A/HRC/29/51 greater is the extent to which human rights law will constitute the appropriate legal framework.70 D. Accountability 32. As the Security Council recalled in its resolution 2170 (2014), accountability for all gross or serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is essential to ensure justice, provide redress to the victims and prevent future violations. The Governments of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic bear primary responsibility for protecting persons under their jurisdiction and ensuring accountability for the commission of grave crimes. This implies a duty to take action so that violations are prevented, stopped and not repeated; to investigate alleged violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where required, to bring alleged perpetrators to justice in accordance with domestic and international law; and to provide adequate remedy and redress to victims. Domestic courts in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic have jurisdiction over all violations committed in their territories, whether by nationals or foreigners, and they should exercise their jurisdiction where it is possible to do so. 33. However, in the light of the operational obstacles to the effective exercise of jurisdiction, and bearing in mind concerns regarding respect for the right to a fair trial that have been expressed regarding the judicial systems in both Iraq71 and the Syrian Arab Republic,72 the involvement of the International Criminal Court or the creation of an ad hoc international tribunal to investigate and prosecute the crimes allegedly committed by, inter alia, ISIL must be regarded as a priority.73 The Special Rapporteur joins the call made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic and others for the involvement of the International Criminal Court regarding the situation in both Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic. The failure of the Security Council to refer the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic to the Court has contributed to crimes continuing to be committed unabated.74 As neither Iraq nor the Syrian Arab Republic are parties to the Rome Statute, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed on their soil. The Prosecutor of the Court has reviewed those cases in which the Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators who are nationals of a State party to the Rome Statute, but has said that the prospects of the Court investigating and prosecuting those with most responsibility in the ISIL leadership would be remote.75 In the absence of a Security Council resolution referring the situation to the Court, the Special Rapporteur calls on the Governments of Iraq and the 70 71 72 73 74 75 See International legal protection of human rights in armed conflict (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.11.XIV.3), p. 63. On the alleged violations, see, for example, the reports of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (A/HRC/21/50), para. 134, and A/HRC/25/65, para. 129; “Rule of terror”, para. 20; UNAMI/OHCHR, “Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 6 July–10 September 2014, p. 11; and A/HRC/28/18, paras. 48 and 49. See UNAMI/OHCHR, “Report on Human Rights in Iraq: January–June 2014”. See A/HRC/28/69, paras. 103–105. Ibid., para. 146 (b). On 22 May 2014, despite the backing of 13 of its members, the Security Council was unable to adopt a resolution that would have referred the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Criminal Court as a result of vetoes by two permanent members, China and the Russian Federation. See the statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on the alleged crimes committed by ISIS, 8 April 2015. Available from www.icccpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-stat-08-04-2015-1.aspx. 11