 Thank you, Thierry. This is not a question. It is a command to highlight how much it is important that the President of the Red Cross be present in this kind of institution. He was, of course, in Paris also. It's very useful to really be fully aware of the usefulness of the Red Cross. Of course, it's good for NGOs to denounce things, but I think it's absolutely necessary to maintain the legendary discretion of the Red Cross because it is the absolute condition for the Red Cross to really play its full role. I'm sure this would not be possible to visit prisoners in certain prisons in Africa if it were not for this discretion. There are, for the rest, there are possible arrangements. And the Red Cross can inform cases where information is needed. I'm just going to talk about the fact that the Security Council of the UN, it was customary. And I think that still is the case that the President of the Security Council receive individually the President of the Red Cross for a confidential meeting. So it was useful to have a meeting with the delegate of the Red Cross in New York. And I hope this custom is still ongoing. Also, the President of the European Union, or the Ambassador, who represents the European Union at the UN, used to receive organized meetings within the framework of the Council of Security with the delegate, or the President, or even the President of the Red Cross, International Red Cross. This is something that is absolutely useful. This information that we get is not made public immediately, but it is absolutely necessary to really understand what's going on. As this is my point of view, Monsieur de Jamais was among other things, to represent your friends at the UN. First row, one question from the first row. And then I have to stop because time is, I'm Olivier. I'm a second ambassador who had the privilege of working with Peter. I see that for the organization of this debate, homage that has been paid to the humanitarian work of the Red Cross. And I'd like to thank you for this. Mr. Moore has talked about the complicity of the conflicts and the crises. Don't you think that there is a need to revisit international humanitarian law? We have the 14-and-conventions, the additional protocols of the 1967. Don't you think that after 41 years, there is a need to further enhance the international human law? Because this is also an enhancement of your impartiality and your neutrality. Mr. Chetrit for a very, very short question. Sorry for the others. And then Mr. Moore will respond to these questions in two minutes. 45 seconds for the question. If you were involved and how you were involved in the war in Syria, thank you. Voila. So last question is the easiest one. We have the greatest operation in the world in Syria for the Red Cross Committee. For the past 30 years, the greatest operations that we have conducted. So you see, this reflects exactly what I have just said. It's one of the worst wars. But we have this capacity to act, which is quite important, I must say. So it's by far the greatest operation of the Red Cross in the world. Now concerning this practice that of receiving our representatives at the Security Council, but it's something that is even enhanced, multiplied. We have even more interfaces. Of course, they're protected. They're conventionally protected and confidential. The head of the delegation of the Red Cross at the Security Council, because they have also broadened their activity in the humanitarian area. They refer to the international human laws. So we have multiplied our interfaces, sometimes daily meetings and confidential meetings with the President of the Security Council and with other members of the Security Council. Now to revisit the law, yes or no, I think we have a quite differentiated approach now concerning this question. We think that the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols remain customary law and they're extremely relevant to solve the problems that we are faced with. But we're the first ones, of course, to agree that this law does not have solutions for all the problems that we come across. Probably if we wanted to revisit these laws, I think what we need most and foremost is to have a more unified understanding among the states of what certain existing rules mean now in this new context. It's more of an interpretation that we need than a redefinition. But maybe later on we may agree that there are gaps in this law, international law, that need to be filled. So I think it's a problem of opportunity which I'm launching right here in this room. Do you think that if we launch a process of revisiting the Geneva Conventions, do you think this is going to enhance our norms or it is going to weaken our norms? Realistically speaking, I must say that I don't think that an international conference of 194 or 95 countries will give us positive results or will enhance the protection of the citizens who are confronted to violence. This is probably also this. We adopt a pragmatic approach in adapting, interpreting this law that we are now... This is our priority now. Our priority now is the confidential commitment with the state, with the armed forces to make sure that at least the law that exists is enforced seriously and rigorously. Thank you. To conclude, towards terms of conclusion, the first one is I wish that this question of humanitarian right and law be more and more parcel-integrated within the World Policy Conference because it's something that needs to be known and it's something that is essential, especially in a world that is characterized by conflicts. These issues now are extremely relevant. And then my second proposal is to ask you to give a round of applause to two people, the physical person that you have here, Petit Maroc, who is an illegal person, of course, which is the International Red Cross.