Human Rights Council

✦ Topic A

Srebrenica Genocide Denial and the Protection of Historical Truth

1. Introduction & Background

The Srebrenica genocide occurred during the Bosnian War in July 1995. More than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed following the fall of the UN-declared safe area of Srebrenica. International courts, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established that genocide occurred at Srebrenica. The International Court of Justice also addressed the genocide in its 2007 judgment in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case.

In the years following the conflict, disagreement over how the events should be remembered has remained politically significant. Denial or minimization of the genocide, disputes over terminology, and the glorification of individuals convicted of war crimes have contributed to tensions between communities and political groups.

On 23 May 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 78/282, designating 11 July as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica. The resolution also condemned genocide denial and the glorification of individuals convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide by international courts.

The issue therefore extends beyond historical interpretation. It involves questions about freedom of expression, education, remembrance, reconciliation, victims' rights, and the role of governments and international institutions in preserving established historical records.

2. Key Issues & Challenges

A Genocide Denial and Historical Revisionism

One of the central challenges is determining how the international community should respond when established findings concerning genocide are denied, minimized, or challenged.

The difficulty arises because states must balance the protection of historical truth with rights such as freedom of expression and academic freedom. Different countries also have different approaches to laws concerning genocide denial and historical revisionism.

The debate therefore includes questions about whether denial should be treated primarily as a human-rights issue, a matter of domestic law, or a threat to reconciliation and social stability.

B Education and Historical Memory

Education plays an important role in how future generations understand the Srebrenica genocide. However, educational systems in different communities may present the conflict and its causes differently.

This creates challenges concerning textbooks, school curricula, memorialization, and the teaching of established findings from international courts. Disagreements over education can reinforce different collective memories rather than encourage a shared understanding of the past.

C Victims, Survivors and the Right to Remembrance

For survivors and families of victims, recognition of the genocide is closely connected to dignity, remembrance, and justice.

Disputes over terminology or public denial can therefore have consequences beyond historical debate. At the same time, international mechanisms must consider how policies addressing denial can protect victims without unnecessarily restricting legitimate academic or political discussion.

D Political Use of Historical Narratives

Historical narratives can influence political relations within Bosnia and Herzegovina and between states in the wider Western Balkans.

The adoption of Resolution 78/282 demonstrated that international recognition of Srebrenica remains politically sensitive. The UN itself noted that the resolution was based on findings from international courts, while political reactions to the resolution continued to demonstrate disagreement over its interpretation and consequences.

E International Standards and National Implementation

International recognition does not automatically result in consistent domestic implementation. States differ in their laws, educational policies, memorial practices, and approaches to hate speech and historical denial.

This creates a broader question for the HRC: how can international human-rights standards concerning historical truth and remembrance be promoted while respecting different national legal systems and freedom-of-expression standards?

3. International Perspectives & Stakeholders

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Different political and social groups have differing views on how the Srebrenica genocide should be discussed and commemorated. Victims' associations and survivors generally emphasize recognition, remembrance, and protection against denial.

Serbia and Republika Srpska: Political figures and institutions have historically challenged aspects of the international characterization of events surrounding Srebrenica. This creates disagreement with international courts and institutions concerning the interpretation of the genocide and its remembrance.

European Union: The EU has generally emphasized reconciliation, accountability for war crimes, and respect for international judicial findings as part of stability in the Western Balkans.

United Nations and Human Rights Bodies: The UN has increasingly emphasized remembrance and the prevention of genocide denial, including through the 2024 General Assembly resolution.

Survivors and victims' organizations: These groups focus on recognition, remembrance, identification and commemoration of victims, and preventing the distortion of established findings.

Historians, educators and civil-society organizations: These stakeholders are concerned with maintaining accurate historical records while addressing questions surrounding academic freedom, education, and public discourse.

4. Previous International Action

The international community has taken several steps to establish accountability and preserve the historical record surrounding Srebrenica.

The ICTY prosecuted individuals responsible for crimes committed during the Bosnian War, including genocide at Srebrenica. The International Court of Justice's 2007 judgment also established important legal findings concerning genocide and the responsibilities of states.

In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 78/282, establishing 11 July as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica and condemning genocide denial and glorification of convicted perpetrators.

These actions have strengthened international recognition of the genocide. However, significant gaps remain concerning how historical findings are reflected in national education, public discourse, memorialization, and responses to denial. International recognition has not eliminated political disagreement or competing historical narratives.

✦ Topic B

Civil and Political Freedoms Under Diplomatic Immunity and Custody

1. Introduction & Background

Civil and political freedoms include rights such as freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, participation in public affairs, liberty, and protection from arbitrary detention. These rights are reflected in international human-rights instruments, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly addressed arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedoms of expression and assembly.

At the same time, international diplomacy depends on certain legal protections for diplomats. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) establishes protections including diplomatic immunity and the inviolability of diplomatic agents. For example, Article 29 protects the person of a diplomatic agent from arrest or detention, while Article 31 establishes immunity from the receiving state's criminal jurisdiction and significant immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction.

These protections exist to allow diplomatic missions to function independently. However, questions arise when diplomatic status intersects with allegations of human-rights violations, detention, political activity, or disputes over jurisdiction.

The central challenge is therefore finding a balance between protecting diplomatic relations and ensuring that civil and political rights are respected.

2. Key Issues & Challenges

A Protection Against Arbitrary Detention

International human-rights law establishes that individuals should not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The UN framework recognizes that detention can become arbitrary when it is used to punish or suppress legitimate exercises of fundamental freedoms such as expression, assembly, and association.

The challenge becomes more complicated when the individual involved has diplomatic status or when a detention occurs in a politically sensitive international situation.

B Diplomatic Immunity vs. Accountability

Diplomatic immunity is designed to protect diplomats from interference by the receiving state and allow them to perform their duties.

However, immunity can create difficulties when allegations of misconduct or human-rights violations arise. The Vienna Convention allows the sending state to expressly waive immunity, but the receiving state cannot simply disregard diplomatic immunity on its own.

This raises questions about how accountability can be pursued without undermining the diplomatic system.

C Freedom of Expression and Political Activity

Civil and political freedoms include the ability to express opinions and participate in peaceful political activity. International human-rights standards recognize freedom of expression and peaceful assembly as protected rights, while also allowing certain restrictions under defined circumstances.

Disputes may arise when governments characterize political expression as a security concern, while individuals or international organizations view the same conduct as legitimate political activity.

D Due Process and Access to Justice

Even when detention is legally permitted, individuals should have access to legal procedures and safeguards. International human-rights standards address issues such as notification of reasons for arrest, judicial review, and access to remedies.

The difficulty is ensuring these protections while simultaneously dealing with questions of jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity.

E Diplomatic Relations and Human-Rights Obligations

States may be reluctant to take aggressive action against another country's diplomatic representatives because doing so can damage bilateral relations.

As a result, governments may face a choice between pursuing immediate accountability and preserving diplomatic cooperation. The HRC must consider how international mechanisms can encourage accountability without interfering with the basic functioning of diplomacy.

3. International Perspectives & Stakeholders

Sending States: Governments that send diplomatic personnel generally emphasize the importance of diplomatic immunity and the protection of diplomatic functions. They may argue that weakening immunity could expose diplomats to politically motivated legal action.

Receiving States: Host countries are responsible for protecting diplomatic missions but may also face domestic pressure to investigate alleged violations of law or human rights. Their position can become especially complicated when diplomatic immunity limits their jurisdiction.

Individuals and Human-Rights Defenders: These groups emphasize protection from arbitrary detention, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and access to effective remedies.

United Nations and Human Rights Bodies: UN mechanisms focus on ensuring that civil and political rights are respected while recognizing the established framework governing diplomatic relations.

Diplomatic and Legal Communities: Diplomats and international-law experts emphasize that diplomatic immunity exists to protect diplomatic functions rather than to create unrestricted personal privileges. The Vienna Convention provides a specific legal framework governing these protections.

Civil Society: Human-rights organizations often focus on whether domestic laws and international protections provide adequate safeguards when individuals face detention or restrictions on political freedoms.

4. Previous International Action

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) remains the central international framework governing diplomatic privileges and immunities. It establishes protections for diplomatic agents while also outlining circumstances in which immunity can be waived by the sending state.

Separately, the ICCPR provides international standards concerning liberty, security, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and political participation. The UN Human Rights Committee and other UN mechanisms have examined cases involving arbitrary detention and restrictions on civil and political freedoms.

These frameworks have established important legal principles, but gaps remain when diplomatic immunity and human-rights concerns overlap. International law provides mechanisms for cooperation and accountability, yet enforcement can depend heavily on the willingness of states to investigate, waive immunity where appropriate, provide remedies, or cooperate through diplomatic channels.