Daesh Crimes: Accountability (JCHR Report)

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate, with whom I share non-lawyer status—perhaps the only two here. This excellent report has had a somewhat chequered history, interrupted as it was by the election last year, but it has emerged stronger with new and compelling evidence.

The purposes of the JCHR inquiry were to assess the UK’s compliance with its obligations to punish genocide, to protect children from trafficking and to support British nationals, including children, in the Syrian camps. My concern is also with the first purpose—the shortcomings in the UK of the legal framework governing international crimes and challenges to accountability. As noble Lords know well, the UK is a signatory to the Geneva conventions and has a legal obligation to prevent genocide, where possible, and to punish perpetrators. The fact of genocide by Daesh against the Yazidi people is indisputable and summarised comprehensively in the report. The UK Government’s response so far rejects the main recommendations in the report, which are focused on strengthening the prevention and punishment of genocide.

To summarise the evidence of the UK’s failure to comply fully with treaty obligations: the UK has never prosecuted or convicted anyone for the crime of genocide. In this, the UK law is inconsistent. As we have heard, an individual guilty of genocidal action, and who happens to be in the UK, cannot be arrested unless the individual is a UK citizen or resident. Furthermore, the Government can—and they do—offer temporary immunity to foreign nationals implicated in genocide who visit the UK.

Also as we have heard, approximately 425 Daesh fighters have returned to the UK, of which 32 have been convicted under the terrorism-related legal framework, but none has been charged with or convicted of the international crime of genocide, despite the fact that the UK Government have formally accepted that Daesh’s action against the Yazidis constitutes genocide. Currently, UK domestic law provides only limited jurisdiction on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is worth repeating that the courts can prosecute only offences committed by UK nationals or residents or those subject to service personnel jurisdiction.

The report proposes the removal of these nationality and residence requirements in favour of universal jurisdiction. Further, it indicates that this can be achieved by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 via the Crime and Policing Bill now before the House of Lords. The amendments would provide for the adoption of universal jurisdiction alongside terrorism offences and specified greater collaboration between UK investigative bodies and NGOs, in order to strengthen the collection, preservation and use of evidence. Other recommendations include mechanisms to strengthen the research and documentation of genocide, the establishment of short-term tribunals to prosecute Daesh fighters, and the introduction of measures to enable UK courts to engage with the determination of genocide.

The Government’s arguments against the recommendations include the usual defences that a wide number of terrorism-related laws that identify and punish foreign fighters already exist; that the crimes under review are not that different from core international crime prosecutions and thus new measures are redundant; and that the difficulty in getting reliable evidence suggests that the inquiry should take place geographically close to where the crimes are alleged to have taken place, thereby facilitating access to witness evidence. Finally, the Government believe that the best approach lies in collaborating with states by means of treaties. The Government therefore conclude that amending the Criminal Court Act 2001 is not warranted.

The reply to the Government’s resistance to universal jurisdiction should be based on the underlying fundamental principles of justice and treaty obligations, not on the lack of political will or, indeed, government timidity. International law is binding on states, not individuals. Universal jurisdiction is not due to the severity of an offence, but, in the words of Geoffrey Robertson, because a crime of unforgiveable brutality ordained by a Government or a clear agent of the state exercising political power is part of the apparatus of the state, as are torturers employed by the state. Such crimes cannot be tied to a territorial jurisdiction, but rest on the truism that we are all human.

Universal jurisdiction is further justified because it may make the perpetrator pause and be aware that sometime, somewhere, some prosecutor may feel strongly enough to put him or her on trial. Also according to Robertson, an international criminal order, to which notions of frontiers and extradition rules arising therefrom, are completely foreign. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 needs revision due to the existing loophole that allows alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity to escape justice merely because of where they are from.

Other objections from the UK Government concerning the reliability of evidence can be countered by the emergence of no less than four bodies currently working on gathering and assessing evidence, including French and Swedish government initiatives, together with the results of trials of Daesh fighters already completed in Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, France and Sweden.

This failure of political will indicates that, by outsourcing accountability to other jurisdictions that may have inadequate reach and resources, the UK is not fulfilling its obligations under Article 1 of the genocide convention. It remains the fact that not one Daesh fighter has yet been prosecuted in the UK under the terms of the genocide convention. If we are to judge by results, this is a dismal record.