India has told the United Nations that crimes and atrocities committed by terrorists should be reflected within the framework of crimes against humanity when they meet the required threshold, citing the grave nature of such acts and their impact on people. At the same time, India said any future legally binding international instrument on crimes against humanity should add to existing legal mechanisms rather than duplicate them, and should be shaped only after comprehensive and substantive discussions involving all member states. Delivering India’s statement on Monday at the 81st Session of the UNGA Sixth Committee on the ‘UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity’, Counsellor in the Permanent Mission of India to the UN R. Mythili said, “The overarching objective of international law is the preservation of universal values of humanity. Serious violations of international law run counter to the spirit and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.”

She said states bear the responsibility to ensure justice and accountability for grave human rights violations and mass atrocities committed within their territory or by their nationals in accordance with their national legislation.

India said existing international instruments already address, to a considerable extent, the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. “Any new legally-binding instrument should complement rather than duplicate existing international legal mechanisms,” Mythili said.

India added that “crimes and atrocities perpetrated by terrorists, where they meet the requisite threshold, should be appropriately reflected within the framework of crimes against humanity, given the grave nature of such acts and their impact on people.”“This should, however, be considered in a manner consistent with the overall approach of the draft articles and without simply transposing existing legal regimes into a new convention,” she said.

India also said a clear jurisdictional link should guide how states exercise jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. “States exercising territorial jurisdiction or active nationality jurisdiction are generally best placed to investigate and prosecute such crimes effectively. Territorial and national jurisdiction should therefore be accorded primacy, taking into account the interest of justice, the rights of the accused, and the interest of victims,” Mythili said. She said this approach is rooted in the fundamental principles of international law and recognises the sovereign prerogative of states to exercise jurisdiction through their national courts over crimes committed within their territory or by their nationals.

India also underlined the need to strengthen national capacities for the effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of such crimes, and said, “International cooperation and technical assistance should support and enhance national mechanisms rather than duplicate them.”

India further said the nature, scope and format of any future legally binding instrument should not be settled in advance without full deliberation on all aspects of the draft articles. “The concerns and views of all member states, including those that are not parties to existing international instruments, must be considered through a transparent, inclusive, and meaningful dialogue within the preparatory committee meetings,” Mythili said.

In essence, India’s position was that action on crimes against humanity must account for terrorist atrocities, while keeping national jurisdiction central and ensuring any new convention is discussed fully and framed carefully.