 Thanks very much, Julie, and a wonderful organization here. Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, we are pleased to convene today this event here with Bernadette from UNHCR and the other participating organizations on today's panel. They are ICRC, Article 36, Norwegian People's Aid, and the Civilian Impact Monitoring Project. All to explore how we can support the efforts at the country level to take forward the EWIPA declaration to strengthen the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas is a major cause of civilian harm in armed conflict. Nearly 94% of victims last year were civilians. Many surviving victims of explosive weapons face lifelong disabilities and grave psychological trauma. Explosive weapons also damage or destroy critical infrastructure with reverberating effects on essential services such as water, sanitation, electricity and healthcare, and the destruction of food supply chains. Even when parties claim to use explosive weapons in populated areas in compliance with international law, this still causes a pattern of devastating harm to civilians in the immediate and long term, and we are seeing this go on today right now under our radio noses. Indeed, when used in populated areas, explosive weapons continue to wreak harm far beyond their targets and long after their use. As humanitarians, we continue to witness the death, injury, destruction, and displacement caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. We see this in the Occupy-Palestinian Territory in Gaza today, in Ukraine, in Syria, and in many other places. OSHA has actively engaged on this issue since 2009. We have worked closely with states, the UN, ICRC and civil society partners, some of whom you hear from on today's panel. And in an effort to better document, understand and minimize the humanitarian impact of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. In a milestone achievement on 18 November 2022 last year, states adopted the EWIPA political declaration, which has been endorsed by 83 states. States declared that they would ensure their armed forces adopt and implement policies and practices to avoid civilian harm, including by restricting or refraining from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas where such weapons may be expected to cause civilian harm. Implementing the declaration must mark a departure from the business as usual approach and go towards further reducing harm to civilians. The UN, including OSHA, remains fully invested in promoting the universalization of the political declaration and supporting its effective implementation. Today's event builds on side events OSHA convened earlier this year during the protection of Civilian's Week and the ECOSOC humanitarian affairs segment that focus on actions required by states to implement the political declaration with the goal of better protecting civilians and strengthening compliance with international humanitarian law. The objective of today's event is to raise greater awareness of the political declaration among the wide range of protection and other humanitarian actors who engage in or with the protection cluster. So the panel will speak to the humanitarian impact of EWIPA and its use as witnessed by protection actors on the ground. It will identify priority areas within the political declaration to address as well as opportunities and entry points for the protection cluster to reinforce national level implementation efforts. It is my great pleasure now to give the floor to Bernadette of UNHCR for additional opening remarks and I wish you all very fruitful discussions. Thank you and over to you Bernadette. Good afternoon, Ramesh and thank you very much. Good morning and good evening to all. It's my pleasure to co-host this event and open it with Ramesh on behalf of UNHCR and OSHA colleagues. Complimenting on what Ramesh said, the world is witnessing a concerning increase in urban welfare, a trend that has devastating consequences for civilian populations and Ramesh has given us a few examples. In this context, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas further intensifies the risk of death and injury to civilians as well as the damage and destruction of civilian objects and infrastructure. Ramesh, you have given a few examples and I'd like to say that on the impact of explosive weapons and the attacks that they cause on civilian populations, we will hear a very vibrant testimony from Mohanad in a few minutes and I'd like to say that I'm humbled that he accepted to join us today and I'd like to thank him in advance. While multiple factors drive forced displacement, data from various conflicts strongly indicate a significant correlation between the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and mass civilian displacements, whether internally or across borders. As stated by the High Commissioner for Refugees Guanty at the Security Council two days ago, forced displacement has now reached 114 million people. This has a business of persecution, conflict, violence and human rights violations in too many countries. Alarmingly up to two thirds of these more than 110 million people have been distanced within their own countries. It is absolutely imperative to bolster the protection of all civilians against both the direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons use. This requires to hear civilians' populations call for protection, to negotiate and to use diplomacy to prevent or stop the use of explosive weapons and when this use continues to strengthen partnership in response to mitigate the impact of explosive weapons attacks. Ramesh, you mentioned the landmark Dublin Declaration last year. We consider it a milestone towards strengthening the protection of civilians and respect for international humanitarian law. There is a pressing need to multiply our efforts to translate these commitments into concrete actions at global and national level, wherever and whenever possible. Coordinated approach to enhance protection and protective measures can help prevent arbitrary displacement, safeguarding the rights of victims and creating conditions conducive to solutions, both for all civilians but in particular also for those who are internally displaced and refugees. Today's side event is a demonstration of our joint commitment but also our investments in this collective effort. I hope it will provide an opportunity to share best practices, tools and innovative approaches for translating the Dublin Declaration into tangible and measurable actions. I wish you and us all a very successful discussion. Thank you very much. Julie, I will come in now just to thank you Bernadette and Ramesh for your engagement and for so helpfully helping us frame the discussion today. We will now turn over to the debate. As noted earlier, we are joined by five eminent speakers all with a wealth of experience and insights on protection of civilians and on conflict and specifically on the issue of explosive weapons in populated areas and the harm that they pose to civilians. The panel will bring both a perspective from the country and the global level. In order to save time, we will post the speakers' titles and share with you their biographies in the chat. And just to note, I have some pre-prepared questions for the speakers but we would like also to put your questions to them as well. So please do post your questions and comments in the chat box and we will come back to them as the conversation progresses. And then just to note to the speakers, I'd like again to just remind you to keep your initial responses relatively short so that we can hear from all of you and move to questions from the floor. Our first speaker today is Laura Boyer, Director of UK based Article 36. Laura, my question to you is, why is curbing the use of explosive weapons urgent? And what is the significance of the AWEPA political declaration? We've heard a little bit of that from our interest opening remarks but it would be great to hear a bit more from you. As well as building on that question, now that it's been adopted by 83 states as we heard from Ramesh, where do we go from here? Over to you, Laura. Thanks so much, Dina. And thanks very much to Otcha and UNHCR for organising this event but also for those opening remarks, which very much I think set the scene for the event and the discussion today. So I work with INU, we are a coalition of civil society organisations. And through our work, we have found that whenever explosive weapons are used in cities, towns and populated areas, it is always civilians that suffer the most. This is something that we have documented through research and data collection, but also through the presence of our members with programmes in countries that are impacted by conflict and explosive weapon use. So you asked there about why this is an urgent problem and I think in large part, it is because it is such a widespread and severe problem. Through our data collection and research, we have found that each year tens of thousands of civilians are killed and injured from bombing and shelling in towns and cities and other populated areas and yet more suffer from the psychological impacts of living under bombing. One of our members, Action on Armed Violence, has collected data that shows that when explosive weapons are used in populated areas, 90% of the victims are civilians. We are seeing very much on our new screens and through reports today of the extensive bombardment in the Gaza Strip and the impacts that that's having on people there, which I think is one very acute example of devastation and suffering. And yet I think it's also important to recognise that this is very much a pattern of harm that has been experienced all too frequently in many different contexts as well, in Ukraine, Ethiopia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, to name just a few examples. So it's very much a persistent widespread and I think also foreseeable pattern of harm that through the research and data collection our network has done. We've documented this each year in 50 to 60 countries to varying degrees. And it's very much that the burden falling on civilians. But I think that research and data collection also speaks predominantly to the direct impacts and in addition, important also to recognise that there are very severe indirect and reverberating effects that often stem from damage and destruction to infrastructure. So for example, from damage to housing, power networks, water and sanitation systems that often can far outweigh in terms of the impact it has on civilians, the immediate death toll from say an individual attack. And these long-term impacts are experienced by people far beyond the area of the tech, but also for long periods of time. So for weeks, months or even years after. And I think we'll hear a bit more about this from other speakers. But as a couple of examples in Mosul, and I know Mahanad will speak to this shortly, 80% of the housing was destroyed, years on people are still displaced. And entire neighbourhoods are yet to be rebuilt, which has had a significant impact as well on basic services and poor sanitation, which has led to severe health problems. Similarly in Raqqa, the water irrigation system was destroyed, which has impacted a wide proportion of the population there and outside of it. So those are just a couple of examples. And I think that when you look at the full range of harms and the scope of the problem in different countries around the world, it underscores the importance of working to address this. We were very pleased to see the adoption of the political declaration last year. And it's significant, I think, in our eyes, because it is the first international recognition that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is a humanitarian problem, and that it needs to be addressed directly. So I think identifying and recognising it as a problem is very much the first step. As others said, it was adopted and signed on to by 83 states a year ago. And by agreeing and signing on to this declaration, it represents a major step forward. But I think also important to recognise that this is very much a starting point. It's built on a recognition that we're now going to commit to work together to make changes in policy and in practice and help to set new standards that protect civilians and addresses the humanitarian impacts of bombing and shelling in towns and cities. So in terms of what the declaration does and where we go from here, in broad terms, the declaration commits states to make changes in policy and practice. Most crucially, it imposes limits on use of explosive weapons in populated areas in order to avoid civilian harm. Specifically, it has a commitment requiring states to restrict or refrain from use and to make these changes through changes in policy and practice. It also requires militaries to limit damage to infrastructure, and that means developing better processes to understand the impact on civilian populations when infrastructure is damaged or destroyed. And it requires states to provide assistance to victims and affected communities, including emergency medical care, psychological and trauma support, ongoing rehabilitation and ensuring access to services. And then lastly, it requires states to gather and share data on civilian harm in military operations and recognises the role of organisations in doing this. So I think very much the focus now from our perspective is for using this declaration as a tool to start to make changes. And for that means the states that have signed on to it need to start implementing it to help set new standards of practice and behaviour, but also working to bring other states on board it. Thank you and back over to you, Dina. Thank you, Laura. I would like now to turn to Irini Yodiyu, who's legal adviser in ICOC's Arms and Conductive Hospitalities Unit in Geneva. Irini, last year ICOC published a very timely report entitled Explosive Weapons with Wide Area Effects, A Deadly Choice in Populated Areas. Could you tell us in a nutshell what the study revealed? Over to you, Irini. Thanks a lot, Dina, and thanks for inviting me on this panel. So I had the chance to work on this report, but first I want to say that it's the result of many, many years of work of many ICOC colleagues, both here at headquarters in Geneva, but also in many parts of the world in contexts where armed conflict is taking place in cities and other populated areas or in the aftermath because the effects of heavy explosive weapons don't necessarily stop when the conflict is over. And through about a decade or over a decade of working in such contexts, we have realized that the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas is a major cause of civilian harm and at the same time it has serious implications under international law. So before I share the main findings of this report, I just wanted to say a few words about the purpose of our work was and how we went about collecting the evidence and putting our conclusions on paper in this 153-page long report. Since 2011, we have been calling on states and all parties to armed conflict to avoid the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas. This means we are asking them not to use such weapons in populated areas unless they can take sufficient mitigation measures to limit their wide area effects and consequently the risk of civilian harm. So in 2014, we launched a multidisciplinary initiative to better document the civilian harm, the different types, direct, indirect, that others already mentioned, types of harm caused by these weapons to identify the weapons that have the most problematic technical characteristics when used in populated areas to analyze the legal problems that arise from their use and also to compile examples of existing doctrine and practice among the armed forces on restrictions and limitations. And we did this through expert meetings, through dialogue with armed forces, with some non-state armed groups, and of course our protection work in affected contexts and legal analysis. And we did all this with a very simple objective which was really to influence the behavior of parties to armed conflicts towards better protecting civilians, but also better respecting international humanitarian law. And we think both of these can be achieved by, as I said, avoiding the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas. Essentially all of this work aims at triggering a change in mindsets of militaries but also their civilian policymaker counterparts. So the report compiles our conclusions from all these years of work and analysis, work in the field and analysis here in Geneva and also provides a list of detailed practical recommendations for political authorities and armed forces of both states and non-state armed groups on measures that they can take and we think they should take to put a policy of avoiding the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas into action. So some of the key findings I would like to share with you first and it will come as no surprise. It has been mentioned by others. The report shows that although civilian harm is complex in urban warfare, it has many causes. A lot of it does come down to the choice and the manner of use of certain weapons and tactics. And here, heavy explosive weapons, those that have effects over an area well much larger than their target prove to be particularly problematic. And we've seen in various contexts in different regions of the world wherever these weapons are used to strike targets in places where civilians are concentrated, there is consistently a pattern of civilian harm, direct and indirect. I won't go through the different types of harm. They've already been mentioned to some extent and I know we will hear also testimonies and field experience on this. But this harm, as I said, does not stop at the end of hostilities, especially when large-scale critical infrastructure collapses, as we have seen, for example, in Syria, in Yemen, but elsewhere as well. The population will suffer the lack of essential services for years after. Second finding is that the wide area effects of many explosive weapons be it because they are just very powerful in explosive material or because they are not accurate and have a large margin of error, is inappropriate, makes them inappropriate for use in populated areas and causes serious humanitarian, but also legal concern. So this is really the key characteristic here. We're not talking about any explosive weapon. We're talking about those that have wide area effects. The third finding is that it's very difficult to use such weapons in populated areas in accordance with some key rules of international humanitarian law. And without going into a lot of legal detail, I am mostly referring to the rule that prohibits indiscriminate attacks and the rule that requires that every attack is proportionate. So the civilian harm expected is not excessive compared to the military advantage. And the wide area effect of these weapons, when they are used in an environment where civilians are mingled with military objectives, makes it very challenging. And in many cases, I would say impossible to respect international humanitarian law when using them. The fourth finding has to do with existing military policy and practice. So we concluded that there are examples of restrictions and limitations on the use of some heavy explosive weapons, but they are not generalized. And I know Ocha has done a lot of work on collecting these as well. They are mission-specific. They are insufficient. A lot more needs to be done to change doctrine and practice in this respect. That's where the political declaration on AWEPA will hopefully make a good contribution. But these examples show that it is possible to restrict heavy explosive weapons in a way that does not compromise the success of a military operation and that these restrictions can really go a long way in better protecting civilians. And so the ultimate finding, and with this I'll close, is that... And this is the main conclusion of the report if you want, avoiding as a matter of policy the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas, is both necessary and possible. And this is the purpose of the many recommendations that we provide at the end of this report on measures to be taken. Some of them already in peacetime at a very high policy or strategic level, and others at a more operational and tactical level. So many layers of measures, many different categories of measures that make avoiding the use of heavy explosive weapons possible. And ultimately, as I said, it is our strong conviction that this will help not only better respect the law, which is of course very important, but ultimately better protect civilians in those environments that are very difficult to operate in. And that's, I think, the essential ultimate purpose of all of our work. Thanks, back to you. Thank you for those reflections, Irini. Both you and Laura, I think, have provided us with very rich remarks on the humanitarian consequences arising from the use of AWEPA, the significance of the political declaration, and also, for me, a big takeaway from what you've outlined, Irini, is the recommendation for a policy of avoidance. We'll now turn to some programming and country-level perspectives. And my next question is to Rasmus Sanvol-Weske, who's senior policy advisor with the Norwegian People's Aid Department from my nation and this element. Rasmus, I'm keen to hear from you on what the Norwegian People's Aid does in practice to empower civilians to be better prepared and protected against the use of AWEPA and what lessons can be drawn from your experience. So over to you, Rasmus. Thank you very much, Irini. And thanks for this introduction and for inviting NPA to speak. Thanks also to the organizers and to previous speakers. Please allow me to emphasize one important point about the political declaration. I think it can really make a positive impact on the ground, but only if properly implemented. And I guess the question to anyone who wants to see stronger protection of civilians is basically how do we achieve this? And there are several solutions and avenues one can pursue. And one answer is obviously strengthening IHL compliance and implementing political commitments on stronger protections on top of IHL and continuously changing policies and practices in order to achieve better protection. When this works, it's indeed very, very efficient and NPA is fully committed to help implement this declaration. However, when bombs are falling at the very moment, are there other activities that can mitigate the humanitarian consequences of AWEPA use? Other things one can do to prevent some of the harm they cause to civilians. Some smart colleagues of mine in NPA, they contemplated about these questions a few years ago. And as a mine action operator, NPA was very familiar with the concept of mine risk education, as we called it back then. And these are activities aimed at preventing harm to civilians from unexploded ordinance and land mines basically. This is an activity that takes place usually post-conflict. It's a very important work, but we all knew back then and we still know that most victims of explosive weapons use, they occur during conflict. So what could we do to reduce some of these casualties? We know also that other sectors like disaster risk production had this concept of preparedness as a well-established concept. And the idea basically being that prevention is better than cure. So whatever injury, be it physical or mental, we can help to prevent is good. And we also knew that no such initiative of preparedness existed for armed conflict, at least not in our organization or to our awareness. So this is basically how NPA started its conflict preparedness and protection program, CPP for short. And as this name hopefully indicates, it's an initiative aimed at improving people's protection from explosive weapons, mainly through preparedness. So the program is composed of various methods to empower civilians with tools and knowledge they can use to better prepare themselves and protect themselves and their families from the consequences of a weapon use. And often we get this question, can we anticipate conflict? Do we know where to implement and where a conflict will happen? Well, not really, but let's take a place like Gaza, which we are very familiar with through watching the news these days, where conflict has been reoccurring for a long time. And in such a place, it definitely made sense to prepare for the next escalation and the way we do this is that we try to do as much outreach during periods of relative calm. So we raise awareness in the public using anything from radio to social media, TV, we've been doing theater productions for children, music videos and rap videos and all those things. And we also conduct trainings, basically training sessions where people can meet in a community center or any useful location and receive training from either partner staff or NPA staff on things they can do to improve their own protection before the next escalation. And so far we have trained a quarter of a million people, 250,000 people have received this training and it's kind of a way to combat apathy, you know, the sense of having no agency. And in a way, I understand that it's really difficult work, but anything we can do to try to make people feel a bit more safe and ideally be more safe, we are trying to do. So in a place where armed conflict is a recurring fact, we have learned to recognize that it becomes a fact of life and almost a norm and people have a tendency to unfortunately accept that this is the way it is. Yet there are many injuries, for example, for example, to civilians from secondary fragmentation that we feel could ideally have been prevented by taking some measures. And of course we can prevent everything, but we will do as much as we can. And now during this escalation that we have observed since 8 October, of course we can't conduct any trainings on the ground. Humanitarian access is non-existent and the humanitarian situation is extreme. However, what we have been able to do is to reach people via social media, for example. We have basic Facebook and Instagram accounts where we post different safety messages and these receive quite a lot of attention during times of escalation. They are widely shared and people do engage with them. So I think 1.6 million individual accounts have been reached on Facebook and Instagram the last couple of weeks, many of them within Gaza because we try to do some targeted advertisement to reach the people we really want to talk to. And I will put a link to an Instagram account in the chat box so you can all have a look at the safety messages we post there. And these messages are in Arabic, but the translate function in Facebook and Instagram is quite good, so it should make some sense in English as well. And for those not speaking Arabic, of course. What have we learned from our lessons and these experiences? So obviously it's not a panacea. It's not something that will take away the consequences of the use of explosive weapons. Yet it can be impactful work. We need to implement this where it makes sense and we need to implement it in a way that makes sense for the conflict in question. And another thing we have learned is that working with local partners has been extremely efficient. People knowing the context, the language, the culture and what works in terms of conveying a message has been extremely efficient. We're also happy to see that other organizations are picking up similar or the same initiative and implementing it as well. So we are inviting everyone who feels motivated and feel like they can contribute to also do such work. To summarize, let me just try to wrap up by saying how these CPP activities relate to a VEPA. So we're trying to prevent the use of certain weapons and certain weapon use, so that's sort of the preventive aspect. We have to assume somehow that some use will continue, so that's when we are preparing, and then we are responding when it happens with adapted messaging. I will end here, so thank you very much and please don't hesitate to ask any questions. Thanks. Thanks a lot, Rasmus. We'll now turn to a perspective from Yemen. My next question is to Lucy Boone, who heads the Civilian Impact Monitoring Project in Yemen. Lucy, could you offer an overview of the project in Yemen and share your insights on how the project, as well as the protection class term or broadly my influence national policies aimed at regulating and restricting the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas? And could you also perhaps speak to some of the challenges encountered in this work? Over to you, Lucy. Thank you, Dina. And I just want to start by thanking everyone involved in this event, you know, maybe you, organising, speaking or listening, what a sadly well-timed and necessary discussion. I'm going to talk about the Civilian Impact Monitoring Project. To give a quick overview, SIMP is an open source monitoring mechanism to record and analyse the trends in how armed violence is directly impacting civilians in Yemen, from casualties to property damage and infrastructural damage. You can find more on our methodology in the list of resources that's been shared for this event, but in short, SIMP is our mechanism to monitor the trends in who is being impacted by armed violence, by what type of armed violence, where and how this is changing over time and by location. From the beginning, SIMP's main aim has been to inform programming, victim assistance and response in as close to real time as possible, but over time we found SIMP is increasingly being used for advocacy. So when it comes to influencing government policies, the analysis we're able to draw from our data really allows us to put together some really strong evidence-based messaging, which we then push out in the form of periodic and thematic reports. We also encourage partners across the humanitarian and diplomatic communities to pull on us to support their key advocacy lines in advance of meetings, statements and so on. I'll give two quick examples of this in Yemen specifically. So firstly, artillery fire near residential areas. There has been an overall de-escalation in Yemen since the country-wide truce came into effect in April last year. Nonetheless, sporadic artillery fire continued in the frontline areas, including a close proximity to residential areas. So since that truce commenced in April last year, Shell Fire has been responsible for over 650 civilian casualties in Yemen. Including two mass casualty shelling incidents in Pais City. Pais, for those not familiar with Yemen, is the biggest city in the country through which active front lines run. It's densely populated, and I know this has already been touched on, but to put it as succinctly as possible, in densely populated environments, a higher number of civilians are likely to be within the blast radius when such incidents occur. So we often do see higher civilian casualties as a result. So our hope is that with the analysis and the trend analysis, the assessment lines that we put together, our hope is that INGOs and actors involved in ceasefire negotiations and mediations can use, and indeed have used, the key lines from our assessments to bolster their calls to the parties to exercise restraint, to call for accountability, and so on. Secondly, UXO, a legacy threat from explosive weaponry that remains present and dangerous long after hostilities cease. In Yemen, we see a particularly high proportion of children among UXO casualties, likely driven by factors such as inquisitiveness, lack of threat awareness, heightened mobility in areas of the beaten track, whether whilst playing or attending to livestock. This year in Yemen, three in five UXO casualties has been a child. And what we can do at SIMP is use this data to identify where civilians, including children, are most frequently being impacted in order to assist organisations with targeted awareness messaging, such as what Rasmus was speaking about, and broader advocacy for clearance efforts, as well as feeding into that influence piece when it comes to government policies. Dini, you've asked me to highlight some of the challenges we face. There are plenty, but I'll draw out four here. Firstly, it's sensitivities around the topic. Monitoring how different armed groups may or may not be violating IHL is a highly sensitive area, and one we have to navigate so carefully without jeopardising the integrity of our work. We manage this in a number of ways. Firstly, this is specifically for the civilian impact monitoring project. We do not name perpetrators, nor do we make the judgement around what is an IHL violation or not. We are simply collating the reports of what has happened. IHL experts are then able to use our data, and they do use our data as a starting point for more rigorous investigations. But in not naming the perpetrators ourselves, we're not directly engaged in accountability. That allows us to take more objective stance in our reports, which actually creates a bit of a safety net for our staff as well. We don't carry out independent verification of each incident. We're not carrying out further investigations in the field. We don't have a network on the ground of informants, so to speak, who are confirming or denying incidents. In the Yemen context, it probably wouldn't be feasible, and it can be just as corruptible if not more corruptible than open sources. So SIMP is a strictly open source project. This can put some organisations off due to concerns over credibility, so all we can do is be as transparent about our methodology as possible. Big challenge number two is that the information landscape in Yemen is extremely limited. Infrastructure is a challenge across the country, and then the media landscape as a result is also challenging. Unlike some casualty monitoring mechanisms, we don't require a minimum number of sources or a minimum number of types of sources, as just too many incidents wouldn't make it through that threshold into our dataset. So this means that we're doing our best not to discriminate against remote areas where reporting options are limited. If information is limited, so long as it meets our criteria for credibility, it goes into our dataset. And sometimes, as more reporting and information becomes available, we can go back into the database and update it accordingly, so that we can try to keep it organic in that sense. No number is fixed as such. Challenge three, conflicting information on account of biases in reporting. And this is an issue that is by no means isolated to Yemen. This is where our team comes in. Most have been working in the Yemen analytical space for near on a decade. So they understand the nature of the reporting, different groups of genders and how this plays into the inherent biases in the reporting. So we may be faced with reports with widely varying casualty numbers or disputes over the type of armed violence that was responsible. Our research team are excellent at going into that data with their contextual understanding of the situation and their familiarity with the nature of the sources to discern the most likely version of the truth, you know, cross-referencing or operating as they go. Fourth and final challenge is timeliness. So what do I mean by this? SIMP was established in 2018. That's three years after the current conflict commenced. We know that the initial years of the conflicts or some of the fiercest hostilities and typically it's in that early tumult of war that civilian loss is at its highest. Dynamic front lines and before accountability mechanisms have really become established. We have a three-year data gap during this time in Yemen. Establishing monitoring mechanisms at the soonest opportunity is crucial to fully capture the impact on civilians and thus provide concrete figures for policy makers and decision makers. You can find a range of our reports on the website. I've included one of them in this events resource list that addresses different threat profiles across different cities in Yemen. But please do feel free to reach out to me directly or through the Q&A here for any further questions. That's all from me. Thank you, Dean. Thank you, Lucy. I think again a lot of lessons learned to draw from the model in Yemen and also from what you shared, Rasmus. I will now turn to Mr. Mohanad Abid Salam our last but certainly not least panel speaker. Mohanad will share perspective from Iraq where he's a lawyer advocating for the rights of people with disabilities and internally displaced persons. Mohanad, you were one of the speakers during last year's protection of civilians week and at that event you advocated for the adoption of instruments and mechanisms to enhance the protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. After having experienced this first time yourself your family and your community in your hometown in Hamdanaya in Iraq. Now one year after the adoption of the Aweepa political declaration my question to you is what are your reflections on this significant milestone and what are your expectations for the future of this political declaration? Over to you, Mohanad. Thank you, Dean. Marhaban, Thank you very much, Dean and thank you for and thank you for all the distinguished guest and organizers my name is Mohanad Abdesalam I have a degree in law Huda, is my voice clear? Yes, clear. I am from Moussel and I have been among the displaced people for a long time I am also among the survivors from the war that broke out in my city in 2014. In May last year I was one of the speakers in the urban law firm and the displacement event during the secretary general protection of civilians week and I remember retelling my story again and I retelling my story today sharing the sad memories of me, my family my neighbors having to flee our houses after the invasion of ISIS we our homes were used by ISIS as shelters and military bases during their battles my family and I were among families who were forced to display several times from 2014 until 2016 and as my village and my town was under daily air strikes that targeted ISIS but unfortunately took the lives of civilians I was lucky enough to survive the war but at a heavy expense of me living with a trauma that I'm trying to recover from and an amputated leg and a body full of wounds last year and during the protection of civilians week I hoped that my call is heard in the name of the humanities to stop the use of lethal weapons I was thrilled to know the adaptation of several countries of the political declaration in Dublin on strengthening the protection of civilians from the humanitarian consequences arising from the use of exclusive weapons in populated area although I am usually optimistic the image of innocent civilians being killed this year by using explosive weapons in heavily populated area and the increase of conflicts has all brought me back to the feeling of trauma and fear of the future the fear that war will be back and destroy everything the fear of having the same scenario that we and I have experienced I hope for this nightmare to stop I hope for the bloody war to stop I hope for the children to have the life they deserve and not to be separated from their families I hope that the rights of anyone who is innocent regardless of his religion ethnicity and his beliefs I still hope for a better life I carefully listened to previous remarks and I told myself if there are still agencies and people who still care there might be a way for survival if some countries are still interested we may find a light at the end of the talent and I hope for the political declaration to be translated into actions and I hope for the government to respect international law and human rights I hope that we meet next year to celebrate peace and I hope that the international community realize that we live together in this world and we have a duty to protect it if it is not for our it is for the sake of future generation for the sake of your children and our children this is what I hope for and what I hope for the political declaration to achieve thank you very much for listening to me and if you have any question please do not hesitate to ask thank you Dina thank you Mohammed your personal reflections thank you for the reflections thank you I was hearing the double translation as well thank you so much Mohammed I and my personal thanks to the whole panel for your active participation and thoughtful responses it's been a very valuable debate and I think has outlined a number of important lesson learned and ideas as well as the accountability question overall I think and the need for prevention I think we will now I don't want to take more time I think I will hand over to Huda Shashul who will now pose to the panel some of the questions that have come through in the chat so because we have not much time left I will hand over to Huda now thank you Dina thank you to all the speakers and thank you Mohana for this moving testimony so I think we received quite a number of questions but I will start maybe with the first question from DRC and I will address it to Lucy or maybe first Rini ICRC sorry because it's a question about the civilian character and I know much ICRC is working on this and we have with the UNSCR and ICRC and Ed Memoir about the civilian character of sites and settlements etc. so the question was posed in French but I will read it in French and then in English so question from DRC what should we do as humanitarian actors when these camps are built very close to the general population and when we see the use of explosive weapons that can harm civilians this is the experience in the DRC in many areas what should the humanitarian actors do when military camps are built near to the civilians civilian homes and sites and when we observe explosive ordnance that can harm civilians over to you Rini thanks a lot for the question so it has two parts one is about situating the military camps close to civilian objects in this case houses and the second is about explosive devices or ordnance so as regards the first part there is an obligation under IHL to the so called passive precautions to protect civilians against the effects of attacks so to the maximum extent possible avoid placing military objectives close to civilians and civilian objects and a military camp is something that is clearly a military objective when there is an armed conflict because of its character so already in peace time states or non-state armed groups if it's non-state armed group camp have an obligation to avoid doing that to locate their forces be it military camp be it command headquarter be it barracks or even officers academies away from civilians now unfortunately we see in many parts of the world including in Switzerland where I am based with urbanization many of these structures are in the middle of cities and although technically this is a violation of the law practically nobody would say to the Swiss government move your military barracks away from Zurich or Bern city center and out into the countryside although technically that would be the correct thing to do now this is in peace time if a country is in conflict or in situation of violence that risks amounting, that risks escalating into an armed conflict then there is much higher responsibility to move those facilities away from the civilian population and if that's not possible then at least to move the civilian population further away from the military objectives but preferably the first rather than the second to avoid displacing civilians unless this is absolutely necessary so this is an obligation and if it's not possible at all then to take other precautionary measures to protect civilians against attacks but the best thing would be to move these military camps away again there is more leeway if we are in peace time but much stronger duty when we are in a context of violence or even more armed conflict on explosive ordinance there is also clear obligations under IHL to take measures to protect civilians including okay first of all clearing and removing them but until that's possible marking the areas that are contaminated so that civilians can see the signs and not approach and also give risk education to civilians to recognize these dangerous objects and avoid touching them and this is something we work also with local authorities a lot on to help them build capacity and design and implement this kind of risk awareness safe behavior as they're called programs for the civilian population to sensitize them to the risk and avoid that they are exposed as much as possible but of course the best way to protect them is by removing and clearing these these ordinance or land mines or other explosive devices and I know many NGOs also work in this field as well thank you very much Elini I don't know if Rasmus, Lucy, Laura would you like to add anything otherwise there is another question that is connected to this actually the second question is about the combination with the explosive ordinance risk education that NGOs are conducting how possible is it to train armed groups armies on national humanitarian law its principles and its applicability I don't know if ICRC would like to comment on this to compliment the EORE explosive ordinance risk education part and then maybe we will hear from Rasmus, Laura and Lucy some examples from the field over to you sure I'll take this and then I will stop to let others speak as well so yes it's certainly possible IHL education courses is something we do regularly mostly for state forces officers trainings in peacetime but also pre-deployment before they are deployed in operations and explosive ordinance and protecting civilians from explosive ordinance is part of those we do it to some extent also with some state armed groups depending on the level of kind of relationship and dialogue we have with them but I think knowledge of the law and teaching what the law says is not enough it has to be complimented by training armed forces in how to implement the law and how they implement the law is usually by means of doctrine and policy and practical measures so that's where the limitations in our report the commitments in the political declaration come in as well so training on those aspects is also very important of course the better they know international humanitarian law the more chances of the more cases of violation of the law and civilian harm will be avoided because in many cases if we talk about heavy explosive weapons if the law is properly interpreted and implemented in many cases the use of these weapons will be considered unlawful and so hopefully parties to conflict won't do it so both knowledge but also application then a very last point I wanted to make is when especially about non-state armed groups but also for militarist state forces to some extent it's not exclusively about the law many times the behavior of these forces is influenced also by other factors be it cultural or religious or ethical factors and this we should not ignore they don't do things only because the law says often it's these other factors even the culture in the armed forces themselves how they are how the how the peer pressure and yes the culture the tradition works influence how they behave this was the conclusion of a long study we made a few years ago called roots of restraint what factors restrain parties to conflict from violating the law or human rights so we have to in our trainings also tap into these other principles as well that are complementary to the law thank you very much please feel free to compliment I don't know if Rasmus you would like to add anything yeah let me add something really quickly ICRC is doing a tremendous job everywhere in the world to teach IHL to relevant stakeholders be them non-state armed groups or states just would like to add that when implementing the political declaration we're also discussing how states interpret their obligations and what policies they have and what practices they have when it comes to the conduct of hostilities or military planning etc etc so it's in this dialogue with states that both civil society other agencies ICRC and others are involved in that we may be able to change practices, policies and when we go on to implement this political declaration that we've been discussing today and I see the question starts with the nice abbreviation EURE explosive ordinance risk education let me just add quickly that this is yeah these are activities done to try to teach civilians how to prevent harm to themselves but mostly on unexploded ordinance, mines, unexploded bombs and when explosive weapons are used in cities and populated areas clearing these ordinance and these devices is much more complicated than when a minefield or an explosive ordinance is situated in an open area far away from civilians and far away from civilian objects so we as a mine action organisation also see that when wars and conflicts move to cities also the post-conflict clearance work becomes much more complicated it takes more time, it's dangerous and it's much more complex thank you thank you very much now I think that there is a question addressed to Laura about the pattern of harm I think you mentioned that Laura in your presentation so what is the importance of establishing a pattern of harm what is the added value of establishing such a pattern in political, legal military terms over to you thanks Huda and thanks for the question I think this speaks to the question of how and our strategy for approaching this as a problem which in part is how the issue of explosive weapons in populated areas is framed and I think that is important because how the issue and the problem is understood obviously has a bearing on the actions that are needed to effectively address it so from our perspective I think recognising that use of explosive weapons in populated areas is a pattern of harm has been very important for developing the response to it and so through the research and data that has been done by civil society organisations as I said in my presentation this shows that this is a problem that is experienced across lots of different countries in the world and I think shows the need for this to be seen very much as a global problem that is experienced in different countries whenever explosive weapons are used in populated areas so through the data I think we found also that the impacts have been documented regardless of the armed actor so whenever explosive weapons are used it is causing similar patterns of harm in different countries and I think this is also even the case when states or parties to conflict are claiming to act in accordance with international humanitarian law so I think it speaks a bit to what Irene was explaining before and Rasmus then now that obviously upholding international humanitarian law is very important but it also starts to get to a level of detail below the law so to say in terms of how the effects of weapons are understood and how that is factored into the conduct of military operations and decisions that armed forces are making and I think that speaks to some of the particular commitments in the declaration around understandings needed to be put into place on when explosive weapons are used and more importantly restrictions and when refrained is needed there thank you Thank you very much Laura there is another question to Mohanad I guess Mohanad to the translation otherwise Mohanad do you have a translation? Yes The person who posted this question thank you first for your moving testimony then he or she mentioned that you were talking about the psychological effects on civilians affected by military attacks and he or she asked what would be your recommendations to the humanitarian organization in terms of aligning protection of civilians with mental health and psychosocial support waiting for the Yes Of course we need to take into consideration the and traumatized victims who they live in this trauma as my experience I still feel the trauma when I see the wars the conflicts I remember my experience and I remember all the details the details of the war of course my mental health is affected around my mental health really get affected by these images and I stopped watching the news so the organization needs to take care of these people especially those victims and traumatized people needs to be taken care of by the organizations and they should pay a big deal of attention to those people Thank you Any reaction from the speakers from Lucy for example in Yemen on mental health psychosocial support do you see that properly covered by the humanitarian actors in Yemen for example and the question is also open to all the speakers over to you Thanks Huda It's difficult to comment on the extent to which it is addressed by humanitarian actors but I mean it's certainly it's certainly something that is constantly discussed and flagged even in the civilian impact monitoring project we have a category for psychosocial trauma for every single instance of armed violence to civilians we have an assessment in there in terms of the likely secondary impacts such as psychosocial trauma and frankly it's all of it's one of these things it's very difficult there are access challenges but it's certainly on the radar I think then actioning it is the real challenge I see Laura unmuted herself so maybe you would like to add something sorry no that was not intentional okay I think an additional question was just added so I will open the Q&A here and yes there is a comment on non-state armed groups attack civilians and steal food and other material including money how do we protect them I guess the civilians in this kind of difficult situation situation where civilians are attacked by non-state armed groups it's a general question maybe Irini since we are talking about non-state armed groups sorry for putting you I mean I don't think it's for us to say and it's not for us us I mean ICRC or humanitarian organizations to protect every state has a primary responsibility to protect people on their territory so that includes protecting them against criminal acts and if we are talking about the acts that the question describes stealing food money other material these are all things prohibited of course under international humanitarian law but also things that should be criminalized under domestic law right there are crimes they are not lawful behavior in warfare so the state has the primary responsibility to protect people from anyone committing those acts whether they are individual criminals or criminal gangs or criminal organized groups engaging in criminal activity this we have to distinguish from an armed group fighting the same way state armed forces fight and the right they have to conduct hostilities under the law of armed conflict now of course we can talk to them and we do and explain that these things these are the technical terms used are all prohibited under the law of armed conflict and yes teaching about the law and all those other principles and values that I mentioned before that sometimes are even more influential on the behavior of some of these groups cultural religious ethical moral aspects even customs tapping into these and teaching about them and influencing them can to some extent protect civilians against this kind of behavior but we are not a peacekeeping force obviously so we cannot actively protect against this kind of behavior respecting the law can go a long way to as I mentioned prevent this type of unlawful conduct but I wanted to go back to my very first point that the principal responsibility is with the state that has jurisdiction over the territory to protect civilians and including to protect civilians when they fight against these armed groups so it's not that because they want to stop the criminal activity or unlawful activity of an armed group they can disregard the protection of civilians while conducting those operations so it goes both ways if that makes sense thank you last question I think it's about ERIPA declaration explosive weapons and populated declaration and the question is open and this is what the site event is about what is next one word per speaker if you want to highlight one next step for you the immediate step that needs to be taken after the declaration Laura thanks Huda I mean I think implementation of its commitments this is going to be the most effective way to bring about change and we have a conference reviewing implementation in April next year so starting work to be able to report on implementation changes by the time of that meeting which is in April maybe Irini what comes next I would say having keeping the momentum around this because these things tend to be forgotten after big events like the conference in Dublin last year we have 83 states endorsing the declaration it's a great number but no new endorsements since and it's been almost a year so I think we have to keep working and states as well encourage other states to join the declaration so that the momentum is kept and this is not forgotten because just endorsing this important instrument in itself is not enough we need to keep the interest we need to keep the attention of states so that they are also pushed to actually work to put it into practice thank you Rasmus over Emil? yeah let me echo some of that what you guys were saying basically to me sounds like translating the words into actions and keeping the momentum also involves universalization of this declaration we can have many more signatures and we invite all states to endorse the declaration and of course immediately start implementation that's what's going to make the difference on the ground so we're not seeking just to have the text we're seeking to change behavior and to see better protection of civilians and there are many steps that states can take immediately they can assign a focal point in their government to follow this up they can start reviewing their weapons and understand better how they function especially when used in a populated area and they can start looking at their policies and their practices on such use and see if there are things they can do to prevent harm to civilians and this is an ongoing effort we do not expect this to be done by Oslo but we expect states to start immediately on this work thank you very much I think Lucy will be the last speaker, Muhannad said goodbye because he had to leave for urgent family matters so Lucy over to you thanks it sounds like fantastic progress has already been made so it's echoing previous coordinates on maintaining momentum and seeing it through the next stage of implementation I think alongside that it's important to raise awareness of the declaration's existence and how that sits along IHL and there are sadly plenty of situations unfolding across the world that form an important hook for this to be demonstrated through and then in time also raising pressure on nations to sign and implement the declaration themselves and then translating that into actual like Rasmus was saying not just words but actions thank you very much I think we reached the end of our side event we still received a question and I will share with the speakers and we can follow up later with those who asked this question thanks very much and I hope that we will see implementation, we will see action and next year will be in a better place despite all the difficulties we are witnessing this time so thank you very much and bye-bye everyone