A/HRC/40/33 as a gift”. He and the other architects of the genocide had believed that power would allow them to carry out horrific crimes on a massive scale and would let them get away with it. They had believed they were immune from consequences and justice, and that had emboldened them. 31. Judge Prost noted that the world that had preceded those atrocities and others like it had supported that belief. Soon after the post-Second World War trials in Tokyo and Nuremberg, lessons had been forgotten, progress had been halted, and rampant impunity for grave crimes – without any prospect of justice or accountability – had returned. Many culprits had lived out their lives in the country concerned or in peaceful exile. That culture had bred what followed at Srebrenica and elsewhere. Judge Prost expressed her fear that, after a time of great progress, the world was returning to an age in which the same culture prevailed and power safeguarded atrocity, accountability was an uncomfortable word, victims knew no justice and there was a culture of impunity. Continuing that culture would lead the world into another generation of genocide and atrocity. The law must speak to power and atrocity must be answered with justice, not revenge. The international community should build a culture in which leaders, soldiers, rebels and civil servants feared the consequences of crime and saw accountability and justice all around them. 32. Judge Prost stressed that accountability was not a panacea; rather, the sole solution was to prevent atrocity. A multifaceted approach was required to respond to the complexity of the problem, as had been well recognized by the late Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had implemented the comprehensive strategy for prevention of genocide. However, accountability was still essential, as without it the world would fail. The challenges to international criminal justice were great, but the international community could not afford to fail, as the consequences would be grave. 33. Judge Prost raised the question of how to ensure that the international community did not fail. She viewed the International Criminal Court as part of the Rome Statute system, rather than as a stand-alone body. Under that system, the Court did not replace the States’ sovereign authority to address crimes, but complemented it. It served the purpose of motivating States to take up their responsibility to investigate and prosecute international crimes, only intervening when no State was willing or able to act. It would be most effective when universal adherence was reached and, in the interim, it was an important tool for achieving accountability. 34. Judge Prost acknowledged that there were States that had concerns about the International Criminal Court and did not support it, and that some openly opposed and attacked it. While States were entitled not to be bound by the Rome Statute and to criticize it, no State could escape the obligation to hold perpetrators of the most serious crimes known to humanity accountable. While a State could criticize the Court, none could credibly be opposed to justice. In that regard, Judge Prost observed, in order to change the current culture of impunity, the conversation about atrocities and the Court needed to change. In particular, those opposed to the Court had to be asked what alternative they would propose to achieve accountability, justice for victims and prevention. In the face of a lack of national action for the vast majority of the crimes concerned, routine references to sovereignty and national prosecutions were insufficient and meaningless. Such references did not constitute an answer; rather, they were empty platitudes. 35. The work of the Human Rights Council, of the High Commissioner and her Office and of the Special Advisor was of critical importance, as it shed light on and condemned atrocious crimes. Inquiries were made and evidence was gathered. While stressing the need for that work to continue, Judge Prost called for more to be done. She urged members of the Council to use it and other international forums to generate the required political will and pressure to identify atrocities and bring accountability. While justice was costly and could be slow, the cost of genocide and atrocity was far greater, and rebuilding societies required generations. On the twentieth anniversary of the Rome Statute and the seventieth anniversary of the Convention, Judge Prost called for justice to be reprioritized, with a renewed commitment to accountability as an important step towards preventing genocide for current and future generations. 7