 And once we are on the book launch, and amongst us, the editors are Naveep Singh, Advocate, Punjab at Indra and High Court, who is also the Founder President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association, Franklin D. Rosenfeldt, Mississippi College School of Law, Judge, Military Court of Law, Mississippi, Former Judge Advocate US Army. And once we are talking about the panels to that extent, it's also a collaboration of knowledge sharing through a book launch, wherein we have been associated with Bar and Bench, who are well known for their uploading of the judgments immediately coupled with the different talks of webinars and book launches, and it has created its own space within the space, as they say. Before we formally go ahead with this thing, we thought that on 8th, there was a tragic incident of this helicopter crash where we lost the CSD along with the other persons. We thought before we go ahead, let's dedicate one minute of silence to all those who have, unfortunately, done, but for the nations, they've made us all this thing. We just start the video dedicating this video. And once the moderation etc., there will be question and answer session at 6.30. The questions will be taken up from the live YouTube links, which we have already shared, that is of the Beyond Law CLC, coupled with that of the Bar and Bench. Amongst us, we also have Shagun Suryam from Bar and Bench. She will also be taking the questions. And over to you, sir, just as Rajiv Bhalla and General Needed Bani. Thank you, Nadeep. Thank you Vikas. Thank you, Frank. And thank you everybody for allowing me to moderate this session. And somehow the water also added a word curate. So I don't take any credit for curation because that's all the people and Frank's doing. And they've got this lovely panel of people here. So I just begin with a brief description of the book by a court from a Supreme Court judgment, which I feel pervades almost every chapter that's from a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court. An unjust decision would be subversive of justice. As I flip through this book and through various chapters, this is what I thought pervaded almost everybody's thought process. That where are we getting there? Are we getting there to justice in military law? Or are we still stuck in that old style shot on the battlefield for showing your back to the enemy? That's how I would, as a person who does not come from the army and who has no experience of military law, I would in a way put my understanding of military law as shot on the battlefield. Mass to Justice is a book that I think personally is long overdue. We've had these comparative books on jurisdictions, different jurisdictions, different people writing, but nothing on military law. At least I'm not aware of that. And this book takes us through a vivid journey through 25 chapters of different authors from Asia to Europe to America, both North and South. Obviously, Indian and American authors will be there. But I'm just giving you the breadth of the book, the countries it covers, the depth that will go into all this will be something which we will deal with later. And I'm actually surprised at the narrative in each book and the care with which each of the authors has taken to go through in such great detail of not only what is good, but what is critical of military law in their respective jurisdictions or countries. And all I would like to say and I don't want to withhold all of you from the questions we're going to ask the panelists is that though all may not be well with military law, but I think we are getting there, but I'll still leave it with a question, or are we? That is the question we're going to ask the panelists. And that's the question that the book seems to raise, or the chapters seek to answer. Like I said, the book traverses various jurisdictions, systems, countries, or more precisely, military law. So I'll begin with a question to Frank, because if I ask Navdeep, they'll say you're asking an Indian, so that will become parochial. So I'll start with Frank. And I'll ask him, Frank and Navdeep, I mean, two people from two corners of the world, two different jurisdictions, two different militaries, completely, I mean, nothing common between the two of you. How did you all get together for this book? Sir, sir, first time when we met, I mean, it was in 2013 at the Yale Law School for a seminar. So we immediately hit off. And we actually think very similarly, and on similar lines and independence of any judicial system is, you know, at the top of our respective minds. It was like twins in different continents. And would be able to answer that better. And interestingly, in my office, if you can see at the back, the center picture, that's the poster of the 2013, it's surreal, it's still there. I mean, it's from the 2013 Yale Law School seminar. And thereafter, we've met at Yale, I think four times, and at different lectures and seminars at the Yale Law School, with our mentor, Professor Fidel, who's not here, but who'll be joining us at the physical launch later this month, or he'll be joining us online. So there were many similarities. The number one, as I said, we were both votaries of absolute independence and judicial functioning, whether it's on the civil side or in the military side. And I found that's rank, and I both are very soft in that approach, especially tough in the battlefield, but soft with people. And he's also very generous to a fault and very compassionate and humane. And in that aspect, I'll just, sorry, that's the moderator's job is sometimes to be a little rude also. So I'll just cut you short and ask Frank, please don't mind by that. I'll ask you, Frank, Frank, when you encountered Nabdi, and when you all decided that you're going to write this, you're going to request such a varied people from so different countries to write this book, what was the entire idea behind it, and how did you go about it? Well, first of all, I connected with Nabdi right away. We're both soldiers, we're both very patriotic, we love our countries, but we both just see some problems. I think that Nabdi has probably never said the words, well, we always do it this way. He's always looking for new ways to approach problems. So we connected with infrequent conferences in India or the United States, but mainly I could closely follow him on Twitter and his ability to really shape some of the national conversation in India. And so the idea for the book, after we had been talking for a while, the idea came from Nabdi, and it clicked for me right away, exactly what he was trying to do. And then I shoot the first question to you, as not only the panelist, but as one of the editors, you are from the USA, and you have a fair amount of experience of the military justice there. So my question to you directly is, is it or is it not fair, your system of military justice? Well, there's a lot to be proud of in our system that works really well. And sometimes that doesn't get enough attention, but there are some problems too. And in fact, this is up on Capitol Hill just this week, further military justice reform. So if I may. Don't you think in America, your military reform is taking a step backwards? In fact, it's not marching forward, as is suggested in the book, but it seems to be going backwards. Am I right or can you come to that? I concur with that assessment. We are largely, first of all, the military and the Pentagon enjoyed broad support in this country. And so when it comes to legislative reform, they largely get their way, they can block proposals that come from the outside if they don't want to do that. So in many ways, we are still stuck with the justice system from King George III, almost 300 years ago. And that's what we were discussing with Jeff, that suppose Washington had not beaten the British, what would happen in America? That's probably for another discussion somewhere down the line. So then what do you suggest should be done with the American system? Because see, most countries, in fact, all over the world look for a leadership role towards the American judicial system. And that's a fact, not something I'm not. So what exactly would the message go out to people? Well, there's a lot to look to positively from the American system. There's a rich body of judicial case law on any aspects of judicial responses to behavior and misbehavior in armed conflict. Our cases are worth reading. Our list of rules and our military judges' bench book are all admirable and worth checking out. But I think that something to be cautious of is looking at a military justice system in this project that we did. This has never been done before looking across so many jurisdictions like this. And looking at all of the contributions together, it's kind of like when you go to a doctor. And the doctor asks questions so that he or she can determine what symptoms you have. And from there, diagnose what is going on. And so I think that you can, in many ways, diagnose the civic health of a country by looking at its military law. Is the military subordinate to civilian control? Let me give a question a little further. What about gender justice? And of course, I'm not asking the obvious question on color. Right. I'm not asking that. That's too well known for everybody for me to ask on that. Well, gender justice, and I think this is something that I also hope Professor Amos can speak to. But a justice system must be one in which our sons and our daughters can choose to go into equally that they know they will be treated the same, that they will have the same rights, that they won't be singled out, and they won't be more or less likely to be a victim simply because of their association with the armed forces. Okay. Back to you, Navdeep, a small little question for you. You are in India and you are actively associated with the armed forces plus the tribunal, et cetera. So the question is that we in India continue to hear. In fact, I, as a judge in the High Court, also heard this repeatedly, this refrain from the armed forces, from lawyers representing them, moral discipline will be hit if you decide anything against the army. So, and the whole concept seems to be hands off, I am the military. So what is your take on that, please? In the Indian context. In the Indian context, you're absolutely right. If you recall, we had this conversation before that in the about the nineties, there was minimal interference by courts, by constitutional courts and matters military. It was only later that it was realized that no, you cannot treat it as some holy entity, and it has to be held with the same standards as other organizations and other similar entities in India. And I'm glad that awakening came and discipline absolutely is the bedrock of any military organization, all over the world, especially in democracies. There can be no questions about that. However, what is to be noted is, as you had also started off by quoting PPS Bedi's case, what is to be noted is that justice and discipline are intertwined. They're interlinked. They're two sides of the same coin. You just cannot say, I mean, this traditional thought process that if we are too just with people, there's nothing called as too just people will, you know, it will promote indiscipline or something. It's absolutely incorrect. But the common pain that I hear from people in the army is that you people in the civil courts on the civilians on the constitutional court really do not understand. You really don't understand when a person, when an officer on the front is surrounded by say terrorists or whatever you may call them. So how he reacts or how he acts. And therefore, when you implement your justice, you're actually asking the other people, sending a message that please don't let them go. Like the famous case we were just discussing just now that Afghanistan, Taliban, the shooting of a Taliban. So how do you balance these two things? Yes, a very good question. The battle zone is always, you know, it's a catch very two situation and there is the fog of war and it is not always black and white. But what is to be seen is, and which is very important, the intention, the intention and whether an act was intentional or not, whether it was in good faith or not, and whether it was in the line of duty or not. Now those things, if there is a proper justice system, if there is a proper justice system, only a good judicial process can lead to the actual conclusion, whether it was done in good faith or not, whether it was intentional or not, whether it was in the line of duty or not. So even for that, you require a good set of objective judicial principles leading to the correct conclusion. However, it is not just in the battle zone, even in other aspects, even in other aspects, if you are just with a person, if you are fair with the person, that person, that soldier is definitely going to be more disciplined in his or her approach, fairness would lead to better morale, fairness would always lead to better discipline. And in that, I mean, in my introduction, in the overview of the book, I've quoted the Supreme Court of India and also the Delhi High Court, I'll just read out two or three lines of it. The first line you had also reiterated in the beginning that fair play and justice cannot always be sacrificed at the altar of military discipline. An unjust decision would be subversive of discipline, what you had stated. Also, the Delhi High Court, very, very nicely stated, discipline is highly desirable and is essential for achieving the purpose for which the armed forces have been created and set up. However, in order to obtain this discipline and obedience, it is essential that the personnel of the armed forces are dealt with, with innate fairness and justice is meted out to them. And this is necessary to not only ensure discipline, but to motivate these brave soldiers who perform their duties in the service of the nation, and who have to be motivated enough to lay down their lives to the cause of the nation. So we cannot, we cannot divorce justice from discipline. Justice would lead to better discipline. And this misnomer has to be jettisoned. And we have to absolutely understand that better justice, more fairness will lead to better discipline. So that is also a bedrock of any democratic nation. Is it discipline justice or justice discipline? I'll leave it to the interpretation of others. Can I take a split second because of the other army guy here from Indian Army. You know, I was talking to you the other day and I said that the funny man Groucho Mark said, military justice is to justice, what military music is to music. I really want to, you know, I don't subscribe to that implication, but what on a serious note, what Deep said, every word resonates with me. You cannot allow the floodgates of actually indiscipline open by cover ups. You can't do that. So therefore, it is in the larger interest of all militaries to ensure that there is justice. And may also take a moment to say this that now that you've said this really terrific platform for us, all of us to discuss and start is really been an exceptional round of questioning. Can we just hold up this book for a minute and kind of display the book that we are on here for? Yeah. That's the wonderful book. So it officially stands launched now at this moment. The main part is that Deep has given it to us for free. But without my signatures. So we march to justice in freedom. And of course, I'm not a parallelist, I shouldn't speak so much. But the end of that, the answer to that question, I think I read Professor Amos essay, where he's mentioned that historically the purpose of military justice is to maintain discipline, efficiency, brawl, et cetera, et cetera. And we do feel that this can most effectively be done only by the military system. And, you know, maybe erroneously, that the civilian justice system is suited to deal with these matters efficiently and expeditiously. That may be one view within the military. All right. Can I take it forward? Yeah, please. Now, maybe I'll make a statement on something before it leads up to the next question. And this is my personal view and no reflection on anybody or any government with democracy in retreat in many jurisdictions and countries. Military dictation ships sprouting once again in some parts of Asia, some parts of Africa. Do you think general spike, whether the European Convention on Human Rights will apply to all EU member states? And if so, why? And if not, why? Because there are some states in the EU who are throwing the entire book out of the window. So a little bit on the EU rules. Thank you very much, Justice Bala. Very great pleasure to join you here in this meeting. The question is about the European Convention on Human Rights. Convention goes back to 1957, if I'm correct. All member states of the European Union, the Council of Europe, I should say, which are 47, that number is larger than the European Union as an entity. But all 47 member states of the Council of Europe are also adhere also to this treaty. And although legal standards may vary within all those states, all states have to adhere to the rulings of the European Court for Human Rights. And as far as I know, they do. There may be a few countries, maybe in the eastern part of Europe, to generalize a little bit, where this may be problematic sometimes. But generally speaking, I would suggest as a rule, all these nations do adhere to the rulings of the European Court for Human Rights. And if there is a conviction, states are being convicted, so to say, on a regular basis and have to have to pay punitive damages and so forth, they do. It may take a while, but they do. Can I say for maybe the other people contradicting me that the European system is the most progressive wall of the military laws? Well, when we look at the military legal situation, then we see huge differences just between the countries. And we just had a comparison between military justice and military music. I'd like to compare the military justice systems to the national anthems. Every country has its national anthem, and every country has a different military justice system. And I say that also as a former president of the International Society for Military Law. We have toured the whole world, and in every country, you will find a different system. And that is the same within Europe. There are huge differences between military legal systems. But there is this overarching umbrella of the European Convention of Human Rights, which ensures that in basics, principles of human rights will be adhered to within all those systems. But when we look at the case that I discussed in this wonderful book that is now being presented today, you will see that the European Court allows leeway to nations to organize systems within their own jurisdictions. And we have former Justice Blackett here with us in the panel. I visited the UK several times, and I know he has visited the Netherlands. Well, there are huge differences between the systems. There are also similarities, especially thanks to the rulings of the European Court. But still, with those similarities, there remain differences. And that is good because in that sense, every nation can implement a military justice system which fits nicely into its broader military legal system. So another question, a small subsidiary to this. The United Nations Convention on Human Rights, Visa with military law. Anybody can take this question. Any of the panelists sitting here. Because on a daily basis, we implemented in almost all civil jurisdiction. In fact, I think Judge Blackett would be the best to answer that because the Findlay judgment itself, the landmark judgment on military law was based on the European Convention. Then I'll take a pass on that. And I think General Bali's turn. My time is up. I think I'll pass it on to General Bali. Thank you very much, everybody. General Bali, your turn. Your turn too. You could have very much continued, sir. But I think I could ask this. There should be democracy between moderators also. I appreciate that. But let me still turn to Judge Blackett, who's, as you might notice, or you probably would not know this, he's also the President of the England Drug Me, as I learned today. Now, the question for you is that, tell us how this judgment that Navdeep referred to the Findlay judgment of ECHR. How did it inject independence into the UK's military justice system? And was it any resistance to this change? And you could also talk about a little bit about the function of the Jag in the UK. Thank you, General. That's a huge topic. And I'd like to just start by going back to the original question, which might help about is the system fair? And I think the question only, it's only half a question because you have to look at subjective fairness and objective fairness. And that's where Article 6 of the European Convention and the United Nations Convention on Human Rights come in. It's all of the military would have told you that our court martial system pre Findlay was fair. It was harsh, but it was fair because the people who operated it acted professionally. But it clearly was not objectively fair to the person sitting at the back of the court looking at the prosecutor, the defense counsel, the judge, the panel, all being in the same uniform, all being senior to the accused. And it very much didn't look fair. And so that was really what Findlay was about. It was about giving objective fairness to the system and objective fairness depended on independence. It created a huge amount of tension between the military and the justice system, the military justice system, which I headed up. I headed up having been a naval officer for 30 years, retiring as a Commodore and then becoming a civilian judge. So I felt I had a foot in both camps. But the military don't like independence. I think all militaries around the world do not like independence because military like to control everything that's within their sphere of influence and they believe that they're best at it. And where you have somebody who doesn't respond to the military chain of command and makes decisions which might actually not be liked by the chain of command, the military find that very difficult. And that was the real tension between caused by the changes, that real tension between the control and the independence. Now, I think the Findlay judgment forced the UK government to bring in independence. In such a way, though, that it acknowledged the military input. And we now have an independent cadre of judges. All judges are civilian. But the jury is made up of experts, the military. And so when you look at the question I think that was posed earlier, what happens in the fog of war on the battlefield? How can civilians understand? Well, the system does understand because the jury or the board, which makes the decision on guilt or innocence, is made up of those experts who've operated in the field under the direction of the independent judge. And then when it comes to sentencing, the independent judge has is preeminent and can bring the alignment into the civilian system. So I can't quite remember what you said in terms of the first question. But I think it was necessary to bring objective fairness into the system. It created huge tension between the military and those of us who are operating the new system. Over the years, the military have come to accept the system. There's still a little bit of tension, but nothing like it was. And although the finnally judgment was met with horror, initially, by the British military, I think the modern military understands that it was necessary. So I'd say it's a long journey from total control by the military to an independent system. But in the end, the independent system is delivering better justice, which as Navdeep said, also gives better discipline. Thank you. Thank you very much. My next question is to Oscar Levesque. Now, in your essay in the book, you have, you know, you've spoken of the military justice in Canada. You referred into it as a living organic identity. And you've essentially spoken of the still man judgment concerning the service connection. How is it different than the interpretation of service connection by courts of other common law nations? Well, the service connection was first created in United States. And it wasn't imported to Canada. And the concept is when it was imported to Canada, it was pretty much the condition to apply the service connection pinch was pretty much the same. Okay, where, for example, one of the criteria where does, where did the where did the offense took place? Was it connected? What was the offense between two service member, a series of car to us where where to a series of car to us to to give jurisdiction to the military justice system over ordinary offenses. But now it's as has been tossed away by the Supreme Court by the same AC. So basically, what in Canada, what gives jurisdiction over to to service personnel is the status point period. So the service connection test is no more. But you have commentators and my colleague Rory could could add on that. You have commentators that says, oh, hang on. So that means that for any, any offenses, federal offenses, like, for example, you contravene to the, to the, to the, to the life, wildlife protection, wildlife protection offenses. So that means that you have service connection. I mean, by status status. So that means that some of the, that means that the service member would lose some child rights, such as the, because the fact that you are, you are processed by the military justice system, you would, you would have on not a jury by trial, a trial by jury, you would have a trial by a court, a panel of five. So the fact that Supreme Court of Canada expanded the jurisdiction to a very large spectrum creates some concerns. And, and it bridges to the purpose of the book. I think that the decision in Stillman was, was, and I'm saying that with respect to the Supreme Court judges of Canada. I think that, to a certain extent, they need the, the, the civilian judges who can have influence over the system by the decision. They need to understand the system. The problem is that sometimes there's, the literature is scarce. And the purpose of the book of this book is very, is very on point on that, in order to start the dialogue with, with civilian judges, because in democracy, there's a balance of interests, operational needs at the top, or it's a kind of a triangle. You have operational needs of the forces, you have the civilian, civilian control over the forces, and you have human rights. And to, to strike the right balance at the beginning in the dialogue in democracies. And the good idea could come from anywhere. That's why you have to, to use comparative law. And this is what the book is all about. And, and to say that in the democratic states, to say that the military law is just for military lawyers and more military specialists. It's, it's the end of the game. It's, it's, it's a mistake. It's a mistake because military law belongs in the democratic, in the democratic states. You have to make sure that civilians, they do understand because it's there, or it's at the end of the day, it's their forces, and it's their laws that would be applicable to those forces. So that's why in Stillman, many, many commentators, they wear a bit of disappointment to see that. And I don't want to believe anyone. Is it because it was not presented correctly? And it is because of the fact that there's a, there's a gap, but there's a lack in the literature. But it seems that the, the civilian judges, they fail to grasp all, all the issues around that and all the consequences of their decision. So we're gonna, we're gonna have other case law at the Supreme Court of Canada. And I'll hope, I'll hope that they would, they would have a better sense or better, a better understanding of what could be the potential of their decision could be on military justice. I don't know if we could have something on that. I think there could be, there would be a kind of a follow up, which Rory can contribute to and maybe also tell us that, you know, how has military justice evolved over time? Maybe you could take it on. Well, thank you, General Belly. And I'd agree wholeheartedly with Pascal that one of the challenges that we've got in Canada, and I don't think it's unique to Canada, is achieving that balance between the need for the hierarchy, the command of the armed forces to be able to maintain discipline, balanced with the need for both civilian control of the military, as well as, as justice. And one of the things that we have noted through the evolution of military law in Canada, and my contribution to the book was Generu, which is now a 30 year old case. One of the things that we have encountered repeatedly is to balance the need for an effective and fair disciplinary system with ensuring that the chain of command actually uses that system for its desired purpose. Something that we struggled with in the Canadian forces 25 or 30 years ago, shortly after the Generu decision, was that the chain of command increasingly turned away from the code of service discipline for the purposes of maintaining discipline in the armed forces to using alternate mechanisms that were available to them, often administrative, often less transparent than the code of service discipline, even as it existed at the time, often less fair, and certainly subject to less scrutiny by civilian courts. And I would suggest that we are again experiencing the same thing in the Canadian forces. So something that we have encountered on an occasional but a repeated basis, as our code of service discipline has evolved, is that tension where the chain of command, if they find that the code of service discipline is unwieldy, or doesn't suit their purposes, that they will then turn to alternate mechanisms that are less transparent, less fair, and less subject to scrutiny by civilian courts, which then produces a far less just result. So one of our challenges at present is to reform the code of service discipline, which is going on right now, in order to achieve that balance, both between fairness and the independence of the system, as well as usability, suitability and desirability by the chain of command. Thank you. Thank you very much. My next question is for Professor Emos Gueira. And in your really fascinating essay on the case of the Israeli soldier who shot an already severely wounded and incapacitated Palestinian terrorist, an essay that is titled Murderer or Hero Dilemma, words that resonate with me as a soldier in some ways, you've taken a hugely macro view of the issues involved, examining not just the case, but the entire approach of the justice in IDF and the shadow that the society casts on it. So my question is going forward from there, what are the most important lessons or independence that need to be imparted to the JAG officers and military judges? So first of all, thank you for, thank you for including me in this extraordinary project. Thank you for your warm words about my chapter and Rory, even though you and I have not met, I'm going to piggyback off your answer because your last words resonated with me 100% and that is independence. So I don't know how many of you have been to Israel, how many of you followed Azaria's trial, but more than the trial, the political noise, the media noise, the public noise, it quickly became the politicization of the JAG or the politicization of the decision whether or not to view Azaria as a hero or as a murderer. And there's no doubt that a string of politicians, including our former prime minister in parentheses, I had fortunately and thankfully our former prime minister, but others also took the opportunity to quickly jump in and say he's a hero, he killed a Palestinian terrorist and this is what soldiers are trying to do. And then, unfortunately, the military and particularly the chief of staff, Eisencourt, and the then judge, advocate general Shawna Feck said, with all the respect to politics, stop. This is going to be a military decision because we, the military, are entrusted with the investigation and ultimately the decision whether or not to prosecute. And I think that long term, the decision to prosecute him was of immense importance, one, in terms of ensuring that there is a thing called justice. And when a soldier misbehaves, it's for the military to determine whether or not to prosecute. And politicians need to stay out. And while here in Israel, the military is, quote unquote, you know, the sacred of the sacred because of Netanyahu, primarily, other politicians in the public felt free to weigh in. And I think had the decision been made not to prosecute, the consequences would have been terrible because it would have been, as I've said a number of times, would have been carte blanche. And so, even though there were calls, there were terrible, terrible incitement against the chief of staff, the retired chief of staff. But he gave full backing to the judge, Africa general, and that was absolutely the right thing to do. I think for those of us who live here and again, Rory, your word independence, who genuinely believe in the independence of the military, military justice and of the JAG military justice. This was a case of enormous importance. I would like to think, I hope no other country has such incidents. I'm not naive, others have it also, obviously. I would like to think that the decision here to prosecute him can be used literally as a test case, can be applied as a test case. So, you know, hopefully nobody else has this, but if you all have it, you can use this. This is a long discussion Israel should have been charged with manslaughter or murder. I believe he should have been prosecuted for murder, not manslaughter, but that's, you know, that's a different question. I think, though, to the question of of military justice slash or the independence of military justice, this case was of great importance. And that's why, again, when I was invited to participate in this, I felt it was a prime example of an opportunity to really address the question of the independence of the military. And in our discussion here, the independence of the JAG, I need to add, I made one more word. So Frank gave me a shot out earlier about my involvement in the U.S. because I have no hair, but I wear two hats because I live, you know, in Israeli, but I teach in the States. I've been very, very involved in America on the question of whether or not the question of sexual assault should be taken from command and turn over exclusively to the JAG. That's the system we have in Israel. And as Frank knows, I've been very involved in testifying in Washington. I'm a firm believer that the questions of whether or not to prosecute for sexual assault in the American military needs to be taken out of the hands of commanders and turn over exclusively to JAG as it is here in Israel. Thanks. Thank you very much. I would like to add a line here, sir, that even Judge Maya Heller, who dealt with this case as a military judge, has written a chapter for the book. And it is amazing to see her clear concepts as to what independence of a judicial mind is in that chapter and the way she handled all kind of pressure, political pressure, pressure of the public, and how she just concentrated what was happening within the courtroom without being influenced by anything else which was going on outside the courtroom, in the media, in the political sphere. So that's a shining star. That's a shining example of what a JAG officer or a military judge or even a civil judge, especially a trial judge, should be in his or her functioning. I just wanted to add this. She'll be joining us in the physical release ceremony online, perhaps. And it'll be really nice to hear more from her on this. Maya will kill me for adding this. Maya served under me in one of my previous positions. And then she's needed as the judge in the case. She will kill me for saying this. Don't repeat this. But life was not made easy for her. Yes. Yes. There were clear threats against her and the prosecutor. The incitement here in Israel leading up to the trial and during the trial, we could have a whole discussion about incitement. But goes back to again, Rory, I'm one third time, shut out, right? And Maya really was extraordinary in the context of judicial independence in the face of terrible public incitement. And that needs to be stated very clearly. Well, Amos, can I also come in here? Because we had a very similar case in the UK, which you may or may not know about, where a Marine executed a Taliban in the field. Marine, he was known. I was the trial judge in that case. And I similarly was exposed in our national press with personal attacks, as there were indeed on the members of the board. So all that you have said resonates with our experience, identically. And your adjunct at the end in relation to who should decide on charging, I agree with that as well. And in the UK, we took away the decision on charging a long time ago. In fact, in fact, it resonates with all militaries and with all democracies with which believe in the independence of judicial functioning and independence of your judiciary. It resonates very well with, you know, including the UK, of course, America, Israel, India, it resonates really well. And it's, as General Bali also said, that it has many parallels in many different systems wherein the rule of law ultimately prevailed over emotions. Now, can I just wait in for a little while? Sir, I think the discussion has got a little uni-dimensional. We all seem to be agreeing with each other on everything and patting each other's back. So for me to let should I should I, though I wholeheartedly agree with what you were saying, but don't you think one of us should play the devil's advocate here and say maybe all of you are wrong and maybe you don't understand that justice and military discipline are not compatible. So anybody please take that question or in the heat, the moment of the battle, just to add a little spice to the discussion, who would like to take that on? I'm happy to do it. I'm happy to do it because yesterday yesterday is the 9th, the 30th, I'm not going to math, the 34th anniversary of the Intifada, which began on December 9th, 1987. And I think it's playing devil's advocate. I think you would find the question is whether or not Israeli soldiers who clearly misconducted themselves at the beginning of the Intifada were sufficiently adjudicated and whether or not military discipline stayed within the swim lane we need to and whether it got a little bit muddled and the answer to that because you know the answer question, you know the answer, it got particularly muddled when then Defense Minister Rabin bought a visit to the West Bank town of Shchem, Nablus in English, said we need to break their bones, referring to Palestinian demonstrators. As a result of that, then Colonel Yuda Meir gave an order to the soldiers to break, you know, take the batons and break bones. He said, hey, I did exactly what the Defense Minister said and army closed the case. And then it was appealed to our Supreme Court, to our High Court of Justice, which we've adopted from the British 100 years ago, 80 years ago. And the High Court of Justice told the military absolutely that Yuda Meir needs to be tried. But to your question, devil's advocate, the initial decision of the army was to close the case and say, you know, he did what they were being told him to do. That's clearly an instance of where the system fell off the rails, playing devil's advocate. And one small supplementary, I think all of you seem to be very worried about the pressure that's coming from the, call it the media, the digital world, or whatever you want to. We in the civil courts have been experiencing it for much longer. But I think it's the time now, time for the military courts to also experience it. So anybody would like to take that question. How do you deal with such a thing? We in the UK have recently had something called Brexit, I'm sure you all know about. And there was a question as to whether that's a matter for the executive or whether parliament should have a say. And the executive were going to make the final decision, but somebody took the case to the High Court. And the High Court ruled that it should be a parliamentary decision, not an executive decision. And the following day on the Daily Mail, the three lords of appeal had their faces underneath, which was a statement headline saying enemies of the people. I think that's what you're referring to. And the then Lord Chancellor, who is a civilian in the government, has an obligation to protect the independence of the judiciary, failed signally in doing what she should have done and effectively let the judges be ravaged by the papers. I experienced a similar sort of ravaging when I was the trial judge in the Marine case. How do you deal with it? Well, I think you deal with it with a dignified silence. You as judges deal with the matter through your judgments in court. And then you remain quiet afterwards because you have spoken your word and you rely on others, the government, to protect you. But when it's the government which is attacking the, let me put it as a generic question, the judiciary, then that's where the problem commence, begins. So the question taking it to a different level, when the government is the person attacking you. Yes. And I think what Amos was saying about his case was where members of Parliament and government ministers were criticising the decision of the military. It's very difficult, but I still believe that you cannot engage in that debate as a member of the judiciary. You have to just deal with everything through your judgments and allow others to defend you. Often it's the bar council might make a stand or whoever, but certainly it's not for us to enter into a debate about whether we did the right or wrong thing. Okay, one small question may not be directly related, but see lots of countries now have armed forces in Parliament. Members from the armed forces, you have our neighbour in India, you have another neighbour of ours, you have African countries. So in that situation, I mean, how do you dispense or dispense with military justice? I'm using both terms. Somebody else needs to help me out here. Jan, Peter's good at that. Okay, I'll specifically give an effort to Myanmar, the case of Myanmar. Well, I don't know how it is in neighbouring countries. In most European countries, you will not find military personnel in Parliament. They cannot hold parliamentary positions. We cannot have cabinet ministers in uniform, etc. So it's simply not allowed by law to combine those two positions. And of course, it can happen that a military individual is a candidate for a political party for a parliamentary post or another national, it could be in the general Parliament or in regional Parliament, but that will mean that he is obliged to give up his military status for the duration of that position. Would that answer your question? I was directed more against countries like Myanmar and maybe some other Southeast Asian countries where military personnel sit in as members of Parliament, there's a certain reservation. I think in the Philippines also, there's something of that sort. The issues that you will encounter in those countries, and as we see them in the daily news, I think that is a problem. I think in certain countries where we have this, the rule that these functions cannot be combined is better actually, but that's a personal opinion. So I think this is just the right time when we can hand it over to Shagun and Vikas because there are bound to be other questions by people who are looking, but I think we can all agree that one of the central themes of this book has been that the militaries may change slowly, but there is incremental change. There should be incremental change where status quo is not the answer. And my favorite quote on the lighter note about status quo is, some people lost status quo, long after quo has lost all status. I'm sure we cannot be those people. So I'm going to hand it over to Shagun and Vikas for any other questions that might have come from everybody else. Thank you. General Bali, I've just checked it out on the YouTube for details. There's no question. Probably we have taken the things in such a way that nobody felt that there should be any questions. I can ask Shagun to check it out on the bar and bench. Yeah, we're receiving some questions. So the first one, the first question we have is from Subodh Mishra. He has a question for Judge Blackett and Mr. Lavek. The question is, do you find any common ground and resemblance between the general judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada and the singly judgment of the European Court of Human Rights? The general case was the first significant case, I think, for the Commonwealth and countries, because it was the first one that really looked at the independence of the judiciary. And it was cited significantly in the thinly jurisprudence and subsequent cases as well. So I think the short answer is, yes, there are great similarities. But after those two cases, the armed forces of Canada versus the armed forces of the UK took a slightly different direction. And the most significant direction was that the judge advocate general and the judges in the court martial system, eventually, this is after it wasn't the thinly judgment that decided that it was the grieves judgment, which was 10 years later, but eventually said that judges in the court martial must be civilians and not part of the military. Whereas in general, the outflow was that there were significant safeguards around the independence of military judges, but they remained part of the military, which we didn't think went far enough. And if I can add to what Judge Black had mentioned about general, there are a couple of things that struck me looking back after 30 years on general. One of those was in terms of Canadian jurisprudence on the independence of the judiciary, we can look even further back to 1980. There was a case called the Queen and Mackay, which predated our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which implemented constitutional safeguards for various things, including an independent judiciary. And a lot of the jurisprudence in Canada dealing with the independence of our civilian judiciary, at least in the early stages in the 1980s, had occasion to cite the Queen and Mackay, which dealt with the independence of military judges or then judge advocates in our military justice system. We have now come full circle, notwithstanding that 30 years ago, general dealt with the independence of the court's marshal, we are again experiencing litigation involving the independence of our military judges who remain military officers. And there was a recent judgment in Edwards by this court marshal appeal court of Canada, which held that notwithstanding their status as officers of the Canadian forces, and therefore subject to the code of service discipline, our military judges are sufficiently independent. Now, leave is being sought to appeal that to the apex court, the Supreme Court of Canada. But leave has not yet been granted in that case. I would not be surprised if it is granted. And it remains an active issue in Canada. And the second thing that struck me about general is that notwithstanding, and we have to remember that in general, the crown was unsuccessful in the appeal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada held the court's marshal as they were constituted at that point in time, were not sufficiently independent. And that led to the reforms that were introduced later in the 1990s. Even after general, even after the reforms that were introduced to our military justice system in 1998, there were subsequent appeals that dealt with things like the tenure of military judges, the right to select the type of court marshal. So notwithstanding that there was significant reform precipitated by general, additional appeals in the 10 or 12 years that followed led to further reforms. And one of the key takeaways for our military justice system in Canada is that reform is generally sought by virtue of the catalyst that is the appellate process and the challenging of certain provisions before our courts. And that remains the case, the single biggest catalyst for reform of our military justice system or the use of applications and appeals generally by the accused. Can I, as a moderator, ask a question? Deep? Of course, sir. See, in India, we have something called the Armed Forces Special Protection Act, which applies to areas where there's insurgencies. What is your take? Anybody, you people should, I hope you're aware of that. What's your take on that? And there's again a demand for appeal from various areas, etc. Because of a certain incident that took place about 15 days ago. In fact, there are two chapters on it in the book Armed Forces Special Powers Act. That's why I wanted to... One is by Dr. Shruti Bedi and one is by Colonel Shukla. People who come from more liberal democracies. Let me put it that way. Can I just answer from a UK perspective? We had what was known as a field general court marshal, which was a court marshal that could happen in the field, which was abolished by the Armed Forces Act 2006. And now we have no difference. We have one system. We don't have emergency powers dealing with the sort of things you're saying. It gives a sort of a protection to the Armed Forces in particular situations. Can you please explain it and so that? Yes, there is protection, but contrary to popular perception, that protection is again not absolute. And the public should also be aware of it. Again, the two things which I stated earlier, two things which are required in that is that number one, that action is supposed to be in the course of duty. And number two, it should be in good faith. Only then there is protection. So hypothetically speaking, for example, there is an unintentional collateral damage. The loss of human life or disability to a person is absolutely regrettable in all circumstances. And it is totally unforgivable. But if that happens, then what is to be seen is that was it in good faith number one, and was it in the course of duty or not? If it is not, there is no protection at all. So you cannot have a system wherein somebody with a criminal intention goes on to loot somebody. And there's a case of theft, for example, in the line of duty and somebody says, oh, grant me protection. There is no protection at all in those circumstances. That has always been there. That always in all jurisdictions that's there. No, in this act also specifically it is mentioned. It is specifically mentioned that it will only be in the course of duty and for actions which are in good faith. Otherwise, otherwise there will be mayhem. I mean, allowing any kind of impunity like this. And it is not so. And the army is also very clear on these issues that human rights have to be respected to the fullest extent, irrespective of what goes on the hyper nationalism or whatever. But the army is too clear about it. And if there are aberrations, those are shameful. And there has to be correction in that. And the military justice system should take care of those and nobody should go scot free in such situations. Anybody would like to weigh in on that? We don't have in the Netherlands military justice system, no special protection whatsoever, as you are now referring to, if I understand the question correctly. Even in operational issues and during wartime, the same judicial principles, including human rights will be applied. In the Netherlands, we have a mixed system with a majority of civilian judges. And at every court level, there is one military judge to take care of the military input who has judicial independence while he is serving on that specific court. So again, no special protection from whatever perspective I would argue. Thank you. Even in the case of India, we have proper judicial oversight. It's not that there's no oversight. It's only regarding prosecution in the course of performance of duties. It remains a gray area. But of course, ultimately, judicial oversight is there and is very much required. And of course, the constitutional courts can also, and they do play a role in case there is some human right violation pointed out. Shagun, any other question that you've received? Yes, there's a very popular question coming in. This one is directed by the media. She says any advice or message to young JAG officers? Message to young JAG officers? Yes. Yes. There are a lot many messages. Is the question only to me? Your voice was not clear. Okay. Okay. Okay. So my message to young JAG officers is number one, that don't get personally involved with your files and with your cases. At times you see that they get personally intertwined with their files, thinking that it's a life or death situation. Or they think that not just in court martial or military justice, but also in other court cases and litigation. So I say that never treat a litigant as your enemy in war. It's not a sport. It's not a war that you have to win. Your duty is only to assist the court in arriving at justice. So this I find more in the military setup that people tend to get very personal with their cases and they make it a win or loss, win or lose situation. I think that should be absolutely avoided and there should be no oversmartness, hiding policies. You're the custodian of policies. You're the custodian of documents. So at times we see that even if a policy has changed in some sphere of litigation or there's a new judgment that tend to underplay it or not show it, not always JAG officers, but many at times, many instrumentalities of the state. So they have to be very clear that it is not a personal fight that you're fighting. It's just a simple case in a court of law. Winning or losing does not matter. You have to assist the court in arriving at justice. If you're not satisfied with the verdict, go and challenge it. Challenge it in the high court. Challenge it. File a writ petition in the high court. Challenge it in the Supreme Court by filing an appeal. But don't try the oversmartness, et cetera, et cetera, and don't try to be a smart alec that you have to defeat the system. So assist the court in arriving at justice. And that also reminds me of the famous statement by Justice Robert Jackson from the Supreme Court of the US that although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. So even if the government is losing a case, the system is, the nation is winning. The cause of justice is winning. So don't get personally involved. And I also say to JAG officers who are, you know, members of courts martial that please don't concentrate on what is happening outside the courtroom. That's why Judge Maya Heller's piece in the book is very, very important. That don't get influenced by what is happening outside. Just concentrate on what is happening within the courtroom. Based your advice on what is happening within the four walls of the courtroom. Don't go home and call up a senior, sir, what should be done and there's no, that's not the done thing. Learn from the civil side. You're not supposed to be influenced by, it is your advice which is to be given. You read up, you remain in the courtroom, listen to both sides and then come to a conclusion. That's why not a very short advice, but a moderate advice to my friends. We have some very good JAG officers, but I feel that there need to be more objective. Over to you, Frank. My advice to young JAG officers is they should be very proud of their service to their country, but there are two worrying things to always watch for. And the first is the prospect of careerism that you get caught up in being a JAG. And then suddenly it's the only thing you think about is your next promotion and your next assignment. And the other thing I would advise is for JAGs, even if they fully immerse in military life, they must be able to maintain ties to the civilian bar and other parts of civic life of their country. Great thing to say. Can I weigh in here to the question, which is the right question. So while serving the IDF, I had a number of different positions like all of us, but there are three that are relevant here. I served as a prosecutor slash judge. And then I served as the legal advisor to the Gaza Strip where I was involved in operational counterterrorism and the peace process with the Palestinians. And in my last position, I was the commander of our IDF School of Military Law, which Frank is based on Charlottesville. So when I, you know, look back and think about the question, I think the most important piece of advice I can give to young JAGs is that they are to be wedded, I mean, other than their families, but they are to be wedded to the rule of law. And to be wedded to the rule of law means to have the wherewithal to ignore not only the external noise, which Maya talks about in her article, but frankly also to ignore internal noise. So when I served as the legal advisor of the Gaza Strip 94 to 97, it was not as we say here in Israel, it wasn't like being in Switzerland. I mean, it was hard. Counterterrorism is hard. And simultaneously we had the peace process and there was leaving the external noise. There's internal noise. And in my capacity as a legal advisor to the Gaza Strip, I had a commander who was the judge advocate general. My commanders were not the field commanders. And the commander above the judge advocate general is the Israeli attorney general. I mean, it's a really clear hierarchy. And that independence meant that the commander wasn't my commander. My only commander was the judge advocate general, not the relevant field commander. My advice to young JAGs, it's hard. It is really hard to be a junior in a room surrounded by colonels and generals who want this and they want this. You need to be able to hold your own and be very clear about what the law allows and equally clear about what the law doesn't allow. Even though at the end of the day, you probably don't make a whole lot of friends. And that's okay. And I mean, I think I almost will agree with this. Those of us who are JAG officers at different ranks, we weren't in this business to make friends. We were there to uphold the law. And if you were not able to uphold the law, then you're probably in the wrong business. You know, I think it was Nixon who said if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. So I'm not a fan of Richard Nixon, but on that one, he got it right. I would fully agree. And I would tie this excellent contribution to the one of the first topics in this discussion, which is independence. And my advice would be indeed try to develop independent thinking here and to have an independent position in the discussion, even if you are indeed the junior officer in the room. I fully agree, be wedded to the rule of law and argue from that position. And don't let them push you around in the room, so to say. That would be my advice. Thank you. If I could add to all others, then I agree with the best advice that I could give to a young legal officer is to get out of your office and do preventive approach rather than the curative approach. I used to say I was a litigator and I was a legal advisor to the unit, fighter pilots unit. And I used to say that the best court martial case is the one that never appears in the first place because you prevented it. So get out of your office, talk to your clients or to your units and make the operators part of the solution. Even if it's your idea at the beginning, make them look good to solve the problem and to prevent the mis-apps, so to speak, from happening in the first place. The dangers, we're all agreeing. So Justice Bollett, do you want to weigh in on that? I'm a lawyer. I've been a judge. I'm back to being a lawyer. And what all of you have said is absolutely right. It's independence and then justice. But then it's what happens is sometimes your perception of justice changes from case to case and from person to person and from, like you said, from the people in the room. That must not change. The principle of the rights of man must are the same all over the world. There's no difference between the rights of a person in America or in India or in all over. It's only how you implement them that makes the difference. So to young JAG officers, absolutely right. Please talk to your civilian colleagues and don't just sit in a cocoon in your contentment or in your army area and get out and talk to the world and see what the world is all about. I may be saying something which maybe I do not know how accurate it is. But I think a young JAG officer has to instinctively know that he is there to ensure justice, not merely to aid prosecution. I think that would make a lot of difference. Is the touch of humor appropriate here? I hope it is. Absolutely. Okay. So when I was legal advisor to God's ship, one of the, I'm not going to tell you obviously who, one of the commanders had an idea because if we polite here was remarkably stupid. That's the polite version of it. And I knew that if his decision came to public attention, there would be an appeal or petition filed against it in the High Court of Justice, which would overrule it. I mean it was clear because it was so stupid. And we met in his office and we were a total loggerhead and we agreed to meet the next morning. And I spent the night thinking to myself, how am I going to convince him that this is really like really stupid? And the next day I met with him and I said, you know, speaking in Hebrew, I asked permission to speak freely, which is code word from when I tell you you're stupid. I thought, here's the way I want to do it. I told him that if this comes to public light, the Supreme Court will whack you. And then when you're thinking about promotion, nobody will forget how dumb you were. And so let's review this from the perspective of how you will look in the public eye. He said to me, you know what, I hadn't thought about it that way. And he retracted his decision. And, you know, I don't know if that was brilliant legal advice on my part. But to the question about Jags, you also know how to sell and how to market. If I could build on what Amos said, because if you want some disagreement, Justice Malau, I'll try and disagree to a certain extent with people, although as Pascal will tell you, if anybody in the office of the Judge Advocate General, sorry, Justice Malau. I said, my job was to add some spice to it. I'll try and get spicy. As Pascal would tell you, if anybody in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Forces has a particular love of speaking truth to power, it's me. It's been my north star throughout all that I have done. In fact, I did it even before I was a legal officer when I was an infantry officer. I had a tendency to speak truth to power, which probably explained my career trajectory as an infantry officer. So while all of that is good advice, I want to build on something that Amos had mentioned because it is vitally important that if you are going to be the voice of reason in the room, which you often are, and sometimes the only voice of reason, if you are going to challenge commanders, and there are going to be times you are going to have to challenge commanders, and as Amos had mentioned, you have to find the right way to do it because the aggressive approach is not always the appropriate approach. I'm reminded of Aesop's fable about the wind and the sun, but I won't get into that. Equally importantly, however, you have to master your craft because if you challenge the commander, if you speak truth to power, if you are the voice of reason, the sole voice of reason in the room, and you are wrong, they will not forget that. And they will use that against you the next time you try and be the voice of reason in the room. So there is a balance and I agree absolutely with what a lot of people have said about finding balance in your life and not making law everything that you do, but you have to master your craft in order to be that voice of reason in the room, and you master your craft through selecting appropriate mentors within the profession. You have to remember you are not alone as a legal officer. You are not alone as a jig. You have colleagues and superiors within that organization to whom you can reach in order to get advice. So remember that you have to master your craft and you have other resources available to you to aid you in that endeavour, to assist you in being that voice of reason. You are not alone. Shagun, any other questions received? Do we have a few more minutes? There is one more interesting question that maybe we could bring up. So Avantika Bhardwaj asks for Gengel, Spike and Mr. Fowler. They say, sir, it is understood that certain European countries have abolished the system of court-martial altogether and civilian courts are dealing with military justice. Do you think this is a good idea? Maybe I can start speaking from Europe. The answer first is yes. Some countries in Europe have abolished military justice in total. Some countries only in peacetime like France. Some countries totally like Belgium. But in most European countries there is still a system of military justice. But you see it, and this referred back to my earlier reply, in very big variety, so to say. We still have, and I take the country of Spain as an example, with military tribunals still in place, while on the other hand in Germany it is completely civilianized. In my country, the Netherlands, there is a mix. And to go back to the question, is it a good idea to abolish military justice and the military influence in the military legal process altogether? My personal opinion is this is a very bad idea. Because although on the one hand I think that military justice with its judicial principles should be wholly into the total broader concept of justice. And I should respect accepting the same principles as normal justice would. I think the military influence somehow, somewhere, is essential. Because especially when we're talking about military operations and the effects that that then you need military experience. So one way or the other, you should incorporate military experience and preferably military legal experience into the system. Thank you. I'd have to agree. And I'm going to change like any good panelist. I'm going to change the question a little bit to suit my needs. And that is the fact that we, I would suggest we start with the fact. Canada, most of the nations that are represented here have obligations under international law to maintain their armed forces in a state of discipline. So we start with that. Any armed forces by any of our nations has to be able to maintain discipline. The question then becomes, how do you maintain that discipline? And because we all have different legal systems, different cultural norms, different societal norms and different expectations, both of our society and the members of our armed forces, we are going to have a different approach. All of us must maintain that inherent understanding of the military discipline. We look at the general decision that informs so much of what we've done in Canada. And it turns on the need to maintain the discipline, efficiency and morale of our armed forces. And our code of service discipline, our disciplinary system is one of the tools we use, but not the only tool. And we have to remember that ultimately the maintenance of discipline will fall to those who command those troops. And I think that's why, if I can turn it back to why we're all here, that's why this book that Navdeep and Frank have shepherded so resolutely is so important for all of us as military justice scholars, because it provides an internationalist perspective that all of us can use to compare with our own systems. I think that's why this book is so vitally important to those of us who are so keenly interested in furthering military justice scholarship. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for those very insightful responses. First and foremost, I would like to thank all of our speakers for what was truly an enlightening discussion. And I'm sure that everyone that's tuned into this, again, this book launch will leave the visor for it as will I. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to all of those who joined us from across the world, engaged and helped make this event a success. One may think that a discussion on global trends in military justice remains limited to the sensibilities of the experts in the field. However, I think I can speak to speak for all of us present here. When I say the panel has affirmed that the book will be enjoyed by the masses. Interestingly, if we examine several of the key issues we've discussed here today, we realize that the challenges that are being faced by the military law ecosystem don't differ much from how the mainstream law ecosystem functions. For instance, we often come across debate on the subject of independence of judges in our judiciary, mentioned by Navdeep so during the beginning of the panel and discussed throughout the panel, or lack of representation in our judicial system as Justice Bhalla and Judge Franklin discussed. I wish to extend our deepest appreciation to the curators and moderators of this event. Justice Rajiv Bhalla and Major-General Bali had us wrapped with their knowledge combined with the combined knowledge of the law and the military. I thank our five panelists, Judge Blackett, General Spike, Rory Fowler, Pascal Levec and Professor Amos for simplifying complex theories and ideas for our benefit, for taking time out of their busy schedules to talk with us and answering all our questions with the utmost acidity. Lastly and most importantly, I want to thank our editors of March to Justice, Navdeep Saw and Judge Franklin, without whom none of us would be here today. We are grateful to you for curating this book and for facilitating this discourse. I'm eager to get my hands on a copy. I can say that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes. Thanks a lot, Shagun, for everything and we are also thankful to Bahrain Bench and Beyond Law CLC, besides the moderators and the curators, because I mean, it is very rare these days everything is dictated by commercials these days and people are looking for benefits, etc. And I must express my gratitude that Bahrain Bench and even the publishers do one, etc. The only aim was to spread knowledge and having this very unique discussion. So it's rare that you find this kind of a spirit and we are thankful to everyone. And of course, again to Justice Bhalla and General Bali and everyone who has joined it from far and beyond and at different time zones. It was a really fruitful discussion and I'm sure we'll have, this will be uploaded for times to come and I'm sure many judges, members of the bar, JAG officers and other members of the military can take cues from this discussion and this global perspective. Justice Bhalla or General Bali would like to just wrap up and say something. No, I'm just thankful to you and to everybody, Beyond Law, Bahrain Bench and to all the panelists that having nothing to do with the army but coming from an institution, I have more generals in my telephone number than I have judges and lawyers. So I may not be associated with the army, but I know the army, the armed forces fairly well. So thank you very much for having me as a part of this discussion because the topic, which is quite very close to my heart and my opinions at times are contrary to Navdeep knows me very well and he knows what opinions I carry, but I agree wholeheartedly with the entire panel, though I had intentionally tried to spice up some of the issues. But that was intentional, not, I'm not of that conviction. So thank you very much. Thank you very much too and I'm going to disappoint Justice Bhalla by agreeing with him. Thank you for this very fine evening. Shagun said this book is going to be found fascinating by academics, scholars, jurists, JAG officers, I agree with all of that. In the end she added, it'll also be fascinating for masters. I can absolutely confirm that because you're looking at the face of one of the guys from the masters and I found it fascinating. So thank you very much. Final comment to all who are watching, we need your help. We are trying to outsell Harry Potter and so please go to the local bookstore and buy a copy. Thank you. Well, you need a lot of magic then. Okay, bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bye.