Coalition for Genocide Response joins several non-governmental organisations supporting universal jurisdiction reforms in the UK. Please see below.

On 16 Oct 2025, the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes published a special briefing on the critical threats facing Bosnia – from ethno-nationalist separatists within and Russian-supported interference from without – and the steps the UK Government should immediately take to reaffirm the rule of law and maintain the peace, consistent with the Dayton Peace Agreement of 14 Dec 1995, in support of the Bosnian state. 

The recommended steps are specifically concerned with preventing instability which could lead to the re-occurrence of conflict and, if so, potentially atrocity crimes, which is even more salient given that this year marks the 30-year anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, as well as the ratification of the peace negotiated at Dayton.

On 22 Oct 2025, the UK Government will host the London Leaders’ Summit for the six Western Balkans States and European partners, under the Berlin Process. The UN Security Council is scheduled to hold its semi-annual debate on BiH in early Nov 2025 where the main agenda item will be the vote to reauthorise the EU-led multinational stabilisation force (EUFOR Althea), as its current mandate expires on 2 Nov 2025. Discussions are also expected to focus on the country’s political situation, particularly regarding the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and its continued mandate. Russia is being heavily lobbied by ethno-nationalist separatists in Bosnia to veto the mandates of both EUFOR and the OHR.

The Standing Group’s Executive Committee commissioned the briefing as part of its discretionary and limited mandate to intervene in situations of grave concern where they relate to the risk of atrocity crimes impacting international peace and security. 
A version of the briefing has been sent to relevant stakeholders.

The briefing was drafted by Aarif Abraham, Dr Kurt Bassuener, PhD and Dr Valery Perry. It was kindly reviewed by Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC, Prof. Christine Chinkin and Prof. Payam Akhavan.

On 13 October 2025, the Coalition for Genocide Response joined several civil society organisations calling upon the EU to dedicate a share of asset-backed loan to reparations for victims/survivors of human rights violations. As the organisations stress:

With a EUR 140 billion loan to Ukraine – backed by immobilised Russian sovereign assets – now on the table, the European Union must innovate by leveraging these assets and assign a portion of the funds for victims of gross human rights violations and serious violations of humanitarian law.  

Dedicating as little as 2% of this reparation loan – EUR 2.8 billion – to domestic reparations programmes would transform lives. This bold step would showcase European leadership and a commitment to the rule of law, enabling the E.U. and Ukraine to: 

• Deliver reparations to all victims in urgent need, including survivors of conflict-related sexual violence; 
• Provide recognition and redress to families of the disappeared; 
• Support rehabilitation and compensation for victims of torture and other grave violations. 

See the full statement here: https://www.globalsurvivorsfund.org/latest/articles/ukraine-eu-asset-backed-loan-to-reparations-for-survivors/

On 15 September 2025, the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes has issued a Call for Written Submissions.

The Call forms part of an independent review being undertaken by the Standing Group. This review, supported by expert-led evidence, will assist in the articulation and development of recommendations for a comprehensive and cohesive UK framework to address atrocity-related issues.

The Standing Group welcomes submissions of written evidence from experts on the key issues under review. These key issues relate to UK Government anticipation, prevention, and response to international crimes, as well as resource mobilisation.

Colleagues are invited to respond to the guiding questions presented in the Call by key issue and are also encouraged to address the Group on the relevance, nature, and scope of these issues in relation to the core aims of the Standing Group, as set out in the Concept Note, which is available on the Group’s website.

The Call outlines the terms of reference and clarifies how, and in what form, submissions might assist the Group’s work. Select written submissions may be published, with consent, at the discretion of the Executive Committee of the Standing Group upon receipt.

The deadline for written submissions is midnight on 3 January 2026.

Further details can be found here: https://www.atrocitystandinggroup.org/news/standing-group-launches-call-for-evidence

On 9 September 2025, the House of Lords (in the Grand Committee) will debate the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ (JCHR) Daesh Inquiry Report. The report is available on the website of the JCHR: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/47848/documents/250062/default/

A few key highlights of the report: 

• Zero successful prosecutions in UK courts for international crimes committed in Syria and Iraq by Daesh 
• Investigation and prosecution require better coordination – changes needed 
• The government has a responsibility to repatriate British children held in camps in North East Syria 

The Joint Committee calls on the Government to: 

• Develop a coherent framework to ensure that the UK’s investigating and prosecuting bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, are better coordinated in evidence gathering and carrying out investigations.
• Step up efforts to identify British nationals currently held in camps in Syria. Where there is sufficient evidence that international crimes were committed, they should be prosecuted.
• Change the law to abolish the restrictions on the principle of universal jurisdiction as enshrined in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, including the proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, currently being debated by Parliament.

See a briefing from the Coalition for Genocide Response here:

In August 2025, Coalition for Genocide Response joined over 100 non-governmental organisations calling upon States to support a mandate extension for the Inde­pen­dent International Fact-Fin­ding Mission (FFM) for Sudan.

Extracts from letter can be found below.

To Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (Geneva, Switzerland)

14 August 2025 

Sudan: Extend the mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission for two more years

Your Excellencies,

Ahead of the UN Human Rights Council’s 60^th session (8 Sep­tem­ber-3 October 2025), we, the un­der­si­gned civil society orga­ni­sa­tions, write to urge your delegation to support a mandate extension for the Inde­pen­dent International Fact-Fin­ding Mission (FFM) for the Sudan.

In light of the serious violations of international law committed by all parties to the conflict, inclu­ding alarming rates of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) against women and girls, and of the on­­going need to collect and preserve evidence and identify those responsible with a view to en­su­ring that they are held accountable, the next Council resolution on Sudan should extend the FFM’s man­­date for at least two years. It should also re­quest the FFM to regu­larly re­port to the Council in the framework of public debates on Sudan’s human rights situation. […]

As the FFM highlighted in its June 2025 update: “One message emerged with resounding clarity: peace without justice is an illusion. Accountability is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for a sustai­nable peace in Sudan as its very absence is amongst the key root causes of conflict. The preparations for justice should therefore begin now, and any peace agreement must address issues of justice.”

Investigations and public reporting remain indispensable, with a continued strong focus on inves­ti­­gating the current atrocities, including crimes of SGBV perpetrated against the Sudanese people, par­ti­cularly women and girls, by the warring parties.

As Sudan’s conflict is ongoing and egre­gious violations con­ti­nue to be committed by all parties to the conflict, with further needs for col­lection and preservation of evidence and identification of per­petrators, there is no other option for the Council but to extend the FFM’s mandate. 

At its upcoming 60^th session, the Human Rights Council should therefore:

–   Extend the mandate of the FFM, in full, for two years;

–   Request the FFM to provide the Human Rights Council with oral updates on its work at its 62^nd and 65^th sessions, to be followed by enhanced interactive dialogues that should include the participation of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, representatives of the Afri­can Union, the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, ci­vil society, victims and survivors and other relevant stakeholders, and com­pre­hensive reports at its 63^rd and 66^th sessions, to be followed by interactive dialogues, and to present the reports to the General Assembly at its 81^st and 82^nd sessions;

–   Recommend that the General Assembly submit the reports of the FFM to the Security Coun­­cil for its consideration and appropriate action in order that those responsible for human rights violations, including those that may amount to crimes under international law, are held to account, including through the expansion of the International Criminal Court’s ju­ris­diction to cover the entire territory of Sudan and consideration of the scope for effective and targeted measures, including against those who appear to be most respon­sible for these crimes, taking into account the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the FFM;

–   Call upon all parties concerned, including United Nations bodies, to consider implementa­tion of the recommendations made by the FFM in its reports in order to address the dire situation of human rights in Sudan;

–   Invite the FFM to consider ways of briefing all relevant United Nations bodies, including the Security Council; and

–   Make clear that the Human Rights Council will remain actively seized of the matter, including by assessing the situation in Sudan and appropriate responses, which could include further ex­ten­sions of the FFM’s mandate.

A two-year extension for the FFM’s mandate does not mean that the HRC should remain silent about Sudan for two years. Notwithstanding the proposed mandate extension, with associated reporting re­qui­rements, until the Council’s 66^th ses­sion (September 2027), the Council should adopt a resolu­tion on Su­dan at its 63^rd session (September 2026), taking stock of developments and following up on its action on the country to date. This should be a proactive initiative aimed at bringing violations and impu­nity to an end and advancing human rights and accountability in Sudan.

Furthermore, we urge the Council to follow up on resolutions S-32/1, 50/1, S-36/1, 54/2, and 57/2 by requesting additional reporting by the High Commissioner, with the assistance of his designated Expert, be­yond the Council’s 61^st session (February-April 2026).^[18] The Council should:

–   Request the High Commissioner, with the assistance of the Expert on human rights in the Sudan, to submit to the Human Rights Council at its 64^th and 67^th sessions comprehensive re­ports on the situation of human rights in the Sudan and on violations and abuses com­mit­ted by all parties to the conflict, to be followed by interactive dialogues with the par­ticipation of the High Commissioner and the Expert.

Finally, we urge States to pay their contributions to the UN in full and on time to mitigate the li­­qui­dity crisis and allow the FFM for Sudan, other independent investigations, and human rights bodies and mechanisms to fulfil their respective mandates, including by delivering outcomes and reports requested by intergovernmental bodies such as the Human Rights Council.

We thank you for your attention to these pressing issues and stand ready to provide your delegation with further information as required.

Sincerely, 

The list of signatories can be found here: https://defenddefenders.org/sudan-extend-ffm-mandate-two-more-years/

August 3, 2025, marks the 11th anniversary of the Yazidi genocide – genocide perpetrated by Daesh (also known as ISIS, ISIL, or IS), a non-state actors, against an ethno-religious community in Sinjar, Iraq. Eleven years later, the Yazidi genocide is ongoing, with over 2,600 Yazidi women and children still missing. The Yazidi genocide is still ongoing with the promise of justice being unfulfilled. The Yazidi genocide is still ongoing with no steps being taken to prevent further atrocities against the community in the future.

On August 3, 2014, Daesh launched a devastating attack on Sinjar, inflicting widespread atrocities on the Yazidi community. The terror group killed thousands, predominantly targeting men and elderly women, while abducting boys to forcibly conscript them as child soldiers. Thousands of women and girls were kidnapped and subjected to sexual slavery and violence. To this day, over 2,600 Yazidi women and children remain unaccounted for. Daesh’s crimes included murder, enslavement, deportation, and forced displacement. The group systematically imprisoned, tortured, abducted, exploited, abused, raped, and coerced women into marriages across the region. In the days following the Sinjar assault, Daesh expanded its campaign of terror to other communities in the Nineveh Plains, causing 120,000 people to flee in the dead of night in a desperate bid to save their lives.

Read more from our co-founder Dr Ewelina Ochab here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2025/08/01/the-pursuit-of-justice-for-the-yazidi-genocide-must-continue/

(Source: Forbes)

On 24 July, Asymmetrical Haircuts released a new episode of their podcast covering the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes. Hear from Aarif Abraham, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and trustee of the Coalition for Genocide Response, Dr Ewelina Ochab, senior lawyer for International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute and co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response, and Professor Christine Chinkin.

Listen to it here: https://blubrry.com/asymmetricalhaircuts/147252614/episode-140-states-atrocity-crimes-obligations-with-aarif-abraham-christine-chinkin-and-ewelina-ochab/

On 14 July 2025, in the United Kingdom’s Houses of Parliament, the Coalition for Genocide Response, together with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the Accountability Unit, launched a new initiative — the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes (Standing Group). Comprising a group of leading international lawyers, cross-party parliamentarians and policy advisers, the Standing Group has been set up to convene an independent review of, and provide comprehensive advice on, the UK approach to atrocity prevention and response.

The Standing Group’s work comes at a time when mass atrocities across the world, including the crime of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, are becoming prominent and seemingly permanent. According to the Global Peace Index report from 2024, more than 100 countries had been at least partly involved in some form of external conflict in the past five years, up from 59 in 2008. Between 2000 and 2020, almost one-fifth of countries experienced mass atrocities or raised the serious concern that they could take place.

The Standing Group’s aim is to make timely, impactful, and expert recommendations to government officials, policymakers, and civil society to help bring the UK government closer to creating a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to international crimes in line with its existing international obligations.

Dr Ewelina Ochab, co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response, commented: ‘Atrocity crimes, including those meeting the legal definition of genocide, are more common than one would think. More than seven decades after the adoption of the Genocide Convention, three decades after the commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, two decades after the establishment of the International Criminal Court, we, as the international community, have been failing victims/survivors globally. We fail victims/survivors in that we continue to ignore early warning signs and risk factors of atrocity as they unravel before our eyes. We fail victims/survivors in that we affirm the perpetrators in the message that they can get away with their crimes. We fail victims/survivors in that we leave them without assistance to reestablish their lives, and under the constant fear of the recurrence of the crimes.’ She added: ‘The problem is not going to fix itself. Atrocity crimes prevention cannot be left to chance. Mechanisms for monitoring and analysis are key. Perpetrators will not hand themselves in to the authorities. Proactive documentation, investigation and effective prosecutions must prevail. We cannot wait decades more before taking stock and recognising that more needs to be done. We know it too well now and we must act accordingly.’

At the time of publication (14 July 2025), members of the Executive Committee include:

· Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws LT KC, Chair of the Standing Group, Patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response

· Dr Ewelina Ochab, Co-Convener of the Standing Group, IBAHRI senior programme lawyer, Co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response

· Aarif Abrahan, Co-Convener of the Standing Group, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, Trustee of the Coalition for Genocide Response

· Oleksandra Matviichuk, Head, Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine), Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (2022)

· Professor Fernand de Varennes, Visiting Professor at the University of Sarajevo and Université Catholique de Lyon and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on minority issues

· Professor Payam Akhavan LLM SJD (Harvard) OOnt FRSC, Professor of International Law, Senior Fellow and the inaugural holder of the Chair in Human Rights at Massey College, University of Toronto, and Special Advisor on Genocide to the Prosecutor of the ICC;

· Professor Christine Chinkin CMG FBA, Emerita Professor of International Law, Professorial Research Fellow and Founding Director of the Centre of Women Peace & Security at LSE;

· Federica D’Alessandra, Deputy Director at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict and Director of the Oxford Programme on International Peace and Security;

· Alistair Fernie, Chief Executive at The Elders Foundation;

· Andrew Gilmour CMG, Senior Adviser at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Former UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights (2016-2019) and Former CEO at the Berghof Foundation;

· Wayne Jordash KC, Managing Partner at Global Rights Compliance

· Jason McCue, Senior Partner of McCue Jury & Partners LLP and Co-Founder of EBRO Global; and

· Rupert Skilbeck, Director of REDRESS

As of 14 July 2025, the Advisory Board Members are:

· Lord David Alton KCSG, Patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response

· Lord Alfred Dubs

· Richard Foord MP

· Baroness Arminka Helić

· Baroness Fiona Hodgson CBE

· Blair McDougall MP

· Brendan O’Hara MP

· Baroness Liz Sugg CBE

· David Taylor MP

· Melanie Ward MP

· Luke de Pulford, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, Co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response.

· James Jennion, Co-Director of the Labour Campaign for Human Rights.

In May 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report looking into the UK responses to the Daesh crimes, including investigating and prosecuting Daesh members upon their return to the UK.

The report made several findings and recommendations pertaining to justice and accountability, including:

1. We welcome the Government’s commitment to achieve justice for survivors
   of Daesh crimes. However, not a single Daesh fighter has been successfully
   prosecuted in the UK for committing international crimes, such as genocide.
   (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)
2. Terrorism charges do not capture the nature and scale of crimes committed
   against victims. Where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic
   prospect of conviction for international crimes, individuals should be
   prosecuted for such crimes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37)
3. The Government has told us that the most appropriate forums for
   prosecuting individuals are the jurisdictions where the crimes were
   committed. Given the concerns with regard to fair trial rights, capacity, and
   resources, we must not rely on other countries to investigate and prosecute
   individuals for international crimes. Where the UK has jurisdiction over
   international crimes, the UK should seek to investigate and prosecute such
   crimes. (Conclusion, Paragraph 44)
4. Where the UK has jurisdiction over international crimes, the UK should seek
   to investigate and prosecute such crimes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44)
5. The UK legal framework applicable to international crimes is inconsistent.
   Whilst it is possible to prosecute individuals for torture and grave breaches
   of the Geneva Conventions committed abroad, it is not possible to prosecute
   individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, or other war crimes
   committed abroad, unless the individuals are UK nationals, UK residents, or
   subject to service personnel laws. This creates a key barrier to the exercise
   of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the UK. (Conclusion, Paragraph
   50)
6. The Government should amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001
   to remove the requirements of UK nationality and residency. The relevant
   guidelines should also be amended to ensure that presence in the UK is not
   33
   a prerequisite to initiating an investigation. This would help to close the
   impunity gap by ensuring that the UK can exercise universal jurisdiction
   over the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and
   war crimes. To achieve this, the Committee proposes an amendment to the
   Crime and Policing Bill, which in turn amends the International Criminal
   Court Act 2001 (see Annex). (Recommendation, Paragraph 51)
7. There is a lack of cooperation between UK investigative and prosecuting
   bodies, such as the War Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police, and the
   Crown Prosecution Service. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)
8. The Government should prioritise the establishment of a clear framework
   to allow for greater cooperation between UK’s relevant national bodies
   and between the UK and other mechanisms involved in the gathering and
   preserving of evidence. It should also identify the barriers to undertaking
   structural investigations and identify how this could be changed and
   improved. (Recommendation, Paragraph 60)
9. With the closure of UNITAD, it is imperative that the evidence gathered is not
   lost, and that new evidence can still be collected as needed. (Conclusion,
   Paragraph 61)
10. We urge the Government to use its influence to ensure that such valuable
    evidence is not lost and that it is kept safe from both state and non- state
    actors who could put the lives of survivors at risk. The Government should
    also employ efforts to ensure that this evidence, as well as any future
    evidence collected of Daesh crimes, is effectively analysed and used to aid
    investigations and prosecutions globally. (Recommendation, Paragraph 61)

The full report can be found here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/47848/documents/250062/default/

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/47848/documents/250062/default