 So, good afternoon or good morning, depending on what time frame your mind is operating. But thank you very much for having the patience to sit through this session, including mine, which is listening to my intervention, which is the last one today before we come to any conclusions if we can do that. I have no PowerPoint, so you don't have to watch me. You don't have to watch the screen, just hopefully my voice will be sufficient. And I wanted to start by thanking Jens for having invited me here. I really appreciate to have this opportunity to have an exchange with you. I see that I'm on the agenda, expected to present the UN view. I can immediately tell you that there is none, and I will not therefore speak on behalf of the UN, also because perhaps it's important for you to understand that as a special procedure mandate holder, I'm an independent expert advising the UN, the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly, on issues which relate to my mandate, which is about sale and sexual exploitation of children. And I have been mandated by the Human Rights Council in particular to look at trends, patterns, new patterns, and to advise them in this respect. Again, my advice is only my personal opinion. I'm supported by the Office of the High Commission of Human Rights in Geneva, and Shujan, who is with me here today, is a very precious support in that respect. I hope she's in the room, but anyway. So whatever I will say, it's my own view. I do this, I exercise this responsibility in the UN on a voluntary basis. I'm not paid, therefore I think my independence cannot be discussed, cannot be challenged. And I choose the topics I want to discuss, and perhaps because I'm at the end of my second term and not renewable, I took the risk to deal with this issue. And they can shoot me, I will have said what I think. And I'm grateful for whatever contribution you can make to my reflection because what I will do actually is to prepare a report for the General Assembly in October. The deadline is pretty soon, so I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently. The deadline is the 10th of July, so I don't have much more time. But to tell you, the angle of which I will be using in approaching this topic is going beyond what I've done in my last report or my first report on this issue, which was looking at it exclusively from the perspective of the prohibition of sale of children. And I believe that that is a very good starting point to look at other rights of children which are enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the right to identity, the right not to be stateless, access to origins, all these are absolutely essential rights for every single child, but particularly acute and problematic, I would say, for children born from surrogacy. So that will be the angle of my next report. Perhaps to say that, as I said, I'm dealing with sale and sexual exploitation of children in many contexts, in the context of their particular vulnerability and migration context. And my last report was about children who are particularly vulnerable in the way it comes to professional sport, the sale of young football players from Africa, ending up somewhere in Europe and them being just dismissed because they're not good enough. There are so many areas in which children are vulnerable and are at risk. Perhaps the closest to what we are discussing here in these days, the closest theme which I dealt with is the issue of illegal adoption, on which I also reported to the General Assembly. And perhaps it would be interesting for you to bear in mind that in recent judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which was a case about illegal adoption, which went through the process of profite-making intermediaries, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for whom I prepared an expert opinion, did consider that illegal adoption is among the purposes of exploitation. This was a case concerning Guatemala, and I think that this very decision of the Inter-American Court, which emphasized the problem of lucrative business when it comes to commercialization, commodification of children, can be regarded as trafficking or sale for that matter. So, but let me now come back to the issue of surrogacy. And perhaps, and again, like Michael, I don't want to express any firm opinion on whether it should be permitted or should be prohibited or should be, but all I want to say is that there is an obvious need for regulation. You can't leave children and parents for that matter in a legal limbo. So there is a need for taking this issue up, and all these discussions today are hopefully going to help the states who have taken a position, who are reviewing a position, who are waiting for advice from us. I think that these debates of today are very, very helpful. So the starting point for me is that there's no right to a child under international law. It's not a child is not a good or a service that the state can guarantee or provide. And this is also very much in line with what the CRI Committee on the Rights of the Child has said. So again, in the context of commercial surrogacy, that implies that the commodification of children and when the commercial value determines the whole process, that there are serious concerns under the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention itself, which prohibits sale of children. So clearly my recommendations, which I will put in my report, will have to relate to the safeguards which are needed to prevent that from occurring. And in my previous report, I suggested that there are different solutions and ways of preventing that, for instance, granting the parentage to the surrogate of birth, the need to have the allocation of parenthood and parental responsibility to be carried out post birth and that the best interest of the child is in all these circumstances, the paramount consideration. Now we have discussed a lot of this and perhaps there are other ways of dealing that, but what I want to be reassured about is that the safeguards are in place in one way or another, that there is a mechanism in place that allows this consideration of the best interest of the child to be considered. And I'm aware that there is a need to find the right balance between possible concerns over commodification, which I've just referred to, an explanation of the surrogate on the one hand and the right to make free and responsible decisions and choices, free of violence, coercion and discrimination regarding matters concerning one's body and sexual reproductive health, on the other hand, I accept that. But let us agree that this discussion is about, primarily is about children, children who are real and who exist and who have rights. And I'm afraid that Ms. Madison is no longer with us, but I really feel so inspired by what she said, you know, I'm here, you have to deal with it. You have to deal with me and acknowledge that I exist. And that I think is for us should be a decisive issue. I have discussed all these matters when I travel to countries and I ask about what is in place and I meet with diplomatic representatives in countries where the practice is legal and they're completely at a loss because these diplomatic representatives are coming very often from countries where it is prohibited. What do they do? What do they have to do? They need guidance. So this is what we are. This is our challenge to provide this guidance. And when I, in the preparation of my report, I have made a call for submissions and I have received lots of answers from the, from governments, from academia, from civil society, from ethical commissions, medical profession. And basically I can say that the following in terms of the reactions I received that several interlocutors reject the premise of sale outright in the context of surrogacy, arguing that there is at no point a transaction for the transfer of the child, very close to that a substantial amount of stakeholders expressed concern with the conflation of sale with surrogacy that could lead to a criminalization of surrogates and intending parents. And then finally some very, may argue, argue very strongly for an outright ban of surrogacy. Now on the prohibition of sale and trafficking, no, let me, let me say this. For the criminalization of those involved, I am of the firm opinion that if there are sanctions and penalties, that should focus on the intermediaries, the profit making intermediaries who are typically complicit in facilitating illegal surrogacies and exploitative practices. And there I would like to draw the parallel with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which I just referred to. I do not think that, for instance, what happened in Cambodia in 2018, where 43 surrogates were arrested and detained together with the children they had given birth to is proportionate and it is a very rigid interpretation of what they have criminalized under Cambodian law. I'm not aware of intending parents having been prosecuted anywhere, so that's very positive. But again, in order for this to happen, I think when you take as a principle that everything, your reaction should be inspired by what is in the best interest of the child and you're on safe grounds and you don't prosecute these surrogates. But the reality is there is a regulatory vacuum and we need to identify these safeguards for children that can apply whatever position the state opts for. And again, I do, my approach is one of holistic one, a child rights perspective. Every single child is entitled to respect of his or her basic rights, which starts with the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the circumstances of the birth. So, and I think it's important that states bear this in mind, in particular as they will be confronted with the surrogacy that are carried out abroad. It is very important, in my view, that such states, the states who have a prohibitive approach, carefully conduct a post birth best interest determination in regard to the child's identity rights and access to origins and make independent assessments as to parent and parent decisions. Getting it right, I mean, we should also worry about cases which we haven't heard much about in the course of the discussions these days, but there are really very bad, I would call worst case scenarios of abandonment, selective abortion, perhaps, I mean, those who don't want to discussion on abortion, I accept we can leave that out, but abandonment after birth, abuse. I mean, there are plenty, plenty and plenty of examples around the world where we can see that if a proper post birth determination had occurred, including assessment of the suitability of both parents, not just the surrogate who has been examined in terms of her suitability as a surrogate, but parents capable of bringing raising children in the best interest of these children. That is something which absolutely is required. I have looked a little bit at the case of the European Court of Human Rights. There are very interesting cases which relate to states which have a prohibitionist approach, in particular France. You probably have heard about that yesterday. I wasn't here in the morning, so I'm sorry if I am repetitive in that respect, but I think what is important to remember here is that the Court has, over time and again underlined that the paramount best interest of the child outweighs the authorities' aim to deter its nationals from violating national law on surrogacy, by not recognizing parentage established abroad, the margin of appreciation being narrow when it comes to determining parentage. And follow up to these judgments which were in the 2014-2016. We have recently received an advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, which actually relates to the implementation of the previous judgments, which shows that the European Court of Human Rights, again referring to the reduced margin of appreciation, considered that there is a need for domestic law to provide the possibility of recognition, in this case of a legal parent-child relationship with the intended mother who was designated in the birth certificate established in California as the legal mother. The Court actually went on to say in this case that the recognition could take a form of entry into the register of birth, but there are also alternatives ways of acknowledging that and, for instance, refer to adoption. I personally regret that once the Court has suggested that adoption may be an alternative, there was no reference to the safeguards which are attached to the adoption process, which is the result of long, long work of the international community to ensure that the rights of children are being taken into consideration. And I think that the gains made in the development of child rights norms and standards in the context of adoption, and in particular the evaluation of the child's best interest to a paramount consideration, should be preserved and certainly not be diminished when we are talking about surrogacy. Yes, I mean, just briefly, there was also an additional question in this advisory opinion, which had to do, which was about a distinction between a situation of a third-party agglonation and the use of oversight provided by the intended mother. And the Court stated that the need to provide with the possibility of recognition of a legal relationship, and I quote, applies with even greater force when the child has been conceived using the acts of the intended mother. Personally, my view is that the existence of a genetic link should be considered in the context of the best interest, but it should not be an abstract criteria. Genetic link? Parents, no, that should be part and parcel of all the considerations which enter into the picture when you assess the general interest. With regard to access to origins, how much time do I have left? Because I can shorten, and known limits, no? Three minutes. OK, well, then I will want to wrap up a little bit quicker. But again, OK, we have the right to access to origins. We have to strike the right balance between the right to respect the privacy of the gamete dog owners and the surrogates and the rights of children to know their identity and have access to their origin. I think we have examples in the room, in particular in Australia, in Victoria, where they have found a very good way of allowing children to be informed of the fact that there is something special about their birth, but not necessarily giving them access, and certainly not before the age of 18, to this information. Family environment is also a very important aspect of a child's life, very much related to identity. There is also an interesting case law of the European Court of Human Rights in this respect. In an Italian case, I think it just shows, if you are familiar with the case, that the judicial reviews which take place do not necessarily endorse de facto situations if it's done properly. I mean, the best interests of the child is evolving, can evolve, there should be no irreversible decisions. So I think those who are worrying about court doing always what they see is already the case, I think have a good example of the opposite if they look at that case. So yes, I'm concluding. I think that one of the important issues is that there is clarity about the enforceability of surrogacy which are carried out, of contracts which are concluded in countries where it is possible to have surrogacy. But the question is how do countries, in particular prohibitionist countries, but also countries who have legislated, deal with the enforceability and what is needed? What are the additional criteria for assessment, whether that should be accepted? What I can say is that the failure to regulate in this area is not a good idea. It not only creates the possibility for domestic and international markets of children, but it creates very serious risk for children's rights. Where these markets exist, they should be dismantled right away and under no circumstances should children be treated as a commodity or discriminated against based on the way they have been conceived. So whatever policy is dictated in the state, safeguards need to be put in place and I think it is our challenge and perhaps in our conclusions. I would say that it would be important that we would try to develop a set of principles, a set of minimum rules which would govern the practice from a multi-dimensional human rights perspective. I mean, we need more confrontation of ideas. We have heard a lot about research that has been carried out. I think there is more that is needed, including on the long-term impact of children. I believe that our discussions here are a stepping stone in the right direction, but we need much more than that before we can really expect any state to take a final position on this. But we can assist member states in trying to develop these minimum standards, which I believe we have identified in the course of these discussions. Thank you very much.