STATEMENT BY MR NATHANIEL KHNG, MINISTER-COUNSELLOR (LEGAL), PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ON AGENDA ITEM 80, ON CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, SIXTH COMMITTEE, 9 OCTOBER 2024

Mr Chair,

Thank you for giving me the floor.

2 Crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. It is imperative that the international community works together to end impunity for perpetrators and provide justice for victims.

3 Singapore reiterates its appreciation to the International Law Commission for its work on this important topic.  In relation to the resumed session in April this year, Singapore expresses its appreciation to the Chair of the 78^th session of this Committee, Thailand, the Vice-Chairs of the 78^th session from Italy and Romania, and the co-facilitators from Guatemala, Iceland and Malaysia. Their leadership and effective facilitation of the discussions has formed a solid basis for further work on this agenda item and enabled all delegations to have rich and constructive exchanges on the Commission’s draft articles.

Mr Chair,

4 Singapore was among the delegations that submitted written comments to the Commission on this topic and engaged in substantive discussions with other delegations in the resumed sessions of this Committee in 2023 and 2024. We continue to reflect on the important legal and practical issues raised by other delegations in their written comments and in the discussions in this Committee. Singapore has consistently supported transparent and substantive dialogue on these issues, to further improve and clarify the draft articles and commentaries.

5 The active and serious engagement of many delegations in the resumed sessions reflects the readiness of Member States to engage with the substance of the draft articles to resolve the divergence of views, with the common goal of ending impunity. The discussions also demonstrate the complexity of the issues underlying differences in positions, which require serious and careful treatment, reflecting the gravity of this topic and accounting for the respective views of Member States.

6 For example, in relation to draft article 4, Singapore and other delegations observed that it would be useful to clarify firstly, the scope of the undertaking of prevention, and secondly, the relationship between draft article 4 and other draft articles detailing specific acts of cooperation, namely, the obligations to take preliminary measures under draft article 9 and render mutual legal assistance under draft article 14. Further, in relation to draft article 7, Singapore and other delegations observed that there is a need to clarify how potential conflicts of jurisdiction are to be resolved, and that where such conflicts of jurisdiction arise, primacy should be accorded to the State which can exercise jurisdiction under draft article 7, paragraph 1. Such a State would have greater interest in prosecuting the offence in question than a custodial State that can only exercise jurisdiction on the basis of paragraph 2 alone. Singapore and other delegations also reiterated that draft article 7, paragraph 2 provides for a treaty-based jurisdictional link, which should be stated in the draft articles for greater legal certainty.

Mr Chair,

7 My delegation looks forward to engaging positively in discussions with other delegations on the substance of the draft articles as well as on the issue of what further action should be taken on the draft articles. Singapore supports a practical and effective outcome based on consensus in the Sixth Committee, that will strengthen accountability through wide acceptance and implementation by States of effective measures for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

8 Thank you very much for your attention.

  . . . . .