A/HRC/27/24 51. Many delegates recognized the valuable work of the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. In particular, they noted the role of the Office in reinforcing United Nations early warning mechanisms and the national prevention capacity. They stressed that the Analysis Framework developed by the Office was an invaluable tool. All States should not only use the Analysis Framework, but should cooperate to improve the Framework so as to establish, with the utmost clarity, indicators suggesting high risk factors. The Analysis Framework was a tool allowing for the evaluation of risks, which included eight indicators.2 D. Disseminating knowledge and raising awareness 52. Several delegates noted that a central element of genocide prevention was to acquire full knowledge of the causes of genocide, of early signs, and of the consequences of genocide. In that vein, education and the promotion of tolerance and respect for all populations and groups — be they national, ethnic, racial, religious, or other groups — was essential. Delegates also highlighted the importance of disseminating information about the Convention. They noted that raising awareness was crucial, because the international community should not forget that genocides were still taking place, and there were still risks of new genocides. Initiatives for raising awareness should include engaging stakeholders in interdisciplinary dialogues and educational campaigns. 53. Delegates also emphasized that fostering a culture of peace strengthened the rejection of violence in society. It encouraged the denunciation of abuses and provided early warning against massive human rights violations. The speakers also referred to the introduction and enactment, by a number of States, of legislation to address genocide denial. In that regard, it was emphasized that practical measures could be taken at the international level to meaningfully address genocide denial. Survivors could play an important role in preserving memories and truth, which would contribute to countering genocide denial. E. Combating impunity, and the role of the International Criminal Court 54. Several delegates stated that the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity was, first and foremost, a national responsibility. However, national investigations and prosecutions often failed when there was an urgent need for justice to prevail. 55. If States were unwilling or unable to prosecute those crimes, the International Criminal Court should play a role. In that context, the Netherlands had taken the initiative, together with Argentina, Belgium and Slovenia, to establish a multilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance and extradition for atrocity crimes, including genocide. 56. Several delegates emphasized that having an International Criminal Court that had universal jurisdiction would ensure its effectiveness, which was in the interest of all humankind. The Friends of the International Criminal Court were making efforts to support the Court in implementing its mandate in the most efficient manner. It was important to recall that the steps taken by the Court were not directed against any particular nations or States, but against the alleged perpetrators who were responsible for atrocity crimes. Some 2 The full text of the Analysis Framework is available at: http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf. 13