 Welcome back to the People's Tribunal on Crimes of Aggression Afghanistan sessions. Today is the third and final day of the tribunal. Before the panel give their verdict, I will sum up the events of this three-day People's Tribunal and remind the court of the charges we are investigating against the British state. In past sessions we looked into the legislative context behind this case, Britain's historic engagement with Afghanistan and witnessed testimony on life under the Taliban. We engaged with Afghanistan, apologies, we also heard anonymous testimony from a British ambassador to Afghanistan regarding the political reasoning behind the invasion. We heard testimony from Arzu Nalbaha and Sahar about the treatment of women by the Taliban and by the coalition forces. Asim Qureshi spoke of the domestic counter-terrorist legislation put in place in the United Kingdom and the detrimental effect it has had on Muslim communities. We also heard testimony from Mozambique, an anonymous witness Noor of lived experiences of torture with British complicity. In the last session we explored how the arms trade has fueled the war with testimony from Habib Akhmadi, retired United States Army colonel Lawrence Wilkerson and Andrew Feinstein. Today, September the 11th, 2020, the prosecution presented evidence of the reality of the US-UK invasion in Afghanistan. We heard from Dr. Nivey Manchanda who explained to us the British and US war crimes and how the invasion can be considered a neo-colonial project. We heard a fictionalised testimony of a dead British soldier written by playwright Chris Thorpe who was killed on tour in Helmand. Another fictional testimony written by Shala Nix gave voice to a seven-and-a-half-year-old girl who was killed alongside her family by British forces. We also heard a journalistic report that documented the killing of Afghan civilians by British forces in Afghanistan. For their own safety, the journalist requested to be anonymous. In the afternoon, Gawali Pasalai gave testimony on his own experience as a refugee from Afghanistan and Dr. Manish Bhatia shared his expert research in the treatment of refugees in the UK. In a truth-hearing session, we also heard testimony of torture, war and the psychological trauma NATO troops face when serving and the trauma their children and partners go through. I will now pass over to the panel who will give us their verdict. Thank you for joining us today on the 20th anniversary of 9-11. It's an important moment to reflect on to mark the event that has shaped all of our lives. This tribunal is for the people and its victims. It is a fictional and artistic tribunal where we have given voices to those who have had direct and indirect experiences off the wall on terror. We do this in hope that we are setting a precedent for justice to be secured for not only the people of Afghanistan and the Allied military, but also other lands subjugated destabilized and destroyed by Imperial acts of violence. Onto the charges and our verdict, count one, crime of aggression. For the crime of aggression against Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan, under the adapted interpretation of Article 8-BIS of the Rome Statute for Crimes of Aggression, we find the defendant, the State of the United Kingdom, guilty. As mentioned by Dr. McManus, the State of the United Kingdom is also found guilty of crimes of aggression, not only under our interpretation of the Rome Statute, but also under customary international law and its definition of the crimes of aggression which has historically invoked state responsibility. The defendant invaded with excessive violence and proceeded to occupy Afran territories. The intention was racially, economically and politically motivated, rooted in colonial ideology and avoided the peaceful democratic options we have seen in the court offered by Colonial Lawrence Wilkinson that were clearly available to them. We agree with Professor Richard Forks' assessment that international law was manipulated for unjust causes. We also believe that any potential legal justification for the defendant's actions have no convincing ground. In this sense, it is clear that the defendant's war was not authorized and thus legitimated by the United Nations Security Council. Any claim of self-defense has no basis and application in the context of the war we are judging upon today. Count two, Crimes Against Humanity. As we heard from witnesses Sahar, Mozambique and Noor, the war on terror brought murder, illegal imprisonment, torture, forcible transfers of population and deportation, and many more inhumane atrocities upon the innocent civilians of Afghanistan. All these acts constitute crimes against humanity for the purpose of Article 7 of the Rome Statute and allow us to find the defendant guilty under Article 7 and its subsections 1A, D, F and I and K of the Rome Statute. The types of arms provided to the Afghan National Army by Britain and the United States, as seen in evidence by Andrew Feinstein, were obtained through corruption and led to unnecessary deaths. These weapons were used to commit crimes against humanity and as noted by Habib Ahmadiyy were prolific in Afghan communities. Count three, War Crimes. While the British military was supposed to fight the Taliban in order to protect the Afghan population, we saw in Gulwali's testimony that the British forces did anything but protect his small village full with civilians when they targeted it in their bombardment. We could see the same targeting of civilians by the British forces through ISIS testimony and evidence given by Arzu Naubahar. According to the 1949 Geneva Convention, such willful killing, willful causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health and extensive destruction and appropriation of property which is not militarily necessary and which is carried out unlawfully and wantonly constitute war crimes. As the anonymous British Ambassador for Afghanistan during a period of the invasion confirmed that the war on terror was needed and desired to be appropriately bloodied, we can infer the necessary willfulness of the British forces in their targeting of civilian lives and facilities. We therefore find the State of the United Kingdom guilty of war crimes as per the 1949 Geneva Convention. Count four, Torture. Based on the witness statements heard in this tribunal, we can confirm that the State of the United Kingdom is guilty of torture as per the Convention Against Torture and other cruel inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment of 1984. Our recommendations. One, Payment of reparations to the people of Afghanistan and its diaspora. Two, Assert public and state control through legislation and autonomous bodies over armament industries and major corporations in all countries. Three, Reduce the national defence budgets from being solely for military. Four, Revise the concept of permanent membership of the Security Council as it is not in the interest of peaceful solution of disputes. Five, Review the institutions that facilitated the state including propaganda used. Six, The United Kingdom and its allies to keep the borders open to Afghan asylum seekers and to immediately cease deportations of Afghan nationals. Seven, Issamophobia to be defined legally and be punishable in its own right based on the evidence given by us in Qureshi. Eight, Reassessment of colonial history from the viewpoint of its victims for future generations in the United Kingdom to be better educated. And finally nine, Full investigation of the treatment of refugees based on the evidence given by Dr. Bhatia. Our decision today has been made on the evidence of expert opinions, witness testimonies and additional information that we have been given over the course of these three days. We must also acknowledge in the proceedings of the past three days and in our decision that there are Afghan people from Afghanistan both in this room and in our audience who will feel a pain that our words and verdicts cannot capture. It is their lives, their families, their children's, their homes, cities, towns and villages that have been affected from well over 20 years of war. Tajik, Turkmen, Hazara, Uzbek, Pashay, Baloch, Kuchi, Pashtun, Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and others these are the people of Afghanistan who have been affected. And it is the pain of the past 20 years and beyond from the civil war, the Soviet-Afghan war and colonial interventions that only Afghans can understand, an intergenerational trauma for which the world should be ashamed. We know too that this is a moment of nervous anticipation. The 20-year war in Afghanistan has been revealed as a farce. The Taliban who we were told here in the United Kingdom where the bad guys are now back in power. The war crimes of the Taliban too must not be forgotten, hidden or forgiven as they step into power and so too what we might add of those crimes committed by warlords, the failed leaders of the former Afghan national government and others. But this is a trial of the state of the United Kingdom and its leaders who despite promises of a good war and defeating the bad guys have failed. Its leaders, its institutions, the military and others. They have as our verdict shows engaged in their own crimes against humanity and their own war crimes and of this matter there can be no doubt. These claims of a moral war seeped in Augustine Christian principles of being a just war have revealed themselves to be somewhat hypocritical to say the least. But we hope that we can learn from these mistakes and at least that this tribunal can tell us somewhat about the futility of war and that there are no good wars. And we can hope and work towards making sure that the difficulties of the people of Afghanistan will not have to continue on. Afghans and the people of Afghanistan may be constructed as resilient and brave but perhaps we can just let them be. Thank you very much. Court adjourned.