate homophobia” rather than to “promote homosexuality.” However, the two players’ subjective perception of the badge was different.
France has a disturbing tendency to ideologize questions that could be solved peacefully with a modicum of common sense. Should those who promote discrimination and violence against the LGBT persons, or any other group, be condemned and sanctioned by the law—and by sport regulations if they do this while competing in professional sport? The answer is yes.
Can wearing a badge internationally identified with LGBT activism be mandatorily imposed to all those who play in the French Ligue 1, including foreign players? Is the refusal to wear the badge equivalent to promotion of violence and discrimination, even when the players have stated that this was never their intention? Should the principle that the use of the badge is mandatory prevail on the freedom of religion or belief of players who claim that wearing the badge is against their religion? The answer is much less clear-cut, but my candid opinion, while admitting that the case is difficult and delicate, is that there would be good reasons to answer all the last three questions in the negative.
Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Soukry met with his counterpart Giorgos Gerapetritis in Athens
By Eleni Vasiliki Bampaliouta
The war in Gaza was the main topic of discussion in the meeting between Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis and his Egyptian counterpart Sameh Soukry. The need for the war in Gaza to end was underlined in their joint statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Giorgos Gerapetritis, and his Egyptian counterpart, Sameh Soukry. The situation in the Middle East, the spread of the war, and the humanitarian crisis that has been created were the first topics on the agenda of the Gerapetritis – Soukry meeting in Athens, with the Greek side seeking to consolidate a role as a bridge between Arab countries and the EU. On the table were the economic consequences of the war in Egypt, the explosion of immigration, and the bilateral relations between Athens and Cairo, whose strategic nature has been confirmed.
Gerapetritis underlined the close relations between Greece and Egypt and the role of Cairo “as a cornerstone of security in the Eastern Mediterranean and a leading force in the Arab world.” He spoke of an “unspeakable tragedy unfolding in Gaza” which “must come to an end,” noting that “Greece will continue to do everything possible and provide its good services to achieve an immediate and sustainable ceasefire. In this direction, our collective efforts should be intensified so that the hostilities stop, the hostages are released, and humanitarian aid is channeled unhindered to all those in need.” Gerapetritis warned of the dramatic consequences that the extension of the hostilities in Rafah would have, noting that it must be “avoided at all costs.” The two Foreign Ministers agreed that sustainable peace can only exist with a two-state solution within the framework of the decisions of the United Nations Security Council, with the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and the borders of 1967, which will also ensure the security of Israel. Referring to the spread of the crisis in the Red Sea and the wider Middle East, Gerapetritis pointed out that it directly threatens the economy and world trade by creating new foci of humanitarian crises.
The relations between Greece and Egypt
“Any direct or indirect coercion of mass movements of populations constitutes collective punishment that cannot be tolerated under international law. In addition, the rest of the conditions surrounding Egypt, especially the worsening of the situation in Sudan, create even greater regional instability and uncertainty,” said the Foreign Minister characteristically, assuring that Greece will continue to support Egypt both bilaterally and within the EU. He recalled the role of Athens in the Egypt-EU strategic partnership agreement, the delimitation of Greece-Egypt maritime zones in 2020, and the tripartite Greece-Cyprus-Egypt, and also the agreement on the Greece-Egypt electrical interconnection cable. Also on the agenda is the Greece-Egypt Supreme Cooperation Council which, as agreed, will take place in Athens. Referring to the issue of immigration, Gerapetritis pointed out that ways of limiting irregular immigration were discussed as well as an evaluation of legal immigration routes, recalling the relevant Athens-Cairo agreements.
Answering a question about immigration, Soukry noted that Egypt is making efforts so that the people of the country do not have to emigrate, but also to reduce smuggling. He accused the international community of not providing the necessary aid to Egypt. He reminded that about nine million immigrants live in his country and enjoy all social services including free health and education. He noted that the two wars in Ukraine and Gaza had an impact on the Egyptian economy, resulting in a wave of migration. However, he said irregular migrants are not leaving Egypt but Libya. Gerapetritis referred to the excellent cooperation between Greece and Egypt in the immigration field, stressing that “the European Union must stand by its side and the Greek government will ensure that the aid is substantial and lasting. It is important that Egypt remains a pillar of stability in a wider region, which is under a regime of great pressure.” As he said in relation to immigration, “our thinking is that legal immigration channels should be established so that Egypt’s skilled human resources can be utilized in the Greek economy. And we work very systematically in this direction. The relevant procedures will be completed in the near future.” Soukry spoke about Egypt’s desire to further strengthen relations with Greece, emphasizing Gerapetritis’s statements on issues of bilateral cooperation, stressing that the two sides have a common vision in relation to the promotion of relations between them, which is also linked to security in the area.
The war and the problems in Gaza
Soukry underlined that the situation in Gaza is a humanitarian tragedy which is getting worse every day. He stressed that it threatens regional security and has already expanded to Lebanon, Yemen, and the Red Sea. He noted the need for all humanitarian aid corridors to exist and be open and safe, stressing that Rafah, due to the conflicts, is no longer safe for the people working to transport humanitarian aid. As he said, “the conscience of the international community cannot wait. The war in Rafah should not be extended,” and he emphasized that the crossings should be facilitated and the procedures should remain open. Answering a related question, Gerapetritis repeated that “Greece has a historical friendship with the Arab countries, as well as a strategic relationship with Israel. In this context, we have the possibility to talk with both sides, as well as to talk with the international actors more broadly in the region.”
As he said, Greece will continue to provide its services to all sides, noting that “every day that passes creates, on the one hand, a greater worsening of the existing humanitarian crisis in the region and, on the other hand, much greater risks for the expansion of hostilities that will create new foci of crisis not only for the people themselves in the region but also for the economy and for immigration.” Regarding Egypt-Turkey relations and whether they can affect Greece-Egypt relations, Gerapetritis responded with Athens’ firm position that “there should be relations of friendship and good neighborliness with all the countries of the wider region.” As he said, the relationship between Egypt and Greece “is at the peak of the real bilateral diplomatic relationship. It is a strategic relationship, which is not going to be redefined. With the Minister, we will work even more, preparing the first Supreme Council, so that we can maintain this good course, strengthen our bilateral relations, and always be in a cordial relationship of cooperation at the strategic level.”
Sameh Soukry characterized the Athens-Cairo relationship as a relationship of strategic importance, which contributes to security, stressing that when there is an initiative for a relationship based on mutual respect and non-intervention, Egypt welcomes it, but this does not mean that it is at the expense of strategies of allies. It is worth noting that Gerapetritis and Soukry both expressed their condolences in Tehran for the loss of the President and Foreign Minister of Iran.
The interesting planned meeting in Turkey of the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis with the President of Turkey Tayyip Erdogan – What were the red lines and what were the calm waters in the discussion between the two political leaders.
By Eleni Vasiliki Bampaliouta
In a scheduled meeting, at the invitation of Turkish President Erdogan, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis went to Ankara. The visit of the Turkish president to Athens was preceded a few months ago. After about two hours of talks, the leaders of Greece and Turkey gave a press conference, an interview in the context of which they underlined the value of the positive agenda in Greek-Turkish relations, without, however, managing to hide a series of disagreements at the same time.
As Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said, “we have shown that next to our disagreements we can also write a parallel page with our agreements.”
Mr. Mitsotakis argued that “today should not remain captive to yesterday,” underlining at the same time that “we wish to intensify our bilateral contacts.” “I can only begin by thanking you for the warm hospitality today in Ankara, in a meeting worth noting is the fourth in the last ten months. Something which I believe proves that the two neighbors can now establish this approach of mutual understanding, no longer as an exception, but as a productive normality that is not negated by the known differences in our positions,” stressed the Greek Prime Minister. “I greet you cordially and respectfully. I feel great satisfaction hosting the honorable Mr. Mitsotakis and his delegation in Ankara,” said, for his part, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
“As you know, when I visited Athens in December, we had confirmed our mutual agreement to keep the channels open. We recorded this consensus with the Declaration of Athens. The return visit is a reflection of this agreement. I thank him for his honesty regarding the development of bilateral relations,” added the Turkish president, addressing the Greek prime minister. Tayyip Erdogan said that the discussion with Kyriakos Mitsotakis was “productive, honest and constructive.” He noted that bilateral issues were discussed, as well as the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, of course, there were disagreements that were evident during the press conference.
Photos by the Press Office of the Greek Prime Minister). Συνάντηση του Πρωθυπουργού Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη με τον Πρόεδρο της Τουρκίας, Ρετζέπ Ταγίπ Ερντογάν στο Προεδρικό Μέγαρο στην Άγκυρα, Δευτέρα 13 Μαΐου 2024.
(ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΠΑΠΑΜΗΤΣΟΣ/ΓΡΑΦΕΙΟ ΤΥΠΟΥ ΠΡΩΘΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΥ/EUROKINISSI)
They disagreed about Hamas
“There is an important issue on which we do not agree,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said to the Greek prime minister shortly before the end of a joint press conference in Ankara this afternoon. The Turkish leadership “does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization” but instead “a resistance organization […] that fights to protect the Palestinian territories and people,” the Turkish leader continued.
A little earlier, Kyriakos Mitsotakis had denounced the attack launched by Hamas terrorists on October 7, underlining Israel’s right to self-defense but distancing himself from the asymmetric use of force by the Israelis in the Gaza Strip.
Referring in particular to what is happening in the Gaza Strip, Mr. Mitsotakis called for a permanent truce and an end to the asymmetric violence on the part of the Israelis. At the same time, he described an Israeli attack on Rafah as a “colossal mistake”, while making it clear that the only sustainable perspective in the Palestinian issue is the two-state solution. “Western countries must speak with a louder voice” about what is happening in Gaza, said the Turkish president, who again accused Israel of “genocide.”
Photos by the Press Office of the Greek Prime Minister) Συνάντηση του Πρωθυπουργού Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη με τον Πρόεδρο της Τουρκίας, Ρετζέπ Ταγίπ Ερντογάν στο Προεδρικό Μέγαρο στην Άγκυρα, Δευτέρα 13 Μαΐου 2024.
(ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΠΑΠΑΜΗΤΣΟΣ/ΓΡΑΦΕΙΟ ΤΥΠΟΥ ΠΡΩΘΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΥ/EUROKINISSI)
Greek-Turkish and minority
Referring to Greek-Turkish relations, Mr. Erdogan reiterated that in his opinion “there is no problem that is so big that it cannot be solved.” “Despite the differences of opinion, we are focusing on the positive agenda,” continued the Turkish president who, however, spoke again about the “Turkish minority in Greece,” thus provoking the reaction of the Greek prime minister. “The characterization of the minority as religious is expressly provided for by the Treaty of Lausanne,” the Greek Prime Minister said for his part, before speaking about Hellenism in Turkey which is unfortunately constantly shrinking.
Greek dissatisfaction with the Monastery of Chora
Mr. Mitsotakis did not fail, however, to express at the same time the “sorrow and dissatisfaction” of the Greek side for the Monastery of Chora, which will henceforth function as a mosque. “Turkey is a model country in the protection of cultural heritage. The Monastery of Hora is open for everyone to visit,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had previously stated, referring to the same issue.
IRMCT Principals note the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution on the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica
The Hague, 24 May 2024 – On the occasion of the adoption on 23 May 2024 of resolution A/78/L.67/Rev.1 by the United Nations General Assembly, the Principals of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism), President Graciela Gatti Santana, Prosecutor Serge Brammertz and Registrar Abubacarr M. Tambadou, issued the following statement:
“We note the adoption yesterday by the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution designating 11 July as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica.
As independent judicial institutions, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Mechanism have adjudicated numerous cases related to the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica with a view to determining the individual responsibility of accused persons in the relevant events. Judicial findings made in those cases have both advanced international criminal law and helped to establish an irrefutible historical record.
We observe in this regard that the resolution acknowledges the contributions made by the ICTY and the Mechanism in fighting impunity and ensuring accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as their role, and that of the International Court of Justice, in determining that the acts committed in Srebrenica constituted acts of genocide.
Today, although it no longer has active trials or appeals in core crimes cases, the Mechanism continues to assist national jurisdictions in delivering justice for crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Mechanism also remains committed to consolidating its legacy and that of the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), recognising their tremendous value in combatting the divisive phenomena of genocide denial, historical revisionism and glorification of convicted war criminals.”
The Mechanism was established by the United Nations Security Council on 22 December 2010, and is mandated to perform a number of essential functions previously carried out by the ICTR and the ICTY.
Aujourd’hui, le 24 mai 2024, l’Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas (France) a remporté la finale de la version française du concours de procès fictif de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), qui a eu lieu en salle d’audience I de la CPI à La Haye (Pays-Bas). L’Université de Kinshasa (République Démocratique du Congo) a remporté la deuxième place. Le prix du « Meilleur orateur » a été décerné à Débora Sabanga de l’Université de Kinshasa.
L’équipe lauréate était composée de Jérémie Boisfer, Adèle Siry, Cyrielle Danzin et Joy Rodrigues Dos Santos.
Le jury était composé de la Seconde vice-présidente de la CPI, Mme la juge Reine Alapini-Gansou, juge présidente du jury, Mme la juge de la CPI Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, et du juriste de la CPI Léo Jolivet.
L’équipe lauréate composée de Jérémie Boisfer, Adèle Siry, Cyrielle Danzin et Joy Rodrigues Dos Santos.
Les équipes se sont affrontées dans une affaire fictive et ont présenté leurs arguments dans les rôles des Représentants légaux des victimes et de la Défense, qui ont été diffusés en direct sur le site Internet de la Cour ainsi que sur son compte Facebook.
Cette troisième édition du concours de procès fictif en langue française est organisée par l’Académie de droit international de La Haye, avec le soutien de l’Ambassade de France aux Pays-Bas. 42 universités de 17 pays ont participé au concours.
Dans le cadre du programme qu’elle consacre aux milieux universitaires, la CPI soutient l’organisation de concours de procès fictifs en anglais, en espagnol, en français et en chinois et envisage d’en soutenir également l’organisation d’une version en arabe à l’avenir. Ces initiatives jouent un rôle fondamental pour susciter dans les milieux universitaires de l’intérêt pour le travail de la Cour et pour mieux faire connaître et respecter le droit international pénal.
From April 18 to 21, the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam became the epicenter for wine lovers during the prestigious ‘Amsterdam Wine Festival’. This B2C (business to consumer) event offered visitors the opportunity to taste a varied selection of wines from around the world. In this edition, dedicated to wines from the southern hemisphere, the participation of Peru stood out, represented by the company “La Bodega Vinos”.
Peru at Peru’s successful participation in the Amsterdam Wine Festival.
Peruvian presence at the festival
La Bodega Vinos, directed by Arjan Kiel, made its presence felt with a stand offering the acclaimed Intipalka wines. This name, which means “Valley of the Sun” in Quechua, honors its origin in the Ica Valley, a region known for its ideal climate and soils for wine agriculture. The Intipalka vineyards, located 500 meters above sea level and more than 60 km from the coast, benefit from a desert climate with great thermal amplitude and soils rich in magnesium, which contributes to the exceptional quality of the wines.
To encourage the purchase of Peruvian wine during the festival, La Bodega Vinos offered an attractive prize: a trip to Peru for two people. Attendees who purchased a bottle of Peruvian wine at the stand on Thursday or Sunday of the event had the opportunity to participate in a drawing for two round-trip tickets to Peru, plus a night at Intipalka’s vineyards. This prize not only encouraged the sale of the wines, but also aroused great interest in wine tourism in Peru.
Peru’s successful participation in the Amsterdam Wine Festival 2024.
The Amsterdam Wine Festival is a well-established event with two annual editions: in March, focusing on wines from the southern hemisphere, and in September, on wines from the northern hemisphere. In 2023, the festival attracted more than 26,500 visitors between the two editions, reflecting its popularity and reach.
With a strong social media presence (over 22,000 followers on Facebook and 8,000 on Instagram), and a newsletter with 98,000 subscribers, the festival ensures a wide reach for exhibitors.
Henry Torres, from the Peruvian Embassy.
The success of Intipalka
Founded in 2008, Intipalka has positioned itself as a representative brand of Peruvian viticulture. With technified vineyards and manual harvests, its wines are vinified at controlled temperatures in stainless steel tanks and aged in French and American oak barrels. Intipalka’s presence at the festival not only raised Peru’s name in the wine world, but also opened up new market opportunities and international promotion.
Peru’s participation in the Amsterdam Wine Festival was undoubtedly a great success, demonstrating the quality and potential of Peruvian wines in the competitive European market. With innovative promotional strategies and high quality products, Intipalka and La Bodega Vinos have left a lasting impression on festival attendees, consolidating Peru’s reputation as a producer of exceptional wines.
The role of the International Criminal Justice in Upholding Accountability for the Crime of Genocide – 30th Commemoration of the 1994 Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in Rwanda
By Beatrice Levorato Barsotti
On May 22nd, the Embassy of Rwanda and the Embassy of France organized a conference on the ‘Role of International Criminal Justice in Upholding Accountability for the Crime of Genocide’ in the context of the 30th Commemoration of the 1994 Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in Rwanda.
The conference was held at Peace Palace in The Hague, and featured high-profile participants involved in the judicial process following the genocide. These included Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT); Aimable Havugiyaremye, Prosecutor General at the National Public Prosecution Authority in Rwanda; Guillaume Lefevre Pontalis, Deputy Anti-Terrorist Prosecutor of France; and Prof. Dr. Carsten Stahn, Professor of International Criminal Law & Global Justice at Leiden University.
H.E. Mr. Olivier J.P. Nduhungirehe, Ambassador of the Republic of Rwanda to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and H.E. Mr. François Alabrune, Ambassador of France to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, opened the conference with their opening remarks.
In his opening remarks, the Rwandan Ambassador underscored the devastating impact of the genocide, which resulted in over a million deaths within three months, the destruction of Rwanda’s economy and infrastructure, and the displacement of millions. He addressed the immense challenges faced by the new government in seeking justice amid the widespread loss of judicial personnel and infrastructure. The Ambassador detailed the three-pronged approach to ensuring accountability through Rwandan national jurisdictions, foreign tribunals, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He expressed hope that the conference would provide valuable insights into the successes and challenges of the ICTR and contribute to the broader understanding of how international criminal justice can effectively prosecute genocide suspects. The Ambassador concluded by encouraging a fruitful and interactive debate among the diplomatic, academic, and legal communities present.
“I hope that the debate will be as informative and interactive as possible, and could enable the diplomatic, academic and legal communities in The Hague to draw lessons from the 1994 genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi, and reflect on the best way to ensure accountability and to prosecute, in an effective manner, suspects of genocide.” Said Ambassador Nduhungirehe.
H.E. Mr. Alabrune, Ambassador of France, drew attention to two critical and contemporary questions: what lessons can we draw from the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, and have these lessons been integrated into the fight against impunity for the crime of genocide? Reflecting on the friendship between France and Rwanda, the Ambassador emphasized the themes of memory and justice. He highlighted the duty to remember and combat negationism to prevent history from repeating itself and to facilitate reconciliation and recovery for the victims. The Ambassador also noted that in response to the genocide, which unfolded before the eyes of the international community, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on 8 November 1994, based in Arusha, Tanzania. The ICTR was tasked with trying those responsible for the genocide against the Tutsis and was the first international tribunal to rule specifically on genocide, carrying forward the legacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The ICTR pioneered many aspects of international criminal justice, setting important precedents for future tribunals.
Ambassador Alabrune said: “The international community witnessed the last genocide of the 20th century. This kwibuka, this commemoration participates in this work and this duty of memory. The duty to remember is not only to remember; it is remembering so as not to repeat. The duty to remember also means fighting against negationism.”
Judge Graciela Gatti-Santana highlighted the significance of the conference in reflecting on the achievements of international criminal justice in prosecuting genocide suspects and emphasized the importance of international cooperation. The judge acknowledged the pioneering role of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (MICT), in defining and prosecuting genocide. She underscored the crucial role of national and international collaboration in achieving these milestones and emphasized the need for continued efforts to ensure accountability and combat impunity. She also highlighted the importance of disseminating the jurisprudence of international judicial mechanisms to prevent genocide denial and revisionism.
Starting with a reflection on the beauty of the landscapes of Rwanda, Mame Mandiaye Niang, Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, delved into the challenges of dispensing justice amidst the lingering anguish and resentment following the atrocities of 1994. Having witnessed firsthand the aftermath of genocide, as well as the arduous processes of investigation and prosecution, before ascending to the judiciary himself, Niang recounted the palpable dissatisfaction with the international community. The discontent emanated from all sides: perpetrators saw the ICTR as biased toward the victors, while neither victims nor perpetrators found solace in its proceedings. Kenya’s pivotal decision to cooperate in 1997 marked a turning point, facilitating the apprehension of numerous leaders and the establishment of a detention center. Mr. Havuguyaremye emphasized a poignant message: the transformative power of justice in reclaiming the humanity denied to those scarred by unspeakable atrocities.
Aimable Havugiyaremye, Prosecutor General at National Public Prosecution Authority of Rwanda, intervened on the national reconciliation in Rwanda, the process and challenges in the past and today. To understand the genocide against the Tutsi, he stressed the importance of examining Rwanda’s history, particularly the transformation of social classes into ethnic divisions by colonial powers. Before colonization, Rwandan society was organized into fluid social classes—Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa—based on occupation and wealth, with minimal conflict. However, Belgian colonizers, employing a divide and conquer strategy, rigidified these classes into fixed ethnic identities by introducing identity cards and favoring the Tutsi minority, thereby exacerbating social inequalities and fostering resentment. This colonial manipulation laid the groundwork for ethnic tensions that erupted into violence, notably during the 1959 Social Revolution, and culminated in the 1994 genocide. The General Prosecutor described the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s (RPF) liberation war beginning in 1990, aimed at fighting injustice. By 1994, the genocide was in full execution, leaving Rwanda devastated with mass killings and a shattered nation. Post-genocide, the critical challenge was to deliver justice amidst a destroyed judicial infrastructure and a populace in flight.
Reconciliation efforts focused on rebuilding the social fabric without revenge, eradicating the culture of impunity, and reconstructing a unified national identity. The establishment of Gacaca courts, despite criticism, allowed for community-based justice, addressing the massive number of genocide suspects. These courts were crucial in processing cases rapidly and ensuring accountability.
Challenges persisted, including identifying suspects who had changed names, ensuring political will for prosecutions, and addressing refugee statuses complicating extradition. The General Prosecutor underscored the importance of international judicial cooperation and combating genocide negationism, which remains a painful reminder of past atrocities. He concluded by affirming that the pursuit of justice is an ongoing, generational struggle, essential for global accountability and the prevention of future genocides.
Guillaume Lefevre Pontalis, Deputy Anti Terrorist Prosecutor of France, explained the efforts made in France to prosecute suspected perpetuators and current challenges, as well as the joint efforts to fight impunity. The main challenge highlighted by the Deputy was the initial challenge of creating some sort of jurisdiction, creating an expertise pool with historical and technical knowledge on the genocide in Rwanda. They had to wait until 2012 to create in Paris a centralised unit. They applied the universal jurisdicition principle – given that the persons persecuted were not French, and the crime wasn’t committed in France. The Deputy highlighted the challenges stemming from the fact that it was not their jurisdiction, hence they lacked important materials as archives, evidence. These difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that the crime had been committed 20 years ago. The deputy underscored the improtance of criminal, justical and police cooperation in this context. Finally, he explained the symbolic improtance of 2024. In fact, there will be two processes. In general, he stressed that judgin will remain one of France priorities, new investigations are nearing completion and should lead to new projects in the years to come.
In conclusion of the Conference, Prof. dr. Carsten Stahn emphasized the importance of the past in moving forward, underscoring that commemoration not only honors the dead but also aids survivors in rebuilding their lives, which he deemed more vital than legal frameworks. He highlighted how the unique Dutch approach to international criminal justice, similar to Rwanda’s Gacaca courts, facilitated reconciliation by incorporating local contexts and allowing victims to see justice served, sometimes between neighbors and former enemies. Reflecting on Rwanda’s history, he noted the colonial manipulation that transformed social classes into rigid ethnic divisions, sowing seeds of conflict that erupted into the 1994 genocide. He echoed the Attorney General’s insights on the importance of judicial cooperation and the fight against impunity, stressing the development of international legal standards to combat genocide.
The Professor pointed out the enduring challenges in preventing genocide, incitement to genocide, proving genocidal intent, and preventing violence, but also noted positive developments like the creation of the International Criminal Court and evolving case law that mandates states to prevent mass atrocities extraterritorially. He praised innovative legal approaches that prosecute incitement to genocide even without subsequent crimes, and he highlighted the critical role of media in either promoting or preventing hate. The Professor concluded by emphasizing the need for robust international cooperation and continuous efforts to strengthen legal mechanisms and prevent future genocides, drawing lessons from Rwanda’s painful history and the ongoing struggle for justice and reconciliation.
