The full text of Dr. Mark Ellis’ speech follows:

Thank you.

First, I want to acknowledge that extraordinary time when the families of the victims were up here on the stage. There’s nothing that’s more important, nothing more emotional than to have seen this group of individuals up here.

Because it reminds us time and time again that what we do, particularly in law, particularly in international law, is to focus on the victims. International criminal law, for me, should always be the voice for the victims. And so let me be clear from my own commitment: You are not forgotten. We will continue to be there for you and for your loved ones until justice is brought to bear.

Mrs. Rajavi opened this conference in a reminder for us that we’re looking for further steps towards justice for the victims, the previous massacres, and, unfortunately, the atrocities that are being committed today.

And as I discussed when I was here earlier this year, the adjudication of international crimes is not confined solely to the realm of international tribunals. Jurisdiction over atrocity crimes may be exercised by international and national courts alike.

I spoke then, and it has been reported now by the Special Rapporteur’s report, that universal jurisdiction is for me potentially the most robust principle of accountability on the national level.

Universal jurisdiction has emerged as a significant and increasingly utilized principle within international criminal law, reflecting the global community’s commitment to ensuring that the most serious crimes do not go unpunished. The principle allows national courts to prosecute individuals for grave international crimes, such as war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. And they can do so regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or the victims. That’s the strength of universal jurisdiction.

The development of universal jurisdiction has driven and continues to be driven by certain defenses, the most heinous in nature, that represent a threat to the international legal order and to humanity as a whole.

Thus, it should be and continues to be subject to prosecution even in the absence of traditional jurisdictional links, because universal jurisdiction is based solely on the nature of the crime. And again, I might add and must add that this principle is particularly focused on the plight of victims, including the victims in Iran.

There are some crimes that are now evidenced in the report by the former UN Special Rapporteur, and I might add here, Javaid, that most people here have focused on your work on this report. But this gentleman has a stellar and long career on various international issues, and he is respected worldwide. So, we owe you yet again a great degree of gratitude and thanks not only for this report but for everything you’ve done in the past.

The atrocity crimes that have been reported represent, as he said, the most severe and egregious human rights violations in recent history. But I too was happy that the report focused on universal jurisdiction. And let us not forget, as has been mentioned earlier, the principle of universal jurisdiction that was facilitated in the Hamid Noury arrest in Sweden. Now some have suggested that the Noury case was a failure.

I disagree. The trial of Hamid Noury, I think, marked a historic moment as the first legal proceeding related to the 1988 massacres. And I think Kenneth Lewis should be thanked again for the work you did in moving that case forward. We owe you a great deal of gratitude as well.

What he did was to involve this extensive witness testimony, including survivors of the massacre and as you said, bring together a trial, a dossier that can be used time and time again. Being found guilty of all charges was extraordinary. Being upheld by the appeals court was even more extraordinary. And I want to say that it serves as a precedent in international law and illustrates the very best use of universal jurisdiction in holding individuals accountable for atrocity crimes.

It should be a guidepost for us in further bringing victims’ claims to states through universal jurisdiction. And yes, there was a conditional form of universal jurisdiction used because Mr. Noury was in Sweden, but the court’s decision made it quite clear that it saw an absolute form of universal jurisdiction, that it was based solely on his crimes. And as we know and have been mentioned, Noury was released in a prisoner exchange deal.

I want to make it personally clear that that transaction should never have happened. Individuals found guilty of perpetrating atrocity crimes should serve their sentences in full. Justice demands it. Victims deserve it.

So, what next? Under the universal jurisdiction principles, nation-states need to create a more robust process to undertake structural investigations where it opens investigations and crimes committed by the Iranian regime just as was done in Sweden.

Suspects are known. Crimes are known. Victims at large are known. And it should be a catalyst to further use the principle of your universal jurisdiction by victims to bring to justice those who’ve committed the crimes.

And I assure you, many countries, particularly in Europe, already possess this authority to investigate, prosecute, and sentence foreign individuals for core international crimes under universal jurisdiction. And unfortunately, you can look towards Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine as actually a catalyst, if there’s any positive element, it is this. That has been a remarkable catalyst for a dramatic increase in the focus of universal jurisdiction in a number of European countries.

Yes, there are constraints, but they are disappearing. In most jurisdictions now, prosecutors are granted wide discretion to initiate cases, and this is the hope for Iran’s victims of the atrocities committed. And we’ve already seen the robust use of universal jurisdiction against Syria and its regime, including an incredibly important case here in France in June of this year where the Court of Appeals had confirmed warrants for by France against Syrian officials, including President Assad. And they did so because of their complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity. And crucially, the appeals court rejected head-of-state immunity for President Assad, ruling that head-of-state immunity does not prevail over the commission of crimes under international law such as atrocity crimes.

I think this is indicative of the direction and the march that international law is on towards no longer recognizing these types of immunities.

So, in conclusion, the Special Rapporteur has indicated the importance of establishing international accountability to ensure prompt, impartial, and transparent criminal investigations and to continue the process of bringing those who committed these atrocities to justice.

This should be our mission. This should be the international committee international community’s commitment to the victims of these atrocities. We should also encourage the state, as was stated earlier, to utilize universal jurisdiction and even initiate selected case cases in one or more European countries where victims now live.

Judge Schoemburg has presented another innovative, mechanism that I think he’ll mention. But whatever the mechanism is adopted, it must ensure in the words of the rapporteur that victims and survivors of the families of those tortured, executed, and forcefully disappear, that they are given the recognition under international law towards justice. This is what we need to ensure.

Thank you very much.