 Ladies and gentlemen, I think we will get started. Well, on behalf of the ICRC, your excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I'm absolutely delighted to welcome you here this morning for what is a auspicious day for the ICRC. The launching of the updated commentary to the first Geneva Convention of 1949, something that we are extremely proud about, but are also very happy that you took the time to share this occasion with us. I would like to first pass the floor over to our president, Mr. Peter Mara, who will give a presentation, and we will then have a panel discussion on particularly focused today, because you have not yet had the delight to read this commentary, as it's literally launched today, but a discussion about the role, the process, some of the key elements and the usefulness of this very large project going forward. President, if you'd like to take the floor. Thanks a lot, Helen, and ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I'm very happy to be with you. This morning, at the same time, you know that I'm always a little bit intimidated when I'm confronted with so many lawyers, and you look as lawyers, and then even worse, I see Marie Selva looking severely at me, and we just met last week in Afghanistan, and we're discussing some of the challenges which also are reflected in today's commentary, but let me just start this morning with a couple of comments from a non-lawyer to explore the significance of the moment of today. As many of you have probably also observed, each generation likes to think that it is suffering through the worst of times. The biggest crisis is the worst wars, the toughest markets if you are a businessman, the most serious violations of international humanitarian law if you are an IHL lawyer. The overemphasis of the present compared to the past challenges is the result of our capacity to forget. I don't think that the category better or worse are particularly useful when examining IHL and the respect of IHL over time and space. What we are witnessing today, and in today's armed conflict objectively, is an increasing fragmentation and therefore greater complexities. More actors, more weapons, more refined strategies, more networks, lead to all together purely numerically to a greater number of possibilities. We see these increasing complexities mirrored in the work that I'm proud to present you today, the updated commentaries on the First Geneva Convention. Imagine, when John Pictes' commentary was published in 1952, a work of thought and law that has influenced warfare and humanitarianism around the world for decades and will continue to do so, it claimed this work in 1952 that torture and inhumane treatment need not be defined. Pictes claimed that every human shares an instinctive sense of what amounts to torture. We know today that this is not true and that we have lost instincts. It's illustrated by the fact that the new commentary delimits in great detail when, where and how treatment turns from humane to inhumane, where humane treatment ends and torture begins. Ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that I've become fashionable to lament the powerlessness of international law and its protective capacity today. This criticism also extends to the international humanitarian law with commentators suggesting that there is an erosion of international humanitarian law, but this is not an accurate description of the law of armed conflict and its implementation. As many of you know, I argue this case for quite some time, because never has the normative legal framework been so strong and comprehensive. Never before has the community of states been able to agree on so many globally accepted rules. It is precisely because the law has never been stronger that we are more sensitive to violations and transgressions and rightly so. In our fiber optic world of tweets and tablets, we are more conscious of the words around us. We see it, we feel it, we know about it. For all of us human suffering is visible constantly. Yet human suffering in armed conflict is nothing new. But because we know of the law's protective capacity, we are so outraged when it is violated when the wounded and sick are denied medical care. Civilian communities are forcibly displaced and trapped in lengthy sieges when hospitals or schools are unlawfully attacked. I see our newly found technology base, the awareness and our ability to measure and classify the consequences of conflict as important and as a positive development. They are science as a society is maturing that we are prepared to look in the mirror and cast judgment on ourselves. But these advances also bring responsibilities. They challenge us to act when inhumanity occurs, to react to the suffering and violations of the law and to strive to prevent them in the first place. For this we have a reference point and the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols are this reference point. As you all know, the International Committee of the Red Cross was instrumental at the creation of the convention in 1949 and signed up to every single country on the planet. They mark one of the greatest humanitarian legal achievements of the 20th century and form an essential part of our common heritage of humanity. The Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols of 1977 set out limits to war and offer protection, be it to the wounded and sick, detainees or civilians. They contain the globally agreed parameters as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the battlefield and beyond. They have proven to be crucial for ensuring protection in times of war and have had profound influence on the development of the national military policies and procedures and on training of soldiers. It is on the basis of the convention's rules that the ICRC calls upon states to abide by certain standards or treatment and that it carries out its humanitarian mission in the field and offers humanitarian assistance during armed conflict. And yet we are failing. Not enough countries, not enough armies, not enough armed groups are abiding to a reasonable degree and with a reasonable ambition by those fundamental humanitarian values enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. We need to understand that the Geneva Conventions are not just some historical documents born out of another time created for another purpose. They are of burning relevance and importance today. And we need to ensure that they are used as such and that their humanitarian potential is recognized and acted upon by all. However, the conventions are not equipped with any meaningful enforcement mechanism. It's not primarily sanctions that enforce their compliance but their practical significance which generates the common understanding with regard to the meaning and significance of the conventions that generate and are instrumental for the respect. The ICRC in this perspective has a role of facilitating such common understandings amongst the high contracting parties. Through trainings, operational reviews of key challenges, through engagement with all stakeholders, including key opinion makers, religious leaders, academic circles, legal students and scholars and all weapons bearers willing to listen. In these efforts, the commentaries are an essential reference point because they offer guidance and contextualization. We know that the first edition of these commentaries which were written in the 1950s have been useful for military and civilian practitioners as well as for the judges and academics. A lot of time has passed since then and we have gained a lot of experience in applying and interpreting the conventions over the decades and in the context very different to those which led to their adoption. Therefore, it was time to update the existing commentaries and to offer new versions that take these experiences into account. Five years ago, our institution committed itself to this monumental task. With the publication of the first installment, the updated commentaries on the first Geneva Conventions we have reached the first milestone today. The updated commentaries and the ones to follow over the next years will provide nuance, insights and references on the basis of newer applications and interpretations by states and courts. The first Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded and sick be protected and respected. It also regulates the modalities of access for humanitarian organizations, the ICRC and others, so that they can bring aid and assistance to those trapped in conflicts. During my travels to war-torn countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Syria, just to mention few of them, I have witnessed not only the relevance but the urgencies to respect these rules. But what do they mean in practice? What standard of medical care is required for the treatment of the wounded and sick? How can the wounded and sick be collected and cared for in practical terms? The answers to these and other questions have both legal and operational dimensions, which the commentary on the first convention addresses by offering interpretations, but also by indicating where questions are not settled and further discussion are needed. The ICRC is in a unique position to oversee the preparation of these commentaries. However, we did not do it alone. The ICRC today is more of a guardian 2.0 of the Geneva Conventions. We do not own IHL and we are not the only ones to interpret international humanitarian law. Instead, we entertain a network of scholars and practitioners to offer guidance. The law which is essentially a balance between military necessity and the protection of victims of war has entered the public space today. Awareness and discussions of what the law and its application and thus of violations have become much more democratic. In the past half century, encompassing experts, professionals, and the public at large, we see it as our duty to offer evidence-based guidance and contextualization of such discussions in the public space as well. And here again, the commentaries are important. Public discourse can influence interpretation. Take the treatment of the wounded combatants, for example. What has been as a cornerstone of IHL since its inception and of the ICRC's action since Henri Dunant's time has in the past years increasingly been questions in the public space. The right of the wounded combatants to obtain treatment is not understood as clearly as it is stated in the convention. It's our duty to remind everyone from parties to a conflict to the general public what the law says and how clear or how complex its interpretation is. A novelty in our working method was the opening of the process to unprecedented external input. We have invited external contributors alongside the ICRC staff lawyers to write the new commentaries. We have submitted the drafts to a comprehensive process of peer review by a wide selection of scholars and practitioners from around the world, 60 experts from all corners of the world who were involved in the preparation of these commentaries. I believe that a new commentary is a practical tool that provides accurate interpretations of the rules based on the comprehensive review of state practice, case law, and the ICRC's experience. In it you can find reference and guidance on pertinent discussions relating to the protection of the wounded and sick, but also in the convention scope of application, the relationship with other areas of international law, and the pressing topics such as sexual violence and non-refoulement which were not reflected in the first edition of the commentaries. As the majority of conflicts today are of a non-international character, the commentaries dealing with non-international armed conflicts have grown. Have grown significantly compared to the initial commentaries. Article three is essential provision on these conflicts and the new commentary provides a comprehensive interpretation of all the aspects of this mini convention. But it is important to bear in mind that the commentary is a snapshot of our current understanding of the law. It puts forward updated interpretations and indicates where there are divergent views. However, it is not the final word, but rather a basis for further conversations about the implementation, clarification, and development of humanitarian law in the future as practice and interpretations may continue to evolve over time and space. The Geneva Conventions are a living instruments and we need to make sure that the law remains relevant by ensuring that our interpretations are up to date and applied in today's armed conflict. That is why I call upon you to bring this new tool to the attention of your armed forces, your legal advisers, so that we together redouble our efforts to generate respect for the Geneva Conventions, our common heritage. I thank you very much. Thank you very much, President, and we appreciate those words of wisdom. We now move to a panel discussion where you will see that we have two live people here and two live people beamed in virtually from across the globe. I'm not sure in the days of Pictay they would have been able to have this sort of technology, so in and of itself it demonstrates what has changed over the last many years. Our first speaker will be the head of the Commentaries Update Unit, who should be very proud today, Mr Jean-Marie Henkez, and he's going to talk about and focus upon the origin, the process, and a snapshot of some of the outcomes of the Commentaries process. So over to you, Jean-Marie. Yes, thank you very much, Helen, and good morning, everyone. Indeed, I'm very pleased and thrilled to be here this morning and very proud of the work we've achieved over the past five years. This is the first milestone, as has been mentioned, that we present today, the outcome of five years of work. So the first online publication, I should indicate, of the commentary on the first Geneva Convention, and as has been mentioned, so several other commentaries are to follow because the purpose of the project is to update the commentaries on the four Geneva Conventions and also the additional protocols. So this is the first milestone of this project, and we calculated that we worked about three million minutes on this first commentary, the project team, so not including the outside contributors. So about three million minutes, and so I now have to summarize this in 10 minutes. So this is not going to be easy, but I'll try my best, and some of the points I'll make, of course, will overlap also with what President Maurer has said, but I think some of them are worth repeating. So as you have heard now, it's been more than 60 years since the first commentary was published in 1952, the famous Piquete Commentaries under the general editorship of Jean Piquete, and so a lot has changed in that time, in those decades, since the first commentary was published and since the Geneva Conventions were adopted in 1949, and so a genuine need was felt to update these commentaries. There have been developments in law and practice. For example, the Geneva Conventions were adopted right after the Second World War, a major international armed conflict. Well, in the meantime, of course the majority of conflicts are non-international, so that is reflected in the new commentary as you've heard with greater emphasis and more detail put into the commentary on Common Article III. Other developments are, of course, the explosion, if I could say, of case law interpreting the Geneva Conventions and concepts of IHL, case law from the International Court of Justice and from the International Criminal Tribunals and also arbitral tribunals, so that we have now more guidance on a number of issues. Furthermore, we've also seen the adoption of new treaties, so the Geneva Conventions in 1949 were sort of at the beginning of a big development in international law. For example, the issue of torture has been mentioned while years later a convention against torture was adopted setting out a definition of torture. So we have developments in various areas of international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, if you think about it, it's from 1969, it was adopted 20 years after the Geneva Conventions. So at the time the initial commentaries were written, all these developments in case law and in treaty law and also in the practice of armed conflicts were not taken into account and therefore this need was felt to update the commentaries of the 1950s and to reflect up-to-date interpretations based on current practice and current legal interpretations. And the purpose of doing this, of course, was to bring this together into a practical tool, as has been mentioned, a tool that is to be used for practitioners, for lawyers in the military and in governments, in courts, but also civil society, so that they can have easy access to up-to-date interpretations of the various articles of the Geneva Conventions. In so doing, when you consult the commentaries, you will see that in many occasions we put forward also ICRC interpretations where they exist on certain points, but we also reflect diverging views. So in this commentary we set forth our interpretations on a number of issues but we also reflect where there are diverging views and we identify on occasion issues that need further clarification. So it has been mentioned that it gives a picture of what the law is today and the interpretations with diverging views, but it cannot be the final word, of course, because it will be, and we hope it will be, the basis of further conversations and discussions among lawyers to further clarify this area of law. Now the process to achieve this practical tool was, of course, that we had to research all these new developments that have taken place since 1949. So including, obviously, first and foremost, the state practice, for example, interpretations provided in military manuals, but also practice in the actual application of the conventions since 1949, for example, on the use of the distinctive emblem or on how the system of grave breaches has been implemented in practice. So we reviewed this practice based on documents, policies, documents from states, but also on the actual implementation and practice. And of course, a comprehensive review of international and national jurisprudence was necessary and decisions of arbitral tribunals. And there, as I mentioned, has been an explosion of case law and so this also was a rich source of further guidance on the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. Also, we had to look at discussions in legal literature and there, too, there have been many writings dealing with the Geneva Conventions and IHL generally, so which we had to examine. And also our own field experience, this has been mentioned as well, so we did research in our archives, for example, in our annual reports, going back all the way to 1949 and in the six decades afterwards to see what has happened in the application of these various provisions. So these were the sort of sources that we looked at and we were convinced that we should not, of course, write this commentary by ourselves. We should open up and it has been mentioned that there has been an unprecedented opening to external input whereas the original commentary was entirely written by ICRC people and not subjected to a peer review process as far as I know. The result now is that we've engaged some 10 external contributors, one of them who is alive with us, Mr. Professor Jeff Korn. But also the peer review process of 60 external IHL practitioners and academics from all over the world who had a chance, who received the full draft and were able to give comments on the full draft. And I have to say that this was really a very worthwhile exercise because we saw that we, through this peer review process, got other opinions, other points of views from all parts of the world and that really helped us to improve the quality and also to identify diverging views that we might have missed. So this was really, I think, an extraordinary effort to open up the commentaries to this external input. And so the end result, I think, is based on a truly collaborative effort between these various persons who gave input into the process of research drafting and review. Now the outcome, which today is available online and will be available six months from now about by Cambridge University Press. So the outcome is, I think, a rich commentary on the first Geneva Convention. And I think it's an important commentary because the first Geneva Convention is a core treaty setting out the basics, really, of IHL. It goes back to Solferino and the protection of the wounded and sick and the basic rules, both in international and non-international conflicts, are set out in the first Geneva Convention. So protection of the wounded and sick and, of course, the medical mission and the emblem. But also issues like the missing and the dead are present in this first Geneva Convention. Humanitarian access, the grave breaches regime, the prohibition of reprisals, and the obligation of dissemination. Various important aspects, also, of ensuring respect for the Geneva Conventions are in this first Convention. And as has been said several times, also the regulation of non-international conflict through the mini-convention of Common Article III. So all these aspects will be developed in the commentary. And, of course, we will have time to further explore and explain and discuss, also, what is new compared to the original commentaries, but to give some examples, of course, what is new. If you look at the sections on the scope of application of humanitarian law in international and non-international conflicts, this has become a much more complex area since the time of the pique des commentaries, where we had the more simple categories of international and non-international conflicts. Now, with a variety of scenarios and also a variety of actors, for example, multinational forces, peace operations, and so on and so forth, we have different scenarios that exist, such as spillover conflicts that were not discussed in the original commentary. So the various scenarios have greatly expanded, and therefore the issue of the scope of application of humanitarian law is much more complex today. Another practical example is the obligation to respect and protect the wounded and sick, simple and basic rule, but, of course, what do these mean in practice? What is respect? What is protect? What is required from the parties to the conflict? And in this regard, we benefited a lot, also, from the input of colleagues who were involved in another major project of the ICRC, which is Healthcare in Danger, which was also looking at practical ways of ensuring respect for the wounded and sick. Other examples of new topics, for example, are sexual violence and non-hopeful mode, I have been mentioned, which were issues that were absent in the first commentary, and that are now also mentioned. And maybe to finish with another example is dissemination, which I think is nice, where the original commentary puts the emphasis on the literal text of the convention, which is to spread the text of the convention as a way to ensuring respect, dissemination. But research now has shown, of course, that dissemination and teaching alone is not sufficient, and so we reflect this in the new commentary that what is needed is actually integration of the law, integration into operational decision-making, integration into military doctrine, integration into instructions, into military manuals, so that the text of the conventions have to be translated and not simply disseminated and taught in a classroom, but so that the law and the books is actually translated into law into action, and this takes place through integration. So these new insights are based on research that the ICRC has carried out in the past decade, and this is also reflected in the new commentary. So in closing, I would like to say that the project shows very much, yes, that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions are very much alive. They are evolving and states interpret them in order to meet the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts, and we believe that this is exactly what is needed in order to ensure that the humanitarian spirit underlying the conventions remains alive and that the conventions remain relevant. We also think that, of course, some people may disagree with us with some of the elements of the analysis and some of the interpretations. As I've said, it's not the final word, but we welcome and look forward to debates because it's exactly through conversations among professionals on the current interpretation of IHL that the continued relevance of the Geneva Conventions remains affirmed. Thank you. Well, thank you, Jean-Marie, and I think this issue about starting a conversation is really critical. And I did also want to pay tribute to colleagues here sitting in the front row that are the commentary team and the Chief Legal Officer and the Chief Legal Officer and the manager in charge of the legal department here, Dr. Kunut Dormin, who have worked also very, very tirelessly with Jean-Marie. So it's been a real team effort of many people, but I can look in the eyes of my colleagues and know that there hasn't been much sleep got in the last little while, so it's delightful to see them here. Well, thank you. We're now going to change tack, and we're going to actually talk to one of our colleagues in the field in Afghanistan. I'm very delighted to introduce Ms. Marisela Silva-Ciao, who is the legal advisor, ICRC legal advisor, to the operational delegation in Afghanistan, and she's going to bring us some reflections from the field. We will first see a short video from her talking, but she will then be available for questions in the questions and answers. So over to the field. Morning conflict amongst others. As an ICRC legal advisor, it was necessary, a permanent reading of the commentaries, to be able to explain the practical meaning of the IHO rules relevant to all those issues, including references to the state's practice in applying such rules. What's more important, it was necessary to explain in layman's language the terminology used by those treaties. So as to promote the knowledge and proper understanding of IHL to a wide range of actors. Let me say also that for an ICRC legal advisor, the field is certainly not Geneva. The field is where the ICRC has its operations where armed conflicts affect daily the most vulnerable, where there is no time to discuss issues in academic terms. Explanations must be clear, concise and practical, readily taken to be on board by the parties to the conflict. I have been working in Afghanistan for more than a year and I have found that when an ICRC legal advisor talks about IHL in easily understandable language, the better the chances of having a positive impact in favor of the people protected by this law. For that reason, I really believe that the work my colleagues in Geneva and other experts on IHL around the world are doing with this updating process of the commentaries is very important. I think the new commentaries can be of a great benefit to the field. In this sense, I really expect that the new commentaries will provide those who work in the field with practical tools to respond questions from political authorities, non-state armed groups, lawmakers, etc. And I expect that the new commentaries will be a useful consultation tool, not only for legal advisors, but for those working in protection, health, water and sanitation. I think the new commentaries can be a big asset for the field. Now, I would like to mention an important contribution of the updated commentary on the first Geneva Convention with regards to what has been considered and is still the bedrock of IHL in non-international armed conflicts. I am referring to Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, the updated commentary of the first Geneva Convention contributes with a comprehensive explanation that will allow us to grasp a full understanding on one of the most important IHL obligations established by Common Article 3 in the framework of a non-international armed conflict. This obligation is described in Subparagraph 2 of this article and reads as follows. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. This updated commentary addresses in depth several topics about this important obligation, such as the categories of persons covered by this obligation, the legal notions on who are considered as wounded and sick in the framework of this article, the interpretation of explicit obligations such as to collect and to care, and also additional implicit obligations that rise on the matter. Just about to finish, I also consider important to highlight that an additional relevant contribution of the updated commentary on the first Geneva Convention is to provide us with a clear orientation on how the last paragraph of Common Article 3, a key one certainly, should be understood nowadays. As you know, this last paragraph says, the application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict. In particular, by explaining in depth the meaning of this last paragraph of Common Article 3, this updated commentary of the first Geneva Convention reinforces an important and necessary understanding of the exclusive humanitarian purpose of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Having said that, I want to thank you all for your attention. I hope I have provided you with another perspective from the field and I remain open to your comments and questions. Good morning to all of you. I also consider important to highlight that an additional relevant contribution of the updated commentary on the first Geneva Convention is to provide us with a clear orientation on how the last paragraph of Common Article 3, a key one certainly, should be understood nowadays. As you know, this last paragraph says, the application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict. In particular, by explaining that the meaning of this last paragraph of Common Article 3, this updated commentary of the first Geneva Convention reinforces an important and necessary understanding of the exclusive humanitarian purpose of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Convention. Having said that, I want to thank you all for your attention. I hope I have provided you with another perspective from the field and I remain open to your comments and questions. Well, thank you very much. It's important, though, that you don't just hear from ICRC as was articulated by Jean-Marie, one of the significant changes in the updated commentary is that we very much opened ourselves up, engaged in many discussions, over 60 reviewers, as has been mentioned, from across the globe. So what we thought was important today was also to invite other people to comment on this issue and I'm delighted to introduce our next speaker, Professor Jeffrey Korn. Number one, Jeffrey is coming, being live from the United States, so we appreciate the time and the opportunity in the morning there. You look very fresh for someone who's got up that early, so congratulations on that in itself. But Professor Korn is a professor at the South Texas College of Law and is also a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army and we would be interested to hear from Professor Korn issues about how this could be relevant in a military context. So over to you, Jeffrey. Well, thank you very much and I hope that looking fresh at three o'clock in the morning isn't the high point of my presentation, but I'll try and make it otherwise. The first thing I'd like to do is express my immense respect and admiration for the team from the ICRC that spearheaded this effort and brought this remarkable accomplishment across the finish line. I have learned over the last eleven years working on a number of academic publication projects with groups of other authors that writing and publishing something by consensus from a group is in many cases far more challenging than doing it individually. And when you hear the number of people involved in the peer review of this product, the number of contributors involved, the foresight to open the project to external review and external contribution, I hope everybody also understands the monumental effort that that required on the ICRC's end. And I can tell you, as somebody who is involved in that process, that the level of professionalism and the quality of work and the support that was received was standard setting. So absolutely impressive achievement that everybody worked on and an achievement that's going to have in my view a profound influence on the implementation of humanitarian law for decades to come. My first exposure to the commentaries was in 1996 when I was a student at the U.S. Army's Judge Advocate General School in Charlottesville, Virginia in the Masters of Law program and then when I stayed there as a faculty member for three years I had not been aware of the commentary before that time. Candidly my practice focus had been primarily in the criminal law field. But when I was required to teach in this field the opportunity to learn the historical foundation of the conventions that our judge advocates were responsible for implementing through their commanders was invaluable. And this was an era also where our forces were involved in very complex operations oftentimes that didn't fit neatly into one of the categories of armed conflict and nonetheless the conventions became the foundation for guiding their commanders through the complexity of these peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations. And the commentaries became essential for the lawyers the military lawyers with this responsibility because they're the ones who had the first line duty to persuade commanders and staff officers of the logic of the law. And I think this is the point I would really like to focus on. As the President and John Marie both indicated military operations in conflict over the past 60 years haven't gotten any less complex they've done exponentially more complex. And that complexity has produced in my view stresses on respect for the law not only from parties that are just not concerned with complying with the law per se but also from parties states armed forces that have a historical commitment to the law when the battle space becomes complex when the enemy becomes an enemy that doesn't respect the law it will call into question the logic of the law. One of the most important roles of the commentary in my view is that they add immense and tremendous value to the persuasive authority of the conventions themselves and they give proponents of compliance the tool they need to demonstrate to those who have to implement the law on the pointed tip of the sphere so to speak and understanding of the historical origins the logic the rationale of the provisions they're being asked to comply with I think unfortunately we see the challenges and the risk associated with failing to recognize those historical foundations in some of the discourse in our own national election cycle that's going on at the moment in the United States when there's a lack of understanding of where this law comes from and a lack of understanding that the law evolved from a rational recognition by military commanders that restraint in war was the essence of good order and discipline in the armed forces that respect for humanitarian concerns was the essence of distinguishing the legitimate violence of war from the illegitimate violence of revenge or vengeance when we lose sight of that we open the door to very very bad decisions very bad policies very bad interpretations of the law so updating the commentaries to reflect the contemporary challenges of battle the contemporary challenges of military operations and doing it in a way as John Marie indicated that takes cognizance of the fact that there are certain disagreements and divergences can only contribute to the ultimate goal of the law and the ultimate objective of any legitimate and credible military commander tasked with implementing military operations and that's why I think this project is so vitally important of course the commentaries themselves also serve other purposes for military legal advisors and the commanders who have to apply the law they provide a common language of discourse and in the contemporary range of military operations when the norm is increasingly coalition operations this is a vital contributing factor to implementation and compliance with the law states may not always have the same prima facie interpretation of provisions that they are equally bound to the commentaries aid in reconciling and deconflicting divergences and interpretations among coalition partners themselves by providing a common language and a common understanding and by arming those who seek that deconfliction and that synchronization with the persuasive tool they need to convince commanders and other policymakers of the logic of consensus positions I think this also reflects itself in the role that the commentaries play in influencing scholarship and discourse in the law outside of military circles I think it would be no exaggeration to say that the influence of scholars on the evolution implementation of the law today in military operations is more significant than at any time previously in history and I don't think that that trend is going to decline in any way if anything it's only going to become more significant because as the president indicated there is a much greater understanding among civil society of what the law demands and what the expectations for legitimate military operations and the legitimate conduct of armed forces in fact should be and as a result the scholarship and the academic inquiry into the law is finding its way into doctrine policies, judicial opinions and other aspects of the evolution and development of the law that will affect the conduct of operations in the future. The commentary provides a rich and valuable foundation for this type of scholarship indeed it's not uncommon in the experience of many people who've been at academic events and other type of scholarly discourse on the law to critique positions asserted by scholars and academics by reference back to the Grunorm if you will of the commentary provisions themselves and we know as was acknowledged at the inception of the presentation today that the commentaries are not binding in any sense they're not necessarily controlling they're a reflection of a general understanding of the origins and the foundation and interpretation of the specific treaty provisions they're not the Travaux but in my experience as an attorney I don't think I can recall any other secondary source that has had more persuasive authority on interpreting the actual text of legal obligation than the commentaries to the Geneva Convention so it is really in my view impossible to underestimate the significance of these commentaries and therefore to underestimate the importance and the value to the operational community of the quality of the effort that went into this process and of the willingness to be open-minded to the views of external reviewers to incorporate into the actual text of the commentary areas where there is a lack of consensus but also which I think is much more common to emphasize the importance of the areas where there is so much strong consensus and finally I'm looking at the screen at one of your colleagues in Afghanistan that's the only picture I can see but I think it's kind of symbolic because I think another critical function of the commentary is to provide a common language and a common baseline of understanding between armed forces and the ICRC itself and the delegates in the field that have the tremendous and important challenge of serving as the interface between the operational and tactical domain of compliance and implementation of the law and the ICRC itself. Having these commentaries will facilitate that discourse will facilitate that dialogue will continue to build trust between these two ends of the implementation and compliance spectrum and in that regard I think their value again can never be underestimated so in closing I would tell you that no military manual in the United States that has any reference at all to international humanitarian law will be reviewed, drafted updated or adopted in the future without consideration and in many cases the integration of the work that's been presented by these commentaries and we should all understand that John Barry's point about integration is in fact the fulcrum of compliance with the law the law is not going to be implemented just by reading text of a treaty it's going to be implemented when military commanders embrace the logic of the law that they're asked to comply with and the commentaries provide that depth of understanding to help them see why embracing that logic ultimately is in their interest and in humanitarian interest so congratulations I am deeply honored by the opportunity to participate in this event and deeply honored by the opportunity to contribute to this effort and I wish everybody involved in the project great success thank you well our sincere thanks for being so awake you certainly didn't didn't at all disappoint us so thank you Professor Corn we've heard from the ICRC itself we've heard from the field we've heard from a military and academic lawyer and now it's time to hear from a government official another very important target audience the commentaries going forward it's my delight to introduce Ambassador Maria Letho she is a senior expert on public international law in Finland and she will look at the comments particularly relating to a very critical area which is common articles that are important and may have value going forward so over to you Ambassador thank you Madam Chair Excellencies ladies and gentlemen it's an honor and a pleasure for me to be part of this intercontinental panel and to celebrate with all of you the launch of the updated commentary to the first Geneva Convention I would like to take this opportunity to commend the ICRC the head of the project Mr. Jean-Marie Henckert and all the experts who have contributed to the updated commentary for an extremely useful timely and substantive study the original commentaries of the 1950s and 1980s have been highly influential in advising the interpretation application and implementation of the Geneva Conventions and additional protocols their importance and the considerable authority they command have been widely recognized including by the International Court of Justice and other international courts and tribunals it's never less clear that the project to update the commentaries responds to a genuine need in view of the significant developments that have taken place since the time of the publication of the original commentaries adoption of new legal instruments and growth of international jurisprudence on IHL consolidation of international criminal law and emergence of new state practice reflecting a rapidly changing security environment it's therefore very welcome that the ICRC has undertaken to study how the provisions of the conventions and the protocols have been applied and interpreted in practice over the past 60 years for a government lawyer the commentaries are an indispensable source of information on how specific treaty provisions should be correctly interpreted in my professional experience since the late 1980s the need for expertise in IHL has been constantly increasing IHL is high on the foreign and security policy agenda for different reasons because of all the new questions related to armed conflicts and multinational crisis management operations but also I would say because of the multiplication of actors and voices in the area of international humanitarian law international courts and tribunals academia civil society organizations and the media the result of all this is that governments simply need more legal advice on IHL as a basis for foreign and security policy decision making whether they are engaged in an armed conflict or not issues related to IHL have also a reason for international legal negotiations and not just in those concerning specific IHL instruments increasingly complicated questions as was already pointed out need to be addressed also in the context of training on IHL given to armed forces including those who are heading to military crisis management operations and lastly international courts are increasingly often required to address crimes committed abroad in the context of an armed conflict also as a result of migration from conflict areas the commentaries have provided considerable assistance in all these contexts and I have no doubt that the updated commentaries will continue to do so becoming an essential resource for governments my specific comments today relate to common article one of the Geneva Conventions which as you know lays down the fundamental commitment to respect and to ensure respect of the conventions in all circumstances I will focus on the phrase to ensure respect and I would like to state at the outset that the new commentary makes an important service in clarifying the legal nature of this component of the article it's clear that the interpretation of common article one has developed over time and this is true in particular for the obligation to ensure respect by other states and non-state actors it has nevertheless been held even quite recently that this part of common article one would be a mere recommendation and that interpreting it otherwise could lead to a virtually unlimited requirement for all states to take all measures available to them the great merit of the new commentary is that it gives a much more sophisticated and realistic interpretation of the obligation to ensure respect along the lines of the commentary to article one of additional protocol one but also drawing from the drawing on the jurisprudence of the ICJ certain negative obligations also flow from general international law not to encourage violations of the Geneva Conventions not to recognize as lawful situation created by a serious breach of the fundamental rules of IHL and not to render aid or assistance to the maintenance of such a situation but the common article one obligation goes nevertheless further and contains also the positive obligation to try to prevent violations of the conventions or to bring them to an end whenever possible and this obligation as the new commentary specifies to be carried out with due diligence meaning that states parties must do everything reasonably in their power to ensure that the provisions are respected universally and I would like to add that in elaborating on the applicable standard of due diligence the commentary refers to the 2007 judgment of the ICJ in the genocide convention case the court clarified the legal implications of the similar obligation under that convention to prevent genocide summing up as a due diligence obligation the duty to ensure respect depends on different factors it depends on the credit of the bridge it certainly depends on the means available to the state and very importantly it depends on the relationship the state has to the violating state or group whether it is in the position and has the capacity to effectively influence that state or group this is a very important clarification and certainly increases underlines and increases the relevance and importance of the common article one the gap filled by the new commentary I would like to mention in this context relates to the measures which the state's parties should take to execute the obligation to ensure respect the commentary very helpfully contains an illustrative list of such measures based on the practice of states and competent international organizations and consisting of measures for them I will pick up just one of such measures conditioning limiting or refusing arms transfers the same tool by the way is mentioned in the European Union guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law adopted in 2001 and updated in 2009 together with the relevant EU instrument on control of arms exports this means an obligation for all EU member states to always consider the important countries compliance with IHL before license to export weapons to that countries granted and as you may know a similar obligation is contained in 2013 arms trade treaty which specifies that the state party must not authorize any transfers of conventional arms if there's an overriding risk that the weapons might be might be used to commit or to facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law these are example examples of provisions that effectively implement the obligation to ensure respect universally in closing I would just like to say that updating the commentaries of course is a major undertaking which extends to several years but the publication of the new commentary to the first convention is a very important milestone in that respect and the breadth and the depth of this commentary makes it a rich source of information and bodes well for the whole project I thank you for your attention and I'll see it since you thank you for your presentation we now will have a question each to the panelists and as the chair I have the pleasure to ask these questions and then we will open up to the floor for those of you who wish to ask questions we're aware that today is not a technical analysis because you haven't had the pleasure of clicking the button which is on our website and downloading and reading what the substantive issues are in the commentary so we're aware that in the next many years we'll have many opportunities to really delve into the technical elements but we thought there may be some questions or some comments from the audience and wanted to give you that opportunity Michelle Marie I thought I might have the first question to you one of the issues that you mentioned that we're all aware of is since the original commentaries there has been an explosion of international criminal law jurisprudence we now have many ways in IHEL at Hock Tribunals the International Criminal Court and domestic cases and at the time of the 1949 Geneva Conventions creation the Grave Breaches provision was a very unique element in international law the requirement that states had in that enforcement what in the reflections what were the sort of issues that arose when you looked at the Grave Breaches provision Yes, thank you so this is an example I mentioned of a provision where we looked at how it had been implemented in practice over the past 60 years because the obligation is quite clear for states to adopt legislation that allows them to prosecute for Grave Breaches and to establish this jurisdiction on the basis of universal jurisdiction so that they can prosecute people who have committed these Grave Breaches elsewhere as well so but what we have seen of course is that states for a number of years did not adopt this legislation and it has only been since the 1990s really that the adoption of this national legislation and finally the prosecution for Grave Breaches in national courts started to pick up so it is the establishment I think of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which acted there as a promoter of this system and which led states to finally implement their obligations on the Geneva Convention so of course the new commentary has to reflect this reality that this provision which was seen as a very strong guarantee for the prosecution of Grave Breaches remained that letter for many years but in the end nevertheless has come alive and many states now have this legislation and there have been prosecutions and so of course there is still room for progress there are still states which need to adopt this type of legislation so I think this is finally coming to fulfill its role and it is together with Common Article 1 which Ambassador Legto has talked about one of the two important enforcement mechanisms that exist today in the conventions other mechanisms to ensure respect that were devised the protecting powers and their substitutes also the inquiry procedure and the conciliation procedure have also had mixed success the inquiry procedure for example as set out literally in the conventions has not as such been followed or used but obviously inquiry has been used to look into violations of IHL so I would also in respect to inquiry be realistic and say it's not because this provision as it is set out and the procedure in the convention has not been used as such that inquiry has not been useful and has not been used and it's not an available tool to ensure respect for humanitarian law so we have in the conventions a number of mechanisms that can work and that have worked to ensure sorry to ensure respect Thank you very much and I'm sure we'll all be very interesting in reading those provisions because we certainly as you said the changes and progress are particularly relating to enforcement let me go to our colleague in Afghanistan who's been patiently waiting there thank you so much for being on the line Marisela from a field perspective which topics that are dealt with in the first Geneva convention will be of most use to you or issues that you think you'll really use as soon as you download it from the web Yes, thank you for the question from the field and I already raised the issue during my presentation in a context as Afghanistan even this bad rub of IHL in non-international conflicts as it is a commercial fee is very important in terms of explaining to different range of actors the main purpose of the basic rules of IHL and in particular within article 3 now in the new commentary of the third Geneva convention we have explicit explanations on the wounded and sick and for instance in Afghanistan let me tell you that today as public figures the ICRC during 2015 transported 2158 were wounded during the last during the last year so we are talking about a humanitarian a huge humanitarian concern what it is related to the wounded and sick and all related IHL provisions to what does it mean to respect and protect the wounded and sick and implicit obligations of such important one as for instance to protect and respect medical facilities medical transport and of course medical personnel are really important obligations that the ICRC but other humanitarian institutions in the field and in a context such as Afghanistan need to raise ICRC to how do you deal thank you very much Prof. Corn may ask you maybe the same question from a military lawyers or operational perspective what elements do you think will be the most interesting once you start engaging in reading the full text the answer is their all going to be interesting depending on the issue the commander and the staff or dealing with one of the articles that I had of working on had to do with the arming of medical personnel and medical equipment. And it seems on the surface self-evident that a vehicle or an ambulance that's marked with the protective emblem should not be armed. And yet there's a compromise inherent in the treaty that allows small arms for self-defense against unlawful attack against the wounded and sick or protected individuals. The challenge of course is where is the definition of small arms and this requires a lot of inquiry and guided by the underlying logic of the law which is to limit the presence of weapons on such a piece of equipment or on such personnel for the legitimate and limited purpose of self-defense or defense of the wounded and sick. But as weaponry develops, as enemy tactics change, as asymmetric warfare evolves, concerns arise at the operational level of whether we're putting people in unjustified jeopardy by not allowing them to be sufficiently armed. And these are the type of challenging questions that arise in the field. And I can assure you that again in the future, whenever an issue arises in the development of doctrine or manuals that touches on compliance or respect for the law, the military lawyers that are going to be involved in that development process or even at the ad hoc level just writing an order or rules of engagement are going to be looking at these commentaries and their accessibility through the internet is a vital contributing factor here. So I don't think there's any one issue in particular. I think of course, as John Marie highlighted, there's going to be a lot of attention initially focused on the common articles, particularly articles two and three because of those are areas where there is in many cases some divergence between the states. But I actually think that's going to be very beneficial because recognition of some of that divergence will just generate more dialogue, more discourse and ultimately hopefully more consensus. Well, thank you very much. We love it when the answer is all of it is your favorite. But I think also what has been very interesting in the process and certainly talking to my colleagues in the team is a lot of attention and oxygen will be around critical common articles. But there was some really rich engaging dialogue in some of the less known articles. So this has been a process that is allowed to really reflect on matters such as, as was mentioned on the dissemination obligations. Really critical. Wouldn't have thought there was so much to dig into, but we really found that it was a very rich area to engage in. Well, Ambassador, perhaps as a final question I get to ask, now that the commentary is on online, what provision are you going to read first? Madam Chair, I think I would first reiterate what Professor Korn said, that all the articles are important depending on what kind of practical problems one has on the table at the moment. But I think I would first read the articles that have such as huge general importance, meaning the articles come into the four Geneva Conventions. And I should add that the publication of the first volume of the updated commentaries is such an important milestone also because of this very fact that it covers the substance, it covers through the common articles, a lot of those substances, the forthcoming volumes as well. Common article three on non-international armed conflicts, it's an extensive study, fully reflecting the many developments of the past decades. It will be very interesting reading. And also articles, one which I already had the pleasure to study the commentary a little bit and article two. But I would also like to single out the articles on great breaches and universal jurisdiction because of my own background having participated in the negotiations on the statute of the International Criminal Court in the 90s and then in the negotiations on the elements of crimes. And if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of all the legal resources the ICRC makes available and the important contribution of representatives of the ICRC legal division to different international legal negotiations. I'm sure it's highly appreciated, not just by my government, but by all governments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a little bit of time now for some questions from the floor and then we'll move on to coffee and croissants. We thought it was a little bit too early for champagne, but we will all be thinking we're having champagne as we have our coffee or tea. But we have some microphones and I saw a first question here at. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's a question and a remark. I think we all agree that the importance of the commentary finally is that it changed the behavior of soldier military in the field. That's where the concrete effect at the end of the day. And for that, the commentary must be of great quality, not a wishful thinking commentary, but honest commentary. I know it will be that. I know Jean-Marie who did a tremendous work with customary low commentary and the team is excellent. But I think my point is that the timing of this commentary is very important for two reasons. The first is that it's on the first convention, which is the essence of human nature, the convention of Henry Dunant. And we have here in Geneva, discussion on Syria, which are very important. But who is belligerent, who deliberately attack hospital and wounded person. It's very important to remind those negotiator that there's no excuse to the attack of hospital, no excuse to the attack of wounded person, no excuse to the attack of medical person. So in that sense, it's very important to have this commentary on the first convention, which is the second convention in Geneva convention just now. The second reason is that in this commentary, we have article three. And article three is in fact the brother or sister of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's a fantastic step forward, telling that national sovereignty has some limits. You have some limits and that's why the decision of state after the horror of Spanish Civil War and above all the Second World War is a fantastic step forward. And nowadays, we see a kind of regression with an idea of an absolute national sovereignty idea. And even here in Switzerland, we will have to face a vote on the prevalence of international law on, or national law on international law. And in the sense, the reminder that there are some values in article three, which are over the national sovereignty value is extremely important. So for these two reasons, I think the timing of this commentary, which I know will be an excellent commentary is very good. That's why the small comments I wanted to thank you. Thank you. We'll take another question. There's a lady there. Very simple question. This morning, we heard a lot about integration. So I would like to ask about translated into languages. I'm not referring only to translated to official language of the UN. I'm trans I'm thinking more on how to really give a meaning to the words. So that integration could take place because it's not only to put in one law in another body of literature, but to give, as Marcela said, a meaning to an article or a meaning of what is in the convention or what is in the commentaries. So thank you. Thank you. I'll take one more question from the other side. So I'm evened up. All the other sides quite quiet. Okay. There was a lady who had the yes, please. And then we'll then I'll throw it to the panel and then we'll go back for some more. Okay, thank you very much. Just a small question with regard to the recent practice of some states on counterterrorism. Talking again about taking care of the wounded and sick. I was wondering to what extent this practice has been taken into account. For example, there has been cases reported of medical doctors being prosecuted for providing healthcare to wounded people listed as terrorists. So there is a conflicting, in fact, practice with regard to the norms on wounded and sick. So to what extent this practice of some states has been taken into account to interpret common article three or other provision on this issue was my question. Thank you very much. So we had the important comment about the timing, the critical temporal value of the commentaries. We then had the question relating to not just interpretation from a linguistic language point of view, but how to have traction, make real meaning for those we are trying to influence. And then this issue related to counterterrorism. I was going to throw it open to the whole panel, but I actually realised poor Jean-Marie, you're probably the person we'll have to focus on in the answering of these questions. So over to you. On the translations, the first point is that indeed we will, we plan to translate the commentary into the official UN languages. So that's a process that will start soon and then we hope to have this available next year in different languages like Arabic, Spanish, Russian and so on. And then, of course, the national translations of select articles are also encouraged. Then how to translate it into, as you say, more concrete terms. I think the commentary is the first step to translate what these terms mean in reality. Like we have mentioned, respect and ensure respect, sorry, respect and protect of wounded and sick. What this actually entails is spelled out in, I think, simple terms, as simple as possible, practical terms, what this means on the ground. And so we may also need to think about, you know, some spin off products of this commentary maybe to make some things more concrete and more accessible still than an academic commentary. On the second question, I just, yeah, I think the commentary has looked at these things, I think, and of course we reiterate in common article three also that the obligation to respect the wounded and sick and medical personnel is, as has been mentioned, is an overarching value that limits to national sovereignty, have been accepted through the adoption of common article three and this is the law. And we, of course, reflect what the law says and comment on that and also based on practice. And then in relation to what Marisela said also that common article three does not change the status of the parties to the conflict so that whether an act or a group is labeled as terrorist, you know, does not change the application of humanitarian law and does not change in particular common article three which is this fundamental rule of ICHEL that has been accepted by all. Thank you. I saw a couple more questions here, the gentleman there and the gentleman here. So just one question to Jean-Marie, you mentioned torture in your commentary and it was interesting that what you mentioned that Pete said in the first commentary was similar to what American judge once said about pornography, no need to define it, I see it when I recognize it. Now this being said very briefly because I haven't had a chance to see that maybe my answer is already in the text. What was, what attitude was adopted towards torture in this new text because just the definition of torture, there's been reams and forests printed in articles and books on that. What the attitude we had here when I was in the ICHEL for 28 years was not so much the definition of torture but the effects of torture. As one says beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we're going to say that torture is in the body and more even more so in the mind and soul of the victim. So the effect of torture was much more important for our people when we went to the field than just having some definition. What is the attitude towards torture adopted in this new text? And we'll take the next question. Robert James Parsons, independent journalist based in Geneva. I'm part of a research group tracking violations of international law in large part through the use of weapons, weapons that ordinarily are considered violations of international law. And we have concluded long time ago that the United States has broken all records and violations of international law. For example, most recently in the bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan and its supply of weapons to Saudi Arabia in the war on Yemen and its dismantling of Syria, Iraq and Libya and then much earlier on in Afghanistan, for example, in the bombing of the ICRC installations there, which it refused to compensate the ICRC for according to the ICRC. Therefore a question to Mr. Korn, how do you conciliate your praise and support for the conventions and your service in service to what is obviously the biggest, worst, most violent killing machine humankind has ever created? And obviously you've given quite a bit of service because you've attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. You would seem to represent to me the personification of the contradiction between the objectives of the military and the objectives of the ICRC and its conventions. I'd appreciate your response. Thank you very much. What we won't do is respond to that question. Thank you for your comment because our guest here is talking about the overall role of the commentaries, but thank you for your comment. I'm sure you can engage on a discussion another time. We have one more question there, that gentleman there. Thank you very much. My point is focused on the provision regarding the wounded and sick person. It must be collected and collected and have to be provided the care according to the provision of the convention. But as we know, the scope, nature of the war and the weapons develop sophisticatedly. My question is that how serious the two mentioned that wounded and sick person have to be collected and have to be under the care of the concerning party. I take example like in case of biological and chemical weapon attack, it is it seems like dangerous whether we have to approach the wounded and sick person immediately or we have to. This is my question. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sir. So there's two questions once again for Jean-Marie. First one relates to torture and the research done on the definition and the second one relating to a very interesting idea of the degree of immediacy and requirement relating to the way an injured person is injured or wounded or sick. On torture and inhumane treatment just to also set the record clear about what Pikthe said was that, you know, it's no need to define these terms in great detail also because there's always a risk that by defining it, we will miss things, you know, and we don't know the evil spirit of mankind will develop and in that sense Pikthe was actually very foreseeing because indeed there have been new forms. I mean what we see in Common Article 3 mentioned certain acts, biological experiments or mutilation and so on that are mentioned in the conventions, but then new types of evil have appeared and so it's important that humanitarian law also remains general and of course there is the requirement of humane treatment and there is the prohibition of inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment. So there's not only torture as a concept but there are other concepts that I believe, you know, encompass things that exist now that we have seen but maybe even future types of evil that we have not yet seen but that we know are prohibited and will remain prohibited under Common Article 3. In terms of torture, you also make a good point to say that indeed there have been books written on this subject and articles and so what the commentary tries to do of course is to give in a few pages on each and every of these topics and one of them is torture to give on a few pages some practical guidance and to really summarize all of these books and case law and so on and we indeed reflect also on this need to look at the impact of the actions on people taking into account their own objective situation but also their subjective parameters of their own, you know, who they are and their own background, their religious background and so on and so forth to take this into account. But so, yeah, this I think is an important point that this commentary tries to stay at the practical level to be a practical tool and therefore has to summarize this mass of information that we've heard about that there have been so many developments in case law and in scholarly writings. But so we have to summarize this and I hope that, you know, that the commentary will meet these expectations. The final question is... Wounded and sick, well, wounded and sick who are, you know, suffering from a tag by chemical or biological weapons. I think this is a particular challenge in itself. I know that the ICRC has a project to look into how to deal with these types of attack which are of course unlawful under international law. But that doesn't change the need, of course, to collect and care for the wounded and sick. But we have a number of other issues similar to those that we have also looked at, for example, attacks from the air. How do you collect wounded and sick if you attack from the air? Because of course traditionally it would be attacked from the ground and then you would be near the wounded and sick but what if you have only attacked from the air? Does the obligation still exist? How do you implement it? So these and other practical questions are addressed in the commentary and of course we will have more chance to discuss them in other events. Well, thank you very much. Time has now concluded. In fact, we're a few minutes late. But thank you for your attention. Thank you deeply to those of us who, for those of us who can see you and that we've had you all the honour of being beamed in from across the globe. It really is an international launch. Thank you to our panellists and to our president. But thank you to many in the audience. I can see as I scan who have contributed for this project, who have played a role. And also I think for the institution to put a commitment behind such a big project. The other day we were talking about the signing of the production which goes on until the year 2020. This is something that we have many years to engage with you on. We're very aware that there may be different interpretations as has been said. We are starting a conversation. And we look forward to continuing that conversation this morning over coffee and croissants. But into the future and many for us where we can work towards reducing the suffering experienced during times of armed conflict. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.