A/HRC/45/CRP.4 and amendments to the Protocols of the African Court on Human Rights and Justice, by South Sudan and other AU member States, as the Court may provide a viable opportunity in future to pursue individual criminal responsibility against perpetrators of conflict-related crimes in South Sudan. c. Universal jurisdiction 64. Commissioner Prof. Andrew Clapham elaborated upon the possibility of initiating accountability for atrocities committed in South Sudan through the application of universal jurisdiction. Under universal jurisdiction, a national court may prosecute individuals for serious crimes against international law, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and enforced disappearances, based on the principle that such crimes go against established international norms. Universal jurisdiction may be invoked in instances where the accused person is not a national of the prosecuting State and/or where crimes were committed in the territory of another state against foreigners. In most cases, universal jurisdiction has been pursued against individuals present in the territory of a prosecuting State, due to the practicalities of conducting investigations and arrests. The prosecuting State exercises its jurisdiction on the basis of national legislation prohibiting the relevant crimes and authorising their prosecution based on customary international law or international treaties such as the Convention Against Torture. 65. Illustrations cited included cases that have been successfully pursued against Liberian nationals involved in committing atrocities during the Liberian First Civil War between 1989 and 1996, under criminal and immigration laws in the United Kingdom and United States of America. These cases have been initiated through the relentless efforts of local victims’ groups, journalists, and civil society organisations under the banner of the Global Justice and Research Project, in collaboration with an international non-governmental organization, Civitas Maxima, based in Geneva.90 d. International Criminal Court 66. Prof. Andrew Clapham also reminded participants that South Sudan is not yet a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Moreover, given the existing impunity and lack of state political will to pursue accountability for conflict-related atrocities, it seems improbable that the present Government would seek the ICC’s intervention. The backlash against the ICC by the African Union and the ensuing geopolitics further complicate the prospects of a referral of the South Sudan situation by the Security Council under Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute. Nonetheless, the meeting identified two potential opportunities, which should be explored further, to invoke the ICC’s jurisdiction over international crimes committed in South Sudan, as a last resort. One, is the potential to initiate cases against suspected South Sudanese with dual nationality, where their second country of citizenship is a State Party to the Rome Statute or agrees to lodge a declaration to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. Second, a future South Sudan government could ratify the Rome Statute and lodge a declaration under Article 12(3) to trigger the ICC’s jurisdiction over the 2013 conflict-related crimes retrospectively or retroactively. VII. Supporting a sustainable reparation program in South Sudan Victims and survivors’ experiences and priorities must inform the design and implementation of a reparation program 67. Howard Varney, an expert with the International Center for Transitional Justice, led discussions that emphasised that victims’ and survivors’ needs and priorities must be at the core of the development and implementation of a reparation programme for South Sudan. Mr. Varney used his research experience to inform participants that the involvement of victims and survivors will be vital to resolve persisting questions and dilemmas associated 90 See TRIAL International Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review (2020); see also https://www.civitas-maxima.org/en/trials/legalmonitoring-of-the-jungle-jabbah-case. 41