 Thank you very much. Good evening everyone. Thank you Vice-Chancellor for your kind introduction. You know I have many reasons for coming here. It's a wonderful country, wonderful city, but I'm also here to celebrate Griffith University getting its first woman Vice-Chancellor. So congratulations. I'm really highly appreciative that so many of you have come to attend this to this lecture because I've been asked to address you on the challenges that we currently face all over the world towards the, again, the advancement of human rights and the rule of law. So bear with me as I give you the gloomy picture, but I want to end up to explain why I remain positive and why I feel it's important for young people to be inspired to, I love this Integra C20 program with its focus on for tomorrow, and that's the future of young people. Wherever I've engaged, you know, I'm not a tired for five years, but you'll never believe. I, I didn't believe that I'd be running around the world, but mainly invited to speak to young people. They're so concerned. What can we do? What can we do to make a change is what they constantly are? So in a world that is struggling with international challenges, today's realities, I believe compound the challenges. At no time have human rights and the rule of law come under more scrutiny than today. And so before I set out the litany of setbacks, out of respect for promoting a better tomorrow, I thought I would change my tactic and begin by answering the question often addressed to me about what makes you remain positive. So I believe that growing up under apartheid in South Africa, where all of us struggled every day for a better tomorrow, profoundly influenced me and many others like me to care and act for victims of human rights deprivations wherever they are. As you know, racism in South Africa was entrenched in the laws. No other country had it institutionalized in the laws. It was the rule of the law and people who were not white were conferred inferior status and denied civil, political, social and economic rights. And apartheid, as you know, reigned for more than a century. These laws were so effectively enforced that I did not believe that I would see change to democracy in my lifetime. At schools and universities, we were compelled to accept uncritically apartheid laws and racial discrimination as the norm, the standard. And so throughout the dark years of apartheid, I was firmly convinced of the need to be guided by a system of universally recognized norms and standards of what is right and justice. And so I looked up to the UN declaration on human rights as that standard. And people all over the world contributed to establishing the universal standards. So did Australia. And that is why it is pretty scary when I hear members of your government speaking against globalization. I mean globalization is not perfect, but if he's talking about standards, yeah, we need the universal standards as our guide. And of course I was able to study law and become a lawyer largely because my high school and the poor community in which I grew up said here's a girl who has potential and the community raised funds to send me to university. And this is another lesson to me how, you know, every adult should be watching out for young children. And this community could have focused just on their own children or their needs, but they were generous enough to send one of them to university. So I was the first from that community and my high school to get to university. The classes for non-Europeans as we were called were not held at the main campus at the University of Natal, but in a segregated place which was a potato warehouse. And yet this warehouse did more than sell potatoes. It witnessed student activism and courageous protest. We even had the security police fire at us in the precincts of this warehouse. But many black freedom fighters as well as lawyers and academics emerged from this warehouse. And I became politically aware of the situation of others. Once I qualified as a lawyer in 1967, my search for employment met with many obstacles. White lawyers, whom I approached, asked whether my father was a businessman and whether I could bring in wealthy clients. And they were not impressed when I said my father was a bus driver. They said, you are a woman. What if you fall pregnant? Because if pregnancy is a bar. And they said they cannot permit white secretaries to take instructions from a black person. So you see, I was a victim of class, race and gender discrimination. So not having much choice, I started my own law practice. And that was ridiculed. I was told you're very presumptuous to think a woman can manage a law firm. So that law firm continued for 30 years. My husband soon joined me. But I always remain the principal of that law firm. So throughout my or our practice as lawyers, I was not allowed to enter a judge's chambers because I was black. And it made no difference that I was as a lawyer and officer of the court. And the first time I entered a judge's chambers at the court was when I became a judge. And that was for a short time. But I was the first black woman attorney to be appointed to serve as the judge. And it was early in the morning on one day in January 1995, the telephone in my kitchen rang. And this woman said, hold on for the president. And I thought, yeah, it's probably my brother playing the fool. And then came the well-known voice with President Mandela saying, congratulations on your appointment as a judge. It gives me great joy. It gives him great joy. I mean, he could have said many things to me. He could have said, I'm trying your art. You know, I'm trusting you. See that you do your job properly. So that's why I will never forget his words. I had not met him before. So when I heard his voice, I foolishly lost my tongue. And all I could say is, thank you, thank you, thank you. My law practice mostly involved representing victims of unjust laws, human rights activists, opponents of apartheid. And mainly on a pro bono basis, we received some funding for the major trials from a law firm in London. We're not supposed to say who the clients of the law firm were because international legal aid and defense fund was also banned in South Africa. In 1973, I was visiting, consulting my clients on Robin Island Prison. And they told me about the fact that they didn't know their rights. They were bringing one of them, who's a lawyer, was sentenced to six months isolation and spare diet because he had presented a petition to the officer commanding of Robin Island Prison. And they wanted me to do something, bring a court application or something. But they warned me that Nelson Mandela and other ANC inmates on Robin Island did not favor this approach of going to the courts because you don't win cases in apartheid courts. And we didn't have a constitution. How do you approach a court to spell out rights? But we did it. And we won that action. And the court using common law years later, I marveled that we never used the word human rights. Didn't refer to the UN. But we relied on common law. So it is possible sometime when something has not been done before to look for the crack and argue that the court in Cape Town ordered that prisoners are not property of the state. They have rights like everyone else. And they have a right to a lawyer if there's any allegation that they broke the prison regulations. They must be given a copy of those regulations so they will know what's their rights and responsibilities. Studying was a privilege, said the court. But smoking was a right. So they could have cigarettes. But the most important thing is they couldn't be re-punished in prison. You know, that case was more recently used to establish that prisoners have the right to vote. We followed the Canadian Supreme Court. And you know, one of the thorns in the flesh that led to Brexit in the UK was that the European Court of Human Rights asked the English courts to review this position because they don't acknowledge that prisoners have the right to vote in the UK. So sometimes you do a little case. You have small benefits and then you look at the bigger benefits of this in the future. Of course I couldn't ask President Mandela why me. Of course I asked it inside my head. But it's a kind of thing that women do. You know, why me do you think I can do this job? Now as a young lawyer, you know, how was I practicing under these terrible laws, apartheid laws? In fact, the security laws put the onus on the accused person to prove his or her innocence. It just turned everything around. So of course the laws were manifestly bad and unjust. And when Mandela was first indicted in 1962 on a minor charge, he pointed out the inherent potential for injustice in an apartheid court and he refused to plead. And the magistrate said this, after all he said and done, there is only one court and that is the white man's court. There is no other court. So you see why I never expected change in my lifetime. The challenge then was how to defend ourselves in such an obviously unjust court. I was convinced that we lawyers should not defend a trialist in the traditional way in isolation of that political reality, which was that the courts were also in the business of upholding and implementing apartheid laws and helping to protect the favored community against Swarth Kavar, the black danger. So we had to look for new approaches outside the box and confront the widespread use of torture by the security police against suspects and witnesses. The law authorized indefinite detention and excluded the jurisdiction of courts. So no court can rule on the validity of the detention or order the release of the person. So no one brought any court application challenging this law, the terrorism act, until my husband Gabby Pillay was detained and this was 1972-1973. At that time more than 50 detainees had died under mysterious circumstances while in detention. So it was a very scary situation for all of us. Very hard for me on the one hand feeling deeply emotional and weeping as a wife, but knowing that I have to do something as a lawyer. I had his power for attorney, so I brought the application on his behalf. So many detainees came rushing to me after that, why can't you do for us what you've done for your husband? Well, I had his power for attorney. Now most witnesses in the courtroom out of fear declined to testify about ill treatment and then defense counsel did not allow their clients to give evidence about what happened to them about their torture because they were sure that they will not be believed on that ground which means they won't be believed on the merits. So I mean you may think this is weird but I was a very young lawyer and I had to fight battles with very senior counsel who took that decision not to touch torture. So I brought this application and attached to the application where the affidavits of the 12 people who were facing trial each one described what had happened to them. They had all been detained at the same time. And I was too afraid to go to the court and face the security police because they threatened me over that application because I was accusing them of using torture. They said they never ever do that. So the court order was that they should not use unlawful methods of interrogation and we won that. We won that and the judge who had been a prisoner of war during World War II and was a prisoner at Tobruk added his own clause because he said his family didn't know where he was being held. So he ordered that Gabi, my husband, must be held where he is but I mean none of us had access to him. But the better thing is he said what's the point in me granting an interdict against unlawful interrogation if the detainee doesn't know about it. And so he ordered the sheriff to go and serve that order on him. Now my husband said that you know suddenly one day they put in clean blankets and then the next day the cell door opened and the sheriff just flung this court order down and this strong husband of mine just whipped. They never touched him after that. So as I said many people approached me to say can you do that for our families. You know there's an unintended consequence of this application that I made. I didn't succeed in getting him released of course which was my goal but soon after this application Stephen B. Cole the black consciousness leader was killed under torture. And so the anti-apartheid movement that had observer status at the United Nations finally had documented evidence of torture. These affidavits that I filed. And so they asked the UN General Assembly to consider drafting a convention against torture and that is my minor contribution to getting this UN Convention Against Torture. Now as we all know there is an absolute prohibition against torture under this convention. And these principles impose universally binding obligations upon all governments. In my capacity as president of the advisory council of the Nuremberg Principles Academy I recently had the opportunity to see video footage in courtroom 600. That's where the Nazis were tried. It's very moving to sit in that courtroom by the way. And I saw video footage of the American administered Tokyo military tribunals of 1945 1946. And this was American run as I said. And one of the main charges against the Japanese generals was torture by waterboarding of American prisoners of war for which they received the death penalty. Now you fast forward to the US position on torture today in the words of its president. During his 2016 primary season debate President Trump stated I quote, the US should hit the kin of enemy fighters. You have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists you have to take out their families. Don't tell me torture doesn't work. Torture works. Oh okay folks. I think we should go stronger than waterboarding. They are chopping off heads. Believe me we should go much stronger. So this is a chilling reminder of the challenge we face that all the gains of human rights are being reversed. Not only by leaders such as him but by others. So let me return to back to my life experience in his first address to parliament as president of Democratic South Africa. Mandela said I quote, the memory of a history of division and hate injustice and suffering in humanity of person to person should inspire us to celebrate our own demonstration of the capacity of human beings to progress and go forward. So you see I juxtapose two leaders and what they say. Which one would you like to follow? So this is a kind of enlightened leadership that we had in South Africa. We embrace change for a society based on values and human rights within the family of nations. That's what our constitution says. Apartheid also ended because of condemnation by the international community and by the collective action by civil society across the world. We were deeply moved and inspired by the stand taken against apartheid sports for instance by Australian fans and players who refused to play apartheid era rugby and cricket. It was such tremendous news that these white teams came in and they were, the fields were occupied by protesters. I mean one protests are not necessarily the favourite thing to do today because there's so much violence accompanying it but we were inspired by that. Principal objection to racism in sports first began here in Australia and soon spread to the rest of the world leading to the expulsion of the whites only South African teams. Not only from Australian sport but the Olympic Games also. So today I meet people who would have been five or six years of age then who tell me that they stopped eating South African oranges in support of United Nations sanctions against apartheid South Africa. So these are the small acts and they all add up to collective action. In my lifetime I would say I have lived through hopelessness and I've lived through change. This experience leaves me with the firm belief that people inherently support human rights, justice and the rule of law and that collective action by governments, the private sector and civil society is the way to overcome violations. I think we have probably all found ourselves reflecting on the lessons Nelson Mandela, a moral giant that he was not only for South Africa but for the world, taught us among them that real equality admits no exceptions, that to enjoy freedom we must not only cast off our own chains but respect the rights of others. Mandela was a great believer in education as a tool against prejudice and hatred. This is why I'm so delighted that Griffith University had a special full day session for high school students. What a great start. I'm going to carry that as a good example back to the many countries where I'm called to speak. So Mandela said people are not born hating one another. He said they learn to hate and if people can learn to hate they can be taught to love. For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite. Then its opposite. Now unfortunately the opposite is currently in the hearts of a few powerful world leaders and their utterances of hate speech and harmful prejudices threaten to reverse the gains of the human rights movement. The challenges we face today have been described by the special rapporteurs that's the UN's largest body of independent human rights experts. There are many Australian academics who have served as special rapporteurs or are still in there. For this big body who are able to go into many countries and analyze the challenges much better than I can, to issue a joint statement on this subject I feel then merits me quoting them. They said a chill wind is blowing through much of the world and the very notion of human rights is under increasing attack. So-called populist movements are invoking nationalism and traditionalism to justify racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic and other forms of blatant discrimination taking advantage also of the current economic climate and security threats. Hate speech aiming to incite violence, hostility and discrimination is dramatically on the rise as is violence against women, children, ethnic, religious and belief groups, persons with disability, sexual minorities, migrant and minority groups. Inequality then is growing in dramatically and democratic institutions are being systematically undermined. More and more governments are turning increasingly to intrusive technologies which systematically embed and exploit the means of mass surveillance which threaten a whole range of fundamental human rights. In many parts of the world these assaults on human rights are being reinforced by attacks on the human rights movement itself. The space for civil society without which there can be no enduring and meaningful respect for rights has been effectively closed down by many governments. International treaties such as the International Criminal Court statute, the Rome Statute, are being denounced. Funding for human rights bodies is shrinking or a major power has withdrawn funding supporting human rights. Attacks on the integrity of monitoring mechanisms are increasing such as the UN treaty bodies, the 10 treaty bodies that watch out for implementation. And any form of international solidarity is rejected as a threat to national interests. In the Human Rights Council we have space, you know, just a few minutes for NGOs to address the entire council. They just have a minute of time to address and some of them gave up their time to ask for a moment of silence to be held for this delegate NGO person who was coming from China to participate in the Human Rights Council. She was detained on the way and she died in detention. And these NGOs wanted to have a moment of silence to remember her. That went into huge debate. China said it's a dangerous precedent to allow that. My Democratic South Africa supported that. So that's what I mean. You see how insidious it is, how open they are in adopting these anti-human rights positions against human rights defenders. So to these concerns I must add are the factors, the directions this week which the UN Secretary General Guterres made to the treaty bodies to reduce their sessions because of lack of funds. And withdrawals from the international criminal court where I served as an appeals judge and withdrawal from international agreements such as Paris climate accords which we know will affect all of us. You know the planet knows no boundaries. And the pushback on reproductive rights at the Committee on the Status of Women and in the UN Security Council over review of Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. This is an instance, you can guess which country it's an instance of one country's prejudices being imposed on other members of the Security Council and on us the world. There's a lot being written on how the new administration of the United States is handling these pushbacks at every event and session, not only before the Security Council. The United States led by a president who shows little respect for the rule of law and for human rights no longer exercises a leadership role. And this vacuum has created opportunities for state actors to flex their geopolitical muscle stepping forward and rolling back accountability gains of the past 25 years. And so what was once a golden age of justice and accountability with all these international courts trying political leaders for serious crimes, we now have a darker age of the strong man. Steeped in ignorance and fear of justice and accountability, many reactionary political leaders are taking the lead from President Trump to resist international cooperation. President Duarte of the Philippines, who is using his military to carry out exjudicial killings of suspected drug dealers, numbering and still counting 25,000, has withdrawn his country from the Rome Statute and has so has the president of Burundi withdrawn from the ICC after he gained power following massive violence against the opposition. So these are some of the alarming steps of pushing back on treaties and agreements. Remember that all these treaties and agreements were drawn up after tremendous push by civil society actors. You can't tell me that governments woke up one day and decided, oh, you know, we should be more accountable internationally. No, it was pressure from civil society. In fact, it was the demand of civil society that we have a position such as the High Commissioner for Human Rights. So the trend then is that many states are asserting their respective national interests, spurning multilateralism and global governance at a time when global cooperation is crucial for urgent and emerging issues such as the safety of the planet against climate change and degradation of the environment and checks and balances on social media so that you and I will know what's genuine news and fake news. Youth in developing countries, including my own country, are incensed that they are being left behind in a world racing into the fourth industrial revolution. And their priorities, which are poverty, inequality and unemployment, lack of access to health and education, that these problems are not being addressed by the international community. And so I would say we must join the call of these 58 UN experts to governments to recognize that a world which repudiates fundamental human rights values, retreats from established standards and undermines the international human rights institutions is a world which will be less secure, more vulnerable to devastating conflicts and utterly incapable of protecting the rights of vast numbers of people who do not happen to look or think like those in power. I would say that every country has an interest in defending a common set of values and a norm-based principle structure without selectivity. And so it's a mistake to place the collective interest above short-term geopolitical considerations and narrow definition of national interests. So I think my time is racing past. So I did want to say a little bit more to answer what students say, you know, what have you done and what can we do. What inspires me is because of civil society pressure that we now have three strong men facing trial. Oma Al-Bashid, former president of Sudan, is now in prison on charges of corruption and money laundering. And we have former president of my own country, Jacob Zuma, facing trial for corruption. And Najib Razak, former prime minister of Malaysia, has been charged on 42 counts of corruption and money laundering. So the power still lies in civil society action. And I heard a great statement made by the speaker this morning, Raj Patel, who said that, you know, our power as civil society actors is underestimated. So we should use that. It would be my message. I just want to mention that because I had the power as an international judge, I was able to address things that were never addressed before, where women and children who were raped and sexually violated in wars and conflict never saw justice, because that was seen as collateral damage. I saw some military journals to soldiers actually saying, you know what, you can have those yellow women if you fight properly. And that's the lens with which they saw this, not a crime. And so I was in the very first decision that spelt out genocide in the Rwandan genocide. And we found that rape and sexual violence against Tutsi women constituted genocide because the intention was to destroy that group by raping the women. To do that, I had to create a new definition of rape and sexual violence because there was none that was universally accepted under international law. Your country, my country, you know, all of us who inherited the British common law system had rape happening when a man's penis enters the vagina. And yet in the former Yugoslavia, it was men and boys who were raped and sexually violated more. So we then came out with a gender-neutral definition of rape, that it's the invasion of a person, of a sexual nature under coercive circumstances. So I'm happy to say that that definition has been incorporated for the international criminal court. And my own country used that definition to order parliament to come up with a gender-neutral definition. This was the case where a little boy had been sodomized, but the sentence that the magistrate could pass was very small, whereas if it had been a girl child, he could pass a bigger sentence, and it occurred to him that the suffering of the victim is the same. So he kicked it up, it went to the constitutional court, and they followed this definition. And so it's very important then to understand that international law does help to influence domestic law with regard to standards. And the other decision that I'm pleased about is the media case in Rwanda, where we found guilty of genocide. The owners of the radio station, the journalist who spread this propaganda of hatred against the Tutsis. Now, if it hadn't been for that radio station, that killings would not have spread throughout the country. And so there you are. It took people, said a lot of courage, to convict individuals who had not themselves done any actual killing, but just by the use of words, promoted hate speech. We heard witnesses tell us that these utterances of the radio station were like little drops of petrol that was dropped across the country, and soon the whole country was on fire. In the international criminal court what was new there is that we spelt out the right of victims to participate in proceedings. This is a huge advance from the common law system which descended to us from aristocrats being the lawyers and the judges, and ordinary people didn't have a voice in that courtroom. So once again, this is very innovative provision that we spelt out which advances human rights. As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I obviously met many challenges. One of the first things was an objection from the then Secretary of State of the United States, Condoleezza Rice, to my being appointed as High Commissioner. Apparently, she told the Secretary General she will influence the human rights office with her idea of the right to abortion. And so I got this call from the Secretary General's office saying that they've given an assurance to the Secretary of State that I will not do that. And they said, can you just give us, just sign an undertaking on a piece of paper? We won't use it, we'll just put it in a drawer. So can you just send that to us fast? And of course I refused, and progressively there was a time when even the Secretary General said, now I understand you judges, you stick to principles. You know, they're all supposed to stick to principles. Thank you. Another incident was that the foreign minister of Iran wanted me to pay a visit to Iran. You know, most times they don't want the human rights person there. You know, over six years China couldn't find a date when I could come there. So here was Iran asking me to come there. And I said, well, as long as you know that I will not be wearing a headscarf. The President of Switzerland, a woman, had to wear a headscarf because they wouldn't let her into the country to hold meetings. And she said she listened to advisers and did so. And she had huge criticism from Switzerland. And this is what I said, and the Secretary General said, why don't you just buy a French scarf and put it on your head and go there. And I had to explain to him, I represent the United Nations. I'm telling everybody else about values and standards. And this is discrimination against women, besides the law is bad. So I didn't go. That doesn't happen very often in the United Nations. You have to listen to what the Secretary General says to you. So some of the issues that never came before the United Nations because it was blocked by states is the LGBTI issue. Never for 65 years. And again and again I was told by ambassadors, mainly from Middle East and Africa, do not go there. Do not introduce any standards that are not internationally accepted. And when someone tells you don't go there, and there's something wrong with that advice, then I went there. And thank you. So it's the first time that their rights were... We first started with a study of violence and discrimination against the LGBTI community. And I would say in those big halls, you know, to all those ambassadors, well tell me which of you condones violence and discrimination against LGBTI people. And of course none of them is going to say yes to that. And that's how we got that done and then gradually went on to the principle of equality. The caste system, the victims of caste discrimination in India and other countries were weeping because they could never get that on the agenda. India would block it. So I see the Indian government and they said caste is a word unique to India. It doesn't fit in anywhere else. And that's why it's an internal matter. I should not touch it. And I said to them, you know what, you have to be generous now. You have to lend that word caste to the international community just like we lent the word apartheid to the world. And that's how we got caste addressed in the UN. So I'm keeping a BDI. It says 28 now. Is that seconds? All right. The other thing you should know is the UN always operated in silos. The development people would not touch human rights and the political department would not touch up. These two issues, so they all operated in silos. And when I became high commissioner, I would say for instance, well, I did say it to the big body. It's called the CEB of leaders of all organizations, including those that are not in the UN. And I brought up the fact that in Tunisia, the UN's report was that the development there was wonderful. And yet a few days later, a graduate set himself alight because he can't find a job. So who were the UN speaking to? They were just not in touch with the ground. So many other examples. The High Commissioner for Human Rights was blocked from setting up offices in various countries such as Myanmar. But oh, let's see a child, humanitarian affairs had an office there. And I said to the head of that organization, right now there are 20 women and girls who've been captured by the Myanmar soldiers and they're being kept as sex slaves. What are you doing about it? You are in the country. I'm not. And she said, well, her resident coordinator should have said something about it. And I said, well, he's probably waiting for you to tell him to do something about it. So these were the internal push until everybody accepted that the United Nations is a norm-based body. Everybody should be implementing the UN standards. One of the outcomes was called the Rights Up Front policy. Previously, when there was a conflict in the country, the first thing that you, well, maybe I'm wrong. I shouldn't say the first thing. But I sat as a judge on the Rwanda Tribunal and heard witnesses weep because the UN suddenly left them. The UN could see there were killers surrounding the school, but they pulled out just at that precise moment because they were ordered from headquarters to get out of there. And 4,000 people, refugees hiding in that school were killed that day. So I came with that experience and saw that this is what the UN does then. They pull out fast, pick up their own staff, some foreigners who are there and out they go. And we saw this happening in Sri Lanka, you will recall, where people wept. So that policy was then changed to how to stay and protect. And that policy was first tested in South Sudan, where there was ethnic violence between the President's clan and the opposition leader, Rekh Masha's clan. And when the one group attacked the other, the victim group fled into the UN compound. And the traditional UN would have closed the gates against them. This time they opened the gates and saved 90,000 lives. So inside the UN, it's important that we think outside the box and not just follow traditional ways. So of course, I have many other stories. I see six zeros there, so I think I should keep quiet here. It is possible for all of us to fight to preserve our culture and values. You have it here. And every country I've been to as High Commissioner, 79 countries, and now I'm still traveling. There's such a divide between ordinary people who want justice, who want accountability, and governments who block that, particularly wanting immunity for heads of state and senior officials. That's a reason why they're pulling out of the International Criminal Court. I am really heartened by some of the judicial decisions we're now seeing, such as the House of Lords' decision. Chief Justice Brenda Hall delivered a decision on Brexit and Johnson saying no one is above the law. It's such an important message that politicians have to hear. Now my final comment is I was in Norway and friends with the Norwegian judge, and she said that when this accused, you remember, he shot and killed like 88 or 89 people, young people. And he was on trial, and he said to the court, yes, I did it. Give me the dead sentence. I deserve it. And the Norwegian public said, oh, no, no, no. You would not do that to our values. So he has multiple life sentences. Right now, there's such a high level of gender-based violence in South Africa that the president of South Africa had to stay away from the UN in order to deal with gender-based violence. How he handled it is, of course, peculiar. But you should have heard some of the emotional calls coming from mainly ANC supporters asking for dead sentence to be brought back. One woman MP said we should have chemical castration. So these are also the threats that out of panic and emotions, often fed by fake media, often fed by politicians and their hate speech, that people seem to be swinging backwards, bring back the dead penalty and bring back this cruel inhuman treatment. So much is left not only to governments but to all of us to safeguard what we have. So I will stop there. Thank you so much for your attention.