A/HRC/41/24 populations. Several suspected perpetrators, including military officials, have since been arrested and prosecuted. Other States that have received technical support from the Office to develop a legislative framework for the prevention of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity include Kenya, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. 33. As atrocity crimes present threats to the maintenance of international peace and security, the mandate of the Security Council also offers opportunities for members of the Council to develop and implement atrocity prevention strategies. I encourage Council members to continue inviting my Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide to brief the Council on situations of concern. Member States have also taken the initiative to address situations at risk of genocide and other atrocity crimes. In 2015, a cross-regional, State-led Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Group launched a code of conduct urging the permanent members of the Council to voluntarily agree to refrain from using their veto in situations involving atrocity crimes. As of 1 January 2019, 119 Member States were supporting the code of conduct. A similar initiative was launched in September 2014 by France and Mexico. 34. The Human Rights Council and its mechanisms can also play an important role in advancing atrocity prevention efforts. For example, in is resolution 38/18, the Council recognized the contribution that it could make to the prevention of human rights violations, including through its mandate. As much as possible, the Council and its mechanisms should consistently be paying attention to warning signs of potential genocidal or other atrocityrelated violence and engage at an early stage to pre-empt the escalation of tensions. The Council has adopted several resolutions on the prevention of genocide. 5 It has also established commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions or similar mechanisms on several country situations, including in Burundi, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Myanmar, South Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, and Yemen, as well as in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Even though these mechanisms are the result of a reactive approach to concerns that genocide, other atrocity crimes or other human rights violations could be ongoing, they have a deterrent effect and can support reconciliation efforts by promoting accountability. Other, although different, mechanisms have been established by Member States through the Security Council and the General Assembly, for example on Iraq and on the Syrian Arab Republic, respectively. 35. However, well before situations escalate to the point where it becomes harder and more costly to find solutions, there are early signs of risk that provide opportunities to develop effective prevention strategies. The universal periodic review process of the Human Rights Council and its special procedures often identify these early warning signs years before crimes become imminent. I encourage Member States to cooperate with the special procedures and better utilize the universal periodic review to facilitate more systematic reflections on the risks of atrocity crimes. I also encourage States to develop plans, policies and strategies to address long-term risks and mobilize international support for national initiatives to address them. 36. I have emphasized the usefulness of the universal periodic review for atrocity prevention in previous reports, 6 particularly considering that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as well as relevant international humanitarian law instruments, lack mechanisms to monitor their implementation and facilitate regular engagement with Member States. I have identified four clear steps for States to better utilize the universal period review: first, the inclusion of risk assessments and preventive measures for atrocity crimes in the preparatory materials, by using for example the Framework of Analysis produced by the joint office; second, the inclusion of atrocity prevention issues in the peer-to-peer dialogue; third, ensuring that information about and discussion of risks and preventive measures for atrocity crimes are adequately 5 6 8 See among them resolutions 7/25, 22/22, 28/34 and 37/26. See, for example, A/71/1016-S/2017/556, paras. 34–35. Also, in twin resolutions of the Security Council (2282 (2016)) and the General Assembly (70/262) on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, the two organs encouraged Member States participating in the universal periodic review process to consider the human rights dimensions of peacebuilding, as appropriate.