 Yeah, good evening everyone from especially from India since it's evening time Today we have collaborated with National Institute of Military Justice Washington DC and Punjab University Chandigarh on military justice reflection and learning the panelists speak volumes for itself and Today's webinar we are bringing in the joint collaboration of beyond law CLC and bar and bench the session would be moderated by three panelists as such that is Professor Franklin, Professor Shruti and Beijing of Deep Singh and The introduction would be done by Shagun Suryam without taking much time. I will request her to take the baton forward and thereafter the session Thank you. Hi. Good evening. Good afternoon. Good morning to our viewers tuning in across from across time zones I'm Shagun and I'll be giving everyone watching a brief layout of what our session today will entail and Of course introduce our esteemed speakers even though none of them needs any introduction Today we're going to witness an interactive session Amongst seasoned global voices in military justice This session is meant to be a free flowing discussion on aspects of military justice with focus on independence and fairness in administration of justice Deherence to the principles of the international covenant on civil and political rights The expectations from judge advocate generals or legal officers serving in the military and other related matters Let me begin by introducing Professor Rachel Van Landingham the and I and I am J's president or former colonel in the US FOS who served as a judge advocate She'll be delivering the presidential address today There's professor deepi who's agreed to give the closing remarks She's an academic with a vast teaching and administrative experience and is currently the dean international students at Punjab University Moving on to introducing our esteemed panelists. I'll start with professor Eugene fiddle who's an adjunct professor at the New York University's law school. He's authored many books on Military law and is a proponent of global military justice reform We have general John Peter spike who's a former officer of the Netherlands army and senior military judge in the military chamber of the court of appeals We have gone and already followed with us who served in the Canadian forces for 20 years first in the infantry And then as a legal officer with the Jag Gonna follow as an active commentator on military law issues We have Brigadier James Johnston who was commissioned into the army legal services of the British army And since September 2020 Brigadier Johnston has that as a decision-body and senior legal counsel in the army's internal service complaint process Finally, I bring to you our moderators for today. I'll start with professor Franklin Rosenblatt Who teaches law at the Mississippi College Law School? And is also a judge of the military court of appeals at Mississippi He's the president of the military Justice Committee for the International Society of military law in the law of war and has co-edited the book March to Justice We have professor Shruti Bedi with us a professor of law at the University Institute of Legal Studies at Punjab University And is also an international fellow at the NIMG Finally, we have Major Nabeep who's a practicing lawyer at the Punjab in Haryana High Court and an author His latest book being the co-edited volume of March to Justice He's also an international fellow at the NIMG and a member of the International Society of military law and the law of war With this I encourage all of our viewers to write in with questions, and I'm sure a panel will happily answer Now I hand over the session to our moderators and prepare for what I'm sure is going to be an enlightening discussion Thank you. Thank you so much Thank you so much Jaggu So we'll start with Professor Fidel and he's the first panelist online Professor Fidel Since you've been involved with global military justice reform And you're of course also the editor of the global military justice reform blog, a hugely popular blog I would ask you a very simple question How can we learn from each other's systems? And any best practices from other nations that you appreciate, that you think should be inviolated? Right, well, good morning, good afternoon, good evening To my fellow panelists, to the hosts, Madam President On the left coast That's a daunting question, Nabeep But let me let me try to begin. First of all, it's a lot easier now than it once was To effect reform and military justice and to draw on the experience and insights of other countries Even though military justice is something that is deeply national It's the articulation of a country's, a part of a country's effort to defend itself So it's deeply national. At the same time, it's inherently transnational Because the doctrines do not respect national boundaries Many countries share legal traditions. Inevitably, there's going to be interplay And of course, in a human rights era that I guess we're in We have the beginnings of The Covenant, the ICCPR, speaks broadly to countries around the world. There are regional human rights instruments There's the Human Rights Committee in Geneva. So there's a lot of sources. And because of the Miracle of the internet, it's possible without a lot of Cash, time, or effort to keep an eye on developments in other countries, from which you can draw some kind of inspiration. It may not be You know, low-hanging fruit, you may have to exercise some effort to effect change within the political climate of any particular country, but it's a lot easier now than it was, let's say 25 years ago I want to throw out one comment and maybe others on this panel can take potshots, but in the interest of sort of Stimulating thinking. In the United States, at least, we've gone through many iterations, many battles, some large, some small, some minor skirmishes, some You know, major engagements in law reform in this field. For, let's say, roughly 100 years And various dirty words have been uttered in response to and in resistance to Reform overtures. One dirty word is civilianization. Heaven forfend That the military justice system should look like the civilian justice system. Another is judicialization, which, you know, implies Butchressing the judicial function within the court martial. Another is simply normalization. I want to throw out a term and I solicit Comments from everybody and anybody, including people who have tuned in online Decolonialization. I would like to suggest that there is a decolonialization dimension To, at least in Countries formally in the British Empire slash Commonwealth And maybe presently in Commonwealth That that people should be mindful of Are their systems, and I have one or two in mind, are their systems that continue to be rooted in the Army Act of 1885, correct me if I've got the year on That That really need to dig deep in terms of reform. Now, Deep, why don't I stop there? I've probably caused enough trouble already and let somebody else make a little trouble Right I'm sorry Professor, I can now see the president and I am Jim back on the screen I couldn't see her. She was to give the presidential address, but I started with you So after I finish with you, I would request a professor van Lingdom to give the presidential address Which we skip I couldn't see you on the screen at that point of time. I'm sorry. I just Once I finish with professor Fidel, I would please request you to give the address and then I'll move on to general spike professor Fidel This is a question that I ask many people in military justice Who is a good Jag officer? Who is a good military judge? Who is a good legal officer? What would you say who's a good Jag officer? Well, if you if you mean in general the quality is expected the good quality is expected of a Jag officer But when you say a Jag officer, you mean a uniformed attorney. Absolutely, right regardless of billet and position within the structure That's right. Right in the sense of a uniformed attorney the the context of the term Right, I change for example in the British system. Jag means something else now for us and for the US Jag is something else. So a Uniformed attorney or any officer who's wearing uniform who's legally qualified and performing a legal role or a quasi judicial role Or even an adjudicatory role. What do you feel are the good qualities required to efficiently play that role in an objective manner Well, first of all the last thing you said Navdeep it may be the important qualifier in an objective manner Is it pot that this isn't this is a question. Is it possible to achieve objectivity. Is it possible to achieve independence Where you are an attorney and part of a military structure that this is a challenge There are times when esprit de corps can come in tension with the kind of professionalism and the exercise of professional judgment that we demand of anybody Performing a legal function any member of the bar and I think that sort of that tension is built into any system that relies whether for The judicial function or for the advocacy function either prosecution or defense on uniform personnel and country after country Has grappled with this. Some countries don't see an issue. It's you know, I'm an officer first and you know sort of footnote by the way I also have a law degree and I'm qualified In other countries, it's I'm an attorney and you know, I'll talk to you later on about what that means in the military environment, but there is a tension there and the question is, is the tension are the two Are the two sets of values and loyalties and skills reconcilable or is the tension Irresolvable and there's a kind of tragic quality to this almost in the Greek tragic sense, there's a kind of tragic quality in the case of anyone who is trying to, you know, walk that type tight rope and I'm here to say that even in very good systems that we would all Maybe we would all agree were admirable and at least the starting point as models. There are tensions that are inherent and that cause problems where the exercise of independent legal judgment say by a junior officer May come into collision with somebody who is 234 pay grades senior their attentions in the courtroom suppose you have a judge advocate performing the legal the judicial function and that person is a military officer as in many countries as the case and that person is 234 pay grade senior to the defense council And needless to say there are tensions where legal type functions are merely advisory to Office holders and I'm talking about commanders in the classic model who are not attorneys. So, there is a kind of natural. This is a tension inducing tension in infected work environment. By the way, we're not the only profession that has these kinds of tensions what happens if your client in a commercial litigation setting has an idea of, you know, strategy that is Bumps into all kinds of legal landmines. So that can happen and and that may be your rice ball, by the way, that may be your main client, you may be house counsel, you may be that person's general counsel, how do you resolve that, and that person's effectively four three pay grades within the corporate structure senior to you so it's not unique to the military setting, but it's certainly in the military setting and it's persistent, and the challenge is to resolve that tension in ways that don't shortchange, either the achievement of military objectives, or the rights of the individual. That's a, that's a very enlightening thing to say Professor. But in this slide. Do you have any recommendation on how to ensure more independence and objectivity, do you have any recommendation in your mind, a practical recommendation that how to ensure objectivity and independence into the military justice system globally speaking. To be speaking I think there are two things that are central, and they both have to do with the judicial function. I think there has to be meaningful appellate review by a civilian court, including access to the constitutional court or whatever is the highest court and in the country's pyramid. And the second thing is at trial. Judges have to be independent. They have to be independent because if you don't have a judge who is truly independent. Then everybody else is wasting their time and we're kidding ourselves, and how to achieve independence at the trial level is a challenge. And it requires a number of countries around the world to sort of stop everything take a stand down for a while and think 21st century thoughts. And I'm here to say that there are a lot of countries that haven't done that yet. There are other countries that have tried and have failed or continue to be wandering in a minefield of alternative efforts to square the circle. Rory Fowler may inform us about that in due course, but these are real challenges, and they require real leadership and you know where that leadership is going to have to come from. It may or may not come from, you know, a European Court of Justice or an external source it may not may or may not come from the Supreme Court of Canada, it may or may not come from from Parliament, or a legislature. The best way for it to come about is from within the military legal structure, and within the bar of any particular country. It's organic. It's true to a country's overall vision. And it's more likely to gain, gain credibility. Thank you, Professor Fidel. I mean, those are things which we should all reformers all systems, even the legislature and the various militaries should should keep these things at the back of the minds while even thinking of, you know, any progressive reform. Ladies and gentlemen, now I'm absolutely honored to introduce to you the President of National Institute of Military Justice Professor Rachel Van Languim. And I'm sorry, because of the view on my screen I couldn't see her initially and so we just went straight to Professor Fidel. So here we are, the presidential address. Before I move on to General Spike, the presidential address by of course the President IMJ. Over to you, ma'am. Navdeep, thank you so much and absolutely not a worry even though it's very difficult to follow the inimitable Professor Jean Fidel and founding primary founding member of the National Institute of Military Justice and prior president, because he is as many of the panelists here today he is one of the leading giants of the understanding of contemporary military justice. He also understands King George III, and the 1774 articles of war but he understands, and has worked for decades to reform. To improve US military justice as well as to enhance understanding around the world. So, as Isaac Newton said we all stand on the shoulders of giants and those giants are here today and on my screen I'm screen I'm actually above Jean so I'm literally standing on his on his shoulders. And second point is that flexibility is the key to airpower had given given on to my former my former branch of the armed services. And it's very interesting that a gene mentioned things like dirty words in the military justice reform world of civilianization judicialization normalization, maybe decolonization which is which is a very provocative concept and and very and very apropos observation. But the military the armed forces have never been adverse to change even though they're known socially and internally as as rather conservative bastions. They've had to innovate they've had to change they've had to be flexible, or they would be beaten they would literally die. The adaptation of new technologies on the battlefield, the battlefield has pushed the advance, the advance of technology for the rest of societies across millennia. So why is military justice different. The one thing that the one of the major observations that I made during 24 years of active duty service was that you could not convince a commander to do something because that was the right thing to do, or because all these documents said it was the right thing to do, or because all these academic treatisees which we would normally cite in court or judicial precedence. None of that was the convincing argument the convincing argument was a pragmatic one that it works that achieves your objective and a more economical efficient and better way. That is the key I think to understanding military justice reform and seeing where it goes whether we call it civilization, or judicialization or normalization. It's what is the best way to achieve these objectives, and why are we afraid of evolving understandings of what justice really means. So with that I'd like to say good morning good afternoon good evening. I'm the moderator's guests and and my fellow and the panelists. Normally here it's a Monday morning which is why you'll see me with this coffee. Normally Monday mornings are nothing to look forward to but this morning was something my learn went off I'm like, yeah I've got something to look forward to on a Monday morning besides grading exam so I would like to give a special shout out to both knob deep and to Frank to major and to now Professor Rosenblatt for not only conceiving of this morning and and having that initiative but for your leadership and orchestrating it and bring it to fruition we all have great ideas but you made it happen and I'm incredibly grateful. So thank you. And you brought it on behalf of both and I am Jay and Punjab University and we appreciate very much that collaboration and help to do more of these in the future. So those who are joining us from around the world, whatever time it is for you. Cheers, and thank you for being here and to switch very briefly the best intro is a short one. And I'm keeping this very short, but I would like to just highlight the importance of today's discussions and why. We don't have to look far to know that war rages around the world and in some places like in Ukraine to a scale level and intensity and level of barbarity that we have not witnessed since World War two nation states today are reconsidering the health of their armed forces, what's going on in Germany as a as a long watcher of Germany and German culture it's been fascinating. They consider the health of their armed forces nation states are reconsidering their regional security arrangements. And their national militaries are once again, in the spotlight if, and for some nations that it's never left the role of the military justice system how militaries discipline their forces through the punishment of crime as an integral component of those armed forces efficacy, as well as the military is domestic and international legitimacy, which is an area of power just as important as kinetic power, winning the narrative, you win the narrative through reality. And today's panelists are experts as we've already seen from Professor Fidel, and not only how military justice systems operate and have operated over millennia. They're experts in how they should operate the normative questions. You didn't ask me this question Professor saying, or I'm sorry major saying but I'm going to ask answer it anyway. What is a critical skill of a military lawyer it's critical thinking the courage, not only the capability but the courage to comply respectfully, definitely wiser, why ma'am perhaps there's a better way, getting commanders and those around you to think about what they're doing and matching up their, their behavior with their objective with purpose. I think that is one of the most important attributes of any military lawyer and any lawyer. Not only are military experts today experts in how military justice system should operate, or how they operate, but in how they should operate. What are the best means and methods to fairly discipline military members in systems that comport with domestic and human rights standards, but also realistically meet the exigencies of a military separate society, and at times battlefield conditions, squaring those two, those two preeminent criteria. So we're going to hear from them regarding independence fairness adherence to the principles of the ICC PR etc. The important timing of today's event cannot be overstated as the world I fear does gear toward greater confrontation. So I will leave this very brief intro with us very with a short quote from my my favorite US Supreme Court Justice Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson. It is not the function of government to keep the citizen from falling into error. It is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. We meet today collectively as those citizens, and I welcome and encourage everyone's views and perspectives as we worked for justice. So thank you so very much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And sorry for the technical error for the goof up in the, you know, in the series. And sorry for waking you up so early. It's 7am there and we're so honored that you could make it at such an early hour. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. So I now move to general spike. And, as you know, I mean, the general spike has also been a proponent of military justice reform, and he's been very active in the field and we've been meeting him at various conferences, and such a such a balanced and a progressive process in this field. So general spike. My first question or something I want to ask you is, although I could have, you know, warned you that I was going to ask. I was going to seek such a query from you. Is that any particular case that you conducted as a lawyer or heard as a judge that stands out. And for which reason for what reason. And we're talking, let me say good morning and good day to you all. It's really an honor and a pleasure to to be on this panel with my esteemed colleagues from all over the world. So, and good to see you again, nafdeep. I do recall our visit to Chandigar a couple of years ago where we had this fantastic panel discussion. That's an interesting question. And what the case that comes to mind, I was not directly involved in personally, but it had a huge effect, not only on the Netherlands military justice system but all over Europe is the case of angle versus the Netherlands before the European Court of Human Rights and I had the pleasure to to write about it in this fantastic publication it was already mentioned earlier. Because they're one of these major human rights bodies the European Court for Human Rights determined several anchor points so to say. And most importantly that the essence of military justice application is the same for the military personnel as it is for civilians. And as the court said well our convention on human rights does not stop at the gates of the barracks. That is I think a very important and leading principle that military personnel essentially do have those same rights as the other citizens in a community. Yes, there can be certain limitations for the purpose of national security for the internal order of the military, but those must have a basis and law and have to be very well thought through. Those rulings of the European Court have been important for European systems of military justice I'm very pleased that my good friend and colleague Brigadier Johnson is amongst us because he will be able to tell about the UK experiencing change. But yes that that would be the case that that comes to mind and nothing. Having attended having attended all these meetings and conferences and also, you know, having headed the international society. Do you think there should be more interaction of reformers and jurists on military law than than there currently is you think we should meet up more and more reformers should get together and think on these very important issues which concern the men and women in uniform. All over the world. Oh yes, yes, I would certainly support that notion. And let me begin by echoing the words of Professor Fidel things have become easier over time with the internet. You meet and to discuss indeed. And I can witness as a former president of that international society for military law and the law of war. There is this general willingness to learn. And I do agree military justice is very national, you can compare it to the national anthem, every country has its own system. But with the influence of the big courts on human rights, etc, with the internet and indeed discussion. We may see a convergence of those basic norms and it does help indeed to come together and to discuss, as we did a couple of weeks ago in May in Florence, where we had a fantastic panel under the guidance of Professor Rosenblatt. So yes, I would support that notion. The famous Florence conference, which we were just talking about with the president and Frank. General spike. What is the interplay of the ICC PR with military law. And do you think we are fully in convergence in most nations in most democracies on this. That's also a daunting question where we look at the ICPR and we ICPR and we look at these basic norms and I would like to mention, especially the right to a fair trial. Yeah, indeed. Yeah, then I think we could have a broader discussion whether that right has been implemented in a true sense throughout the countries in the world. Is it really true that a militant member of the armed forces has the same rights, the same position, the same guarantees as a civilian individual, for example, in that same country is there a true harmonization of those basic rights. When you look at the European situation, we see huge differences, but over time they have been harmonized by the jurisprudence of the European Court for Human Rights so within Europe I would generally say those basic norms are being fulfilled. In a broader context and you look at it and take a more global perspective, then there are I'm sure many countries where those basic standards have not been met. So there's room for improvement. The three keywords independent impartial and competent. I mean those three keywords are at places, you know things are missing. So in certain systems. I don't find that there is too much of independence I mean the desired independence and even competence. People deciding upon legal issues or judicial issues without being even, you know, without even having a degree of law. So that I think creates a problem but I think we are getting there, especially democracies and as rightly said that Europe has worked towards the desired aim. And with that I would thank you, General Spike it was it was it is always a pleasure hearing from you. And of course, all panelists would also be facing some would be getting some questions and answers some questions, which you can answer during the question and answer session later towards the end of the session. Over to you Dr Bedi. Thank you, Navdeep. I want to thank both you and Professor Frank for actually making this possible and bringing it to fruition like ma'am Rachel President and I'm Jay has already said, and in fact I would like to thank her as well to give us to be, you know you've given us a platform to express ourselves and this is an important issue which needs to be addressed at various forums and at different levels. Well Colonel Fowler good morning to you. Sorry and apologies to get you out of your bed early in the morning I'm sure it's an unearthly hour of the morning. But I believe you have worked a lot on the constitutional position and the relationship of the soldier with the state. And you know I was thinking that military personnel occupy a very dignified position in any country, because they sort of preserve and protect the sovereignty the integrity and the unity of a nation. They do it not only during war, they also do it during times of peace, and their devotion and the service to the country are so fundamental in character, but unfortunately sometimes you we do. Look at the life of these soldiers, and at certain times you feel that they are probably not allowed to enjoy the fundamental rights, which are available to the common man, and you know which are available to any man in a sovereign nation in a democratic nation. And it's something which I would want you to talk about. So what is exactly the constitutional position of the soldier in a country and how would you think do I mean the fact that he's not able to enjoy complete fundamental rights. Does it really affect or do you think it is fine. Well, thank you for that question and no worries about the time I had to get up. Unlike Professor van landing Ham, since I'm on the East Coast. In the same time zone as Professor Fidel, it wasn't too early for us. And I didn't face the same challenges that Professor van landing Ham had. It's an interesting question for a couple of reasons. First we've spoken about the development and the reform of military justice in our respective systems. And one of the things that drives that reform, or conversely can inhibit that reform is the nature of the relationship that a member of the armed forces has with their state now in Canada we refer to that as the crown soldier relationship, because we are still, we still have from actually the Queen, Queen Elizabeth the second is our sovereign, it'll vary from from state to state. So if I if I accidentally use the term crown soldier relationship please understand that to mean the relationship between members of the armed forces in the state itself. And several commentators have in the past remark that members of the armed forces whether in Canada elsewhere are unfortunately deprived of certain constitutional or charter rights. In Canada we refer to them as charter rights because we have a charter rights and freedoms entrenched in our in our Constitution for American friends would be the Bill of Rights. And I'm not entirely certain I agree with many of those commentators that suggest that members of the armed forces are deprived of those rights. Certainly they're standing as members of the armed forces will be an important context in the interpretation of any limitations on those rights and one that's come to the forefront in the news media in Canada is the capacity for members of the armed forces to speak on politically sensitive issues, such as vaccination against COVID-19, and whether or not their freedom of speech is impaired, I would suggest that yes their freedom of speech is limited. But the question then becomes whether or not that limitation is justifiable in a free and democratic society. And many commentators would probably suggest that yes because they are members of the armed forces, making politically sensitive comments while physically in uniform. We're not just talking about making comments because they're members of the armed forces but making comments under video while they're wearing Her Majesty's uniform can potentially attract disciplinary disciplinary sanction. But your question goes to the heart of what it means to be a member of the armed forces and how that relationship with the state or how that relationship in Canada with the crown influences that individual's capacity to assert their rights, interests and privileges within that paradigm. And I think that goes to the definition of how military justice needs to be reformed. So Professor Fidel had posed the question or more accurately had posed the commentary that there are certain dirty words in reform of military justice like civilianization, like normalization, or even decolonization. I think if we go back further from simply military justice reform and examine the reform of the relationship between members of the armed forces and the state or in Canada in the crown soldier relationship. We look at a degree of what could be characterized as fossilization of that relationship. So for example, Professor Fidel made mention and story to correct you, Jean and certainly Brigadier Johnson correct me if I'm wrong. I believe you're referring to the Army Act of 1881. Because that's what gave jurisdiction over members of Her Majesty's regular army in the United Kingdom during peacetime and wartime that disciplinary jurisdiction. But we look to the same late Victorian period for case law that defines the very nature of the crown soldier relationship, not just in the United Kingdom, but in all of the countries that are still part of that Anglo Commonwealth common law jurisdiction, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. We look to that late Victorian period as defining the nature of the crown soldier relationship, and it has not evolved beyond that in the last 125 years. We still look to that relationship as being one of a unilateral arrangement in return for which Her Majesty assumes no obligations and a relationship that is not defined as contract. So we have an antonymic definition of that relationship where there are significant limitations on how members of the armed forces may assert their rights, interests and privileges. So when we look at the reform of military justice, I would suggest what we're really looking at is the reform not just of the methodologies by which an armed force, the armed forces asserts disciplinary control over the members of the armed forces. Indeed, the management or the governance of the very relationship between the armed forces and the individuals that comprise the armed forces and the relationship between those individuals in the state or as we say in Canada between soldiers in the crown. And if we are going to reform military justice in our respective countries, I think we also have to look at the broader issue of how we reform the relationship between members of the armed forces and the state such that those members of the armed forces become fully participating rights bearing individuals within their country. Thank you Colonel Fowler I think absolutely right and agree with what you say. In fact, you refer to Professor Fowler and I would like to take a cue from what he said about the objectivity and the independence and he threw it open to Brigadier Johnston, and I would like to bring you in here. You know article 14 of the ICC PR provides for equality before the courts in terms of a right to a fair and a public hearing. So do you think in the military courts, the right to a public hearing is a right which could be made a possibility and should it be. So sorry, would you like me to answer that first or Brigadier Johnson. The question is to you, I was referring to what Professor Fowler had said about the objectivity and the independence in the system in the military justice structure. Well, it's interesting that you mentioned that because while the ICC PR can often in Canadian jurisprudence be looked at as a guiding document of international legal norms. What we normally look to when challenging legislation when challenging the acts of the state would be our own charter now interestingly. Article 14 or the principles in article 14 are reflected in elements of our section 11 of our charter rights and freedoms, including the right to a trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, and that can be found in paragraph 11d of our charter. Similarly to the ICC PR that right arises where we are dealing with the prosecution of a criminal offense. And it's, it's pertinent that you've asked me that question because in two weeks time, the new reforms introduced three years ago under Bill C77 in Canada will come into effect on the 20th of June of this year, which will introduce a new military justice at the unit level. And that is actually going to adversely affect the rights of the accused in a couple of ways. First of all, with the new summary hearings that are being introduced which will replace our summary trial system, we will create a rather than a two tiered system, a two track system in our military disciplinary system. And the new summary hearings are going to be introduced have two particular facets that one could construe as being adverse to the interests of individual members of the armed forces. First of all, there will be no right to elect trial by court martial for a summary hearing. If you are charged with what will be now called a service infraction. There is no right to elect trial by court martial and the burden of proof is reduced from beyond a reasonable doubt to a balance of probabilities. Both of those factors I would suggest have been introduced, whereby it becomes easier to convict members of the armed forces of the service infractions. Now the reason they are able to do so is because they have in effect decriminalized the service infractions. So by decriminalizing them, removing the possibility of a criminal record if found guilty or found culpable of a service infraction. The new system that is being introduced in effect removes itself from the scrutiny under section 11 D of our charter, no longer to section 11 D which calls for a fair trial before a truly independent and impartial tribunal, no longer does it apply because we are no longer dealing with criminal or penal infractions. Will it have a significant effect on the individual's career, almost certainly it will. Is there potential that a finding of guilt for a service infraction could lead to a compulsory termination of the crown souls relationship in effect removing the individual from the armed forces, almost certainly that can happen. So what has happened is by decriminalizing the summary hearing process, we have an effect reduced the capacity of the member of the armed forces to assert their rights within that system. And it is going to be presumably compliant with the with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the right to a trial before an impartial and independent tribunal, because it's no longer a penal system. But the concern that I have is, it will still significantly impact the rights interests and privileges of those members of the armed forces within a system that quite frankly has reduced protections for the individuals. And that I think should be a concern to all of us. Thank you Colonel Fowler I think that is a cause for concern and it's a cause for concern for every nation. You know, and we tend to overlook this because of the fact because, you know, we regard the soldier as being under the exclusive jurisdiction of military law. You're regarding the question relating to his military duty and discipline. So in the interest of military discipline and efficiency, the military law inflicts these kinds of situations, and the negation of certain rights. Thank you for sharing your views with us Colonel Fowler, it's a pleasure to have had you with us. Thank you very much. Over to Professor Rosenblatt. Good morning and good evening everyone it's a great honor to have Brigadier General James Johnston here with us today so let's let's dive right in. So General Johnston, this session is being broadcast on YouTube. So I'm sure we're being watched right now by millions of young people in city centers all over the world. And so I'd like to first give you the chance to speak to them. What advice do you have for young people who are considering possible service as military lawyers. Great question Frank. Very quickly before I answer that can I just say hello to everybody. Good afternoon from the UK. Secondly, I have to say this but it's important. And what I'm going to say is, is on my own behalf I'm not speaking on behalf of the British Army or the UK government but hopefully I won't be saying anything too terrible. That's a really good question. I mean I am, as Frank knows, approaching the twilight of my career I think everybody puts it. I've spent 26 years in the British Army as a lawyer. I joined as a qualified lawyer that's how we we do it in the UK so I was a criminal defense lawyer, had been practicing for three years, and I looked around in the courtroom where I was working. And there was about 20 years older than me and they're all doing the same thing that I was doing. And although I was enjoying it, I wasn't sure that I was still going to be enjoying the same thing in 20 years time. So I made the move I was lucky to be commissioned into the British Army as a legal officer. We join as solicitors or barristers we have a twin track professional system here. And I've, that's where I've been ever since 1996 so I have deployed all over the world. I've spent more than half, sorry not more than half more than a third but less than a half in prosecution work. So I've done a large amount of criminal prosecution work but I've also done a large amount of operational deployments everywhere from East Timor to Iraq to the Balkans to Northern Ireland and elsewhere. And that really is the answer if you're interested in getting a career in the military as a lawyer, whatever military that is and whatever capacity because they vary enormously. The thing that it brings, and this is everybody that I ever speak to says the same thing it's one word, it is variety. And it's exciting variety. You continually change your role. It's very challenging. You have to assimilate a large amount of information and be able to start performing very quickly whether that's an operations or back in a courtroom, or delivering advice to the chain of command. You have to be able to do that. But it's brilliant to think that actually I'm going to be doing this role for two or three years and then I might be going to do something much more exciting in a different country or a completely different area of law. And that has always been the attraction to me and why quite honestly I have not had a single bad job in the British Army. I just haven't it's been great. So I'll, I'll be very cheeky because Frank has already invited me to to comment on a couple of questions that have already been asked and this moves quite nicely into one of those which is what what are we looking for. I'm towards the upper end of my organization and so I do have quite a role or have had quite a role in deciding who is selected to be a military legal officer. And I would say, you need to be a good lawyer, but you need to be a good lawyer to do any area of law. So it's that's the start point. I would say the things that you need to be able to do very very well to be a military lawyer, go to exactly what is our unique selling point and our unique selling point. And the reason that we still have lawyers wearing uniform is because we can deploy to operations, and we can deploy to those operations and we can support the chain of command, because we're trained to do so, because we're whether we're men or women, we are soldiers. And when you get to that discussion, talking about other lawyers who may be providing advice, whether they be in your Ministry of Defenses or in your government or, or police officers or whatever, you hit up to that point of you have to be able to deploy to provide advice and operations. So you must be able to do that and everything that comes with that, which is soldering skills, officer skills, and the ability to be able to put up with what, what you do with in an operational deployment which will be providing advice. Every day of the week, over a long period, not a lot of breast expected to provide advice and correct advice, very, very quickly, with minimal information under pressure, and to do that well and correctly. So that is the number one, the number two something that Professor van der Lea handling them, which I pronounced terribly I'm sorry Rachel I'm just going to say Rachel after this. Equally important, and she absolutely has a distinguished career in the Air Force is, you've got to be pragmatic you've got to be practical, and you've got to be able to speak what we, we describe as truth to power. And it's, it's about, again, what we would describe as enabling operations, you're not there to say to a commander. No, you can't do that, because that's not very helpful. If it is wrong, if it is unlawful, then you absolutely need to say that. But what you also need to say is at least start suggesting something constructive about how that commander can achieve what he's aiming to achieve but within the law. So you're there to enable operations. And therefore that means understanding the mission, what you're there to do, and everything about the mission, so you can provide that best advice. So that's a long answer, but I think it's really important if people out there are looking towards a career. I think I would suggest most of what I've said is pretty applicable to most places. I think that that's excellent advice. I'd like to transition now to something that General Spike was talking about when he discussed the angles case and military implementation of human rights standards. I'm in a country where military lawyers say that the implementation of human rights standards is either impossible or it's completely irrelevant to what we do. And you have been through this in your country. Can you give us your experience is the implementation of national human rights standards, can it be harmonious with military operational effectiveness. In short, yes. We have as as I think many people know being over the years subject to many, many challenges, particularly in the European Court of Human Rights, in relation to the way that military justice is conducted and Dory referred to the 18, the 1881 act and obviously all the acts that follow that right up to our current armed forces out to 2006. That has been a continual enhancement of changes in the law which have had to reflect the increasing the increasing involvement of human rights legislation. I think it's necessarily a bad thing and we absolutely don't want to steer on to the IHL against ECHR kind of discussion that's that's not what it's about but the right to a fair trial can be achieved and it has certain strengths in addressing some of the real risks that that arise in terms of military justice systems that don't have the protections that they really that perhaps that they need. So I'm talking about input independence for instance, and the involvement of civilianization which Professor Fidel referred to. And we have been increasingly civilized we have a, we have a tri service civilianize service prosecuting authority the head of that is a civilian he's a Queens Council. And we have within that organization and civilian prosecutors from the crown prosecution service working alongside uniformed prosecutors from three services. The decisions that are taken right down at the commanding officer level are to a degree supervised but not entirely but on the serious decisions have to be supervised by the service prosecuting authority so for instance if it's a serious type of defense that's the commanding officer may deal with, then he cannot make the decision without that decision being essentially authorized by the service prosecuting authority or having to go to the service prosecuting authority. If it's an offense which contains certain elements such as bullying or racism, etc. It brings in that civilian oversight. So your question, I think much more precisely you referred to essentially that causing a, an inefficiency in relation to the ability to discharge move justice and I would presume you're perhaps talking about the ability to do that on in an operational context, perhaps. Well, I, I would disagree in the sense that if it's something serious you can't deal with it quickly doesn't matter where it happens. So if it's a serious allegation. That is the case. Clearly, we have in the past being in situations where we are conducting reviews of life firing incidents which aren't exactly a criminal investigation but they are investigating what has happened which could lead to a criminal investigation. And that will all always depend on the number of those incidents that you have and the resources you have to conduct those investigations if you're going to do it. But that's really a resourcing issue rather than a legal issue I would have said. In terms of, has the involvement of, of human rights legislation, the changes that have been brought into our system, which have pretty much separated away the chain of command from the decision making. And I think the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has made his decision on a case. Have those caused a, the military justice system to operate unfairly, no, has it slowed it down, no. Looking at delay, and I was personally involved in, in the work that was involved in providing information to that judge and in relation to his, his recent look at the service justice system. And we looked at the, all the criminal justice system, all the criminal justice figures in the civilian courts and compare them against our own, in the most comparable way we think of, and we were ahead on all of them. So there was no evidence of that statistically. I'll pause there, hopefully I've answered that question but it's obviously a very wide question to deal with. It is we need our own talk just focused on that. So, last, we do have a couple more minutes for one more question so it's going to be an open one to you General Johnson. Anything else that you would like to add or would you like to respond to something that are provocateurs before you have have already mentioned this is one of your privileges of getting to speak last. I could always, I always enjoy having a pop but that's that. Del. It's a very dirty word civilization when I think we've dealt with that I don't think it's a dirty word I'm not suggesting that Jean you thought it was as well. Normalization again really interesting comment because there's been lots of talk about the role of the judges normalization. Very quickly I mentioned this recently but it's, I think it's so important that jurisdictionally you have a very good interaction between the military jurisdiction and civilian jurisdiction. There's been certain cases and there's one example of a case which I can't talk about any detail but it was a, it was a case that took place in UK and Germany. And obviously in Germany, there was only military jurisdiction because there wasn't UK domestic jurisdiction but there was in the UK. A particular set of allegations was investigated jointly, and it was dealt with jointly, and ultimately sentenced in a crown court which is a civilian court in the UK, which then immediately sat as a court marshal in the same court. So that, that whole set of allegations which span both jurisdictions were was all dealt with in relation to one case with the individual dealt with by the same judge who was also judge advocate and a sitting crown court judge. So we are getting to that level of, of, of integration which which can only be good for for victims and for the administration justice decolonialization I'm I'm hoping I'm running out of time here but Yes, we're responsible for a lot of a lot of the worries around the world due to our history. One thing I would say is certainly when we are called upon to, to provide some advice in relation to other countries that have picked up our system through through history if I can put it that way is what we tend to find is that they're operating under one of the older statutes and invariably it's the 1955 army act or RAF Act, or the Navy Act, which predated a lot of the changes which have been caused by the European Convention on Human Rights. That's kind of where we start off is trying to bring them forward to look at how we're now applying it because they're they're experiencing the problems that we've, we've had to remedy ourselves because we've we've been tend to I'll pause there because I think I'm probably out of time. Well, thank you for that general johnson I feel like today we're really just just at the beginning of a conversation so I hope we'll be able to to continue this another time. Frank, I must just say one thing you keep calling me general johnston. That's lovely, but in the UK I'm called Brigadier johnston and anyone who's British watching this is going to think I'm a proper general and I'm not. I'm a Brigadier which is a one star. So just just to make that clear not necessarily to you but to everyone watching I am not promoting myself in on this particular broadcast. I'm just back over to you net deep. Well, when you're serving with the NATO. You are called a Brigadier General Brigadier Johnston. Yeah. And in the morning. That reminds me my son was showing me an interesting clip. So I was just discussing with him this morning that that looked really nice. I'll share the clip with you with all of you. So, I think Shagun has some questions ready and which he can throw on to all of us. Hi. Yeah, we have a couple of questions that have been sent in from a couple of serving officers, etc. So I'll just start off with the first one right away. So the first question that we have is from a serving officer of the Indian Army for major Nabi but of course the floor remains open to anyone who has anything to contribute in response to these questions. He asks the military justice system of any country is interested with a not so easy task to maintain rule of law in the armed forces while it is performing the sovereign function of securing the territorial integrity of the country. Such a differential system is often seen as an opportunity to develop the military law. And the last drop my question is for our leading military law reformist major Nabi Singh as to what areas can be targeted for a more developed military justice system, which could augment the capabilities of an organization and simultaneously maintain the rule of law and international standards. Yeah, thank you. So I got the same question so I just scribbled down something on this. See, it's a very important question. Now military justice reform can have, it can have two aspects one is the legislative aspect, which is a tough road, because of course the parliament is involved. And the other is things which can be done in house, and also attitudinal changes, there are many things which we can do in house. As far as the legislative aspect is concerned or even the attitude changes the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of John Andrew or the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Findlay. These are very, these are two leading judgments which can, you know, instill objectivity and independence as we were discussing earlier into any system. So these two judgments are a must read for every person dealing with military justice reform or military law in general. And these can, these can, you know, throw some more light on what we can do within our systems, as far as changing in that change in attitude is concerned or even change in the law is concerned. As far as India is concerned. Firstly, I would like to see that there should be an independent directorate of persecution or a department of prosecution we don't have it till now and it is high time. I mean it's one of the basic things that we require. And I think within the system of military justice, all cogs of the wheels should develop a more dispassionate and detached approach. I find within India, people dealing with military justice or even military litigation, they get too involved and I've said this before they get too involved with their files, they get personally involved with their files and take it as some kind of prestige issue or an ego issue that you know we should win this case etc etc. The question is not to win cases the question is to render justice. And as as Madam President was also saying, again to court justice Robert Jackson. He said something to the effect that even if the government loses the case, it actually wins the case because since because the cause of justice has ultimately won. So, for the government to lose a case, it's actually the government is winning the case by default because the cause of justice is winning so I always feel that you know one should not get as a military lawyer or as anyone concerned with justice or military justice, one should not get personally involved with cases and or pressurize youngsters and young officers that oh you have to win this case etc etc. That should never be the, you know, way to deal with such issues. The government is faceless, you're not supposed to get personally involved. And if you're dissatisfied with the verdict. There's an appellate remedy you file an appeal in the next higher forum for example the armed forces tribunal, you then challenge the verdict in the high court or in the Supreme Court. So no need to put so much of pressure on the system, because the duty after all is to ensure justice, or not to score a win or not to win a conviction. So, that is what I feel should change, as far as reform in the Indian system is concerned and of course it has a, it is equally applicable globally. Thank you. Okay, thank you so thank you for that and I, the same officer has another question which is directed towards general spike. So, so he says military justice system being a self sustaining system is at times criticized for being unable to have an independent separate and insulin insulated system of pre trial trial and post trial wing. In addition to the separation the general department is placed placed under the executive in various countries. This can arguably be set to have an impact on the independence of the judge's department. In this situation one would be very keen to our general spike as to what the global best practices which could be adopted to ensure independence of the judge's department. Yes, thank you very much for this very interesting question is when we look at it globally, you often see that the judge advocate generals, the military legal advisors, speaking in general, are indeed, as Brigadier Johnson pointed out they are members of the armed forces. So they are part of the structure. My experience is over years that that in itself is not a problem. It was already mentioned by Professor from landing ham. If this legal advisor has this critical approach in an independent meaning standing straight, regardless of the pay grade difference, then that system can work very well in itself. But one has to understand the jack role jack position, certainly when we're talking about the criminal procedure is only part of that much broader spectrum. So eventually you will end up before a court, and that court has to be independent, the members of a court have to be independent. And yes, you can have a mix. And I'm now taking up the issue of civilization. You see in many countries around the world that they have developed a certain mix between civilian judges and military judges in a certain proportion. And then at the end of the day it is important. Another point that was raised by Professor Fidel that at the end of the procedure. One has access to a truly independent court that can be the Supreme Court, for example, a constitutional court. This is exactly also the line of jurisprudence of the European Court for human rights and you see that reflected in other major human rights courts that at the end of the day there has to be an independent judicial opinion on the criminal act. So if you put all these elements together, then coming back to my first point, it is not a problem when a judge advocate general is part of the military system, as long as at the end of the day, the judgments are fair and independent. Thank you. Thank you for that. So we the next question is from a student on guitar from National Law University, she has a query for Professor Fidel and major on a deep. As I have seen Professor Fidel's chapter dealing with a service connection in major thing in Conan Rosenblatt book much to justice. Is there any positive change in the military mindset in the United States to stay away from child with a weak military service connection. And what is the situation in India. I think you should go first. I think you should go first. Your name first in that query. Right. F comes before S, I guess. Okay. In fact, there's been no no movement. It happened. And I want to elaborate a little bit the case in question is Solorio against the United States. And there, the, the question was whether it violated the United States Constitution for a military court to try a case that had no service connection. Other than the fact that the offender was on active duty. The problem is that that decision. And maybe I pointed this out in the book chapter and hats off, of course, to the I think it was frank enough deep for causing that book to be available. But the problem is that, even though the only question before the Supreme Court of the United States was was it constitutional to try such a case in military court. It's been broadly understood that the question was whether it was right to do so. I would say most people who concern themselves with military justice if you sit them down and give them something to drink they'll say yeah sure that that decision approved the present arrangement whereby non service connected offenses can be tried in the military court. That's the issue. The case shouldn't be understood that way. Congress has, I guess, made a decision by not doing anything to correct the, the legal situation. The executive branch has not done anything even though the president could change the manual for courts martial to reduce the scope of subject matter jurisdiction. And yet, I, and I think some others do scratch our heads when we see a case come into the system which happens from time to time that really has nothing to do with the military. The latest one that happened in the United States involved a marine reservist who was stationed in North Carolina went home to Boston which is about, I don't know, 800 700 miles away was outside a bar. A fracas of some kind ensued and a college student died. As a result, the local grand jury we still have grand juries in the United States and Massachusetts has grand juries as a matter of state law, the local grand jury in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which is French for Boston. We refuse to indict. And somehow that turned into a general court martial back in North Carolina. I'm sorry, I don't understand that. So that's, that's the state of play right now. If I were president, I would change the manual for courts martial. Fortunately, we don't have. I mean, this problem is not that grave in India. Firstly, there are certain offenses, which if carried out against civilians cannot be tried by court martial for example, rape, culpable homicide and murder. If these offenses are, are against a civilian. These cannot be tried by court martial, unless the person is on active service now active service is not the same as active duty in the US active service means that you know, in a forward location or in a field location. So, unless that is the case, where regular records to civilian, the regular criminal courts is not available, unless that is the case. Such offenses, these three offenses cannot at all be tried by court martial if the victim is a civilian. That is one. Secondly, though, technically, all offenses on the civil side can be tried by courts martial, but normally there's a hands off approach, and anything which does not have a service connection or a military nexus is not tried by court martial it is not taken over by the military. For example, if a soldier goes back to his village or his town and, you know, has a fight in the market with someone. So, it is not that if there is a trial that the military will take over the trial, the military will stay off. It will be totally prosecuted by the civilian side. The police will investigate and the case would go before a regular criminal court. So we don't have that kind of a problem. Basically, cases other than rape, murder and culpable homicide not amounted to murder can be taken over by the military for a trial, but practically speaking, they're never. They're not very, very rarely they are so we don't have that practical of cases not having a military nexus or a service connection being taken over by the military. So that problem it seems is more rampant in the US and as Professor Fidel says that somebody has to take a call on that, either the Congress or a change in the court martial manual or whatever. However, I do find that there are certain other areas in which the military again needs a hands off approach. I find that in certain cases, purely private disputes, for example, two estranged couples and a matrimonial dispute or a marital kind of a dispute a private dispute between two individuals. So I feel that now to take an example the offense of adultery has been decriminalized in India. So I feel that if some certain civil and private disputes are given the color of a criminal dispute by people maybe because of some other reason. I find that unless it has a direct service implication on a military implication or results in actual violation of good order or discipline, the military should also stay off such cases because these are essentially private disputes between two people. And unless there's a effect on discipline or any other direct effect on service life, I find that I feel that the military should stay off these cases also and artificially these should not be brought into the military system. That's my personal view and I think this view is reflected by many other, you know, individuals within the military. Also, there are certain offenses in the Indian Army, the army does not have the police kind of investigative powers. So I also find that there are certain other offenses which require a deeper investigation or a more technical investigation. And I feel that the military should not deploy its resources to try such cases through a court martial because you will be required specialized inputs surveillance or technical investigation. So I find that and there are certain cases for example certain offenses against children and women for their for which we have special courts on on the civil side that is regular criminal courts we have special courts. So I feel that those cases should be tried by the civil system with the proper police investigation and the army should not get too much involved in such cases it should let the regular criminal justice try such offenses because of the requirement of certain specific technical requirements. And we should not be deploying our resources for such issues so much of manpower so much of people so much of man hours or deployment of so much of military resources when the thing can be effectively done by a regular criminal court and in a much better manner and by the regular police in a much better manner. So that's what I feel but the service connection controversy per se is not of much significance in India because the military justice system takes care of this that they do not unnecessarily get involved in cases which do not have any service connection, although they can but they do not. Let me let me quickly respond a little bit. I don't. I reader listeners should not be under the impression that this happens every day. It's very unusual for this to happen. But in my own view, it should never happen and the particularly offensive part is where the military either views itself or is viewed by victims and families as a sort of second bite at the apple when the civilian authorities downtown say, look, we're not taking this case to trial for whatever reason. It's not supposed to be for that purpose. It's supposed to be for things that are really central to the achievement of military good order and discipline and the idea of the second bite at the apple, because the family, for example, is disappointed that the district attorney in the county seat refuses to bring an indictment. But I find offensive and even though these things do not happen very often, when they happen, in my opinion, it's wrong. It has a symbolic quality, and it really should be discouraged. Yes, I agree. So what you mean to say is that if the regular criminal justice system does not agree to prosecute a person or to put someone on trial you cannot circumvent that and go. So that stands refused by a by the regular system. So to circumvent that you go to the military and say that no, they refuse to try him or you try him or her. So yes, I agree that that can be problematic. So that is, you know, if something is not possible directly you do it indirectly I agree to that that it's kind of problematic. It can be problematic. Thank you for both of your responses I think it's very interesting to examine somewhat contrasting approaches taken by militaries in different jurisdictions. So here I have the last question. It's from judge Vincent from South Africa, who asked Professor Van Landing them. Can we see a series of enlightening seminars like this in the future by NIMJ or by Punjab University since this is an off ignored field. Well thank you so much for that very complimentary question I hope so inshallah. I think that there's a greater world I know that there's definitely greater interest in military justice and as Professor Fidel and major sing and on young Peter Brigadier Johnston have mentioned that it's easier now with technology and social media to bring bring communities together. And we want divergent views as well. And we would very much like to have more interaction with with individuals within military organizations and Foreign Affairs Ministries of Defense because as Professor Fidel I think very aptly said the best changes are organic that arise from a cultural change and cultural understanding from within, and a fundamental understanding that these changes are pragmatic that they will help achieve the military's objectives. And with with individuals with soldier sailors marines air women and airmen, being the true asset the true resource the number one resource and the most important resource within a within a military. So the answer is yes I hope so and I encourage individuals to reach out to myself to Professor Rosenblatt to major sing with ideas and suggestions and we would love to partner with other other institutions as well so thank you so much for that. That softball question. This is the last question so I hand over the mic to you for. I think Professor Deepi Gupta we are we would request you for a closing address. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, it has been a highly formative. See the seeds of any such sessions and as Rachel puts it so well, God willing. A job university would love to collaborate with you. Technology makes things much easier. Now to talk. Currently, I think we are one of the hot universities on the planet. So let's make the place hotter with lots of debate and discussion. It was very interesting to see the word colonization. We belong to our department of studies and language where we thrive on colonial and postcolonial theories. It was good to see another word crop up. Most welcome any of you. You can reach the Punjabi University anytime. Professor maybe you're seeing how we would love to work with you. One positive act of the lockdown and COVID has been that technology has made the globe a smaller place. I feel that where matters like justice are concerned, the more heads we can bring together, the better it is. That don't look forward to some more fruitful discussion. I hope one day we can all meet up face to face, especially FDR. Thank you very much everyone. Good night. Anybody who wants to say anything please. I second Professor Deepthi's invitation to Punjab University. It will be a pleasure to host all of you and further any such academic discussions or anything that you plan to do in the future. I would just like to say that it reminds me that in the early 90s, and I'm sure you don't remember, but I visited Chandigarh and I stayed with the then Justice Sodi. Justice S.S.Sodi I believe. Yes, his wife was named Bonnie. Two very happy weeks in Chandigarh and during that time Justice Sodi took us to visit the High Court. We had two on the lawn with the advocates. Bonnie has ever been most welcome to come and visit Bonnie and Justice Sodi. I just wanted to say that I have very happy memories of her. And you'll be happy to know that even Frank has visited Chandigarh and so has Professor Fidel and General Spike too. So we have many people who have visited Chandigarh on this panel and what a coincidence actually. We are happy to welcome you to Punjab, no worries. In fact, in fact, Frank, Professor Fidel and General Spike, they visited Punjab University. They saw that they witnessed a street play or something in the evening. I wasn't there, but I think they did. That must have been a flash mob. Something on some social issue and they really enjoyed it. It will be the next morning I remember. I think that if there were a list of world military justice sites like the UNESCO list, Chandigarh would be on it. Thank you. And thanks to Baran Bench and thanks also to Mr. Chathrat for always willing to host us on his Beyond Law CLC channel. And Shagun of course has been so nice and including our organization Baran Bench. They've been so nice hosting all these seminars which have an element of social service and legal education. Thank you so much, everyone. And sorry to wake you up, Madam President, early in the morning at seven o'clock. I'm always up. I'm just whether or not the brain is functioning isn't the question. Thank you so much and I will return the invitation to host something here in Los Angeles at some point. We usually get together in Washington DC where you know down the street from the Pentagon but I look forward to fruitful collaboration and to extensions from from anywhere to collaborate and to enhance the education the understanding of military justice with with the emphasis on justice. So thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone who have participated. And as Nadeep was saying that Beyond Law is always willing to host, but we would rather willing, we are rather willing to host physically. And we can connect on that platform also rather than only on the virtual platform. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And thank you to Baran Bench National Institute of Military Justice Washington DC and Jabhi University for collaborating and sharing the knowledge. Let's go. Thank you. All the best to everybody. Good afternoon everybody. All the best. Thank you.