A/HRC/43/59 jurisdiction of the Court that is linked to the violence that occurred in Rakhine in 2016 and 2017, and could include persons or groups in addition to the Rohingya. 65. On 11 November 2019, the Gambia brought a case against Myanmar to the International Court of Justice alleging violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and seeking the institution of provisional measures. During the hearing on the question of provisional measures, the State Counsellor, as the agent1 of Myanmar, addressed the Court and stated that from 25 August 2017 there had been an internal armed conflict in which war crimes and disproportionate use of force and human rights violations might have occurred. This is the first time such an acknowledgement has been made by the Government, and it is positive that the earlier stance of denial has now ended. On 23 January 2020, the Court found that the Gambia had prima facie standing and the Court had prima facie jurisdiction over the case, and indicated provisional measures for Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur calls on Myanmar to comply with the provisional measures. She notes that Canada and the Netherlands have publicly expressed their intention to jointly explore all options to support and assist the Gambia in its efforts at the Court, and Maldives announced it would file a declaration to intervene in support of the Rohingya; she encourages other States to follow their initiative. 66. A criminal complaint has been filed by civil society organizations in Argentina, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, alleging genocide and crimes against humanity were committed against the Rohingya. The Special Rapporteur encourages other cases to be brought under universal jurisdiction in different States. The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar is now functioning and could assist States in doing so. More must be done to achieve justice and accountability for all victims in Myanmar who have suffered at the hands of the military. The Mechanism’s mandate, which covers the entire country, is paramount in this regard. The Security Council should refer the entire situation to the International Criminal Court or the international community should establish an international tribunal to try alleged perpetrators of international crimes that have occurred in Myanmar. 67. The transition of Myanmar cannot succeed without an end to the impunity that permeates all levels of the justice system. It is the responsibility of the Government to hold perpetrators to account. To do so, it needs to reform the justice system, ensure judicial independence, remove systemic barriers to accountability and build judicial and investigatory capacity in accordance with international standards. It is inconsistent with international human rights law for human rights violations to be under the jurisdiction of military courts. Provisions in the Constitution that grant jurisdiction over crimes committed by the military exclusively to military tribunals, from which there is no prospect of appeal, and that guarantee military personnel immunity from prosecution for acts done before 2011 should be amended. Furthermore, the Defence Services Act should be revised to bring crimes that constitute human rights violations committed by the military under the jurisdiction of civilian courts. The police, including border guard police, are subject to the Myanmar Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law of 1995, and this must also be revised to bring crimes that constitute human rights violations by police under the control of civilian courts. International crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, must be defined in the domestic criminal law. The justice system must be reformed to afford victims of human rights violations an effective remedy, such that full and effective reparations are made, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-recurrence. 1 14 States parties to a case before the International Court of Justice are represented by an agent, who plays the same role as a solicitor in a national court but also with the power to commit the sovereign State.