A/HRC/40/33 Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of This Crime. Together with the Special Adviser, Armenia had since used the International Day as an important platform for advancing the prevention agenda within the United Nations. It was similarly advanced in Geneva through the high-level panel. 12. Mr. Mnatsakanyan acknowledged and paid tribute to the lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who had dedicated his entire life to challenging and confronting States’ sovereign right to kill. Mr. Lemkin had formulated the legal term of genocide and endorsed the attribution of international responsibility to sovereign States to protect their populations from the crime of genocide. Mr. Mnatsakanyan also paid tribute to every national and international activist, advocate, expert and practitioner who had stood up in the face of atrocities. He referred to the Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E/CN.4/SUB.2/1985/6 and Corr.1), referred to as the “Whitaker report” after Ben Whitaker, a member of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights. The report had introduced the idea of establishing an international body concerned with the prevention of genocide. It was regrettable that such a long time had passed and more genocides occurred before the international community had taken heed of what SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan had termed “complicity with evil” and, in 2004, endorsed Mr. Whitaker’s proposal for tangible yet modest mechanisms for the prevention of genocide. 13. Mr. Mnatsakanyan praised the efforts of the current Special Adviser and of all his predecessors for having worked towards changing the culture of reaction at the United Nations to one of prevention. He expressed gratitude for the Secretary-General’s commitment to maintaining the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect and for his consistent promotion of the critical functions of early warning and early action in the prevention of genocide. 14. Since the adoption of the Convention, “never again” had been uttered many times, yet genocides had not been prevented. Tendencies towards radicalism, exclusion and hatred were disturbing the international agenda. The conspicuous decline of the international commitment to multilateralism and respect for human rights at a time when more international cooperation and stronger institutions – especially the United Nations – were needed was particularly troubling. While genocides had not occurred often, they constituted the ultimate crime. Thus, Mr. Lemkin’s argument to sceptics on the need for legislation had centred around the permanent loss of a targeted group and survivors’ permanent loss of an invaluable part of their identity. Mr. Mnatsakanyan stated that Armenia knew that from experience. 15. Mr. Mnatsakanyan referred to the upsetting statistics on the status of accession to and ratification of the Convention: nearly a quarter of the States Members of the United Nations had not acceded. On the eve of the seventieth anniversary of the Convention, as a country that had consistently been promoting the prevention of genocide, Armenia joined its voice to the appeal of the Special Adviser for universal ratification of the Convention. 16. Mr. Mnatsakanyan noted that Armenia had consistently promoted the importance of and need to prioritize early prevention, and that prevention meant early action. Prevention efforts entailed a sufficient capacity to detect, monitor and address early warning signs, which, if unaddressed, could lead to a deterioration and loss of control, and potentially to the perpetration of crimes on a massive scale. Prevention primarily required the legal and institutional capacity of a State – firmly based on political and moral responsibility – to protect and promote human rights and freedoms for all within its jurisdiction. The lack of capacity to secure human rights for all had increased the risk of identity-based violations of rights, the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity – being the ultimate manifestation of such violations. The consistent and determined protection of fundamental human rights formed part of a State’s responsibility to prevent. Thus, prevention must be viewed as a responsibility to be delivered first and foremost at the national level. Solid national institutions, an active, diverse and robust civil society, free media and academia contributed to transparency and accountability. 4