From Sri Lanka to Ukraine:

Strengthening Advocacy Against Genocide & War Crimes

Canada’s Leadership in Indigenous Rights & Global Accountability: 

Author Contribution Statement:

June 08, 2025, Brampton, Ontario.

Wimal Navaratnam, as the Chief Administrative Officer of ABC Tamil Oli and a Human Rights Activist, contributed to the conceptualization, research, and writing of this article. Their extensive knowledge and experience in advocating for Tamil rights played a crucial role in shaping the content and arguments presented in this manuscript.

“Let today serve as a reminder of the power we hold as a community—the power to demand accountability, amplify voices, and ensure that the victims of the Tamil genocide are never erased from history. Together, we are stronger. Together, we can uphold justice. ” - Wimal Navaratnam

Introduction 

In the aftermath of mass atrocities and genocide, communities worldwide often grapple with despair and disillusionment. Many victims and activists – from the Eelam Tamil community of Sri Lanka to Indigenous peoples in Canada – question whether international justice systems can truly deliver accountability and healing. This report aims to inspire human rights activists, professionals, and political leaders by examining the role and challenges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the broader international justice framework. It highlights the ICC’s function, its engagement with member and non-member states, legitimacy concerns, opposition from major powers, and supportive nations and statistics. Furthermore, it explores how Canada’s leadership in recognizing Indigenous rights and genocide, including acknowledging the right to self-determination for Indigenous nations, sets an example for global powers. The message underscores that, despite obstacles, persevering with international advocacy is still crucial to uphold human rights and freedom for all peoples.

The International Criminal Court (ICC): Role and Function 

The ICC’s Mandate:

Established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court serves as the world’s first permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for the gravest crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. It is often called the “court of last resort,” intervening only when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to prosecute such crimes. By design, the ICC is meant to hold accountable those most responsible for atrocities – *ending impunity and delivering justice for victims* – when domestic systems fail.

How the ICC Functions: 

Jurisdiction:

The ICC can prosecute crimes committed on the territory of a member state or by a citizen of a member state. Non-member states can also accept ICC jurisdiction case-by-case, and the UN Security Council can refer situations from any country to the ICC. For example, Sudan (not a member) was referred to the ICC by the Security Council, resulting in an indictment for its then President Omar al Bashir for Darfur atrocities.

Investigations and Trials:

The Court’s independent prosecutor investigates alleged crimes, but investigations often require cooperation from states (for evidence, arrests, etc.). Cases go ahead only if there is sufficient evidence. Importantly, the ICC lacks its own police force to enforce warrants, relying on member states to arrest suspects. Trials are conducted by international judges at The Hague, Netherlands, with strong due process protections for defendants.

Victim Participation:

Unlike many national courts, the ICC allows victims to take part in proceedings and even request reparations in case of convictions, symbolizing a victim centred approach to justice.

Achievements to Date: 

Despite its brief history, the ICC has made some notable strides: 

 It has opened investigations in 17 situations across regions, including Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

 The Court has secured 11 convictions as of early 2025. These include convictions of warlords responsible for conscripting child soldiers and mass atrocities, such as Thomas Lubanga and Germain Katanga from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ahmad alFaqi alMahdi from Mali, and others. Six of these convictions were for core international crimes (war crimes and crimes against humanity), while others were for offences like witness tampering.

 Notably, the ICC has also issued high profile arrest warrants, signalling that even powerful figures are not above the law. For instance, in March 2023, the ICC made global headlines by issuing a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes (the deportation of Ukrainian children) amid the Ukraine conflict. In late 2024, it issued warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others over alleged crimes in the Gaza war.

These actions prove the ICC’s willingness to tackle international crimes by state leaders, a bold step that was unthinkable in prior decades. Each investigation and trial also serves to affirm global norms, shaping history’s judgment on atrocities even if immediate enforcement is difficult.

Member States and Global Support Broad Membership:

The ICC’s strength comes from its member states (State Parties) who have ratified the Rome Statute. There are currently 125 member countries spanning every continent. This broad base shows widespread acceptance of the Court’s mission. Member states include all of Europe, most of Latin America, significant parts of Africa, and some in Asia Pacific. Every member is committed to cooperate with ICC investigations and enforcement, though cooperation levels vary in practice.

Role of Member States: 

Cooperation:

Members are bound to arrest and surrender indicted persons on their territory to the ICC. For example, South Africa, an ICC member, faced controversy for not arresting Sudan’s Bashir in 2015, which led to debates over its obligations and briefly a withdrawal threat (later reversed). By contrast, countries like Philippines (before its withdrawal) proved cooperation: in March 2025, Philippine authorities arrested former President Rodrigo Duterte to face ICC charges for his deadly “war on drugs” campaign. If transferred to The Hague, Duterte would be the first Asian head of state tried by the ICC – a powerful message against impunity.

Advocacy and Referrals:

Some member states actively push for justice in international forums. For instance, Canada and the Netherlands have explored taking Syria or Myanmar to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide, complementing ICC efforts. African states, once critical of ICC bias, are also turning to international justice themselves: in late 2023, The Gambia and South Africa invoked the Genocide Convention at the ICJ against Myanmar and Israel, respectively, showcasing leadership in accountability.

Supporting Countries and Trends: 

Europe and the ICC:

European nations are among the staunchest supporters. The European Union often provides funding and diplomatic backing to the ICC. Countries like Germany and France not only support the Court but also exercise universal jurisdiction at home to prosecute international crimes (e.g., Germany’s trials of Syrian war criminals), reinforcing the global justice system.

Canada’s Support:

Canada has been a vocal ICC supporter and champions human rights causes internationally. Canadian courts and parliament have recognized crimes like the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka, showing alignment with international justice values. Canada’s foreign policy emphasizes rule of law and could push for accountability in places like Sri Lanka, Syria, or China through multilateral means.

Recent Momentum:

There is an observable trend of increasing global engagement with the ICC’s mission. By 2025, previously reluctant regions show interest: The Philippines reengaged by arresting Duterte despite having withdrawn from the ICC, and countries such as Malaysia (joined in 2019) and Bangladesh (joined in 2010) expanded membership in Asia. In Africa, The Gambia rejoined the ICC in 2018 after a brief withdrawal plan. This counters the narrative of an African exodus and suggests renewed faith in international justice among many states.

Engaging Non-member States: Challenges and Strategies 

While the ICC enjoys wide membership, some major powers stay outside the Rome Statute: notably the United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, and Sri Lanka. Engaging these non-member’s is a critical challenge:

United States:

The U.S. signed but never ratified the Rome Statute, citing concerns over sovereignty and potential prosecution of its military. U.S. opposition has at times been hostile: in 2020, the Trump administration-imposed sanctions against ICC officials when the Court investigated U.S. actions in Afghanistan. However, U.S. positions can shift – the Biden administration lifted those sanctions in 2021. The U.S. still objects to ICC scrutiny of itself or allies (recently condemning the ICC’s warrant for Israel’s Netanyahu), but it paradoxically welcomed the ICC’s indictment of Putin for Ukraine. Many activists urge the U.S. to fully support or join the ICC, arguing that a consistent commitment to justice would enhance the Court’s legitimacy globally.

India:

India has refrained from joining the ICC, citing concerns over sovereignty and the potential misuse of the Court’s powers to target its officials or military personnel. The government has expressed apprehension over the lack of adequate safeguards against politically motivated cases. India’s stance is also influenced by its complex geopolitical position and its focus on keeping neutrality in international conflicts. While activism within India and abroad has occasionally pushed for alignment with international justice mechanisms, India is still firmly outside the Rome Statute. However, India has supported UN-led initiatives for accountability in specific cases, such as advocating for justice in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, showing that while it avoids direct engagement with the ICC, it is willing to act through other multilateral avenues.

Russia and China:

Both these UN Security Council powers oppose the ICC and often veto or threaten veto of referrals that implicate allies (e.g., referrals for Syria). Russia’s stance hardened after its own president was indicted; it dismissed the ICC’s warrant as meaningless. Engagement here is difficult; however, global pressure and isolation in cases like Ukraine show that even non-members can face consequences (travel restrictions, diplomatic stigma) through ICC actions.

Sri Lanka:

Sri Lanka is not an ICC member, which has frustrated the Tamil community seeking justice for the Mullivaikkal massacre and final phase of the civil war (2009). With no ICC jurisdiction, activists have pivoted to other avenues: pushing for a special international tribunal or seeking universal jurisdiction cases abroad. The Sri Lankan case highlights the need for creative use of international law when the ICC is off limits – such as invoking the UN Human Rights Council or International Court of Justice. The Tamil diaspora, supported by countries like Canada, continues to gather evidence of atrocities and advocate for a pathway to accountability. Their perseverance keeps the hope alive that *someday perpetrators will be held to account*, whether through an ICC mechanism (if jurisdiction is found or Sri Lanka joins) or another international process.

Navigating Non-cooperation:

The ICC’s effectiveness often hinges on cooperation, which non-members are not obliged to offer. Without police powers, the Court struggles if a suspect stays in a noncooperative country. 21 out of 60 ICC arrest warrants have been executed since 2002; many suspects are still fugitives in noncooperative states. Examples: 

 Sudan’s Bashir evaded arrest for years traveling to friendly countries. Only domestic change in Sudan led to his capture (though he is yet to be transferred to The Hague).

 President Putin travels only to allied nations who ignore the warrant. In one instance Mongolia, an ICC member, hosted Putin in 2024 but did not arrest him, reflecting political hesitation even by a member.

To address this, international civil society and ICC supporters press for: 

Diplomatic Isolation of Suspects:

Encouraging travel bans and restrictions so that indicted leaders cannot freely attend international meetings. This raises the cost of being an ICC fugitive.

UN Security Council Support:

Urging the Security Council and regional bodies to back arrests and avoid undermining the ICC. Even if some great powers object, sustained diplomatic pressure can be effective over time.

Public Awareness:

Keeping victims’ stories and the warrants in the public eye, so political leaders face moral pressure. For instance, global outrage over atrocities can make harboring war criminals diplomatically damaging, as seen with Bashir’s limited travel after indictment.

In summary, while the

ICC’s reach is limited by sovereignty and politics, persistent advocacy, and creative legal strategies can engage non-members states indirectly. Each time activists compel action – whether by an ICC member arresting a fugitive, or by setting up alternate tribunals – it reinforces the notion that no one is beyond accountability forever.

Legitimacy and Bias: Addressing Critiques of the ICC 

The ICC has faced criticism about its legitimacy, especially allegations of geopolitical bias and unequal justice. Keeping faith in international justice requires confronting these issues:

Feeling of Anti-African Bias:

A common critique in the ICC’s first decade was that it disproportionately focused on African conflicts, leading to claims of neocolonial bias. Indeed, the first 11 convictions were all against African individuals. African Union members at one point accused the ICC of ignoring Western crimes and even threatened mass withdrawal. However, context is key – many African cases were self referred by African governments or supported by Africans seeking justice (e.g., Uganda referred the LRA case). Moreover, the ICC’s docket has broadened: investigations now include Afghanistan, Palestine, Myanmar (Rohingya), Georgia, and Ukraine. The prosecutor’s recent actions against leaders from Russia and Israel prove more geographic balance and willingness to challenge powerful states. As Amnesty International notes, African states themselves have been active in shaping international justice norms, and many continue to value the ICC as a check on impunity. To further address bias concerns, ongoing UN talks on a treaty for crimes against humanity (complementing the Rome Statute) look for broader global buy in, including from the Global South.

Major Power Impunity:

The other side of bias accusations is the reality that major powers enjoy impunity when outside ICC jurisdiction. Critics highlight that Western nations’ wrongdoings – such as the Iraq War abuses or historical colonial crimes – have not been prosecuted internationally. This double standard fuels skepticism among victimized communities. Addressing it requires both retrospectively and proactively balancing the scales: 

   *Retrospective justice* is politically hard (no one expects trials for colonial era crimes at the ICC), but acknowledgment and reconciliation can fill some gaps (for example, France acknowledging colonial atrocities in Algeria, or Germany apologizing for the Namibia genocide and agreeing to reparations). Such steps can enhance the moral legitimacy of international justice by showing that powerful states admit past wrongs.

   *Initiative taking justice* means ensuring current powerful actors are not above scrutiny. The ICC’s bold moves on Afghanistan (including looking at U.S. conduct) and on conflicts involving Israel (despite U.S. opposition) are examples. Even though the U.S. and others reacted harshly – with sanctions and political pushback – the ICC stood firm, asserting it “provides justice and hope to millions of victims of unimaginable atrocities” and must keep independence. Over time, consistency in such efforts can bolster the Court’s legitimacy as a truly impartial arbiter.

Effectiveness and Lengthy Process:

Another legitimacy challenge is the ICC’s slow and limited output. In 23 years, only 11 convictions and several acquittals might seem too few. Trials last years, and high-profile cases (e.g., Kenyatta of Kenya) have collapsed due to witness tampering or political interference. Victims can become frustrated when justice is delayed or denied. Yet, it is important to highlight improvements and ongoing reforms:

   The ICC has learned from early missteps, strengthening witness protection and evidence gathering.

   New crimes like “aggression” have been activated under its jurisdiction (as of 2018), expanding its scope to hold leaders accountable for illegal wars – a response to global demand for broader accountability.

   Efforts are being made to streamline procedures and increase outreach to affected communities, so victims know their voices are heard even during long processes.

Building Faith in Legitimacy:

For communities like Eelam Tamils or survivors in Africa, acknowledging these critiques while pointing to progress is vital. The ICC is not perfect, but it is evolving: a stronger, more representative institution than at its start. Legitimacy is also enhanced by complementary justice efforts: national trials, truth commissions, and regional courts (like the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights) working in tandem with the ICC. Together, they create a more robust net that can catch more perpetrators.

Opposition from Major Powers: Overcoming Geopolitical Hurdles 

Major powers often pose the biggest obstacles to international justice, either by direct opposition or by shielding allies. Key examples include: 

United States:

As discussed, U.S. opposition has been a barrier, from unsigned membership to sanctioning ICC personnel. However, the international justice movement has learned to navigate this by rallying support from other Western allies and civil society. Under President Biden, some support returned (lifting sanctions), but the U.S. still fiercely defends nationals and allies from ICC reach. Activists continuously pressure Washington by invoking its commitment to human rights, and some U.S. lawmakers and public voices urge alignment with the ICC as a matter of principle. Notably, even outside the ICC, the U.S. can contribute, for example, by supporting ad hoc tribunals (like those for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s) or aiding evidence collection for war crimes in Ukraine.

China and Russia:

These authoritarian leaning powers see the ICC as Western dominated and fear its implications. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine renewed focus on accountability, leading to unprecedented ICC action against a sitting P5 member (Putin). Moscow has responded by threatening ICC officials and deepening rifts. *How to overcome this?* Through coalitions of states and organizations that isolate such powers on moral grounds. If enough countries rally behind the ICC’s warrants, it creates an environment where even powerful leaders face symbolic justice – history records their crimes, and their international stature diminishes. For instance, Putin has curtailed travel to avoid arrest risk; South Africa, under pressure, signaled it would honor the ICC warrant if Putin visited, which caused him to stay away from a BRICS summit in 2023. This international solidarity inflicts an actual cost on defiance.

China’s situation is more complex as no immediate ICC case targets it. Yet, China has opposed referrals (like blocking action on Syria). Continued advocacy at the UN and public fora is key – e.g., urging China to respect *international inquiries* on Uighur abuses or to not veto justice efforts for other crises. International diplomacy and public opinion can constrain even superpowers over time.

Authoritarian Pushback:

A worrying trend among some major and midsized powers is coordinated pushback against international justice, branding it as interference. The campaign against the ICC by some African and Asian leaders (like Kenya’s erstwhile stance, or the Philippines under Duterte) shows that when national leaders feel targeted, they rally domestic support by painting the ICC as a neocolonial tool. Overcoming this requires localizing the justice demand: showing people in those countries that the ICC’s goal is to *protect citizens from atrocities*, not to undermine sovereignty. For example, many African civil society groups and victims’ organizations strongly favoured ICC interventions, countering their governments’ narratives. International NGOs and the ICC itself have boosted outreach in those regions to explain their work and win hearts and minds.

The Importance of Major Powers’ Support:

For the global justice system to be truly effective, major powers will need to buy in. This may happen gradually. Britain and France (UN Security Council members) are ICC members and supporters; if the U.S. were to align in the future, which would strengthen the Court’s influence. Likewise, encouraging emerging powers like Brazil, Indonesia, or South Africa (which is a member that nearly withdrew but stays) to champion the ICC can offset the resistance of others. The onus is on activists and supportive governments to keep major powers accountable to their own human rights rhetoric. They must be reminded that leading by example – joining and cooperating with the ICC – is a powerful statement that human rights and justice are truly universal values, above geopolitics.

Canada’s Leadership in Indigenous Rights and Acknowledging Genocide 

While discussing global atrocities, it is crucial to also look inward. Nations gain moral authority to demand justice abroad when they address injustices at home. Canada exemplifies a country striving to confront its historical and ongoing human rights issues, particularly about Indigenous peoples. This internal leadership strengthens Canada’s voice on the international stage and serves as a model for other major powers.

Truth and Reconciliation:

Canada’s Indigenous population (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) faced colonial policies of forced assimilation, including the notorious Residential Schools system that separated Indigenous children from their families for over a century. In 2015, Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) delivered a landmark report, calling this policy “cultural genocide”. The TRC issued 94 Calls to Action urging reforms across government, education, and society to heal and redress the legacy. Since then, Canada has made reconciliation a national priority:

 Official Apologies:

The Canadian government formally apologized for Residential Schools, acknowledging the profound harm inflicted.

Education and Commemoration:

Ontario set up a Tamil Genocide Education Week and Canada declared an annual Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day (May 18) to honor victims of Sri Lanka’s war, proving solidarity with international victims. Similarly, for Indigenous people, Canada commemorates events like Orange Shirt Day (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Sept 30) to remember the children lost and survivors.

Policy Changes:

Canada implemented legislation to align its laws with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This is significant because UNDRIP affirms Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, to keep their cultures, institutions, and control their lands and destinies.

Recognizing Genocide and Self-determination: 

Canadian leaders have not shied away from the word “genocide” about Indigenous peoples. In 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepted the finding that decades of violence against Indigenous women and girls amounted to a “genocide.”. This frank admission was globally notable – few countries acknowledge such strong terms about their own history. By doing so, Canada confirmed victims’ suffering and committed to action (e.g., addressing the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls).

Moreover, Canada has taken concrete steps towards Indigenous self-determination:

 The creation of Nunavut (1999), a vast territory governed by Inuit people, is often cited as a successful case of Indigenous self determination within a nation state. Nunavut’s establishment came through negotiations and acknowledged the Inuit’s right to self govern in their homeland. It shows how a country can reconfigure its political structures to grant autonomy and rights to Indigenous populations, rather than suppressing their identity.

 Ongoing devolution agreements in regions like Nunavut further transfer control over lands and resources to Indigenous governance. Indigenous nations across Canada, from the Cree to the Haida, have increasing authority in comanaging resources and local governance as treaties and agreements evolve.

Canada’s example in this realm sends a powerful message internationally. By recognizing and addressing genocide and rights violations at home, Canada bolsters its credibility when advocating for human rights abroad. For instance, when Canada calls out China for Uighur abuses or Sri Lanka for Tamil atrocities, its own efforts in reconciliation make its voice harder to dismiss as hypocritical. It challenges other major powers: *If Canada can admit its wrongs and work to fix them, so can you.*

Encouraging Others to Follow:

The report emphasizes that other major powers must follow Canada’s lead. This means:

 Acknowledging their historical or ongoing human rights violations (be it slavery and racial injustice in the U.S., treatment of minorities in China, or colonial legacies in European nations) and taking tangible steps towards redress and inclusion.

 Embracing principles like self-determination not just in foreign policy rhetoric but for groups within their own borders where applicable (e.g., greater autonomy for Indigenous tribes or ethnic minorities as per their wishes).

 Supporting international frameworks like UNDRIP and ICC as part of a consistent commitment to human rights. Canada’s implementation of UNDRIP via national law in 2021 stands as a challenge to others: the U.S., for example, has endorsed UNDRIP but not fully implemented it; Russia and China have been wary of such norms. Leadership means turning endorsement into action.

Canada’s journey is far from complete – Indigenous communities still face inequalities and injustices. Yet, its willingness to term past actions as genocide and to pursue reconciliation proves *courage and accountability*. This spirit is what needs to be mirrored globally to ensure all nations uphold human rights and freedom.

Inspiring Hope and Continued Advocacy 

International justice and human rights advocacy often meet setbacks: perpetrators go unpunished, political interests circumvent truth, and progress can be painfully slow. However, the narrative appearing from the ICC’s work and Canada’s example provides compelling reasons to keep faith:

Justice is Slow, But Not Still:

The arc of the moral universe, as the saying goes, is long but bends toward justice. It took decades to bring some World War II criminals to account, and similarly, it may take years or decades to see justice for crimes in Sri Lanka, Syria, or Myanmar. Yet progress happens new indictments, new evidence, shifting political winds (as seen when former dictators are ousted, e.g., Sudan’s Bashir). Perseverance is key. Activists keeping the spotlight on these issues ensure that when opportunities arise, justice can pounce. The Eelam Tamil activists, for example, continue to document atrocities and lobby world governments tirelessly – their efforts have led to *UN resolutions preserving evidence* and *countries like Canada recognizing the Tamil genocide*, incremental but vital steps. Each step builds the case for eventual accountability.

 Global Solidarity:

Human rights struggles connect across borders. The suffering of one community resonates with others – Rwandan genocide survivors stand with Darfur victims; Holocaust remembrance inspires “Never again” for all genocides. This solidarity is a powerful tool. It means activists can find allies worldwide: NGOs, diaspora groups, sympathetic governments, and global public opinion form a support network. Use this network to amplify voices of victims from less heard crises. The international stage (UN, ICC, world media) can be used by unified advocacy, turning local pain into a global call for action.

Improvements in International Systems:

The ICC, despite flaws, marks a civilizational leap from an era when leaders could massacre their people without fear of any international legal consequence. It is a young institution and will continue to improve its efficacy and reach. The more people believe in it and demand their governments cooperate with it, the stronger it becomes. Meanwhile, other mechanisms are developing, such as hybrid courts (mixing national and international law), and universal jurisdiction cases where national courts in Europe have convicted Syrian officials for torture. The web of accountability is tightening. Your advocacy can push for these legal innovations and their application to your cause.

Major Powers and Moral Leadership:

Change is possible even in big powers. Remember, the United States resisted an international criminal court for decades, yet it eventually supported tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and today even funds efforts to document war crimes in places like Ukraine. Public pressure and moral arguments do sway democracies. Politicians in those countries cannot entirely ignore constituents who care about human rights. Similarly, authoritarian powers are not invincible to shame and pressure; their desire for global respect can be used to urge compliance (e.g., China wanting to be seen as responsible on the world stage during genocide discussions). As more countries like Canada *practice what they preach*, isolation grows for those who do not. Thus, holding Canada up as an example in international forums can be a strategy: *“If Canada admits genocide and works on reconciliation, why won’t others? What are you afraid of by facing the truth?”* This kind of moral challenge can prick consciences and embarrass the intransigent.

Empowerment Through Knowledge:

Staying informed about recent developments fortifies advocacy:

 Knowing that as of early 2025, 30 ICC suspects remain at large while 21 are in custody contextualizes the scale of the challenge – and each arrest of a fugitive is a celebrated victory for justice (e.g., the surrender of Lord’s Resistance Army commander Dominic Ongwen in 2015, or the 2023 arrest of a Rwandan genocide financier Félicien Kabuga by a French raid). 

 Recognizing small wins, like the ICC seeking arrest warrants for Taliban officials over crimes against women in Afghanistan (January 2025), shows the Court’s expanding concern for *all forms of atrocity crimes*, even gender-based persecution.

 Seeing political shifts, like South Africa’s internal debate to still be within the ICC or the Philippines’ dramatic turnaround in arresting Duterte, can be inspirational. They prove that through sustained activism and legal battles; even reluctant states can fulfill justice obligations.

Each statistic and case is more than a number – it is lives impacted and the notion that justice can prevail with effort. Sharing these stories within your communities can rekindle belief among those who are losing hope.

Conclusion: Upholding Human Rights and Freedom for All 

In conclusion, the international human rights and criminal justice system, epitomized by the ICC, is a pillar worth fighting for. It stands as a beacon of hope that even the mightiest perpetrators can be called to account. Yes, it faces challenges – bias allegations, noncooperation by big states, slow proceedings – but these are being met with reforms, broadened indictments, and unwavering activism. For communities like the Eelam Tamils, who have yet to see perpetrators of genocide held to justice, the message is: do not give up. International justice often needs a long arc of persistence. The arc is bending – with every new precedence set (like an ex-president in Asia being tried, or a superpower leader indicted), the norm of impunity erodes.

Canada’s journey shows that reckoning with the past is possible and can strengthen a nation’s moral voice. If more leaders mirror that courage – admitting wrongs, protecting minority rights, endorsing justice mechanisms – then global human rights will be reinforced. Your role as activists and concerned citizens is pivotal in driving this change. By holding your own governments accountable, demanding they support international justice, and showing solidarity with other victimized groups, you contribute to a world where “Never Again” is not just an aspiration but a reality being built.

Inspire and be inspired:

Let the resilience of survivors, the dedication of human rights defenders, and the slow but steady progress of international law fuel your advocacy. The edifice of international justice is still under construction – with your faith and efforts, brick by brick, it will stand stronger against the storms of tyranny and atrocity. Human rights and freedom for all peoples is a cause that unites us across continents. Together, by keeping faith and pressing forward, we ensure that the light of justice is not extinguished but shines ever brighter into the future.

References and Notable Sources (Inline Citations) 

•  International Criminal Court basics and criticisms 
•  ICC convictions and cases 
•  Major ICC arrest warrants (Putin, Netanyahu) 
•  Member states and absentees 
•  Philippines arrest of Duterte 
•  U.S. sanctions on ICC officials and reactions 
•  African Union and ICC dynamics 
•  Canada’s recognition of Tamil genocide 
•  Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada findings 
•  Trudeau on genocide of Indigenous women