A/HRC/42/50 against humanity of deportation with the crime against humanity of persecution and other inhumane acts. On 4 July 2019, having completed its preliminary examination, the Office filed a request to initiate an investigation. 105. The mission is in close cooperation with the Office of the Prosecutor, and strongly supports its work and any opportunity for international criminal accountability. It is noteworthy, however, that the Office will only examine the events in northern Rakhine State. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate the many other serious crimes under international law that the mission has documented in other areas of Myanmar. Further, if authorized, while the Office may examine a broad range of crimes committed against the Rohingya, it will only be able to specifically prosecute crimes that involve the crossing of an international border (namely, the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh). The mission therefore reiterates its recommendation that, in the interests of justice for victims and accountability of perpetrators, the Security Council refer the situation of Myanmar to the International Criminal Court or establish an ad hoc tribunal. 2. Ad hoc international criminal tribunal 106. In the absence of a referral by the Security Council to the International Criminal Court, the mission strongly encourages the Council to adopt a resolution, under Chapter VII, to create an ad hoc international criminal tribunal without delay. Such a tribunal would be free from the Court’s current jurisdictional constraints, and its temporal, territorial, personal and subject matter jurisdiction could be shaped to meet the specific context and requirements, including the needs of victims. An ad hoc international criminal tribunal could also serve as a repository of information and evidence, and facilitate other justice initiatives, including domestically. It could be specifically mandated to engage actively in outreach to communities across Myanmar, enabling much-needed awareness-raising, participation and education with regard to human rights and justice issues. An ad hoc international criminal tribunal for Myanmar would involve a long-term commitment from the international community, including sustained financial and political support. Should the Council be unwilling to establish such a tribunal, the General Assembly should consider using its powers within the scope of the Charter of the United Nations to advance such a tribunal. 3. International Court of Justice 107. The mission welcomes the efforts of States, in particular Bangladesh and the Gambia, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to encourage and pursue a case against Myanmar before the International Court of Justice under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Elected officials in Canada and the Netherlands have also called on their Governments to pursue such a case. A case before the International Court of Justice would not displace individual criminal accountability through the International Criminal Court or an ad hoc tribunal; rather, it is directed towards the obligations and accountability of Myanmar as a State party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Both avenues can and should be pursued in parallel. 108. A successful case before the International Court of Justice could result in the Court ordering Myanmar to pursue effective criminal accountability. It would focus on perpetration by Myanmar of genocide and the State’s failure to prevent and punish genocide. It also has the potential to result in orders for provisional measures and reparations that could aim to reform genocide-related laws and policies. Reparations, if ordered, should include restitution, compensation and satisfaction with the purpose of reversing, to the extent possible, the consequences of the State’s unlawful acts and re-establishing the situation that would likely have existed if the acts had not been committed. 4. Hybrid tribunal 109. A hybrid model, with both national and international participation, would offer a degree of national ownership over the accountability process and proximity to victims. Such tribunals have been used successfully in other situations. The mission, however, reiterates its view that the current conditions in Myanmar are not conducive for a hybrid accountability model. 17