In her opening remarks, the Vice-Principal of the University of Pretoria, Professor Stephanie Burton, said that the Conference could not have come at a more appropriate time as Africa is now seeking “to better take care of itself”. She urged the participants to explore “how Article 4(h) can be better implemented in practice but also investigate why it has not been well implemented”. Professor Frans Viljoen, Director of the Centre for Human Rights, highlighted that the aim of the Conference was to “find clarity around Article 4(h) and the context in which it can be used”.

During his keynote address, in which he referred to the deteriorating situation in the DRC and northern Mali, Justice Richard Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, stated that “the question is whether the AU will in future find the political will to save the lives of many thousands of the people and prevent human catastrophes that might again threaten our continent”. Justice Goldstone further stated that “if that is to happen there must be clarity on the law and constant pressure from governments and non-governmental organisations for action. It is to that end that we are assembled in Pretoria”. He expressed the hope that “the discussions of this group and its recommendations will help move this process along and help bring about a situation in which Africa will find its own way to prevent the massacres, rapes, maiming and dislocation of societies that have been the hallmark of the past century and more”. 

The speakers at the Conference came from all four corners of the globe, covering a range of topics related to intervention with the aim of protecting populations from mass atrocities. Major General Fred Mugisha, former Force Commander of the AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), explained the complexities of intervention on the ground with particular reference to the protection gap between military and humanitarian agencies in armed conflicts, and urged for proper coordination between the two groups. Major General Mugisha stated that “this is a planting generation in terms of peace and security – not a reaping generation”.

In his contribution, General Odillo, Commander of the Malawi Defence Force, stressed that “to move from promise to practice there is a need for proper training and equipment for troops to engage in rapid deployment to halt mass atrocities when diplomacy fails”. Professor Jeremy Levitt commended the participation of the military in this “solution-oriented conference” together with scholars, judges and practitioners. Professor Levitt argued that Article 4(h) intervention should be viewed as narrow – implying coercive means limited to military intervention.

Ambassador Jan Mutton questioned why the African Union only endowed itself with the right to intervene, but not highlighting the people’s right to be protected. Professor Michelo Hansungule argued in favour of repealing Article 34(6) of the Protocol of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights in order to give individuals direct access to the Court’s protection from atrocities.

The Conference focused on the current version of Article 4(h), which aims to protect populations from mass atrocities, rather than the amended version (which is not yet in force), which aims to restore legitimate order. Generally, the Conference emphasised that African nations have the primary responsibility to protect the human rights of the populations within their jurisdiction, and that if a state is unable or unwilling to protect the population from mass atrocities then the African Union can intervene to protect the population at risk.

The Conference considered several ways to respond to mass atrocities, of which military intervention pursuant to Article 4(h) is merely one such method. The Conference noted that there are usually few problems when peaceful means are employed to respond to mass atrocities, while the deployment of a military force is problematic as it infringes on state sovereignty, hence the need for clarity regarding the scope and procedures for such interventions. The Conference also resolved that Article 4(h) should not be read in isolation but in context with other provisions of the AU Constitutive Act.

The Conference noted that the AU may seek authorisation from the UN Security Council to intervene in a member state, but that the AU may also inform the UN Security Council afterwards, given that Article 4(h) intervention is a treaty-based intervention for AU member states to prevent or halt mass atrocities by the AU. The Conference noted that where the UN Security Council does not authorise a clear case of Article 4(h) intervention, it should take responsibility for the consequences.

The Conference recommended that the AU prioritise prevention in terms of Article 4(h): the military, including the African Standby Force, should have the capability to protect and deter potential perpetrators of mass atrocities; the African human rights mechanism should play a proactive role to monitor compliance of human rights and humanitarian standards in order to detect and prevent mass atrocities; governments should enhance their political responsibility to address the root causes of conflicts and mass atrocities; African states should also allocate resources for mass atrocity prevention initiatives; and in implementing Article 4(h), the humanitarian imperative to save lives and protect human dignity should override national or strategic interests.

The Conference also facilitated a debate to draw guidelines on the role of the African Union and other stakeholders in ending mass atrocities in Africa, which the participants termed the “Pretoria Principles”. A committee of experts was selected to consider and refine the guidelines in greater detail. The Conference agreed to conduct a follow-up session where stakeholders will be invited to consider the guidelines and determine the way forward.

Norwegian ambassador to South Africa, Ms Kari Bjørnsgaard, stated that the Norwegian Government was pleased to fund the Conference because Norway believes in saving lives and protecting human dignity, regardless of race, nationality, ethnic group, colour, sex, language or any other status.

Professor Ademola Abass said the Conference was a great success. “It was well attended and the discussions were open and frank,” he said, while Professor Viljoen commented that this was a “conference that counted – and a meeting that mattered.”

• Visit http://www.chr.up.ac.za/index.php/about-the-conference-mass-atrocities.html for more information on the Conference.

Photos: