Mass crimes, remote locations, protection of victims and witnesses, procedural obstacles, outreach. Those are just some of the challenges inherent to universal jurisdiction cases. From gathering evidence to tracking down suspects, each step of the process is long, complex, often frustrating and sometimes downright dangerous. The legal world’s answer to those challenges? Joining forces. The nature and scale of international crimes – such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes – make them among the most complex to prosecute. These difficulties are multiplied when investigations or trials take place far away from where the crimes were committed. Be it for political, legal or security reasons, holding accountable alleged criminals may only be possible remotely: that is when universal jurisdiction kicks in. Under this principle, states may or shall prosecute criminals present on their territory, regardless of the criminal’s nationality, where the crimes took place, or  the  victims’ location and nationality. Based on the concept that certain crimes endanger the very essence of mankind, this tool was developed to give power to the whole world to punish these crimes. But universal jurisdiction comes with significant challenges. In some cases, prosecuting authorities are unable to enter the states where atrocities were committed; unstable contexts mean witnesses are hard to find and may be too afraid to testify; evidence may be hard to collect. Geographical distance places a large financial burden on the investigations. Survivors, prosecutors, lawyers, investigators, diasporas, NGOs, victims’  associations  and media are learning to work together, sometimes in unexpected ways, to offer victims the best chance of justice for the most serious crimes. Investigating from the other side of the world Crime scenes are the traditional starting point for any criminal investigation. But in universal jurisdiction cases, they are by definition situated abroad. Where to start fieldwork in a country one has never been to? Collaboration with local authorities “is as necessary as it is tricky”, according to Thijs Berger, a Prosecutor of the Dutch War Crimes Unit. For the sake of fair trials, prosecuting authorities are bound by the same standards when they investigate abroad as when they build domestic cases: independence and confidentiality. Likewise, the standard of proof they will have to present in court remains unaltered by the tremendous challenges to investigating abroad. An additional challenge is that these standards vary from one country to another, and there is sometimes no telling in advance where the trial will take place. “Where and when a trial opens is very dependent on the suspects’ movements, and the will of a state to initiate prosecution,” explains Emmanuelle Marchand, Senior Legal Counsel at Civitas Maxima, a Swiss NGO defending victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity. “As a result, we gather evidence without knowing which court will examine it, and the rules of admissibility of evidence may be widely different.” An impossible task? Not quite. Around the world, a constellation of actors is joining forces against the odds to uphold universal jurisdiction. 9 Authorities, civil society, local communities A crucial ally for national prosecuting authorities is civil society. NGOs have more flexibility to enter a country and document atrocities, insofar as a simple visa could let them in – as opposed to the official laissez-passer required by state institutions. They can therefore operate more freely, more swiftly, and more discreetly. NGOs also have a more permanent presence in the field and direct contacts with victims and survivors. For these reasons, they can offer valuable contacts in the field. “We collaborate closely with local NGOs,” explains Emmanuelle Marchand. “They are the ones present in the country, interviewing victims and witnesses, identifying zones where crimes were committed. Without the locals’ knowledge, we would not know where to start.” Tom Laitinen, a State Prosecutor in Finland, recalls for instance how an international NGO assisted his team in a Rwandan case: “They had conducted their own investigation on the same village where our suspect had acted during the genocide. We were able to talk to one of their researchers, who shared some information with us.” The paper chase of finding witnesses Because of the difficulty of accessing crime scenes, forensic evidence is often scarce in universal jurisdiction cases. Therefore, a case is often heavily reliant on witnesses’ statements. But both NGOs and prosecuting authorities acknowledge the difficulty of identifying and meeting with witnesses.