A/HRC/45/CRP.7 However, in the view of the Group of Experts, the creation of such a hybrid body should be given real consideration by international actors and Yemeni authorities. 397. On the Yemeni side, a specialised structure could be created within the Yemeni judicial system, for instance, that would allow for the development of specialised knowledge by judges, prosecutors, investigators and lawyers. The involvement of international actors alongside national actors would alleviate concerns about impartiality and independence. The Group of Experts recognises that such an initiative would require not only willingness on the part of the international community to support a new structure, but would also require conducive conditions within Yemen – in particular a united governance system, and support from the Yemeni community. The Group of Experts would support further study and dialogue in relation to the creation of a specific mechanism for Yemen.605 (4) Prosecution in the Domestic Courts of Third States 398. In international law there are several bases on which non-parties to the conflict might institute prosecutions for alleged international crimes arising out of violations committed in Yemen. This includes where the alleged perpetrator is a national of the State (using nationality jurisdiction); or where the victim is a national (passive personality jurisdiction). It also includes situations where there is no link with the State, but the nature of the crime is such that international law recognises the interest of all States in its prosecution and punishment (“universal jurisdiction”). Many third States have enacted legislation covering extraterritorial international crimes of this nature - whether pursuant to ratification of the Rome Statute or, for instance, in fulfilling duties with respect to endowing their courts with jurisdiction as required by other international regimes (e.g., the grave breaches regime or the CAT). In the last five years, there has been growth in the number of States commencing “universal jurisdiction” prosecutions in their domestic systems against individuals alleged to have been responsible for international crimes in other States. Prominent among these are the prosecutions brought in European States in relation to individuals alleged to have committed violations amounting to crimes in Syria. Some of the reasons for the growth in these cases include: the number of Syrian victims, witnesses and alleged perpetrators present in Europe; the transnational efforts to share information; the commitment of immigration and law enforcement officials to work together to identify suspected perpetrators; and the role of diaspora communities, transnational NGOs and intra-European official networks.606 399. While not all of these factors may be present in the Yemen situation, at least to the same extent as in the case of Syria given, in particular, the smaller proportion of Yemenis who have been able to flee Yemen, third States have the capacity to cooperate in sharing information, and providing mutual legal assistance to each other, and can ready their systems for use in appropriate cases. Several initiatives have been undertaken by NGOs and law firms globally, seeking to have formal investigations commenced by national judicial bodies, including in Argentina, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Italy (with the latter case alleging complicity of arms companies).607 Regardless of the outcome in these particular cases, the Group of Experts encourages third States to actively use their networks to share relevant information, and be ready and willing to prosecute in their own domestic courts cases relating to violations committed in Yemen. (5) Ensuring peace integrates respect for accountability 400. International attention has rightly been focused on efforts to bring an end to the conflict in Yemen. The Group of Experts supports the significant work being undertaken in 605 Consideration could also be given to other models: e.g. a standalone international tribunal similar to the ICTY or ICTR. The Group of Experts, though, notes that since the creation of the ICC, there has been little international appetite for the creation of such bodies. The Group’s proposal for further consideration of a hybrid body is also informed by its view that capacity-building initiatives with respect to the Yemeni justice system, while welcome, will not adequately address the evident shortcomings and the lack of trust in the impartiality and independence of the system. 606 Annemarie Devereux, “Accountability for human rights violations in Syria: reasons for hope” (2019) Australian Journal of Human Rights 391. 607 See Trial International, Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2020. 101