 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before taking your questions, I wish to highlight a few points. First, Iran. There is much discussions about the future of the JCPOA. It is not the role of the agency to comment or speculate on the positions of parties through the agreement. We are concentrating on discharging our responsibility, which is to verify and monitor Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. As I have said many times, I believe the JCPOA represents a significant gain for verification. The IAEA now has the world's most robust verification regime in place in Iran. We have had access to all locations that we needed to visit. Our inspection work has doubled since 2013. IAEA inspectors now spend 3,000 calendar days per year on the ground in Iran. We have installed some 2,000 tamper-proof seals on nuclear material and equipment. We have carried out more than 60 complementary accesses and visited more than 190 buildings since JCPOA implementation day. We collect and analyze hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by our sophisticated surveillance cameras in Iran. About half of the total number of such images that we collect throughout the world. We collect over a million pieces of open source information each month related to Iran. All of our activities are supported by state-of-the-art technology, including data-collecting and processing systems. Our current verification capability is much stronger than it has ever been. As of today, I can state that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments. It is essential that Iran continues to do so. If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and multilateralism. Second, the most important event in the IAEA calendar this year is our Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Science and Technology, which will take place in Vienna from November 28th to the 30th. The conference will bring together ministers, technical experts, and many others to consider how they can make optimal use of nuclear science and technology in achieving their development goals. The IAEA contributes directly to the achievement of nine of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Nuclear science and technology help countries to produce more food, generate more electricity, treat diseases such as cancer, manage their water supplies, and respond to climate change and much more. These will be among the issues discussed at the important conference starting on November 28th in Vienna this year. Thank you very much, and I am happy to take your questions. You said that you do not want to comment or speculate about any party's commitment to the JCPOA. Can you tell us what prompted you to come up with the statement that if the JCPOA fails, it will be a great loss? What are your concerns? Can you elaborate for us a bit? I have said many times that JCPOA is an implementation of nuclear-related commitments by Iran under JCPOA is a significant gain for verification. Therefore, if it were to fail, it means a significant loss. It is a logical consequence. What I mean is what prompted you to make this statement? Can you specify for us specifically if you have any concerns concerning the US administration's comments or actions? The basis for my comment is my understanding that JCPOA is a significant gain for verification. Speaking more specifically about the recent comments by the US administration and President Donald Trump, he signaled out several areas of the JCPOA that he is unhappy with, and he has mentioned inspections specifically. What is your understanding of what the US administration believes can be improved, or your position on whether there can be any change to how inspections are carried out under the deal? I cannot comment on the US position, but I can explain my position on the IAEA. That is why I said that I expect to spend 3,000 days in Iran. We collect hundreds of thousands of images in Iran. We collect 1 million items from open source, and we had more than 60 locations and more than 190 buildings. What I said is that we can state that our verification regime and verification activities are very robust. How to perceive it? It's a matter of other countries, and I cannot comment. Thank you, Mr. Ramano. As you have said several times, Iran has been implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. While at the same time you say that you cannot say that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, are you making a kind of distinction between nuclear commitments and other parts of the JCPOA, or somehow you are siding with the US narrative on this regard? I do not mean that I am commenting other issues than nuclear. It is not the mandate of the IAEA, and I stay within my mandate. So my comment is always related to nuclear-related activities. Why do I say then Iran is implementing the commitments, but I do not say Iran is complying with the JCPOA? The reason is very simple. IAEA is not a party to the JCPOA. In any agreement or legal agreement, the one that is not a party to the agreement does not have the authority to pass judgment whether some party is in compliance or not. However, we are given the task of monitoring and verifying the implementation of commitments by Iran. So I discharged my responsibility and I expressed my observation. I want to change the focus to DPRK. You still remain very concerned. During the Winter Olympic period, they had been somewhat on the surface of the political side. It seems that a bit of a deterrent atmosphere was being displayed. But during those time, did you see any sort of good will from the side of DPRK in terms of the nuclear activities? Had it been changed at all or what was the situation during that time? And also, how do you view that sort of situation at the moment? Thank you. I was watching Winter Olympics, but IAEA was not observing and monitoring Winter Olympics. We kept on monitoring the nuclear program of North Korea, mainly through satellite imagery, and we have not seen any change. Thank you. My name is Tsuchiya from Kyoto News. I'd like to ask about the questions relating to Japan. It's been almost seven years since the huge earthquake and the accident in the Fukushima nuclear power plant. So let me seek your comment on the IAEA's efforts on the field of nuclear safety and its achievement. Fukushima Daiichi accident seven years ago was a huge accident caused by tsunami. We have learned a lot from this accident. Just after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, we have organized a ministerial conference followed by the decision of a general conference on the action plan. The action plan has been implemented and IAEA safety standards have been updated. Many countries also conducted so-called stress tests and when needed, they upgraded the safety features. Since the Fukushima Daiichi accident, a lot of improvement has been made in the area of nuclear safety. Japan has kept on providing the information to us and we have been updated and we have uploaded these pieces of information with our comments. Also, we have been helping Fukushima and for example, we have helped them to ensure the quality of seawater monitoring and we will continue to undertake these activities. I continue to believe that safety is very important and safety culture must be strengthened all the time. Just a follow-up to the DPRK. You said that it hasn't changed. What does that mean? Does it mean that it appears that they are continuing their development or what does it mean that it hasn't changed? We continue to monitor and we do not see changes but with respect to the specific information, we will update the Board of Governors members when needed.