 Hello and welcome everybody to this event on ensuring accountability and justice for international crimes by Russia in Ukraine. My name is Barry Colfer and I'm the director of research here at the Institute of International European Affairs here in Dublin. I'm standing in for Alex White, director general who's been called away, but he will be back before too long and he'll officially close our meeting later on today. I'm delighted to welcome you all here, including those who are joining us in person at our headquarters in Central Dublin and indeed those joining online. We're also very happy to be working again with colleagues at the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine Embassy in Dublin, the US Embassy in Dublin and I also acknowledge and welcome indeed colleagues from Ukraine Action who are here as well. And indeed we should thank the good people at Art of Coffee for the very generous catering that was provided for today, which certainly facilitates the discussion. We are a public policy and international affairs think tank and there are fewer issues of greater importance today than the current situation in Ukraine amid the atrocious war started by Russia there. And today we will hear from two panels, one on ensuring accountability for the crime of aggression, special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. And a second panel on international compensation mechanism and its elements to panels of expert speakers. Before that, we're going to hear opening remarks firstly from Miss Larissa Grasco, the ambassador of Ukraine and Ireland. Following that we'll hear from Miss Sonja Highland, Deputy Secretary General and Political Director at the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. And finally in terms of opening remarks will hear from Mr Michael Clousen, who's a charge at a fair at the US Mission in Ireland and it's my great pleasure to welcome each of our openers. I want to give you short words of housekeeping for me before handing over to the ambassador. During the questions and answers portion of our sessions. To those of you in the room, should you wish to ask a question, please raise your hand and a roving mic will be brought to you. And for those joining online I think you know the script at this stage feel free to send in questions throughout the session using the questions and answers or answer function on zoom, which you should be able to see on your screens. As ever, that you give your name and include any affiliation which you might have, if they are relevant, and to try and keep questions as concise as possible. A reminder that today's presentation and Q&A are both on the record. And please feel free to contribute to the discussion on Twitter X using the handle at IEA. Final word from me before handing over to Ambassador Garasco. The ambassador's remarks will be accompanied by a screen here to my left with a slideshow of images from the exhibition Buche Faces of War, which is a photo exhibition documenting the impact of the war in that place, which is by Reuters. Some of you may have seen these photos previously they were displayed in the houses of the Iraq this and elsewhere. And I just want to warn everyone that some of the photos are quite graphic, naturally, as they depict the impact of the war on Ukraine and her people, and your discretion is therefore advised. Now I'll hand over to Ambassador Garasco who will speak for 10 minutes. When she's finished I'll introduce Sonya and Michael. Thank you everybody. Good afternoon, Excellencies, my dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. Let me express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has joined us in IAEA and online for this important symposium. I welcome this opportunity to address the scope of the unfolding human rights and humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine and around the world and to discuss ways to strengthen our collective response. Before I turn to my remarks, I would like to thank our partners in this event, the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, the Institute of International and European Affairs, US Embassy to Ireland and Ukrainian Action. Of course, our outstanding speakers and panelists contribute to the event in both ways in person and online. We make a totally international team here from Ukraine. I would like to thank Dr. Karanevich, Irina Mundra, Alexandra Matvichuk from Germany, Professor Klaus Kress from Australia, Kerry McDougall and Antonin Meysenko, as well as representatives of the Iwrajust, Margarita Snutitia-Dangilini, I apologize if I pronounce wrong, and the Council of Europe, Gunther Schimmer. Thank you all for supporting this very important event. It's been 267 days that have passed, have left, have felt like an eternity for millions of Ukrainians. As you can see on the screen in the photo are consequences of the Russian troops presence in the single, in one single city, butchers for slightly less than a month. The Butcher is just a drop in the ocean. We have so many such butchers. The scales of such atrocities on all liberated lands is really mind blowing. Russia's war has killed thousands, forced millions to flee their homes, and reduces entire city troubles. The continued deliberate targeting on civilian infrastructure has left a million of Ukrainians without homes, energy, and water. The world has been shocked by scope of human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity, committed by Russia in Ukraine, killings, enforced disappearances, torture and rape, concentration and filtration camps, forced deportation. The list of Russia's bloody crimes is unending. Since 24th of February 2022, Ukrainian law enforcement agency launched an investigation into more than 100,000 war crimes. What the situation is like on the territories still controlled by Russian terrorists and others can hardly be estimated. As you will see on the territories that were under occupation for one and a half year or more. I am afraid we will be left speechless. The lack of humanity has plunged into unprecedented insecurity due to the war of aggression committed by the country, which still occupies the permanent seats in the UN Security Council. The adverse impact of Russia's war on global food security, energy, nuclear security and safety, and the environment is felt far beyond Ukraine. Ladies and gentlemen, one of the elements of President Zelensky's Ukrainian peace formula is the restoration of justice. There can be no peace until justice has been served. Without justice, we will not be able to prevent the most terrible international crimes committed on the territory of my country in the future. As we all know, impunity is the greatest instigator of crime. With thousands of innocents Ukrainian victimized by Russian aggressor, we have no moral rights to allow these crimes go unpunished. All the perpetrators must be brought to justice without exception. When we talk about individual accountability for international crimes, we refer to international criminal court. The ICC is conducting an investigation into the situation in Ukraine for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crime of genocide. The ICC recently produced a historic decision issuing arrest warrants for Putin and Russia's so called Commissioner for Children's Rights Lvova Belova. This is the first step towards bringing the world's worst war criminals and their accomplices to justice. However, this is not enough. We must all work together to ensure accountability of the highest political and military leadership of the Russian Federation for committing the crime of aggression. Because the biggest war in Europe since World War II and led to committing of tens of thousands of war crimes and crimes against humanity, these aggression must not go unpunished. We are all aware that the International Criminal Court is unable to exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression against Ukraine. For this reason, we have proposed to our international partners the establishment of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We are very grateful to Ireland for joining core group and options for establishing this special tribunal. And for its firm stance in shaping the thinking on ensuring criminal accountability for Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Thank you Council of Europe for its leading role in the establishment of the register to record and document evidence and claims of damage loss or injury as a result of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The register is an integral part of current international initiatives to set up a compensation mechanism for Russia's crimes aggression. Together, we must stop this war of aggression and terror, and the only one, the only way to prevent the Kremlin regime from regime from committing new crimes is to punish the existing criminals to bring to account all those guilty of crimes against Ukraine and Ukrainian people. We must also make Russia pay reparation for the damage and injury caused by its criminal actions in violation of international law. Many important steps have been made towards this goal, especially within the UN framework, and we are grateful to all our partners and relevant international institutions for their help and support. However, we must continue to consolidate our joint efforts to save Ukrainians and guarantee the protection of their rights and freedom. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Ambassador. And now with Sonia Highlands, Deputy Secretary and Political Director at the BFA would like to come to the stage. Thank you. Thank you very much. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, there was I think these those harrowing harrowing images that you have just shown us really serve as a very somber reminder of the really human cost of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Sometimes when we look at the statistics, statistics, the number of people who have fled Ukraine, the number of people internally displaced in Ukraine. These are statistics in the millions and the tens of millions. Sometimes it's hard to take in that individual human costs and I think what you showed us there is is very important for that reason. And ladies and gentlemen, you know, I think all of you here that we have tried to be completely steadfast as a country in our support to Ukraine and that has been since the earliest days of this illegal and unjustified invasion. And we have again tried to be also at the forefront of efforts to support Ukraine internationally and to oppose Russia's assault on international law. So what we're doing at the moment in the Department of Foreign Affairs this week is preparing for our UN high level week, which is the week where all of the heads of state and government and foreign ministers go to New York every year at the UN. And it reminded me that this time last year we had just come back when Minister Cove me was the foreign minister we had just come back from Odessa. And the reason we've gone to Odessa at the time was well for a number of reasons but one of the reasons was that Minister Cove me knew he would be speaking at the UN Security Council. We were on the council obviously at the time, during high level week and he wanted to see for himself and make sure that he had seen for himself, what was happening in Odessa, the black sea grain initiative, how it was working. It was the same I think in in his visit to butcher to keep on to butcher in April 2022. I think he was the first foreign minister to visit he's since the invasion, and again went then to the Security Council a few days later. And I think we felt and we still feel at that time as a member of the UN Security Council, we were the only EU member state elected EU member state on the council and we felt a very strong responsibility to try and go and see for ourselves what was happening in Ukraine and the Security Council and bear witness to that, and particular, particularly to sit around the table of that council where Russia is also sitting and call out the disinformation and the lies that was coming that were coming from the Russian delegation on an individual basis and on a basis of having seen and having visited Ukraine. And we have, we have tried to use we tried to use our time on the Security Council but now obviously as a member of the General Assembly and at EU level at the OSCE at the Council of Europe in all the various different multilateral organizations we've consistently tried and used our voice to call on Russia to end its war to comply with its obligations under international law to withdraw all forces unconditionally from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. I think one of the things that I've heard about this conflict which I think really resonates is the phrase that if Russia stops fighting the war ends if Ukraine stops fighting Ukraine ends and I think this is something that we need to continue to repeat and continue to repeat particularly I think to partners internationally who don't necessarily see it that way who don't necessarily understand it that way, but that this is an existential issue and an existential fight for Ukraine and that there is an aggressor and a victim we're not talking about an equal conflict where parties to the conflict have to to come to the table on an on an equal basis let's say. I also have welcomed over 91,000 Ukrainians to Ireland under the temporary protection directive and that's somewhere in the region now almost of 2% of our total population. Ireland also as you know has provided significant bilateral financial support to Ukraine about 190 million since the war began about 68 million and humanitarian development stabilization support, and about 122 million in non lethal military support to the European peace facility. And again just last week the week before last, the tonnage to was part of discussions with the foreign ministers and the defense ministers on a significant increase of European peace facility over the next number of years to make sure that again Europe and the European Union can maintain our support to Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. That's a really essential thing that we continued that support. We've seen ongoing Russian attacks on civilians and on civilian infrastructure. We've seen that the sole purpose of these attacks is to terrorize the civilian population to destroy Ukraine's economy to destroy their natural resources to try and change borders by force. We've seen a lot of rules based international order that we all rely on for our security and for our prosperity. And one of the things that when we talk to partners in the global south I don't like the phrase global south but I'll just use it as a shortcut that we say is that this is a, you know, this is a colonial power trying to eliminate its former colony, you know, we were we were we were colony ourselves we recognize this sort of behavior when we see it. We try and talk with African with Latin American with other partners in that way and and explain and talk about the fact that we don't care about this because it's Europe we don't care about this because the victims are white which you also sometimes here, we care about this because this is a blatant violation of international law. And if people can do this, if we can change if this the strong can change borders by force in Europe they can do it anywhere and all of us in particularly smaller countries like Ireland and like so many of our global south partners need to care about this deeply for that reason, and for other reasons of course as well. And I also want to just maybe repeat something that the t-shirt and the tonnage to, and the government in general has said many many times, which is that we are militarily neutral country but we are not a politically or Marley neutral country and when we see the sort of violations of international law when we see the Commission of international crimes, we will speak out and we will do everything that we can and use our voice in every possible way that we can to call that out and also to try and support its end. And our position is informed by the principles that drive Irish farm policy and that have driven Irish farm policy for decades. And this is for human rights for international humanitarian law for the UN Charter and for rules based international order. And again, this is something that we say, consistently to partners who don't necessarily share our views on Ukraine, that this is an international and a principles based approach that is not specific because it's a European country not specific because it's happening on our continent only, but because this is an international. This is an international outrage, and these atrocities need to outrageous us all. Larissa you said already, we can't allow crimes to go unpunished it's not enough to speak out to be horrified we have to do something practical and specific about it and we have a whole set and Declan Smith my colleague, our legal advisor will talk in much more detail we have a whole set of international mechanisms that we can utilize to ensure accountability. And again, there are rules, even in war there are rules that's what the Geneva conventions are about. And when those rules are broken, there has to be accountability and again I know that that's what this discussion today will will be about. And I know that my colleague Declan will speak in much more detail about the sorts of issues and the sorts of actions that we're taking in multiple ways to try and ensure accountability. And I'm really pleased again to be here to be able to partner with the IEA with the Ukrainian Embassy with the US Embassy and with Ukrainian action in Ireland to convene today's important event when Larissa came with came to us with the idea we wanted to support it, it's right away and again just having those detailed panel discussions and really understanding what the options are how we can take accountability forward is so important. And again I think just to say that the images that we've seen here but also I think the fact that we have 91,000 Ukrainians living in Ireland and each person each individual person has a difficult and often a horrifying story to tell. I think is something that is important to remember that who we are looking for accountability for we're looking for accountability for individuals whose lives have been absolutely shattered through absolutely no fault of their own. And we're looking for accountability because we have a country on the Security Council as you say, which is completely road roughshod over at the international rules that keep all of us safe. And if none, if one of us are not safe, and then none of us are safe and that's why I think accountability is so important and as you say peace with justice is so important. So again, thank you for the invite. Thank you for involving us in in this seminar today. And just to say that again, Larissa we very much recognize and honor the huge sacrifices that the people of Ukraine are making they are making that in their own brave defence of their own freedom, their own democratic choices but also for all of us and particularly I think for all of us in Europe. And again, to quote the Tonnister and the Tishik and many members of the government. Ireland is very clear that we will continue to stand with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people for as long as it takes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Deputy Secretary General. So a final word of welcome from Michael Klaus and the Charger to fair US mission in Ireland. Thanks so much, Mike. Thank you. Collegi, Druze, Tainchi, Vosti, Doboranko. Thank you, Ambassador Jarasko, Ambassador Highland and IEA for partnering to put this together today. This is a fantastic event. I'd like to echo Sonya's reaction to this sobering photo exhibition from Butcher. These photographs depict the ongoing horror of Russia's unjust and unprovoked war and they are stark reminder that we must not allow ourselves to become complacent. Those responsible for these atrocities must pay a price for the horror and for undermining the principles that support international peace and security. And as some of you in the audience know, my wife and I were honored to serve at the American Embassy in Ukraine in the months leading up to Russia's full scale invasion. The last photo that I took in Ukraine was much different than the ones you've seen today. It was my then seven year old son and his best friend drinking hot chocolate in the snow with their favorite playground in Kiev. Just a few months later Moscow hit that playground with a missile. Well, I know from firsthand experience, the resolve and resiliency of the Ukrainian people. It's also all too easy for me to imagine colleagues and friends as victims of Russia's actions. There is great value in these discussions, which serve to highlight Russia's ongoing brutality and bring together experts from Ukraine and from around the world to work towards our shared goal of justice for Ukraine and Ukrainians. The United States is proud to stand with Ireland and our support of Ukraine as it protects its people and its freedom. Over the past month alone, we've welcomed nearly 30 members of Congress and other senior US officials to Ireland, all of whom have resolutely underscored continued support for Ukraine. Russia's forces committed and continue to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. Let me be clear. These are part of a deliberate and orchestrated strategy of terror attacks on civilians and children. And those who have committed these actions must be held accountable. I know that many of you are aware that the United States supports a range of international investigations and inquiries, including those conducted by the international criminal courts prosecutor. The United States has created international commission of Korea on Ukraine, the expert missions under the Moscow mechanism of the OSCE and the investigations being conducted by Ukraine's Office of the Prosecutor General. The United States also continues to empower organizations to collect, preserve and analyze open source comprehensive information that can be used in national and international tribunes alike. For example, we funded the Yale Conflict Observatory, which is dedicated to documenting the war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities that have occurred and continue to occur in Ukraine. We believe that the main engine of accountability for the war in Ukraine will be Ukrainian courts themselves. So the United States has partnered with the EU and the UK to create the atrocity crimes advisory group to provide capacity building and technical assistance to Ukraine's Office of the Prosecutor General as it works to document, investigate and prosecute over 100,000 war crimes identified so far. In closing, I want to thank all of you who have joined in person and online for your commitment to supporting Ukraine for your incredible generosity for those displaced by Russia and for contributing to this important discussion. A year after Russia's full scale invasion, President Putin's war on Ukraine continues to result in extraordinary costs, thousands of civilians killed or wounded, thousands more subjected to forced deportation, sexual violence and torture, and millions forced to flee their homes and cities pounded a rubble. The United States and our partners will continue to stand with Ukraine and push for accountability and justice for as long as it takes, and we, along with our partners will never allow the world to forget. Thank you. Thank you very, very much speakers. We're on time, but I'm going to make haste because one of our speakers needs to depart so thank you very much. I'd like to invite Declan Smith, legal advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs who'll chair this session to come to the stage, along with Professor Klaus Kress. In the next couple of moments, our technical colleagues will be getting ready to move into the next session. I'll just know there's a 15 minute break at the end of this session as well so Declan if you want to come to the stage. I'll just note as well that some of the participants are zooming in from very far away and given time zones it's eating into family time and evening time so it's very much appreciated but nobody hesitated to participate once they're invited so without further do I'm going to hand over to Declan Smith. Anton is online. Excellencies ladies and gentlemen, there's been a slight change to the program I was going to begin by making some introductory remarks about efforts that Ireland has made to date in attempting to ensure accountability for Russian actions in Ukraine. But one of our esteemed panelists, Dr Anton Kornevich, who is currently in Kyiv, is shorted due to leave Kyiv and has to catch a train. So we're going to proceed straight away to hearing from Anton and Kyiv, and then I'll come back and we'll begin as we were so perhaps Anton if you're online, we can give you the floor now. Thank you very much, dear Declan. I hope that the connection is stable and you can hear and see me. Thank you very much to all the organizers for making such a great event in Ireland in Dublin. It's a big pleasure and honor to be part of this discussion. I really appreciate the slight change of the program since as of now unfortunately it takes at least 24 hours for us to get from Kyiv to any city in Europe now with the Hague. Before the full-scale invasion we needed three hours with the plane. So unfortunately this is also the result of this Russian full-scale invasion and something we here in Kyiv need to tackle pretty much every day. Today's discussion is of course one of the key priorities for Ukraine in working on international arena, in particular when we talk about the implementation of the peace formula by the President of Ukraine, His Excellency Mr. Volodymyr Zelensky. As the issue of accountability and justice is 0.7 of this peace formula and here we talk about full and comprehensive accountability for all the atrocities, for all the violations of international law which where are and will be committed by the Russian Federation as a state and by Russian citizens, and by Russian nationals in the territory of Ukraine. And it is a great honor and privilege for me to talk on such a great panel with you, Daklan, with Professor Kress, with Professor McDougal, who are world's leading experts on the issue which we're going to discuss. When we talk about this full and comprehensive accountability, first of all, we talk about the use of all the existing mechanisms and instruments and tools which make it possible for us to bring Russia as a state and Russian nationals to accountability. And I may assure you that as of now since 2014, Ukraine actively uses each and every existing mechanism, instrument and tool to bring Russia and Russian citizens to account. We made applications, we I mean Ukraine's government, to the International Court of Justice, to the European Court of Human Rights, to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, to the Tribunals established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We recognize jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and many, many more. So all the existing mechanism and tools we use actively and defectively, and the reason why I'm leaving Kiev now is that we are having a hearings in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, starting soon against the Russian Federation in our case on allegations of genocide. So we use each and every tool which is possible for us now. But what do we see? We see that there are at least two important gaps, loopholes in this accountability system which we need to fill in order for us to be able that we really applied and implemented full and comprehensive accountability. One of these loopholes is the issue of compensation mechanism. I'm sure that today you will have a conversation on that in particular with participation of Her Excellency Madam Minister Irina Muldra from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. And another loophole is the one on which we in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and in other state organs of Ukraine work is the issue of accountability for the crime of aggression. We are sure that the crimes of aggression or crimes against peace, how they were labeled during the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals, are the reasons for all the other mass atrocity crimes, in particular war crimes and crimes against humanity, a lot of genocide committed on the territory of Ukraine. This is a very particular instance and example, because there were conflicts throughout the world when there was no crime of aggression, when there were non-international conflicts and war crimes were committed. But in the territory of Ukraine, our nation, my nation, my people, we didn't know what is a war crime before 2014, before the Russian aggression against Ukraine started. So that is why we consider that in order to fulfill this full comprehensive accountability, we really need to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. If it's not fulfilled, if it's not insured, then we may say that we are unable to tackle the very reason, the very root cause of all the mass atrocity crimes committed on the territory of Ukraine. And we've been working on the issue of ensuring accountability for the crime of aggression against Ukraine for almost a year and a half. We started this work in the end of February 2022 as one of the reactions to the Russian aggression and full-scale invasion in the territory of Ukraine. And I must admit that at first, from some of our international partners, we heard that Ukraine should not try to invent something new. Ukraine should work on the basis of existing mechanisms and tools and instruments. It will be enough. But now, I think, within this year and a half, the perception changed crucially and highly. So as of now, we have national parliaments which support the establishment of a tribunal which would have jurisdiction for the prosecution of the crime of aggression against Ukraine. As of now, we have a lot of resolutions of European Parliament, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly of NATO, Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, which call the international community for the establishment of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression. As of now, we also have the establishment and it is a common result of our work with our international partners, in particular with the EU, with Ireland, the establishment and the Hague of the International Centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression against Ukraine, ICPA. This is a very fresh, brand new centre established in the beginning of July, which coordinates investigation of the crime of aggression against Ukraine. And this investigation is done by Ukraine's prosecutors and prosecutors of foreign states and just within nearest time, within nearest days, we'll be able to see in the Hague how this centre really works. So we believe that with the establishment of the centre, we will have the establishment of the special tribunal because as we understand, while we have investigation, we of course need to have prosecution and we need to have a court which will be able to adjudicate on the issue and to prosecute for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. And this establishment of the centre, ICPA, is itself a real historic moment as Eurojust called this moment the making history, as really this is the first international initiative in prosecuting the crime of aggression after the Second World War, after Newark and Tokyo International Military tribunals. What is also important, we gathered a core group of states, which is a group of states represented by legal advisors from ministries of foreign affairs, which now includes 38 states and it's a pleasure and honour for us that Ireland is with us in this group, Declan participates actively in his work and this core group is a legal platform to discuss the issues of how the special tribunal for the crime of aggression may be established, how to do this effectively and how to actually make this happen. So we hope that together with international partners, we will make the job done and we will establish a special tribunal. On this way, one of the key and most important issue is the modality or the model for the establishment of the tribunal, as it is obvious that for the justice mechanism to be established, we need to choose the appropriate model, appropriate law, appropriate, I would say, way of establishing this tribunal. And as of now, there are two main models or modalities which are being suggested by our international partners as they consider them to be the most efficient ones. The first one is a model of establishing the tribunal on the basis of Ukraine-U.N. agreement with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, which would initiate and which would call the Secretary General of the U.N. to have such an agreement with Ukraine. The other option which is being also supported by some of our international partners is the option of internationalized or hybrid tribunal, which gets its nature from Ukraine's national law, from Ukraine's national legal and judicial system, but which would have sufficient international elements, like for instance international judges, international prosecutors, relocation to some European state and city, cooperation agreements with European states and international organizations, and so on so forth. So as of now, the main discussions are between these two modalities and which modality may be the most effective to get the job done. We in Kiev consider that the most effective would be the modality which would make the tribunal be able to make effectively its job to prosecute the highest political and military leadership of the Russian Federation for committing the crime of aggression against Ukraine. And of course, it seems that the more international tribunal we would have, the more chances it would have to complete this task and to make this job. But we continue to discuss these issues. We assure that together with our friends and partners, both inside the core group and within our bilateral and multilateral consultations, we would find the most appropriate way to establish a special tribunal. My last point on this would be that we already in this year and a half made big intermediate interim progress on the way to the special tribunal. We pretty much brought this issue which has never been applied and implemented in international law since 1945-1946 and now try to implement it to the new realities of Russia and Russian aggressive war against Ukraine. We assure that we would make the job done, but of course for us it is very important that this job has its result so that the special tribunal is established and it can work actively and effectively. We are also sure that without this special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, which would again tackle this root cause, this primary crime which caused all the other mass atrocity crimes committed on Ukrainian soil. Without this special tribunal, it would be a big damage for the foundational principle of international law of non-user force and non-strato force for the concept of the crime of aggression itself. And if we do not succeed with special tribunal now, the concept of the crime of aggression may be left only for the students to teach within the course of history with international law, but not of its future. So I do believe that that is why we need to tackle this issue, we need to establish a special tribunal and again I'm sure that we would do that. Again, thank you so much to all the organizers for this great event. Thank you to Declan, I'm sure that you would have wonderful discussion with Klaus and Kerry. So you're in very good hands and I wish you a fruitful and effective discussion. Thank you. Thank you very much Anton and I should say that as Anton mentioned when he first embarked upon his role as ambassador at large for the establishment of a special tribunal, he did meet with quite a degree of skepticism I think it's fair to say from many of those he spoke to. And it's largely down to his own tireless efforts really that this initiative has got so far and I think that is above all a tribute to you Anton and the work you and your colleagues have done. So we are obviously doing all we can to help you in that regard. Excellencies ladies and gentlemen as I said earlier we have a very eminent panel of speakers this afternoon on the topic of ensuring accountability for the crime of aggression against Ukraine by means of a special tribunal. But, but before introducing the panelists to you. Let me just say a few words briefly about the steps that Ireland has taken today to try to ensure accountability of both the Russian Federation itself and of individual Russian officials officials and military personnel for breaches of international law and for the Commission of international crimes in and against Ukraine. In the legal fields that have been taken are of course in addition to all of the other measures that Ireland has taken in response in response to Russia's invasion, which Sonya has already mentioned, continuing practical and financial assistance to Ukraine in position of sanctions on Russia and individual Russians and of course providing refuge to over 90,000 Ukrainian citizens who fled the war in such devastating circumstances. In the legal field, Ireland has made efforts to help ensure Russian accountability in a number of different ways. Firstly, we were among the very first states to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, shortly after Russia's full scale invasion began last year. This allowed the prosecutor of the court to immediately commence war crimes investigations in Ukraine in circumstances where because Ukraine is not yet a party to the ICC statute, the prosecutor will otherwise have required the authorization of the court's pre-trial chamber. That authorization is a very complex and often lengthy process and it would have considerably delayed commencement of investigations into war crimes in Ukraine. Secondly, Ireland has intervened as a third party in Ukraine's case against the Russian Federation under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice and has to date made a number of filings in that case. The court will next week hear oral argument from the parties on Russia's preliminary objections to the ICJ's jurisdiction in the case. And Ireland will participate together with more than 30 other intervening states in those hearings at the Hague. And I hope to see Anton in the Hague at those hearings next week. Ireland has also intervened in Ukraine's case against the Russian Federation taken at the European Court of Human Rights. As Anton mentioned, the Council of Europe has established a register of damage caused by the aggression of Russia against Ukraine. And Ireland is one of the founding participants together with several EU member states, Canada, Japan and the United States in that register. The purpose of the register is to serve as a record in documentary form of evidence and information on claims of damage, loss or injury caused by Russia's actions in or against Ukraine since February last year. It is intended that this register will be the first step towards creating an international compensation mechanism for victims of Russian aggression. And we'll hear more about that on panel two this afternoon. On the question of aggression itself, which is the subject of this panel's discussion. Russia's invasion of Ukraine had no legal justification and therefore in legal terms amounts to an act of aggression. This was recognized almost straight away by the United Nations General Assembly in a resolution adopted shortly after the invasion began. International law prohibits all acts of aggression. Acts of aggression constitute violations of the victim state sovereignty, its territorial integrity and political independence, all contrary to the United Nations Charter. Moreover, the crime of aggression is an international crime for which individuals may be held accountable and prosecuted before courts where they've been conferred with a necessary jurisdiction. Unlike war crimes, however, the crime of aggression is a leadership crime. Only those in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a state may be tried for aggression. The government of Ireland has recognized Russia's aggression against that Russia's aggression against Ukraine represents perhaps the most serious challenge to the international legal order since the Second World War. The prohibition of aggression in international law has been an essential element of that order. And that is why the preservation and strengthening of the international legal order now requires an effective response from the community of states in particular to ensure that there can be no impunity for aggression. Unfortunately, the ICC lacks jurisdiction in this very clear case of aggression because neither Ukraine nor Russia are parties to the court statute. In these circumstances, other means of bringing to trial those responsible for Russian aggression must now be found. This essentially requires the establishment as Anton has already remarked upon of a new special tribunal. What form a new tribunal should take has been the subject of intense discussion for the past 18 months. In particular, whether it should be either an international tribunal established within the framework of the United Nations, or by way of multilateral treaty, or a hybrid internationalized tribunal based within the legal system of Ukraine. Each of the models considered raise difficult and challenging legal, political and practical issues. Questions, for instance, of jurisdiction and reach legitimacy, personal immunities, state cooperation with a new tribunal and cost. And we will hear more on these issues this afternoon. Ukraine as Anton has said has established a core group on a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, of which Anton himself is the chair, and Ireland is an active participant in the work of the group. The group has grown since its first meeting earlier this year, and now has 38 members. Complimenting the work of the core group is as Anton also mentioned the International Center for the prosecution of the crime of aggression in Ukraine, which was established by Eurojust in the Hague. And that center will enable investigations into Russia's leadership to commence straight away, while discussions continue on the creation of a special tribunal. The center and began its initial operations in fact last July, and will be fully established by the end of the year. So, I would like to now introduce our panel of esteemed speakers. And the first is Professor Klaus Kress who has joined us in person. Professor Kress is Professor of Public International Law and Criminal Law and director of the Institute of International Peace and Security Law at the University of Cologne in Germany. His prior practice was in the German Federal Ministry of Justice on matters of criminal law and international law. In addition to his scholarly work, which has been mostly on the law of the use of force, the law of armed conflict and international criminal law, Professor Kress has been a member of Germany's delegation in the negotiations on the International Criminal Court for many years. And since 2019 has served as a judge ad hoc on the at the International Court of Justice in the case of the Gambia against Myanmar. We're also joined today by Zoom by Dr. Carrie McDougal, who is senior lecturer at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne in Australia. Dr. McDougal teaches and researches international law at the university there specializing in the use of Belem international criminal law and international humanitarian law. She returned to academia after nearly a decade working for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, where she served first as a legal specialist and assistant director of the international law section in Canberra. And then as legal advisor at Australia's mission to United Nations in New York. She's currently one of a small group of experts advising the government of Ukraine on the prosecution of crimes of aggression. And finally, we're joined by Ms. Margarita Sneutte-Dougal-Liene, I'm sure I haven't pronounced that properly, but she is the vice president of Eurojust and was elected to that position in June 2022. She began her legal career as a public prosecutor in the regional prosecutor's office in Lithuania. In 2016 she was appointed deputy prosecutor general and during her professional career, she has participated as an expert in a number of projects relating to international cooperation and has provided as lectured on criminal law and international cooperation topics. She has also served as a contact point for the European judicial network between 2011 and 2017. So I'd like to call our first panelist to the podium, Professor Klaus Kress. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, especially Madam Ambassador from Ukraine and all Ukrainian friends. I am very privileged and honored to be here today to address you on this crucially important topic. And perhaps you will allow me to begin my observations with one small word of tribute to somebody we have all very much admired in the course of the negotiations on the crime of aggression in the ICC statute. James Kingston, who I understand was your predecessor, Declan, he was a central part of the family of negotiators so to speak and through him. Ireland had a very important voice in those and the principle voice in those negotiations and so I thought it was a good moment to remember him, he passed away so sadly. I wish to begin my remarks with three essential reasons why accountability in general is so crucial with respect to this egregious ongoing war of aggression. First of all, for the people for each and every individual victim in Ukraine, because this is the only way to give a minimum of recognition and satisfaction. This is one and rightly so one of the primary purposes of international criminal justice. The second reason is that I consider it important for the Russian society to face the truth, which is currently still clouded by powerful propaganda and proper and fair judicial proceedings are crucial means to make a society face the truth. I'm speaking here to you as a German citizen. So I'm not even though I'm part of the comparison with the horrible German past of a fairly young generation. I know how healthy and important it can be that a society in whose name horrors have been inflicted on the world are given the opportunity to face the truth through judicial proceedings. The third reason has already given by my previous distinguished speakers. This is also about defending the international legal order. Russia's war of aggression is of course immediately against Ukraine and its people, but it is a terrible assault on the international order as a whole, and in particular on one of its corner stones. The ICJ has called it in Congo versus Uganda, the cornerstone of the prohibition of force in the international relations. So for those three reasons, each of which would be sufficient, but for them in accumulation, it makes a powerful case for the need of accountability and now moving to my second point to comprehensive accountability and comprehensive accountability goes beyond proceedings for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, those crimes under international law over which the ICC is currently in a position to exercise jurisdiction and we have heard that those proceedings have resulted in a historic arrest warrant. But there is one, the fourth crime under international law. The executor Kahn's hands are currently tied. Ambassador Karnjevic has already mentioned one important argument why this constitutes a glaring gap in the current international legal architecture, because Karnjevic's decision to initiate this war of aggression is so to speak the original sin which has opened the floodgate to all the other horrible crimes that have ensued. This is one important reason. One important reason is that those other crimes and proceedings for those other crimes, important as they are, I hasten to add, nobody would diminish the significance of proceedings before the international criminal court before many national jurisdictions, including most importantly of course, Ukraine's, but they are not capable of covering the entire injustice. Think of the killing on a daily basis of Ukrainian soldiers in the field in the course of the battle. Each of you who has studied international humanitarian law knows this is no war crime. This is a serious amount to crimes against humanity. Genocide. But who would doubt that this is a serious, a deeply going injustice. Every life lost of a Ukrainian soldier as a result of this aggression. There are million casualties as a result of a military attack directed against a military object. I apologize. I have to be a little technical here, not amounting to disproportionate to a disproportionate level under the existing law of armed conflict, not to be covered as a war crime, crime against humanity, genocide. Think of the huge destruction of property. Think of the huge environmental damage Ukraine is suffering. And think about how intensely high the threshold for war crimes is deplorably, one may say, under current international law of armed conflict. This terrible injustice can only be properly accounted for if proceedings include this originals in the crime of aggression. And thirdly, if we coming back to this basic fact that it is the international legal order that is on assault and the cornerstone of this international legal order the prohibition of the use of force. This right as I believe it is his right. Why this is unfortunately not the first violation of the prohibition of the use of force that we have been witnessing since the entry into force of the United Nations Charter is certainly the one with an unprecedented gravity. And if at this moment in time the international community does not react with determination and does not make use of the core function of the international criminal justice system to prevent fundamental rules from erosion as a result of violation. Then the future of the prohibition of the use of force is not a bright one. And this is and now I'm coming to the third point. And this is why it is so important irrespective of the crucial need for the continuation of all the endeavors at the national level and at the international criminal court. That something very specific and meaningful is being done when it comes to the crime of aggression and that means under the circumstances because all the other options which have been explored would not be able to cope with this lacuna in the sufficiently close future that a special tribunal for the crime of aggression must be established and this is why and it has been mentioned diplomatically after for some observers long months of delay. Now, there is considerable and very positive momentum the fact that 38 states island included my home country included are working hard on the establishment of such a tribunal is good news. Now on the format. I'm more than happy to go into any detail you wish at the Q&A session but I have only limited time now on the format. Ambassador Konjem, which has been duly diplomatic. I will be a little less I will also be very diplomatic but a little less a little less diplomatic and will make it clear as a scholar as an independent scholar. And what I believe the right choice should be between those and he has said everything that must be said about those two formats which are currently in juxtaposition, I call it the international solution and the international solution is a generalized but essentially Ukrainian solution. There is no doubt in my mind that the international model is the preferable one, both from the perspective of what Ukraine needs and therefore it is no secret that the international solution, but also as a matter what would serve the international legal order best, because as you have said it a moment ago madam, this is not only in Ukraine's interest we should all be grateful to Ukraine to have placed this item on the agenda. The work of the special tribunal is a result of the fact which has now been recognized by many ceremonial statements of the European Union, the Council of Europe, that prosecutions for the crime of aggression are in the interest of the international community as a whole. This is what is written. And of course the most natural translation of this consensus into institutional design would be to establish an international tribunal with the endorsement of the general community speaking as one organ representing precisely this international community as a whole and to establish a tribunal which would in comparison with all the other options the most qualified institution to speak in the name of the international community as a whole. No other court could do it in such a meaningful and powerful way. There are many other arguments and I'm sure Professor McDougal will add on and just on the other side there have been arguments, you know, political, legal, you have mentioned them in general, but and I'm happy to go through them one by one. There is not one single political or legal argument that is compelling that would speak against the international model. This is actually a question of political will of political determination to do what is best for the international legal order now. And my preference in this regard is crystal clear. Let me finish with one sentence which goes slightly beyond the Ukrainian situation, but which takes up the the call we have heard for principle action. And principle action would mean that we take as an international community. The step we find the resolve which is necessary to meet the immediate needs of Ukraine, but always knowing that in international criminal justice the most important currency is legitimacy. And this currency requires consistency and principled action. It is impossible to say with credibility we do it now, in this case, but in the future we are happy to continue to live with this jurisdictional gap that we now all deplore. And therefore we have to solve the problem at its root cause. And this is the jurisdiction jurisdictional gap that we have in the ICC statute, which is not there ladies and gentlemen because of legal necessities. This is a result of political will of a minority of states in the course of the negotiations and if we want to be principled if we now understand that we are at a critical juncture and have to get serious against the crime of aggression. We have to close this gap in the ICC statute, which means, difficult as it is to initiate a process, a diplomatic process to improve to reform the ICC statute. And I would argue it is for all those participating in this process now a credibility test, whether they will also make the second step and this is ultimately Ambassador Kornjevic has mentioned it. This is ultimately what US Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson in Nuremberg promised the world when he stood up and said, if this is to have a practical meaning for the future. And then this cannot in Nuremberg he said this, then this cannot remain an isolated case then this law must be applied in the future, equally to everybody, including those sitting here in judgment, I have not probably cited it. Chris Lee clear word by word but I think you got the essence. And that's the question we have to face now. Thank you very much. And for those fascinating comments I'd like to now give the floor to Dr Carrie McDougal, who's joining us from Melbourne. Thank you very much, Declan and thank you to all of the hosts for the invitation to join this important discussion. I've been told I have a maximum of seven minutes. In that time, I'm going to try to make seven key points. It's absolutely essential that states do everything possible to reinforce the prohibition of the use of force. As we've already heard in the wake of Russia's aggression, the future of the international order is being decided. It might have varying views on what that future should look like, but all states have a fundamental interest in ensuring that the prohibition remains the keystone of the global order. Allowing those responsible for crimes of aggression to enjoy impunity will profoundly weaken the prohibition of the use of force in bold and Russia in Ukraine and beyond and encourage imitation. The prosecution of crime of aggression is, at this point, the most obvious way of reinforcing the prohibition. The international community has of course taken a number of steps to reinforce the prohibition by sanctioning Russia and supporting Ukraine and we've heard some specific measures mentioned by our Irish and US colleagues already. But states haven't done everything they could. It's well understood why Ukraine's allies haven't intervened militarily in the conflict. The very fact, however, that direct military enforcement of the prohibition is off the table makes it all the more important to use all other available levers. The prosecution of crimes of aggression would be both low cost in all senses of the term and high impact in so far as it would make it crystal clear that manifest violations of the prohibition won't be tolerated. It would also ensure that those most responsible for the original and all encompassing wrong committed against Ukraine, which opened the door to the commission of so many other shocking crimes against the Ukrainian people are held to account. Three, an international tribunal would be better placed than a hybrid to reinforce the prohibition of the use of force and deliver justice to the people of Ukraine. An international tribunal would enjoy greater legitimacy than a hybrid in the eyes of the global community, which would minimize concerns about a lack of impartiality and enhance the tribunal's ability to secure voluntary cooperation and isolate persons against whom arrest warrants issued. Any judgment delivered on behalf of the international community, not simply the Ukrainian state or any state to which Ukraine Ukraine might transfer jurisdiction would also ensure that the judgments deterrent potential was maximized. For the UN Charter provides a legal basis for the establishment of an international tribunal. Articles 10 11 to and 14 of the charter, empower the general assembly to make recommendations in relation to matters within the scope of the charter generally, and in relation to the maintenance of international peace and security specifically. Those powers are sufficient for the assembly to adopt a resolution requesting the secretary general to negotiate an agreement on the establishment of a tribunal and a resolution approving such an agreement. Critically, the establishment of a tribunal does not require coercive powers, which are exclusively enjoyed by the Security Council, because the tribunal would be established with Ukraine's consent. Ukraine can provide the necessary consent because of the territorial jurisdiction that it uncontroversially enjoys over the crimes in question. Five, an international tribunal is the best way of ensuring that those responsible won't be able to hide behind immunities. Now, of course, some states and scholars maintain a different view, but it's difficult to ignore the world now well established line of jurisprudence, holding that immunities don't apply before an international tribunal. It's been argued that this is moot because the troika could realistically only ever be prosecuted after they leave office and lose immunity. However, this ignores the fact that in line with the ICJ's decision in the arrest warrant case, a hybrid tribunal would be unable to even issue an arrest warrant against immunity holders. This would significantly detract from the expressive value of the tribunal and its ability to isolate Putin and his cronies. The argument also assumes that functional immunity wouldn't apply. However, while the International Law Commission has suggested that there's an exception to functional immunity for serious international crimes, it didn't extend that exception to the crime of aggression. To date, state reactions to the ILC's position have been mixed. As such, there's a real possibility that a hybrid tribunal could conclude that it's unable to exercise jurisdiction over any current or former state official. Six, the rationale for a hybrid tribunal is lacking. In the past, hybrid tribunals have been created when it was necessary to create a domestic mechanism to support an international tribunal where there was a need for local ownership. Those rationales don't exist in the current context. Ukraine has expressed a clear preference for an international tribunal. There's also no need for the tribunal to have jurisdiction over any separate domestic offences. While Article 437 of Ukraine's criminal code criminalizes aggression, its definition doesn't include a leadership qualifier. And it seems to be widely agreed that the statute of any tribunal should use the definition found in Article 8bis of the Rome Statute rather than the Ukrainian version of the crime. Seven, and I offer this final point respectfully. I'm fearful that states are self-harming their own fundamental interests by turning a blind eye to the consequences of double standards. To make this point, I must be a little less diplomatic than Anton and Klaus, and in my personal capacity, call out the elephant in the room. I think it's obvious that the main driver behind support for the hybrid model is a fear that a GA-based international tribunal could create a precedent that may not be in the interest of certain states. I did my PhD on the crime of aggression. I was actively involved in the special working group on the crime of aggression, the Rome Statute Review Conference, and the negotiations on the activation of the ICC's jurisdiction over the crime. When I was an Australian government legal advisor, I worked with our closest allies in relation to a range of international military operations. In other words, I'm no stranger to the sensitivities that surround the crime of aggression. However, the risk of the GA establishing another tribunal to prosecute any future military action of a state that has at least a defensible legal basis is, in my assessment, negligible. Such action wouldn't meet the high threshold built into the definition of the crime of aggression, and in those circumstances a proposed tribunal wouldn't command the support of a majority in the GA. Moreover, whether you think it's justified or not, the undeniable fact is that the narrative that many Western states apply a double standard when it comes to the use of force and to international criminal justice has taken a firm hold in many parts of the globe. Because of this, those states that played a key role in shaping the current international order, and which have benefited enormously from it, are losing their moral authority and thus their ability to command support for the international rules based order. The surest way to address this is to demonstrate a willingness to hold oneself to the same standards as every other member of the international community. That can be achieved by supporting the establishment of an international tribunal, as well as ratifying the Rome Statute and the aggression amendments, and supporting the removal of the restrictions on the ICC's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Thank you. Thank you very much, Carrie, for those provoking comments. Our final speaker this afternoon on this. Margarita Sniute, Dauguel Liene, who is the Vice President of Eurojust. Margarita, you have the floor now. Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. Yes. Your Excellencies, dear participants. First of all, let me thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to today's important event. And indeed, congratulations to the organizers on having put together such an interesting program. A discussion about a possible tribunal for the prosecution of the crime of aggression against Ukraine is both relevant and timely. But before touching upon Eurojust's role concerning the investigation of the crime of aggression, I would like to briefly set the scene. Only three weeks after the start of the war, you just helped to set up a joint investigation team, or just in short, as we say. Initially composed of Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland, this joint investigation team now also includes the membership of Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Romania. For the first time ever, the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court participates in Egypt. And the Egypt members have also signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States. The benefits of working together in a joint investigation team are clear. It enables close cooperation between all parties involved and an effective and fast exchange of information and evidence without the need for traditional letters of request. JIT partners can also count on Eurojust financial, legal, operational and logistical support. This JIT is focused on the investigation of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the context of the war in Ukraine. All those involved parties, JIT countries agreed that the fight against impunity cannot exclude the violation of one of the cornerstone of the modern international rule-based order, the prohibition of the use of force. That is why the crime of aggression is being investigated within the JIT as well. And for this reason, Eurojust launched an international center for the prosecution of the crime of aggression or ICPA on the 3rd of July of this year. The key purpose of the ICPA is to secure crucial evidence and facilitate the process of case building at an early stage. As such, the ICPA represents an important next step in our collective efforts to end impunity at all levels. Representatives from national authorities that have joined the ICPA are hosted at Eurojust premises in the Hague, where they benefit from tailor-made support from Eurojust site and our newly set up Co-international Crimes Evidence Database. In addition to Ukraine, five other JIT countries, that is Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Romania, as well as the United States are currently participating in the ICPA. However, the ICPA's potentially broader in scope than the joint investigation team. Other countries in possession of relevant information or evidence may also request their participation in ICPA. What the ICPA does not do is anticipate a specific outcome of the political debate on the setting up of a dedicated tribunal. As you know, an important part of this debate takes place in the realm of the so-called Co-group, which was mentioned, joined by 38 countries from different continents. And as you know that they will have the next meeting next week on the 22nd of September. While Eurojust closely follows the discussions we refrain from taking a position on what should be the way forward. In the end, the decision to set up a tribunal will be taken at the heads of state and government level, and it's clear that each option has advantages and disadvantages. The ICPA's working methods also reflect that there is no final decision on a tribunal yet. For example, evidence and other relevant documents will be translated both into Ukrainian and English to ensure that they can be used before different national jurisdictions as well as international courts. So for now, Eurojust's priority is making sure that no time is lost in building a case for the future prosecution for the crime of aggression, whatever that prosecution will take place. Through this pragmatic approach we hope to make an important contribution to collective accountability efforts. So with this, I would like to conclude my briefing direction and I'll be happy to answer questions if you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Margarita. We've now reached the stage of the panel discussion where the panelist, the discussion is open to the wider audience. I'm also going to perhaps before beginning with that, invite the panelists to perhaps consider the remarks of each other. Margarita mentioned just now that the ICPA will collect evidence which can in due course be presented to a tribunal once such a new special tribunal has been established or without any regard to the nature and identity of that future tribunal. One of the ideas that has been suggested for an appropriate tribunal is either instead of or in parallel to work on creating a special tribunal to amend the statute of the International Criminal Court to extend its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, so that it would cover this particular case of aggression. Could I ask maybe you Klaus and Carrie. What are your views on the proposals to amend the Rome statute do you think for instance that they may detract or divert resources from efforts currently underway to establish a special tribunal or are worth pursuing in parallel. Can I start with you, Carrie. I'm sure class will be able to add to this as well but my very firm view is that it is initiative that should be in fact pursued in parallel with efforts to establish a special tribunal. Class explained, this is about plugging that jurisdictional gap which is forcing us to look for an ad hoc tribunal in order to hold those responsible for crimes of aggression against Ukraine to account and it is the best way of ensuring that we both don't face this situation in the future, and that as many states as possible are held to the same standard in relation to the crime of aggression. Perhaps I could quickly provide advice that just recently. I have actually drafted in consultation with other aggression experts, including my good friend and colleague class Chris. Some proposed model amendments that have been promoted or published by the Global Institute for the prevention of aggression. I would be very much aimed at bringing the jurisdiction of the ICC over the crime of aggression into line with the court's jurisdiction with the other crimes included in that 1998 version of the statute so I'd recommend those two audience members. Thanks very much. Carrie for that class would you like to say something about about this question to the sentences as I essentially agree with what Kerry has said. There is no doubt in my mind that the best solution if one could paint an ideal legal world would be that the ICC was now in a position to conduct investigations also over the crime of aggression. The International Criminal Court is the most legitimate international judicial institution we have for the exercise of criminal justice precisely because it is an institution with credible universal oriented open for every state, which is part of the international community to join every day with an open ended jurisdiction. So it is the best approximation that we currently have to the idea to fundamental principle of justice equality before the law. I would go one step further this is not entirely uncontroversial as I see it but here again it is my view that legally speaking it would be possible to amend the ICC statute and to make this amendment applicable also to the situation of Ukraine. It would not be in. It would not violate the principle of retro activity because it would be about jurisdiction, the substantive crime, undoubtedly was there when the aggression against Ukraine began. Here it is ultimately a political choice to see how long would such a diplomatic process take in order to amend the ICC statute and here I think scholars should be humble and defer to the judgment of political decision makers and it has become fairly clear in the international conversation that even those many actors who are in favor of amending the ICC statute, they realistically say this is, it will likely be a complicated process there are a number of tricky legal issues to be discussed it should be done properly. Anything that is done about the ICC statute should not be done in a rush, because it's meant to last for the decades to come. And it will not be happening in the time Ukraine needs it and this is something as a scholar I of course accept so that political choice to meet seems to have been done this is why 38 states are now engaged in this process in the core group. They are not against the amendment idea they just take this pragmatic choice that under the circumstances. That's the best way forward, but, and that's the essential point Kerry made and I want to make it again. There is no reason now to delay the initiation of such an amendment process for two reasons first of all, and as we both said it will be a fairly lengthy one. So no reason to waste time here. Everybody should now know how important the question is and we want to avoid having to face a jurisdictional gap once again. And so that's one reason and second, because this conveys the credible message of all those involved now in the conversation about a special tribunal that they really mean it, not just for this, of course, egregious case that gives us now reason to get more serious against the crime of aggression than before, but also for the future. So it is a critical moment in time for Ukraine, but also for being principled when it comes to international criminal justice. Thank you very much. And one of the issues that has been raised by a number of our panelists in relation to the establishment of a new special tribunal is the question of immunities and you will have heard. This topic referred to on a number of occasions, in particular the difference between functional and personal immunities. Harry, could I ask you maybe for the benefit of our audience to explain the difference between the two. And then maybe each of you could say, to what extent you think the issue of immunities is is is hurdle to the establishment of a new special tribunal. Thanks, Declan. I'll try and keep my remarks brief because classes are well well recognized expert on the question of immunity so I would defer to him. But very briefly, personal immunity is immunity enjoyed by just what we think just three individuals it's not entirely settled but certainly head of state head of government, foreign minister during their time in office, which is essentially a blanket that prevents those individuals from being prosecuted before a foreign domestic court for any civil or criminal allegation, both before their time in office and during their time in office. Those individuals leave office. The ICJ has told us in the arrest warrants case they can be prosecuted for personal acts committed during their time in office. But the suggestion is not for official state acts. But of course, the unanswered question from the arrest warrants case is whether a serious international crime can probably be considered an official act. It's probably an arguable case if you're talking about crime against humanity, perhaps genocide. It's very difficult I think to make that claim if you're talking about a state act of aggression that by definition has to be orchestrated by someone who is leading the political and military action of a state. Immunity is as an immunity that is enduring. It's not dependent on an individual's terming office and applies to all official state acts. And as I mentioned briefly in my presentation, the exact status of functional immunity and its applicability in relation to serious international crimes is somewhat unsettled. You know, different examples of state practice and opinion euros on the record. The last point I would make very quickly is that I think it's actually, you know, absolutely imperative from a Ukrainian point of view that those individuals in leadership positions principally President Putin, not be able to escape justice by relying on an immunity. And so I think there's a very good reason this subject has occupied such a significant place in the discussions about the tribunal model, because as I indicated there's a line of jurisprudence that tells us that immunity doesn't apply before in at least certain international tribunals. And there's I think a very real risk that immunities could be successfully relied upon by a hybrid tribunal that is structurally part of the domestic legal system of a state. And where that hybrid tribunal is not an international organization and doesn't enjoy international legal personality. Kerry Klaus would you like to say something about the extent to which you think immunities would would affect this. Also just a few sentences in addition to agree to what Kerry said, let me start the other way around. Let me start with functional immunities and with the absence of the crime of aggression from the current list of draft draft article seven. This of course, if judges of an internationalized Ukrainian tribunal state themselves would allow themselves to be guided by the current list of draft article seven, the result would be a disaster for those proceedings because as Kerry said functional unity would apply to each and every suspect by definition we imagine a person not acting in official capacity being among the suspect so one first key message is to all those who are currently supporting the Ukrainian internationalized solution. We are now in preparation of the second reading within the ISE the second reading of draft article seven. All states have been invited the deadline is first December this year to provide their comments on draft article seven. I suspect that especially those states who support the internationalized Ukrainian model would come forward and tell the ISE that they think that draft article seven should include the crime of aggression, otherwise it is very very difficult to find that position internally and on the one hand to suggest an internationalized Ukrainian tribunal and on the other hand to maintain functional immunity for the crime of aggression. This is I put it very diplomatically a problematic position to take. Second point on the question of personal immunities. Obviously, it is one important reason for Ukraine to prefer the international model and now again, I formulated very cautiously because the chances in light of the current state of the case law the international case law. There are chances that personal immunity will not apply before an international tribunal are significantly higher than before a Ukrainian internationalized tribunal. Kerry has very fairly and I shall do the same said the issue of personal immunities, even before an international tribunal remains a matter of some controversy. I would be dishonest to say that there is agreement among the scholarly community as such, for example, however, with the arrest warrant against President Putin, it has been crystal clear. It should have become crystal clear, even to the last reader who doubted that the appeals chamber had said the same in the al-Bashir case that the ICC believes, and I think rightly so, that under customary international law, there are no personal immunities trying in proceedings before it. There have been also scholarly colleagues who have tried to water down the al-Bashir president by saying, well, there was a Security Council resolution. But they have not closely read the judgment. The judgment made it very clear that they did not rely exclusively on the Security Council refer in terms of Security Council resolution 1593. The judgment is crystal clear that the basis was customary international law, so to a closely reader of the judgment, what happened now with Putin's arrest warrant in the absence of a Security Council resolution could come as no surprise. The court is simply doing what the appeals chamber said in al-Bashir. Now, is there a reason, this is something that is sometimes heard, is there a reason from the perspective of personal immunities to distinguish between the ICC, on the one hand, and an international tribunal established in accordance with the preference of Ukraine by treaty between the United Nations and Ukraine? My answer to this is clearly no. Nothing in the line of precedence, which are applicable, starting with Sierra Leone, then coming to the al-Bashir case in the ICC, and on a close reading you can even include the Milosevic case of the ICTY. Nothing in the relevant judgments suggests that there is a distinctive feature between the ICC as an international court and an international court established by a treaty between the United Nations, not just two states, between the United Nations and Ukraine. So it is very understandable that Ukraine is confident that personal immunities would not apply. Last observation, let us assume for a moment the judges would decide differently. And of course, ultimately, we should wait and see what the judge, it will be for the judges to decide. It's for the judges to apply existing customer international law. But the point is, would it be an obstacle to the, would it be an argument against the international solution that there is a possibility that the judges decide differently? Certainly not. There is just a risk, as you always have it, that perhaps the judgment will be different from the solution that you desire. But the point remains, the international tribunal would do its work and the chances before an international tribunal are certainly better than before a national one. Okay, thank you for that class. Margarita, can I ask you, has the ICPA or your joint investigation team anticipated any difficulties in your activities raised by the question of immunities? Thank you very much. Indeed, this personal immunities aspect for the prosecutors working on the crime of aggression is very important and they discussed these things. But of course, for now, they are more focused, as I mentioned, for secure crucial evidence and facilitating the process of the case building. But this aspect is being discussed and very important for these prosecutors. I absolutely agree with what the panelists discussed and nothing to add in terms of the content. Thank you for that. We're now going to open the floor for discussion. And so before I'm asking you to pose your questions, I just want to ask those who are asked to ask a question to identify themselves in any affiliation they may have. And I asked the gentleman in the second row here in the cream jacket. Thank you very much. Ronan Tynan. First of all, I just want to commend everybody involved for organizing this very important seminar, especially the Ukrainian ambassador and the Institute because I believe anything that raises the profile of accountability advances accountability and hopefully nurtures outrage and international crimes. Thank you very much Ronan Tynan and the designation I have that's relevant to the question about to ask is because I directed a documentary called bringing a sat to justice we looked at serious crimes in Syria. And of course, since the Ukraine war, it's been very painful because we also showed Russian crimes in Syria, even Russian pilots receiving coordinates of hospitals before they bomb them. And as they received from the United Nations to avoid those hospitals and then use them as a target list. So really what I want to put to the panel and it's extremely important I would suggest, even in the debate around a special tribunal for accountability. If we allow this add a la carte attitude to addressing horrific crimes internationally. Surely we make it easy for politicians and officials to adopt a pragmatic and inverted commas line that unless we're prepared to recognize Russia in particular is a serial and is actually repeating the very same crimes that committed in Syria, and indeed in one of the groups we investigated and featured, they have no over a million pages of evidence, even documents with a sad signature on them, confirming alleged involvement in various international crimes and commanders in Ukraine for example have been had earned designations like the butcher of Aleppo, when they were appointed in Ukraine many people suddenly discovered they had a career in Syria. And I'm just suggesting this compartmentalization of in addressing her is an indictment of all of us. And in the context of Ukraine we have an opportunity to break out of that. And I'd be most interested in the response from the panelists to that question. Thank you. Thank you very much for that might take two or three questions in one go so. Very briefly, a wonderful session. Thank you very much. I'm Pat Cox, former president of the European Parliament. I'll say in that in this context in 2000 2003 2004. I was president of the parliament before the war started in Iraq. I had in my speaking notes the Rome Statute and the ICC. I met in the East Wing with Dick Cheney and with Condoleezza Rice, and particularly with Condoleezza Rice who was more open and all of this. She said to me look, here's the reality. A guy like you was most unlikely ever to be hauled before the ICC. And I'm the head of the National Security Council of the United States could end up in that position. We prefer to submit ourselves to our own law. And I make a general observation that because I find your case compelling about the need to avoid double standards for equality before the law for all states in the real politic as I met it at that time, and that I've seen since the states that I would call the gullivers in our world, see these law for the people of Lilliput, but that the gullivers are different as Leviathans beyond that law. So your case is compelling and my question is, do you think the real politic is there to deliver on the compelling logic you've spoken to. And with that we will take maybe just one final question before we go to the panel, a gentleman just behind you, Sarah. Hi, thank you. My name is Owen Duggan. I'm currently serving in Ireland's embassy to Ukraine. And my question is perhaps related to that by the point made by Pat Cox. Klycea made a very compelling point that in international law, the currency is legitimacy. And if the international model is pursued, and I would agree it's it's a very compelling case you make, what does legitimacy look like, because if it is something that is established in the General Assembly of the UN, asking the UN Secretary General to to establish such a mechanism. What kind of support is required. What kind of support is required. Does it have to be everybody there, because everybody won't vote for that. So what levels of votes are we talking about or do we measure it by the strength of the resolution that you know it has a minority of support a huge amount of extensions but it is a it is a very strong mechanism. I just be fascinated by by the full panel's thoughts on that. And thanks very much class would you like to be to begin and some thoughts on those questions. Yeah, I'll go to the panel on the screen that's fine for Kerry. Yes, perhaps I take it in the inverse order because your question so it was very. So all three questions fascinating but yours was the most concrete one on the majority requirements but let me get get one step back first legitimacy and General Assembly. Why is that directly connected. First of all, because the General Assembly in the absence of an active Security Council obviously under blockade. The General Assembly is that body that institutional representation of the international community as a whole that is currently the best available to act so the closest one to speak for the international community as a whole. And at this point, you cannot simply go before the General Assembly, ask for the necessary majority and get it in this process, you will receive questions questions from we have referred to the inverted comma global south, many states which perhaps a little bit more distant to the events then we are here and those delegations in New York I don't think they are negative necessarily negative to the idea. But one question they will ask is, are you prepared to do what you asked us to support now in similar cases in the future. Yes, that's the core legitimacy question. And I think we should not criticize delegations to ask that question, we should give a convincing answer, and this convincing answer should be, and that's the best we can do at this moment in time to a pledge. This is not the end of the matter here but at the same time we are initiating a process to avoid in the future the need to return to the General Assembly, each step, and to have this compartmentalized approach, we have to move step by step beyond compartmentalization and I see the move to the General Assembly, which is of course by no means a given that it will be successful, but the need to try this as hard as we can, this also involves in my view the need to explain that we mean it in a principled manner. And third question, technically speaking, what will be the majority there is, as I see it, a degree of uncertainty and perhaps even controversy, one thing is clear, having a two third majority would be the safest basis. But I believe there is a strong case under the institutional law of the United Nations, under the relevant article, if this question is considered to be one of great importance which I think obviously it is, that a simple majority could apply. And in the end it would be a formal, the question of majority does not count population numbers and so it's a formal requirement under the Charter and I think we should accept that that majority requirement that is in the end applicable. The inclination would be simple majority suffices that this is the agreement of the international community to have its organ, the General Assembly speak for it, it should apply now as it should apply in other cases so that would be my attempt to answer your question sir. First, so make one express one word of gratitude to parliamentary assemblies in this process we have heard from the ambassador that when it all started and by start I do not mean the start the original start of the aggression in 2014 but the start of the outright full scale war of aggression. Governments have been fairly silent for a while for many months, as I said far too long for my taste that this has changed has a lot to do with principled articulation of many parliamentaries bodies and I stress this not just in Europe. Global parliamentarians for global action, and I have been to Buenos Aires and have seen those deputies from all over the world debating about this question have been very powerful European Parliament of whom you have been an outstanding member and I wish as we benefit of the present representative of the Council of Europe, I wish to stress that in my humble view the best, the most articulate the most principled resolution calling for an international tribunal calling for an amendment of the ICC statute at the same time has been adopted by the Council of Europe, in the form of resolution, you know, that you will know better to 483. I think so that is really an important point of reference. And now, moving from there to to your key points. The international law is, or at least international criminal justice here is for the lily puts, and not for the gullivers so don't believe that because you're speaking to a professor of law that you are confronted with 110% naivete. I have been part of the negotiation process as member of my delegation for more than 25 years I have seen each and every move in those debates. I think I have a reasonably realistic view of how difficult it is to convince gullivers. How difficult it is to make steps forward. To what extent those steps are smaller and slower in pace as one would wish them to have. But on the other hand, I wish to tell you, looking back 25 years and looking back to the point where we started at the Rome conference. We had to struggle to get the crime of aggression into the statute at all. It was a last night compromise 17 July the night from 17 to 18 July that the crime of aggression was at all included. And then, again, many gullivers smiled gently and said forget it. It's a placeholder. Nothing would happen. And a lily put Liechtenstein and my friends in Liechtenstein will forgive me lily put in military power, but gully was in brain. They, they took the lead, and they managed to create such a powerful diplomatic momentum that at the end, even gully was could not completely ignore it. And we made another step. First in Kampala 2010, then in New York 2017. Each time it was a nightly affair. And disputed, yes disputed that's part of the truth by gully was until the very end but in the end we made that step. Now we realize this step was still insufficient. Another one but this is what we have been witnessing experiencing in the history of international criminal justice all the time. We come to moments of great crisis critical junctures and only then. The world is prepared to make the step in the next step. So that the United States we have heard it from its representative today that the United States are now supporting the work of the international criminal court in the situation of Ukraine. This is a major development if you consider that of course those investigations are chiefly directed against non state party nationals, and you will remember the court exercising jurisdiction about non state party members is the main reason the main bone of contention of the international criminal court. So if the United States now see the value of the international criminal court at this moment in time, one would hope, I'm not sure whether representative is still here but I would say it very openly one would hope that the United States will take the position that they have taken now consistently and also apply it to themselves and this is how we move on step by step. You may you may call it naive I would call it cautiously optimistic and the last point. Okay. Just maybe bring Carrie and Margarita in at this point Margarita would you like to do you have any comments on any of those questions. I have a brief comment related to the first question from my side and the end my intervention on a positive note. While the focus now is on on the one Ukraine our new point national crimes evidence database that you will just allow us to store preserve and analyze evidence related to point national crimes committed in Ukraine. So it is therefore a symbol of the European Union's willingness to step up the efforts to fight impunity across across the walls. It's very short and then the brief comment to the first question from my side. Thank you. Thank you Margarita carry can I bring you in now. Let me try and offer some brief thoughts. I mean I couldn't agree more that the lack of accountability for crimes committed against the Syrian people isn't a travesty. I spent a lot of time when I was in New York, again, working with our great colleagues from Liechtenstein and to set up the triple I am for Syria so I absolutely hear what you say. And I think, you know, often this, you know, we encounter this argument that the proposed special tribunal for Ukraine is an example of selectivity. Precisely because you know, other victims have not received justice and yet we see this extraordinary support for accountability for Ukraine why do we also need a special tribunal for aggression. I think that's partly answered by the egregious nature of Russia's act of aggression, and the fact that the international rules based order requires us to respond. But the fact, I mean you're right, it is an example I think I mean critics are right that it is an example of selectivity, we should own that and continue to fight to bring justice to all victims. But the fact that, you know, political realities we might be able to get justice for Ukrainian victims where others have missed out is not a reason not to give justice to the people of Ukraine. That's not going to help the victims in Syria or Yemen or Georgia or any other conflict where there's been little or no justice. Okay, thank you very much for that Kerry and on that note I am going to have to bring this panel discussion to an end unfortunately, and we'll be breaking shortly for coffee. And I've been asked to to advise those watching on zoom that your screen is going to go black for a brief period, and broadcast is not ended it simply that the rest of us are having coffee. And, and, but before bringing this to close I'd like to thank very much our panelists, and I'd be very grateful if you give them a round of applause for a very significant thank you.