 Great, okay moving swiftly on. We have a video next, unfortunately our next speaker wasn't able to join us live. But here we go, this is Lisette Hamming of the Dutch Flemish Association for Investigative Journalists. This is lost in Europe, deploying the Albertalli network on cross-border investigation. There, I've been trying to set up my laptop in a way that you can actually look at a person, which would be me now, and look at the slides as well, but it didn't work. So I'm going to switch to the slides in a second and guide you through it at the background. I'm Lisette Hamming, I'm an investigative journalist from the Netherlands, relatively new in the field journalism. I have a legal background and I've been asked to help lost in Europe with their freedom of information procedures. And we ended up filing requests in 14 different European countries this year. There's two pending at the moment, so that would make a total of 16. And six of these have been filed already via the Albertalli platforms and one with via Praktenstaat, which is a similar freedom of information platform running with different software. I will tell a bit about the aim of our project, then the freedom of information procedure and the learnings that we can share using the Albertalli platforms. So the aim of the lost in Europe project that started in 2016 is gathering the stories of 10,000 missing migrant children in Europe. And missing means in the sense that they are missing from public records. In the past five years, Lost in Europe has set up seven different files and different angles to the to the projects and working together with 20 journalists across Europe. There's been quite some publications. There's been more and more research and information about pushbacks at external European borders, pushbacks, meaning migrant being pushed back at the European border. And Geisha was in the forest at different border crossings in Europe, where she found torn pieces of paper, for example, at the French Italian border. So we decided to look for pushbacks in Europe and concentrated on European countries that are part of the European Union, and specifically part of the Schengen agreement, not only but those were one of the first questions we had to ask ourselves. And Monica, one of the journalists involved in the project dived into the existing research, mostly done by NGOs on the ground, and mostly done at the borders you can see here on the map she made. So we were wondering where should we start? The documents that Geisha found and also most of the documents that we found in the NGO research online were more general arrest documents. Only in France we found a refus d'entrée. We thought at the beginning was the best way to start by asking for these refus d'entrée in France. And our first version was asking for the actual documents. And then we changed that also after talking about it with other people, various of them by the Alaveteli network, I'll come back to that later, that we changed it to asking for data sets. And then we decided in the end to ask for the total numbers and expecting that those numbers would be inside of data sets and not so much asking for the original documents, but also because we were not interested in the documents themselves, but more in the figures. So in the end, this is our freedom of information request. Geisha, of course, she knew that I was involved with the Dutch Alaveteli platform. And I told her that there are many others in Europe that we can use to file these requests. And I told her that back then not a lot of the platforms had the public at the pro version yet, so that we might have to file in public. And she immediately said that that was not a problem for her at all. And I think that most of us expect that for journalists in general, the preferred option would be to file hidden, that you cannot see that on the platform. We looked at all the Alaveteli platforms and in the end decided to use as many of them as possible and discover that some of them were down. There is no platform in Spain anymore, not in Italy at the moment and the Norwegian one was down. We started on the 21st of February 2021 filing France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia, because those were the countries that we found documents in the NGO reports. For filing the requests, we needed some general freedom of information information that we gathered using the Alaveteli network. I will skip to the learnings so far and please don't hesitate to contact me if you want to know more about our project, our freedom of information procedures, experiences, the Alaveteli platforms, the differences between the freedom of information procedures in different countries. I'd be happy to tell you about this. Our learnings would be, for me, it was really obvious that it was a really good thing. I was really happy that I've been to the Alaveteli conference. I think it was two years ago, because there was a lot of the people that I got in contact with this past year were people that I met at the conference, which made it a lot easier to get in touch and also the Google platform sort of works. Maybe it can work better if we would be able to communicate in different ways, in different ways, but I did get a helpful reaction. Go public if you can, because I also noticed that it is easier to collaborate on a public request than having to give permissions or passwords or anything like that. On the freedom of information procedure itself, it was really smart to check national freedom of information rules and regulations, because they differ. I expected them to differ, but I didn't know in what way, so I was happy that we did, which also made me realize that I want to change the learning to let's set up a place where we can collect these national freedom of information rules and regulations and share it. Some more learnings are look for local national context, because it helps. The fifth would be to double check whether the data is online or public already, because we found out in Hungary, for example, it's the best example, there was quite some information online already. We didn't expect that. There's more shared by the authorities than we could ever imagined. Using the Albeteli platforms, I found out that the English translation would be very helpful, and the Swedish platform has it. I was thinking also for the Dutch platform, why not? Because it's there. I knew the platform by heart, so for me, also in languages that I don't speak, I was translating everything all the time, but it helped that I really knew how the platform is structured and what I could find where. So that was, yeah, that's not for everybody, of course. Also, something that the Dutch platform does not have is using the space for information and explanation about the authorities that we can do in the platform. I realized if you're not so aware on how the authorities work on what, like I am in the Netherlands, and that's why I didn't immediately think of using that possibility, is very valuable. So let's use it. Eighth would be that I noticed that paid staff work quicker and more helpful in assisting. It's not against the volunteers that helped, because I know as a volunteer for the platform, every hour you spend helping other people is a valuable hour and difficult to offer, in a way. But it is for me, running the Dutch platform, a valuable learning when combining it with requests and freedom of information procedures not filed via the platforms, it can be quite overwhelming. And I'd be happy to share how we're managing that at the moment. In general, please know where to find me and I hope it was helpful.