 Law and morality is a debate that has been continuing since ages. And what is the interplay between the law and morality is what the session will be taken up by today. Niharika Hema Raj, a well known budding lawyer. We had watched her one of our videos on the platform of charm and pain. Therefore, we got requested from different people that we should invite Niharika for sharing the knowledge and whatever little interaction I had before she has come on this platform. I could actually gauge that she has the spirit to make us understand the nuance of law and morality in a different way and in a different facet. I'll request Niharika to take over the bathroom. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me today. So this is a topic that's very dear to me since law school days or whenever when I was studying law when I was a student of law. So this is a topic that I feel still holds good in spite of it being the focus of a discussion for many, many years. So let's start off on what law and morality is, what law is and then what morality is, how they're interplay would work out and we'll take it from there. So to start out, I would like to say what does law mean? Now, law can denote different things. It can be rules and principles and so on. And over the time, many philosophers of law have attempted to define law in many senses. So there have been many, many definitions of law and it's all been criticized by several others. So let's start off with one of those. So I would say that to define law is actually very difficult. So lots of jurists have tried to define law, but at the same time, it's not a simple concept as we might understand it. I would discuss a few definitions proposed by various jurists over time. And then I would also point out the criticism that these definitions are faced and which one of them is my favorite definition of the same. So let's look at some definitions. So let's look at our favorite that is salmon, right? All of us have studied salmon at some point in our study of law or in law school or in our interest in law and so on. So salmon saw law as a body of principles that is recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. That was his definition. So he said these are a body of principles recognized and applied by the state and the administration of justice. So one of the primary criticisms given to this definition was that salmon did not define the expression justice. The justice itself is not defined. So when a justice is not defined, how can we understand law? It was the first criticism given. I believe this was given by Keaton. And thereafter there was another criticism by Roscoe Pound. And Roscoe Pound criticizes definitions, definitions saying that it reduced law to a massive isolated decisions. And the law in this sense, law in that sense to be an organic whole. They said that salmon's definition would only apply to a certain kind of law not to statute itself. So this is another criticism that was given. Now thereafter Austin defined law too, right? So Austin defined law and this is one of my favorite definitions of law is that it's the command of the sovereign. And this I believe holds good even to this day because technically what law is in our country, the way things are is that law eventually stems from statute. Most of the law stems from statute or this. Okay, obviously there is taught law and common law and certain things, but still it has some sort of statutory background in terms of how Indian law works out. So for me, I would agree with Austin when he says that law is a command of the sovereign. Yes, so for law to be law, there has to be some sort of a statutory background and that happens. It works out we have a whole legislative process. And so law comes forth as the command of the sovereign once it's notified and so on. And as long as it's constitutional, it will stay. It cannot be struck down if it's constitutional. So let's just think of law in terms of Austin's definition for now, but at the same time it's also important to look at law in terms of actually heart, but I would get there in some time. And now we would look at morality. So morality is an even harder term to define, I believe. So because what is morality? It is a very abstract concept that we've all tried to understand in different ways. It's certainly not a concept that is very easy to understand because morality, as you all understand would change between persons. It's certainly different for each person or each culture and that type of thing. So morality may not be a concept that is unified to be able to define it very well. So that is one problem with morality in terms of how to define it. But let's take a look at it. So one of the initial attempts to define morality was sort of like a code of conduct. That is put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. So the existence of a large and heterogeneous societies would then raise conceptual problems for such a descriptive definition. Because you cannot really say that law is a code of conduct put forward by a society because there are multiple societies. It's not just one society or two societies. There are so many societies. So then how would you say what type of a conduct is it? Can you say that morality is culturally different from each culture? And then you would say within a culture too there can be a certain morality and there cannot be certain morality. But let's just try and equate it to conscience. So there are some things which across cultures may shock morality, some basic human aspects. So let's take morality for a second to be that and law to be the commander of the sovereign. Now we look at the interplay. So when we look at the interplay, we have to go back to the heart and fuller debate. This is the most prominent debate that has certainly been in discussion forever, I would say for as long as it's been discussed. I think the first article, I mean, first exchange started off in 1958 if I'm not wrong. And that's how it started out this whole debate. So let's just start it out on that note. So Hart's initial paper was a positivism in separation of law and models. And it was there that he talked about the Kamanthivari perspective of legal positivism as stated by Austin, for example, that just gave out their definition. That was a base that he used to look at his part of this law and morality debate. So I just want to take you to that aspect first. That is the Hart's perspective of the heart fuller debate. I just want to take a moment to, yes, to reflect on it. Yes. So Hart is a positivist. So he does not believe that there is a necessary connection between law and morality. He acknowledges that there is a close relationship between law and morality. But it does not disagree that development of the law has been immensely influenced by morality. So he believes that it is not, he does not believe that they are interdependent on each other. So as such, he would say that a line should be drawn between what laws should be and what law ought to be. So that is his perspective, basically. So Hart believes that officials should display truthfulness about the law by concentrating on what it says rather than focusing on what one desires it to say. So let's look at how we look at it today. So let's just say, have you seen that when in a courtroom, we always look at the objective of the law or why a law has come about and try to interpret it that way? So that's probably not how Hart could look at it. So according to Hart, the law consists of primary and secondary rules. So primary rules are duty imposing rules on the citizens and have legal sanction. And secondary rules are power conferring laws that describe how laws should be recognized, adjudicated or changed. So the basic differences between primary rules and secondary rules. I would repeat that again. The primary rules are duty imposing rules on the citizens and they have a legal sanction. But secondary rules are power conferring laws that describe how laws should be recognized, adjudicated or changed. So Hart says that these rules form the heart of the legal system and the rule of recognition is the glue that binds this system as a whole. So Hart advocates it conformity to a certain moral standard is not required for a legal system to exist. Hart acknowledges that law and morals are bound to intersect at some point, certainly. For instance, when a case comes up where the wording of that relevant statute is not sufficient to give effect to the purpose of the law and that type of thing. So Hart says that such cases can be solved by judicial interpretation. Decision can be made about what the law ought to be. And moral factors play a crucial role in such hard cases. But Fuller on the other hand is a naturalist. He sees laws as a way of achieving social order by regulating human behavior through laws. So he believes that our legal system are derived from the norms of justice, which have a moral aspect. He argues that for a law to be valid, it has to go through a moral function test. So he had come up with eight considerations to look at what to run it through that model function test like rules, whether it is published, whether it is prospective, intelligible, not contradictory, a possibility to comply with it, reasonable, stable through time, and followed by officials. All these were his conditions. I believe I've named each of them, but I will go into them in detail in a little bit. So Fuller would then implore law makers to take into consideration each of the above before determining whether a law is valid. So they had to look at multiple aspects. So I would just take my material to rest on that. This is the primary function test. This was the Fuller test. So talking about the Fuller test, there are eight perspectives. That is rules, whether it has been published, whether it is prospective, whether it is intelligible, whether it is not contradictory, whether it is possible to comply with it and whether it is reasonably stable through time. And whether it is followed by officials. These are the eight parameters set out by Fuller to see whether a law is valid. So Fuller would again explain morality by categorizing it into morality of aspiration and morality of duty. So morality of aspiration suggests a desired norm of human conduct that promotes his or her best interest. Morality of duty, on the other hand, is described as the standards people have to follow to ensure smooth functioning of a society. So other forms of morality were also discussed by Fuller. So these are internal morality of law and external morality of law. So internal morality of law is concerned with procedure of lawmaking while the latter focuses more on substance rules of law, which are applied in decision making. So Fuller would reject the positivist approach to law and argues that a society's goals can be achieved by other means rather than relying solely on law. So when we look at these types of proposals, we would understand that somewhere hard is correct and somewhere hard is correct. So both is what would work the best. So we can look at this in a variety of scenarios. And one of the scenarios that I was thinking about was with regard to the Nuremberg case, I hope everyone's aware of the Nuremberg trials. So this was a very famous trial back in time, as we would know where Nazi Germany leaders had to stand trial for the outrageous, very painful crimes that they committed. So this is something that we can use to understand what law and morality debate is and how it would apply in a real world scenario. So let's just look at what the Nuremberg trials were. So when Hitler came into power around 1933, him and his Nazi government had begun to implement policies designed to persecute German Jewish people. And we are aware of this, right? We've all read Anne Frank's Diary, we've all read a lot of books, we've seen a lot of movies. There are tons of movies on this subject, but we know that in general the Nazi policy back then was to exterminate Jews. So yes, so then he began to persecute German Jewish people and other perceived enemies of the Nazi state. So over a decade, these policies grew increasingly repressive and violent and then finally they resulted by the end of World War II in a sort of a systematic state-sponsored murder of around 6 million Jews. As we are aware, they were put into gas chambers, they were held in concentration camps and they were in general killed off. So in December 1942, the Allied leaders of Great Britain, the United States and Soviet Union issued a joint declaration, officially noting the mass murder of European Jewish community and resolving to prosecute the unresponsible, the terrible violence that was perpetrated against civilian population by the state. So now when we look at this particular thing, we understand that when these officials worked for the Nazi government, they were sanctioned by law to carry out these executions. So they were merely following the law. There was a law that permitted these things to happen, these murders to happen or a large number of persons to be killed off. This was permitted by the law. So can we really say that what they committed were crimes in the sense we understand today because when we look at criminal offenses today, we look at them as always in a prospective sense. For example, let's look at the POXO Act. It came in 2012. So when a POXO offense would have occurred before 2012, little boys were not protected, male minors were not protected. And women would have then only received protection of Section 376 and 354, maybe 509, that type of thing. But they would not naturally receive the protection of a stringent, strong act like the POXO Act. Boys were not protected at all, apart from maybe 377. But otherwise, the lesser acts of sexual harassment or even displaying pornography to children, all those types of things just specifically addressed by the POXO Act would not have been applied prior to 2012. And when POXO Act came into being in 2012, we all know that it cannot be retrospectively applied. Most criminal laws work in that manner where retrospective applicability is not usually the norm when it comes to criminal laws. So then we look at the Nazi issue. Now when we look at it, how can we say that something that was perfectly legal at the time it was committed to have been wrong later on? That is a primary question that can be posed by an event like the Nuremberg Trial. However, these Nazi officials were put to trial and the Winston Churchill, who was a British Prime Minister then from 1874 to 1965, if I'm not wrong, he discussed the possibility of a summary execution, an execution without trial of hierarchy Nazis. But he was persuaded by American leaders that a criminal trial would be more effective, which I agree with. A criminal trial is certainly more effective in bringing forth and understanding that people should go through as a system. If we were to execute persons without any proper procedure established by law, that would be utterly chaotic, archaic and extremely chaotic. It will be anarchy of the total order. So it will be completely like an anarchy sort of a system. So we cannot obviously do that. And that's why he was persuaded by American leaders saying that there should be a criminal trial and that would be more effective. So other advantages was that criminal proceedings would require documentations of the crimes charged against the defendants. And this would also prevent later accusations and the defendants had been condemned without evidence. So they cannot obviously say that these people hadn't done something and that type of accusation would not come in later. So even then there were many legal and procedural difficulties to overcome in setting up the Nuremberg trials. So firstly, there were no precedent. So there had never been an international trial of war criminals earlier before the Nuremberg trials. But there were earlier instances of prosecution for war crimes. Like there was an execution of a Confederate army officer, Henry Wurz, for his maltreatment of Union prisoners of war during the American Civil War. And there were also court marshals that were held by Turkey to punish whoever was responsible for the Armenian genocide in 1915-16. However, these were all trials that were conducted according to the laws of a single nation. But in Nuremberg trials, a group of four powers, France, Britain, Soviet Union and the US, they all had different legal traditions and practices. So obviously there was that primary difficulty. So the Allies eventually established laws and procedures for the Nuremberg trials with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal. This was issued on August 8, 1945. And among other things, the Charter defined three categories of crimes. So there were primary three categories of crimes in that particular Charter that was crimes against peace. So this was including planning, preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements. Then there were war crimes that is including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. And then there were crimes against humanity. That is including murder, enslavement of deputation of civilians or persecution on political religious or racial grounds. So it was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused of war crimes. Both categories. Now, the city of Nuremberg in the German state of Bavaria was selected as a location of the trials because its palace of justice was relatively undamaged by the war. And it included a large prison area also. And Nuremberg had also been the site of annual Nazi propaganda rallies that were held. So holding the post war trials there was also a symbolic end of Hitler's government. So that was another reason. So the best known of the Nuremberg trials, lots of trials related to that time, but best known of the Nuremberg trial was a trial of major war criminals. This was held from 1945 to 1946, almost a year. I think it began in November and ended in October if I'm not wrong. So the format of this trial was a mix of legal traditions like I pointed out earlier. So there were prosecutors and defense attorneys according to British and American law. But the decisions and sentences were imposed by a tribunal, like a panel of judges and rather than a single judge in a jury. So the chief American prosecutor was there and there was an associate justice of the US Supreme Court. Each of the four allied powers supplied two judges. There was a main judge and an alternate judge. So 24 individuals were indicted at that point of time along with six Nazi organizations determined to be criminals like the Gestapo or secret staples. So one of the indicted men was deemed medically unfit to stand trial. While a second man killed himself before the trial began. So this is what also happened. And Hitler and two of his top associates that was Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels, they had committed suicide. Supposedly there are lots of conspiracy theories that say that Hitler had not committed suicide and something else had happened. But that was again something that was said at the time. So defendants were allowed to choose their own lawyers. And the most common defense strategy was that the crimes defined in the London Charter were examples of post facto law. That is, there were laws that criminalized actions committed before the laws were drafted. One moment please. One moment. Sorry, I'm back. I'm back. I'm back. So then there were 24 individuals that were indicted along with six Nazi organizations, like I said. And I was talking about Hitler having committed suicide. So that was one of the theories that was said, that was put forth, that Hitler committed suicide. But again, there's a lot of conspiracy theories on this. Anyway, so the defendants were then allowed to choose their own lawyers. They were permitted to choose their own lawyers. And the most common defense strategy was that the crimes defined in the London Charter were examples of ex post facto law. That is, there was a law that criminalized actions committed before the laws were drafted. Another defense was that trial was a form of victor's justice. So the allies were applying a harsh standard to crimes committed by Germans. And leniency to crimes committed by their own soldiers. This was a primary thing that was said. These are the two defenses that were taken. So they accused men and judges for different languages. The trial saw the introduction of a technological innovation, which is actually taken for granted today, you can say in some ways. It was instantaneous translation. I believe it was IBM that provided the technology back then. It recruited men and women from international telephone exchanges to provide on the spot translation through headphones in English, French, German and Russian. We can see these types of proceedings even now if we search up on YouTube. So in the end, the international tribunal found everyone except three of them, three of the defendants guilty. So 12 of them were sentenced to death, one in absentia and the rest were given prison sentences ranging from about 10 years to life behind bars. So 10 of the condemned were executed already by 1946. They were executed and even Hitler's designated successor and head of the Luftwaffe. He committed suicide the night before his execution with a cyanide capsule is also another thing that was said. Then thereafter, after this trial of major war criminals, there were 12 additional trials which were again held at Nuremberg. So these proceedings, lasting from December 1946 to April 1949, are grouped together. So they called a subsequent Nuremberg proceedings. So they differed from this first trial, yes. So they differed from this first trial in that they were conducted before the US military tribunals rather than the international tribunal that decided the fate of major Nazi leaders. So the reason for the change was that growing differences among four allied powers had made the other joint trials impossible. It was not possible because these allied powers were starting to see differences of opinion between them. So subsequent trials were also held in the same location that was at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. So these proceedings included the doctor's trial. So in the doctor's trial, there were 23 defendants. They were accused of crimes against humanity. So I'm sure that all of you have heard of the medical experiments that were conducted on prisoners of war during the Nazi regime. Lots of horror movies that are made on this genre and so on. Anyway, so that was there. Then there was judges trial. So judges trial was from March 5th, December 4th, 1947, sorry, March 5th to December 4th, 1947. And 16 lawyers and judges were charged with furthering the Nazi plan of racial purity by implementing the Eugenics law of Third Reich. Third Reich is at Hitler's regime. Other subsequent trials dealt with German industrialists. So these were persons who were accused of using slave labor and plundering occupied countries. High ranking army officers accused of atrocities against prisoners of war. And other SS officers accused of violence against concentration camp inmates. So around 185 people indicted in the subsequent Nuremberg trials, 12 defendants of them received death sentences. Eight others were given life in prison and about 77 of them received prison in terms of varying lengths, different lengths. And then later, their sentences were also reduced. So Nuremberg trials were controversial, even among the people who wanted all these major criminals to be punished. So the Mr. Stone, who was a chief justice of the US Supreme Court at that point of time, said that this was a kind of a sanctimonious fraud and a high grade lynching party. And another associate US Supreme Court justice at that point of time also said that the allies substituted power for principle in Nuremberg. So most observers considered the trials as a step forward to the establishment of international law. And findings in Nuremberg led directly to the United Nations Genocide Convention and the UDHR, as well as the Geneva Conventions of Law and Customs of War. And in addition to this, the International Military Tribunal supplied a useful precedent for the trials of Japanese war criminals in Tokyo, which happened from 1946 to 48. And then the 1961 trial of Aikman. So Aikman trial is another one that I wanted to talk about this in terms of law and morality debate. And then I would come to more contemporary issues thereafter. So I want to briefly talk about the Aikman trial. So this was Adolf Aikman's trial that I'm talking about. He was a very important figure in the implementation of the final solution as the FNSB in capital, final solution. He was charged with managing and facilitating all these mass deportation centers of Jews to get those and then killing centers in the German occupied east part of the place. And he was also one of the major organizers of the Holocaust. So his trial started in 1961 in Jerusalem in Israel and this sparked international interest and heightened public awareness of the crimes of the Holocaust. There have also been movies on the Aikman trial. So it was a very important trial in terms of the law and morality debate. So let me start off by telling you who Adolf Aikman was. So he was a high ranking Nazi German official and he was also known to be a war criminal. So during the Holocaust, he played a central role in the implementation of what was known as a final solution. So final solution, let me try and explain what it is. It's actually, the term is actually final solution of Jewish question. This was a euphemism. This was used by Nazi Germany's leaders. It referred to the mass murder of Europe's Jews. It brought to an end of policies aimed at encouraging or forcing Jews to leave and the German Reich and other parts of Europe. So those policies were replaced by systematic annihilation. So that's basically what this final solution is anyway. So Aikman organized the deportation of more than 1.5 million Jews from all over Europe to get those or to killing centers. And then they were killing sites that were there in German occupied Poland and other parts of Soviet Union, which were occupied by the Nazis. So he organized his deportations with a cadre of Nazi officials who he referred to as the Aikman-Maner, Aikman's men. So following the Banksy conference, he relayed on the plans of the final solution to his network of officials who helped him carry out these deportation efforts. So much of this war, Aikman's main role was to organize logistics of the deportation of Jews. So Aikman made deportation plans down to the last detail. He was working with other German agencies. He determined how the property of deported Jews would be seized. He also made certain that the officers directed in the right security main office would also benefit from these confiscated assets. So in addition, Aikman arranged the deportation of tens of thousands of Roma. Roma is gypsy people, the gypsies. So in Hungary, Aikman involved himself directly on the ground in the deportation process as well. So it's estimated that he and his aides together approximately sent out 440,000 Hungarian Jews, mostly to Auschwitz. And we all know what happened in Auschwitz, the concentration camp. And after World War II, Aikman was arrested by American authorities and held him in a detention camp, which is meant for SS members. However, he succeeded, he evaded, he used some fictional identity papers and all that and he escaped to Argentina. So when he learned that his true identity had been discovered, Aikman escaped from a work detail. So he eventually succeeded in fleeing Europe to go to Argentina where he lived under the assumed name. He had another name called Ricardo Clement. So he was eventually joined by his family. Aikman lived quietly and worked in a Mercedes-Benz factory in Buenos Aires. But he was then captured by the Israelis. They were tipped off by the German Justice Official. I think it was Bauer about where Aikman was and Israeli officials initiated a plan for his capture. So Argentina had a history of denying extradition requests. So because of this, the Israeli Prime Minister then, it was David Ben-Gurion, made the decision to secretly capture him. So in 1960, officers from Israeli Foreign Intelligence Service, which we all know is Mossad, so many, so many stories about Mossad, the way they function. It's a very highly respected or very interesting intelligence service, Mossad. They seized Aikman from outside his residence in, and then they took him to Israel. They took him all the way to Israel and Aikman's seizure by Mossad became an international incident and Argentina protested in violation of its sovereign rights to the United Nations Security Council as well before this dispute was moved over. And then you can also Google the Aikman trial for his photographs. You can see all the pictures of Aikman and the trial as well. I believe there are some photographs as well. Anyway, so the charges, we can talk about the charges. So the legal basis for the charges against Aikman was the 1950 Nazi and Nazi collaborators' punishment law. So this law permitted Israeli courts to punish Nazi perpetrators for crimes against the Jews during World War II. So Israeli Attorney General had then signed a bill of indictment against Aikman on 15 counts. 15 counts. These were including crimes against Jewish people and crimes against humanity. So Aikman was also charged with a membership in the stormtroopers and security service in Gestapo, all of which had been declared criminal organizations in 1946 in the verdict of the Nuremberg trial. That's how these two connect. And then as head of the RSHA section for Jewish FAS, Aikman coordinated with Gestapo, Chief Heinrich Müller, on a plan to expel Jews from greater Germany to German occupied Poland. So this had then set a pattern for future deportation. So then let's look at Aikman's defense. So Aikman testified from behind a glass booth to protect him from a possible assassination. As we know this is happening in Israel. So he asserted that he had not merely, he had not dictated policy, but he only carried them out. So he was merely a little person in the machinery of destruction. So in his last day of testimony, he admitted that while he was guilty of arranging transport of millions of Jews into their deaths, he did not feel guilty of the consequences. This is another thing that had happened. So Aikman followed the common plea of all the Nazi perpetrators as I explained earlier about the Nuremberg trials. So he ended up saying that he was only following the orders of others. But Aikman's judges concluded that he had been a key perpetrator in the genocide of European Jewry as a Jewish person. So and then in December 1961, Aikman was convicted of crimes against the Jewish people. Crimes against him, humanity, war crimes and membership of criminal organization. He was sentenced to death on December 15, 1961. And in 1960, he was sentenced to death. Yes. And then I think the next June 1962 was when he was finally executed by hanging. So his body was cremated and the ashes were put in the sea and beyond Israel's territorial waters. So the execution of Adolf Aikman remains the only time that Israel had enacted a death sentence is one thing that has been said about Israel as well. So after this, the Aikman trial again cost a lot of international interest in the events of the Holocaust. So the proceedings were one of the first trials that were widely televised. Like I said, you can instantly go on YouTube or on Google and you can find pictures of the same. So it brought Nazi atrocities to worldwide audience. Many historians say that the Aikman trial is a time in which the term Holocaust and its events became firmly embedded in the public consciousness. But when we look at both this Aikman trial and Euromberk trials, we can see that these are trials wherein persons were punished for their actions, not based on the law that they followed, but on something else altogether. So this is the real thing that we need to look at and how it would play about today. So another concept that I personally feel that can be discussed in terms of law and morality debate is the concept of universal jurisdiction. Now, this is not a concept that is usually widely discussed. I've never really heard it being discussed among a lawyer community, more so on the academic side of things. So I've heard this being discussed in universities as a small module within a structure of international law. But I've never really seen people talking about this particular universal jurisdiction and I have no idea how it would operate in India because we don't really seem to have something similar to this except for some extraterritorial jurisdiction that we would exercise in some ways. But again, universal jurisdiction is an even larger concept. So I would talk about what universal jurisdiction is. So universal jurisdiction refers to the idea that a national court may prosecute individuals for serious crimes, really serious crimes against international law. So these would include crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, torture, or based on the principle that such crimes harm the international community or international order itself, which individual states can act to protect. So generally, universal jurisdiction is invoked when other or traditional bases of criminal jurisdiction are not available. For example, when the defendant is not a national of that particular state or when the defendant not come in a crime in the states territory or against his nationals. So we can understand this in terms of the Indian penal code, right? So when we open the Indian penal code, when we look at the initial preamble itself, we can see the extension of the code to extraterritorial offenses, which would come up in section four. So I would just take section four right now so that I can explain this a little better. So section four, one moment. So extension of code to extraterritorial offenses, it would say. So provision of this code would apply to any offense committed by any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India, or any person on any ship or aircraft that is registered in India, wherever it may be, any person in any place without and beyond India committing offenses, targeting a computer resource located in India, and so on all these different extensions of code to extraterritorial offenses. But you can notice that here in a crime has to be committed by a citizen of India or a person in a certain place, etc., which are all defined by the act itself. So one of the illustrations given is that A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. It can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found. So this is there. But can we really take it as universal jurisdiction? No. Because universal jurisdiction is an even larger concept because it does not restrict itself by these types of conditions because it is invoked when other traditional basis of criminal jurisdiction are not available. So it does not have to be a national of the state in which he is being tried. The defendant did not have to commit a crime in the states to territory or against its nationals, or the state's own national interests are not adversely affected. So national courts can exercise universal jurisdiction when the state has adopted legislation recognizing their relevant crimes and authorizing their prosecution. So we can look at Spain as an example, although the laws there has also changed. But Spain was one of the countries that really, really utilized the universal jurisdiction concept. So sometimes the national legislation is mandated by international agreements like the Convention Against Torture or the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which requires state parties to adopt laws necessary to prosecute or even extradite any person accused of torture who is within that particular state's territorial jurisdiction. So domestic laws have to, in a way, incorporate universal jurisdiction for them to exercise it. So then I wanted to just talk about some prominent cases which have used universal jurisdiction. So one was the United Kingdom's consideration of Spain's request. This is very famous. This was the Pinochet case wherein the UK had to consider Spain's request to extradite a former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and for a crime that was not committed in Spain. Then there was US prosecution of a former Liberian president's son, this was Chuckie Taylor. There was a Guatemalan case, this is Spanish prosecution again, a Guatemalan genocide case. There was another Argentine naval officer again, Spanish prosecution of the same. So in all these cases we can see that universal jurisdiction and law and morality, heart full of debate, they all interplay. But the main interest in terms of how it plays today would be what is happening in Israel and Palestine and what is happening in Russia and Ukraine. How would we understand those things that are happening there now? Because in some way all the soldiers who are acting on behalf of the state are following orders. But can we say that at a later point of time there might be another trial that would hold these persons responsible for their actions? If then who would probably hold these trial trials, what would happen? Those types of discussions, we can also look at retrospective application of criminal law. Is it going to be done in some instance in the future? All these are really exciting questions that can be raised in terms of the law and morality debate. So I just wanted to bring forth these cases and talk about a heart full of debate and its relevance to this day in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict because again there is an interplay of law and morality and how it works out and so on. So if there's any questions I would be very happy to discuss that. It's not available on the chat but let me check it out on the YouTube. Okay. No, so thank you Nehrika for sharing your knowledge. Thank you. It was insightful and you have taken us into deeper insights of the perspectives and I am quite sure that people would like it. Thank you once again. Thank you. Thank you.