Implementation

This is not the first time that we have to dwell on the issue of the terminology used — and that is not merely a point of academic interest. The issue is that a change of concepts could have significant practical consequences. Our delegation has repeatedly drawn attention to attempts to broaden the scope of the work of the Security Council in the area of combating sexual violence in conflict, including in connection with the use of the term “conflict-related sexual violence” in the most recent report. In our opinion, such seemingly technical changes are in fact fraught with the possibility of infringing upon the mandates of the Security Council and interfering in the terms of reference of other United Nations bodies or States. We need to very clearly distinguish sexual violence as a war crime from sexual violence as a criminal act not having anything to do with the parties to a conflict. We think that the Security Council should be dealing with the issue of sexual violence when it is directly related to an armed conflict in a situation that is on the agenda of the Security Council.

In both the concept note (S/2017/402, annex) for today’s meeting and in the report (S/2017/249) of the Secretary-General, the issue of sexual violence has very rightly been underscored because of the atrocities being perpetrated by ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and the Al-Nusra Front. However, for some reason, mention is made of some “groups of extremists” or “violent extremist groups”. We would like to underscore yet again that these and similar terrorists entities need to be called “terrorists”; otherwise, it can lead to lowering the level of gravity of the crimes and to double standards in the fight against terrorism, which is unacceptable.