A/HRC/27/24 11. In his statement, Eduard Nalbandian, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, said that Armenia felt a strong moral responsibility to add its contribution to international efforts for the prevention of crimes against humanity. In that context, he discussed Armenia’s initiatives on the prevention of genocide, including its sponsoring of the Human Rights Council’s resolution on genocide prevention. He also highlighted the work of the Human Rights Council and other United Nations bodies that had played an important role in the Genocide Convention. He praised the personal involvement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who had provided guidance on how to improve ongoing cooperation, and the valuable contribution of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. 12. Mr. Nalbandian noted that despite the fact that the Genocide Convention had been adopted in 1948, genocides and crimes against humanity had still been committed over the ensuing decades, including in recent years and in different parts of the world. He emphasized that the international community needed not only debates, resolutions, declarations and conventions, but also effective mechanisms and action to prevent the recurrence of genocide. Genocide prevention required the development both of enforcement measures and of preventive measures. Mr. Nalbandian further noted that genocide was a complex phenomenon that did not follow a single model. An effective prevention strategy needed to be based on a thorough analysis of all modern genocide cases and a full understanding of the history and causes of past genocides. The international community must learn from past failures and be open to new ideas. The perpetrators of genocide should have no doubt that they would be held responsible. He also referred to the efforts of Raphael Lemkin who, when coining the term “genocide”, made reference to the policy of mass extermination that had been perpetrated against the Armenians. 13. Referring to the preventive measures envisaged in Human Rights Council resolution 22/22, Mr. Nalbandian noted that genocide prevention should include three pillars: early warning, human rights protection, and public campaigns of education and awarenessbuilding. He emphasized that the international community should aim to prevent genocide as early as possible. Although both the United Nations and regional organizations had made substantial progress in improving early warning and assessment systems over the past decades, he urged the international community to ensure that those advances continued. Mr. Nalbandian stressed that early identification of risks of genocide and early warning would not be effective unless they were followed by concrete forms of deterrence. He stated that the prevention of genocide was part of international mechanisms for human rights protection. Genocide was an unthinkable crime for a society founded on the protection of human rights, mutual respect, tolerance and non-violence. Mr. Nalbandian also highlighted the importance of public education and remembrance, in order for future generations to know the history of past tragedies. The acknowledgement and condemnation of past genocides acted as a powerful deterrent against recurrences of genocide. 14. Mr. Nalbandian stressed that denial of genocide, along with impunity, paved the way for the occurrence of crimes against humanity. In the light of the Convention on the NonApplicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, of 1968, he recommended that the international community stand together in the recognition, condemnation and punishment of past genocides and in its efforts to prevent future genocides. The days of remembrance honouring the victims of genocides should be days of mourning for all, including for the descendants of victims and for the descendants of perpetrators. In honouring the victims, the goal should be to foster cooperation and reconciliation. 15. Mr. Nalbandian also stated that the civilized world resolutely rejected incitement to hatred, racism, intolerance, genocide (including its denial), and crimes against humanity. The prevailing opinion of international genocide scholars was that denial itself constituted a continuation of genocide. In his conclusion, he said that the effectiveness of each treaty, 5