HRC59: Council Stresses Early Action to Avert Genocide

The 59th Session of the Human Rights Council

16 June – 09 July 2025  

Item 2: Interactive Dialogue with the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide

23 June 2025

By Carla Roa El Hage / GICJ 

Executive Summary

“The absence of accountability is itself an indicator of risk,” stated Ms. Virginia Gamba, Acting Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, during the Interactive Dialogue at the 59th session of the Human Rights Council. This statement framed a powerful and urgent session in which Member States, regional blocs, and NGOs engaged in a wide-ranging discussion on the state of global atrocity prevention. Ms. Gamba’s update highlighted the proliferation of hate speech, shrinking civic space, impunity for past and present atrocity crimes, and a dangerous global erosion of trust in multilateral responses.

The dialogue drew attention to multiple ongoing crises, including ethnically motivated attacks in Sudan, the systematic abuse of the Rohingya population in Myanmar, and the devastating humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Several delegations, particularly from the Global South, explicitly referred to the situation in Gaza as a genocide and criticised the UN Office on Genocide Prevention for failing to publicly acknowledge this. Others emphasised the need to strengthen early warning mechanisms, increase technical support to states, and regulate online platforms that fuel incitement and dehumanisation.

A recurring theme was the inconsistency and selectivity of international responses to atrocity crimes. Many states criticised what they saw as double standards in the Council’s approach to prevention and accountability, warning that such inconsistency undermines the credibility of the entire human rights framework.

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) reaffirms that prevention must go beyond rhetoric. It requires early and equal action in response to credible threats, robust support to affected populations, and the political courage to hold all perpetrators accountable,regardless of geopolitical context. Genocide prevention is not a symbolic function of the UN system; it is a binding legal and moral imperative.

Background

The establishment of the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect in 2005 marked a significant institutional shift in how the United Nations seeks to address atrocity crimes. Prompted by the failures to prevent the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s, the mandate of the Special Adviser focuses on assessing early warning signs, raising alerts, coordinating UN responses, and advising Member States on the implementation of the Genocide Convention and other relevant legal instruments.

The Office uses the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, a detailed tool comprising risk factors such as identity-based discrimination, widespread violations of rights, the absence of accountability, and inflammatory rhetoric or hate speech. When these indicators are observed, especially in combination, they should trigger urgent international attention and coordinated action.

However, nearly twenty years after the mandate’s creation, the world continues to witness mass atrocity crimes in various forms. In Sudan, ethnically targeted attacks in West Darfur have resulted in the mass killing of civilians. In Myanmar, the Rohingya community remains displaced and persecuted with no clear path to justice or return. In Gaza, large-scale civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction, and the denial of basic humanitarian aid have led to calls by several governments and legal bodies to assess whether the threshold of genocide has been crossed.

The rise of digital platforms as vectors of hate speech and incitement further complicates prevention efforts. Despite the potential for these platforms to serve as tools for early warning and civic mobilisation, many are being used to inflame tensions, disseminate violent ideologies, and desensitise audiences to atrocity crimes.

The politicisation of the term "genocide" itself has also contributed to paralysis. Disputes over terminology, jurisdiction, and national interest frequently obstruct consensus on urgent responses, even when credible risk indicators are present. In this environment, the effectiveness of the Office on Genocide Prevention depends not only on technical assessments, but on the will of Member States to act on its alerts and support its mandate.

Preventing genocide requires proactive investment in peacebuilding, truth-telling, accountability, and inclusive governance. It also demands that international law be applied universally, not selectively, and that the voices of affected communities be placed at the centre of the UN's response framework.

Interactive Dialogue 

Special Advisor Opening Statement

Ms. Virginia Gamba, Acting Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, opened the session by outlining the four core functions of her mandate: (1) information gathering on potential atrocity situations, (2) assessment and communication of early warning signs, (3) technical assistance to Member States in developing prevention capacities, and (4) coordination across UN bodies and regional partners to ensure a system-wide approach to prevention. She underlined that while the Office does not have the legal authority to determine whether genocide has occurred - a role reserved for competent international or national courts - it can and must identify and issue alerts when patterns of risk factors emerge.

Ms. Gamba provided a sobering overview of multiple contexts where atrocity risks are acute and worsening:

• In Sudan, she described the ongoing ethnically targeted violence against the Masalit and other communities in West Darfur, warning that the lack of protection and accountability mechanisms could result in mass atrocity crimes if left unchecked.
• In South Sudan, she flagged the resurgence of identity-based violence in the context of political tensions and fragile governance, which continues to threaten the country’s stability.
• In the Sahel, Ms. Gamba highlighted repeated attacks on Fulani communities by both state and non-state actors, reflecting a dangerous escalation of identity-based scapegoating and militarised responses.
• In Myanmar and Bangladesh, she reiterated concern for the Rohingya population, particularly those still confined to refugee camps and denied pathways to justice or safe return.
• In Gaza, while she did not offer a legal qualification, Ms. Gamba noted with alarm the extraordinary scale of civilian deaths, destruction of essential infrastructure, and denial of humanitarian access. She stated that these elements raise serious protection concerns and must be closely monitored within the atrocity prevention framework.

Beyond country-specific risks, Ms. Gamba emphasised the broader structural trends undermining global prevention efforts. Chief among them is the proliferation of hate speech and incitement through digital platforms, which she identified as a growing enabler of violence. She warned that online spaces have increasingly become tools for dehumanisation, recruitment, and radicalisation, often escaping state oversight. In response, she urged Member States to develop regulatory mechanisms for digital spaces that are both human rights-compliant and prevention-focused, ensuring that speech which crosses into incitement or incites hatred is addressed with urgency.

Ms. Gamba also stressed the importance of national resilience—including inclusive institutions, civic trust, and legal protections for minority groups—as the bedrock of atrocity prevention. She called for the universal ratification and full implementation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, noting that many states still lack domestic legislation aligned with their international obligations.

Finally, Ms. Gamba closed her remarks with a warning: early warning only matters when it triggers early action. She urged Member States and the Council to treat genocide prevention not as a theoretical commitment, but as a practical and collective obligation. The failure to act on credible risk indicators, she stated, not only costs lives but damages the credibility of the entire international system.

Country and Group Statements

The representative of the European Union reaffirmed the bloc’s unwavering commitment to the prevention of genocide and atrocity crimes, grounded in international law and the principles of the UN Charter. The EU underlined that the international community has a shared responsibility to act decisively when early warning signs are detected, and stressed that impunity must never be tolerated, regardless of the political sensitivities involved.

Particular concern was raised over the role of social media platforms in fuelling division, incitement, and dehumanisation. The EU called for the development of human rights-compliant regulatory frameworks to address online hate speech, misinformation, and digitally facilitated violence. At the same time, the delegate emphasised the importance of preserving freedom of expression and avoiding censorship that could disproportionately affect civil society.

The EU also asked the Special Adviser for guidance on how digital technologies, if used responsibly, could serve as tools for early warning, data gathering, and community engagement in the prevention of atrocity crimes. The delegate reaffirmed the EU’s support for strengthening the mandate and resources of the Office on Genocide Prevention and called for greater transparency and responsiveness in how the Office evaluates and communicates risk.

The delegate of Ghana, speaking on behalf of the African Group, expressed deep appreciation for the update provided by the Special Adviser and reaffirmed the continent’s commitment to strengthening national and regional mechanisms for atrocity prevention. The African Group stressed the importance of early warning and rapid response systems in identifying and addressing risks before they escalate.

Ghana highlighted the African Union’s landmark Transitional Justice Policy, which offers a framework for addressing historical injustices, building inclusive governance, and reinforcing social cohesion. The delegate also drew attention to the Annual Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, which serves not only as a moment of remembrance, but as a call to action to prevent future atrocities.

The African Group emphasised that prevention must be context-specific and locally led, with international support provided in a spirit of partnership, not imposition. The delegate called for increased international assistance to strengthen institutional capacity, promote accountability, and support inclusive education and dialogue initiatives. The Group also urged better integration of atrocity prevention into the broader development agenda, stressing that sustainable peace requires both justice and structural reform.

The delegate of Pakistan, representing the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), unequivocally condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as amounting to genocide. The delegate cited deliberate starvation, the targeting of civilians and children, destruction of healthcare infrastructure, and the denial of humanitarian aid as clear evidence of genocidal intent under international law.

The OIC expressed grave concern at the failure of international mechanisms, including the Office on Genocide Prevention, to speak out forcefully or take meaningful action in response to what it described as a clear and ongoing atrocity crime. Referring to the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures, the delegate stressed that there is now legal recognition of the plausibility of genocide, and that the UN system must act accordingly.

The delegate also called attention to rising Islamophobia and hate speech globally, which often lay the groundwork for identity-based violence and institutional discrimination. The OIC urged Member States to adopt comprehensive national strategies to prevent incitement, safeguard religious minorities, and uphold their obligations under the Genocide Convention. The intervention closed with a strong call for impartial accountability, regardless of the political status or alliances of those responsible for atrocity crimes.

The delegate of Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), delivered his intervention that stressed the need for the mainstreaming of atrocity prevention across the UN system. The delegate reiterated that the prevention of genocide is not the sole responsibility of one office or mandate-holder, but a shared institutional duty that must be reflected in the work of peacekeeping, development, human rights, and humanitarian agencies alike.

Drawing on Sierra Leone’s own experience with post-conflict reconciliation and justice, the delegate noted recent national efforts to strengthen prevention infrastructure, including the National Early Warning and Response Coordination Centre and the Independent Commission for Peace and National Cohesion. Regionally, Sierra Leone commended the role of ECOWAS and highlighted the importance of cross-border collaboration in early detection and response.

The Group of Friends on R2P welcomed the Special Adviser’s continued use of the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes and encouraged its broader dissemination and integration into national policy frameworks. The delegate also called for greater investment in public education, digital literacy, and social cohesion initiatives, arguing that long-term prevention depends on building inclusive, rights-respecting societies from the ground up.

The State of Palestine described the situation in Gaza as a deliberate and ongoing genocide. The delegate outlined what they argued are clear acts of genocidal intent and conduct under the Genocide Convention, including the deliberate targeting of civilians, the destruction of critical infrastructure, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and the systematic denial of humanitarian aid. According to the delegate, these acts are not isolated incidents but constitute a coordinated campaign of extermination.

The Palestinian delegate strongly criticised the international community’s inaction, particularly the failure of key UN bodies to respond proportionately or consistently. Most notably, the delegate criticised the UN Office on Genocide Prevention for remaining silent despite growing global recognition, including from the International Court of Justice, of the plausibility that genocide is occurring in Gaza. This silence, they argued, amounts to complicity, and demonstrates that the mechanisms meant to protect populations from atrocity crimes are being applied selectively, based on political considerations rather than legal or moral principles.

The intervention underscored that while the victims in Gaza are overwhelmingly civilian, including thousands of children, the international discourse continues to frame the situation as a “conflict”, thereby obscuring the asymmetric and targeted nature of the violence. The Palestinian representative warned that failure to act would irreparably damage the credibility of the Genocide Convention and the entire UN human rights system.

The delegate concluded by calling on the Special Adviser to fulfil her mandate without political fear or favour, to publicly acknowledge the gravity of the situation in Gaza, and to support immediate and impartial investigations into atrocity crimes. The intervention closed with a stark warning: that continued silence will confirm that “never again” is not a principle, but an empty slogan for the Palestinian people.

The representative of Ukraine highlighted what they characterised as clear and systematic genocidal acts perpetrated by the Russian Federation in the context of its full-scale invasion. The delegate argued that genocide is not always an immediate event, but often a process, one that unfolds through policies of identity erasure, cultural suppression, and violent persecution, all of which, they claimed, are being carried out by Russian authorities against the Ukrainian population.

Central to Ukraine’s argument was the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to Russian territory, their systematic Russification, and the denial of their national identity, practices which, according to the delegate, align with Article II(e) of the Genocide Convention, which prohibits the forcible transfer of children from one group to another. The delegate also cited the destruction of Ukrainian cultural heritage sites, suppression of the Ukrainian language, and widespread attacks on civilian infrastructure as further evidence of an intent to erase Ukrainian national identity.

Ukraine pointed out that these actions are taking place in the context of a long history of denial and dehumanisation by Russian officials, who have repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian statehood and identity, rhetoric that Ukraine described as dangerous incitement consistent with early warning signs of atrocity crimes.

The delegate urged the Office on Genocide Prevention to include the situation in Ukraine in its risk assessments and to support mechanisms for independent international investigation and accountability. They also highlighted the importance of transitional justice and reparations as tools not only for redress, but for prevention.

Ukraine concluded by recalling the Holodomor, the 1932–1933 famine widely recognised as a genocide against the Ukrainian people, and warned that failure to act in the face of renewed atrocities would represent a tragic repetition of history.

The representative of Namibia delivered a powerful historical reflection, recalling the genocide committed by German colonial forces against the Ovaherero and Nama peoples between 1904 and 1908. The delegate described the recent national commemoration of this atrocity, which gathered descendants of victims at former concentration camp sites in a moment of collective mourning, remembrance, and resilience. Emphasising that this genocide was the first of the 20th century, Namibia underscored its long-lasting socio-economic and psychological effects, which continue to impact communities today. The delegate stressed that commemoration must not be symbolic alone, but should drive tangible commitments to justice, reparations, and non-repetition. Namibia reaffirmed its support for international efforts to prevent genocide, including through early warning systems, capacity-building, and legal reforms. It also reiterated the necessity of recognising and addressing colonial-era genocides within the broader global prevention agenda, asserting that full acknowledgement of past atrocities is vital to building lasting peace and human dignity.

The representative of Sudan began by renewing its country’s full commitment to the Genocide Convention. He then moved on to accuse the Rapid Support Forces of committing intensive, systematic and selective attacks with the goal of mass destruction of an entire population. The delegate condemned these genocidal acts that took place in the Al Jazeera governorate and called on the Council to hold perpetrators accountable and to ensure that no form of support is provided to the RSF by any other Council’s member.

The delegate of China condemned all forms of genocide, past and present, and expressed concern over the misuse of digital platforms for incitement. The delegate criticised certain Western countries for politicising the issue of genocide and selectively applying international law. China emphasised its support for international cooperation grounded in mutual respect and non-interference.

The delegate of the Russian Federation expressed concern over what it described as the politicisation of the concept of genocide, cautioning against its use as a geopolitical instrument rather than a strictly legal and humanitarian classification. The delegate warned that applying the label inconsistently undermines both the credibility of the Genocide Convention and the legitimacy of the international system.

In response to accusations from other Member States regarding Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Russian delegate firmly rejected allegations of genocidal conduct, and instead accused Ukrainian authorities of committing genocide against ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations, particularly in the Donbas region. Russia alleged that for years, these communities have faced persecution, discrimination, and violence, including what it characterised as systematic attempts to erase their linguistic and cultural identity.

The delegate criticised Western countries for what it described as selective outrage and double standards, accusing them of turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by their allies while amplifying unverified claims against geopolitical adversaries. Russia called on the Special Adviser to maintain objectivity and to avoid drawing premature or politically motivated conclusions without full legal proceedings.

Russia concluded by urging the Human Rights Council to uphold the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference, and to focus on strengthening international mechanisms that address atrocity crimes without politicisation, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law.

The delegate of Rwanda reaffirmed the country’s steadfast commitment to atrocity prevention, grounded in the legacy of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. Recalling its own history, Rwanda stressed the importance of remembrance, education, and reconciliation in preventing future atrocities. The delegate highlighted Rwanda’s national strategies to strengthen social cohesion, promote inclusive governance, and counter hate speech. The intervention also called for greater international support for African-led prevention initiatives, and encouraged other Member States to integrate genocide education into formal and informal curricula.

The representative of the United Kingdom expressed strong support for the mandate of the Special Adviser and highlighted specific concerns regarding ongoing atrocity risks in Myanmar, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The UK emphasised the importance of sustained early warning capacity within the UN system and called for enhanced cooperation between Member States and the Office on Genocide Prevention. The delegate underlined the role of accountability in deterring atrocity crimes and asked the Special Adviser how states could better support the UN’s operational readiness to respond before atrocities occur. The intervention reaffirmed the UK’s broader commitment to the Responsibility to Protect and the Genocide Convention.

Statements by Non-Governmental Organisation

Numerous NGOs and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) took the floor to express profound concern over the apparent failure of the international community to uphold its legal and moral obligations to prevent genocide and other atrocity crimes. Several organisations underscored that early warning indicators are now present in multiple crises,particularly in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, and Ukraine, yet the global response remains fragmented, inconsistent, and often politically constrained.

A recurring theme among NGO interventions was the silence of the UN Office on Genocide Prevention in the face of mounting evidence. Some organisations criticised the Office’s unwillingness to publicly acknowledge the plausibility of genocide in Gaza, despite the provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice. This perceived institutional silence, they argued, undermines the credibility of the UN system and contributes to a climate of impunity for powerful actors.

NGOs also emphasised the role of digital technologies and social media in the proliferation of hate speech, incitement, and the dehumanisation of vulnerable communities. While acknowledging the potential of digital platforms as tools for early warning and education, many called for more robust and rights-based regulation of online spaces to prevent the weaponisation of speech. Some warned that artificial intelligence and algorithmic targeting are being used to amplify inflammatory rhetoric, particularly in conflict zones.

Several speakers highlighted the historical continuity of genocidal practices, linking past atrocities, including colonial-era genocides, to present-day crises. In particular, organisations representing Indigenous and formerly colonised communities demanded greater recognition of these historical crimes within the UN’s prevention framework, along with meaningful steps toward truth-telling, reparations, and guarantees of non-repetition.

A number of NGOs and NHRIs praised efforts by certain Member States to hold perpetrators accountable through international courts and national jurisdictions, but stressed that such efforts must be universal and depoliticised. Selective justice, they warned, only deepens existing grievances and fosters resentment among marginalised groups.

Across the board, civil society called for a victim-centred approach to prevention, where the voices, needs, and experiences of affected communities are not only acknowledged but placed at the centre of the international response. They reiterated that the ultimate measure of the UN’s commitment to prevention is not the number of speeches delivered in Geneva, but the tangible protection and dignity afforded to people at risk on the ground. 

Conclusion

In her concluding remarks, the Special Adviser, Ms. Virginia Gamba, reiterated the pressing need for early, coordinated, and depoliticised action to prevent genocide and other atrocity crimes. She acknowledged the deep concerns raised by Member States and civil society, including allegations of genocide in various regions, and reaffirmed that the Office remains committed to fulfilling its mandate in line with international law and UN principles. She reminded the Council that while her office cannot legally determine the existence of genocide, it is mandated to identify and communicate risk factors with the goal of spurring preventative action.

Ms. Gamba stressed that prevention is not a one-time act, but a continuous process involving monitoring, dialogue, accountability, and systemic reform. She emphasised that the absence of accountability is itself an indicator of risk, and warned that when impunity prevails, atrocity crimes are more likely to recur or escalate. She urged states to focus on building national and regional resilience, supporting independent institutions, protecting civic space, and ensuring that vulnerable communities have access to justice.

Importantly, she called for stronger collaboration between Member States, regional organisations, and the UN system, especially in the digital sphere, where hate speech and incitement have increasingly contributed to identity-based violence. She welcomed growing recognition of the need for digital governance frameworks that uphold freedom of expression while countering incitement to violence.

Ms. Gamba concluded by calling on all states to treat genocide prevention as a shared responsibility and a moral imperative, not as a politically convenient tool. She reminded the Council that the cost of inaction is measured not only in broken institutions, but in broken lives, and that the UN’s credibility depends on its ability to stand firmly and impartially in defence of the rights and dignity of all peoples. Moreover, she vehemently disagreed with those representatives who downplayed her Office’s work on Gaza, as she described the allegations as “either misinformation or ignorance”. She stressed that her office has been actively advising the UN Secretary General on the matter and that they have released joint statements with other experts on the situation in Gaza. 

Position of Geneva International Centre for Justice

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ)  is gravely concerned by the continuation of atrocity crimes across the globe and the persistent failure of international mechanisms to respond effectively and impartially. GICJ:

• Urges recognition and investigation into credible allegations of genocide, especially in Gaza, Sudan, and Myanmar;
• Calls on the UN Office on Genocide Prevention to act consistently and publicly in alignment with its mandate;
• Supports the regulation of digital platforms to prevent hate speech and incitement to violence;
• Emphasises the need for universal ratification and enforcement of the Genocide Convention; 
• Calls for the inclusion of historical genocides, including colonial atrocities, within the broader framework of international prevention and reparative justice.

Preventing genocide is a legal and moral obligation. Selective silence, delayed action, and impunity enable repetition. A credible prevention framework must be rooted in accountability, equality, and the unwavering protection of human dignity.