A/HRC/63/19 45. The Mechanism provided a substantial volume of evidence and analysis to the parties to the proceedings, including nine detailed analytical reports, 40 witness statements, two screening notes with information from military defectors and one affidavit by the Head of the Mechanism. These materials also included geospatial analysis, independent expert reports and documentary evidence. The Mechanism’s nine analytical reports addressed a wide range of issues, including the systematic and arbitrary arrest, detention and mistreatment of Rohingya in Buthidaung Prison; the Myanmar military’s promulgation of hate speech on Facebook; the efforts of the Myanmar authorities to encourage the settlement in Rakhine State of Buddhists from neighbouring Bangladesh; and the failure of the Myanmar authorities to investigate widespread reports of sexual and gender-based violence and to prosecute the alleged perpetrators. 46. The Mechanism only shared evidence with the parties when the witness or information provider gave their full and informed consent, including the understanding that this evidence would be shared with Myanmar authorities. Beyond securing informed consent, the Mechanism took measures to ensure witness security, reflecting its continued commitment to the protection of those participating in these proceedings. The Mechanism proactively redacted personally identifying information from witness statements where the disclosure of such information could pose an elevated risk to the safety and security of witnesses and other individuals. 47. The public hearings highlighted the extent to which both parties referred to the work of the Mechanism. In particular, the Mechanism’s reports on the destruction of Rohingya property and on the coordinated hate speech campaign on Facebook were cited extensively in relation to the assessment of the Myanmar authorities’ genocidal intent. 48. The hearings also served as an important reminder of the scale and brutality of the military clearance operations in Rakhine State and of the Rohingya community’s enduring pursuit of justice and accountability. As one of the most significant contemporary international law cases concerning allegations of genocide and accountability for atrocities committed against the Rohingya, the forthcoming judgment is expected to have important implications for the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention not only in relation to Myanmar but also for other contexts. International Criminal Court and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Argentina 49. During the reporting period, the Mechanism shared evidence and analysis concerning crimes committed against the Rohingya with the International Criminal Court and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Argentina in the context of their respective investigations. In November 2024, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced that he had requested an arrest warrant for Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Commander-in-Chief of the Myanmar military, for the crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution of Rohingya. In February 2025, the Federal Criminal Court of Argentina ordered the issuance of arrest warrants summoning Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and 24 other individuals to appear before that Court to provide testimony relevant to the ongoing investigation by Argentinian authorities. The Mechanism continues to proactively identify evidence that could be relevant to these investigations and is responding to targeted requests from these authorities for additional and specific information or analysis, including in relation to specific individuals who are under investigation. 50. Concerning proceedings before the International Criminal Court, subsequent to the announcement by the Prosecutor in November 2024, the judges of the Court adopted an amendment to the Regulations of the Court classifying applications for arrest warrants as “secret” or “under seal”, unless otherwise decided by the judges. As a result, such applications and related judicial decisions may remain confidential, which may include the request for an arrest warrant for Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. Judges may, however, decide on a case-by-case basis to publicly confirm the issuance of an arrest warrant or summons, including in order to interrupt ongoing criminal conduct, to deter the commission of further crimes or to increase the likelihood of arrest. GE.26-09554 11