 We are joined by Federico Tofern in Rome, Italy. I have talked to him before the show and I am so impressed and I so admire his work and his training and his engagement now with Project Expedite Justice. Welcome to the show. Thank you for having me. Thank you. Let's talk about war crimes because we have seen so much. We've heard so much that the press has covered so many war crimes, so grotesque war crimes by the Russians. And you know, you almost, what's the word? You have war crimes, fatigue already, but everybody's waiting to see some real prosecution. I don't think if you asked any random member of the public that would be happy with the level of prosecutions because there haven't been a whole lot. I recall there have been some prosecutions in Ukraine by the Ukraine military justice system, I guess it is, or, and then as for the International Criminal Court in Hague, zero after all this time. And given the fact that we've all seen it with our own eyes, one wonders why this is not happening in the Hague. And one wonders when it will happen and what stands between us and them. You know, the issue around criminal justice is public confidence. One people to feel that they're safe, you know, from atrocities. Not only the people who have suffered atrocities, but everybody could be safe from atrocities. And the way to do that is you make sure you have justice that is fair and swift, but we don't seem to have that. Can you comment on the current situation as to the International Criminal Court, the United Nations that is associated with the United Nations? And I suppose any other organizations that are active around the United Nations, that would investigate and prosecute the war crimes which have taken place clearly and which are still taking place in Ukraine? Yes, absolutely. You rightly pointed out that it seems that not much is happening right now on the international level when it comes to international criminal prosecutions. Indeed, one could say the worst going on since February this year. Why don't we see trials? Why don't we see convictions, the first verdicts? I would maybe answer to this question on a very general basis first catching upon it by pointing out that it's still in a negative war zone, Ukraine. It's an active situation. So I would think that international institutions are still looking and waiting for something that resembles a stable outcome before taking steps towards the direction of criminal accountability. The second problem that the international community and the international criminal justice community is facing right now, I would say is the fact that the main actors are not communicating between each other. So you have the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which launched investigations that chief prosecutor initiated an investigation into the Ukrainian situation because Ukrainian lodged a communication with the court accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over crimes allegedly committed on its territory. But the situation is still being investigated in the Hague. And on the other hand, you have the European Union that the majority of states, all states, member states of the European Union are state parties to the ICC. So one would think they would push for ICC investigations and prosecutions. But then you have the European Parliament adopting a resolution calling for the establishment of a new ad hoc tribunal for crimes committed in Ukraine. Then you have the UN, which is still pretty much hostage to the veto system. So the UN Security Council is not adopting three resolutions, quite obviously, because of vetoes from Russia and Primis or China. But again, there's talk, the General Assembly is condemning Russia for its actions, for its aggression in Ukraine. But then again, there is not a lot of concrete steps being taken. There is a lot of talks, there is a lot of initiatives being launched, but it seems that the main actors, international actors are not coordinating well between each other. So I would say I would describe the situation as a paralysis right now. So a lot of ideas, a lot of initiatives being launched, a lot of resolutions being adopted, but nothing that resembles a clear step towards holding those most responsible accountable for the crimes being committed in Ukraine. So yes, this is my assessment of the situation and my answer to your question, why does it seem that the international community, the international criminal institutions are not delivering justice right now, one could say. And I think that it's a mix between the fact that the situation in Ukraine is ongoing, it's an active war zone, and the fact that the key players in the international criminal justice system are not coordinating and are not efficiently, at least coordinating their efforts towards establishing and affording, bringing justice to the people of Ukraine and the international community as a whole at this point. So in this context where we still do not know where things are going, where the international community is headed when it comes to criminal responsibility in relation to the situation in Ukraine, I think one should take a step back and maybe look for alternative avenues when it comes to bringing justice to those direct people. I want to get to that. That's the point of our show, of course, but drilling down on some of the things you said, I recall, Federico, that early on, within 60 days, maybe of February 24th, the news reported that there were 5,000 people from outside Ukraine who had come to Ukraine to investigate war crimes. It was a shock. For some reason, it's not a shock now. We've been sort of neutralized. We have fatigue over it, but then it was just outrageous. The whole thing was outrageous. And people came from all over the world to participate in the investigation. 5,000, that was the report. So I'm saying, well, what happened to them? What happened to their work? And I suppose if you go into Ukraine, you find you talk to people, you write it down, you tape it, either audio or videotape, you make a record and you submit it to, and you make sure that it's admissible evidence that a court, including a criminal proceeding, of course, you submit it to a prosecutor and the prosecutor makes the decision as is usually the case of whether to go with that, whether it's good admissible evidence leading to a conviction or not, and bingo, you have a court that will hear the case and make a decision. And I think I have the reaction that the 5,000 people and probably more actually over time who have spent their time and money, a lot of them for free. Investigating these war crimes have really, they must be very frustrated because you make the investigation, and there's nowhere to go, there's nowhere to put it, there's nowhere, nobody who will listen and run with it. Do you have any information about that? Do you have any thoughts about that? I didn't have direct information, I've thought about this. I mean, I don't think their work was for nothing. I mean, one has to be realistic when it comes to criminal investigations, just let's take as an example, ICC investigation, some of the cases prosecuted at ICC level take years before an investigation comes or develops into a trial and the trial is celebrated and appeal is celebrated and then you have the final conviction and the case is closed, let's say. So criminal justice has its times and normally we talk in the order of years. So I would say it's normal to see that it takes time, it's normal to wait. The wait is normal, I would say. I think we were pushed into this idea that something horrible is happening, something I would say unprecedented in the last 30, 50, 70 years is happening in the heart of Europe. So the response must be swift, must be immediate and the response, the criminal response must be immediate. This is a false hope, I would say it was an illusion. So maybe this hyper activism on the part of investigators coming from outside Ukraine was also predicated upon this false belief that maybe showing international concern and this immediate response to the Russian aggression would somehow slow down the Russian invasion and maybe it would send a clear message to the Kremlin this was not the case. So I think there was on the part of a lot of these initiatives, this false hope that maybe just showing up would mean sending a very clear message and I think a very clear message was sent to those that are primarily responsible for the aggression but to link these first steps, these first investigative steps to a final outcome in the next few months or I start investigations and six months later I have my first conviction. I would say it demands too much from the criminal system be it the international or the national one. We have the same debate going on in this country with Merrick Garland who was just appointed to Jack Smith from the ICC, prosecutor from the ICC and I wonder, do you have you heard about that Jack Smith, the prosecutor from the ICC has been drafted so to speak into Merrick Garland's Department of Justice to go after Trump which is interesting because he's been investigating that for almost two years, well a year or two years. In any event, I wanna just dwell on one thing you said a minute ago which I think is really important. Hypothetically in the context of Europe and the EU in the context of geopolitics in Europe if I did take my 5,000 investigators and I did have trials and the press covered the trials and the convictions were made public and the atrocities were made public. That would really enhance public reaction against Russian atrocities and war crimes. Don't you think? And so if we cannot move on this for one bureaucratic reason or another then we lose the benefit of that. If we had the benefit of that, it would have a, don't you agree, it would have a salient effect on the whole episode. It would have a salient effect on Russia's image, make it worse, worse yet I should say and it would maybe have an effect to slow Russia down in terms of future atrocities. Am I right there? Do I have a point? Absolutely, absolutely. I'm completely with you on this point. And I think launching national investigations and national prosecutions would be a very clear message to Russia and it would complement all national sanctions and European or American sanction regimes against Russia because it's a very clear message to Russia, to the Russian elite that there is no safe haven anywhere in Europe or outside of Russia for those that are committing international crimes and we're not talking about ordinary crimes when we talk about Ukraine. We're talking about, first of all, war crimes or that's without a question, but I would argue with horrible crimes, horrible crimes. I would argue there is room for interpretation when it comes to crimes against humanity and I would say it's quite possible they're being committed in Ukraine by Russia. So I think it would absolutely be an avenue for holding Russian military personnel and politicians accountable and it would absolutely send a message to the broader public, not only to Russia, but to all those that are maybe now thinking about replicating Russia's actions somewhere else in the world that this is not accepted and is not tolerated by the international community as a whole and there is no safe haven for those who commit mass atrocities for international criminals. So for war criminals, there cannot be a safe haven and it cannot be tolerated by any state which calls itself part of the international community. That's what we need. That's what we need. And so what's really interesting is of course, justice delayed is justice benign but there's a really good possibility that because of the veto problem you described, the United Nations will never be able to do anything meaningful even years after. This is a great concern. So we look to universal jurisdiction and I recall in our examination on this show Transitional Justice we became aware not too long after the Ukraine War the invasion started that Germany and in fact arrested a Syrian general who was charged with atrocities and they applied universal jurisdiction and had a trial of that fellow in Germany and found him guilty, prosecuted him and punished him. I don't know the end of the story but I recall that he was convicted and in Germany by Germany which was really touching. It was, gee, somebody doing something here about Syria because Syria has had thanks to the Russians in large part a serious war crimes issue. Many atrocities still going on I should have. So the question is what is the law about universal jurisdiction and what is the practice about the various countries in the EU about universal jurisdiction? Do they all feel the same way? Do they all act the same way? What's happening? What's happening? First of all, I would very briefly clarify what universal jurisdiction is all about because normally when we talk about jurisdiction we are describing the power of a state to regulate affairs, pursue into its own laws and when it comes to jurisdiction normally jurisdiction is established on the basis of three traditional principles which are the territoriality principle. So the state has jurisdiction over crimes being committed on its own territory or the personality principle. So the perpetrator or the victim was a national of the state that has jurisdiction over the crimes and or the protective principle when extraterritorial activities are threatening state security. These are the three traditional heads of jurisdiction and then we have universal jurisdiction. So what it described up until now is something that requires a link in order to establish jurisdiction. So there needs to be a link between the state that will exercise its powers, its sovereignty over some criminal conduct and the crime. So it can be the territory or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. This link becomes universal when we talk about the universality principle and universal jurisdiction because when we talk about universal jurisdiction we are referring to jurisdiction being established over a crime without reference to the place of commission of the crime. So the largely the lickety or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. So without reference to any of these traditional linkage points between the state that will be competent to hear the case and the crime that is going to be prosecuted. And this idea of universality goes back to the structure, I would say, of certain crimes. So the principle of universality that's very important to always keep in mind is limited to a certain subset of crimes which normally coincide with the international core crimes. So those crimes that are of great concern to the international community as a whole, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. And I would say one could say that today we're talking also about the crime of aggression. So the crime of aggressive, of waging and aggressive war. And where is this written down Federico? Do I have to find it somewhere? Is it in the United Nations writings, international law? Or is it a matter of each country taking its own view of the matter and making it part of its national law? Where do I read up on this? I would say the latter of your sources. So it's a matter of national policy to a very large degree. You will find nothing about universal jurisdiction. The term won't be mentioned, but something that resembles universal jurisdiction in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. So again- So it will be different from country to country? It would be different from country to country. So there are different approaches to universal jurisdiction. So we saw the enormous potential of this principle of universal jurisdiction. So virtually a state could prosecute crimes committed in another country by non-nationals that did not have any repercussions on its citizens or its territory. So we see this gives the states potentially tools to prosecute everyone without irregardless of state prerogatives or sovereignty of third states. So there are national approaches to this concept that limit the scope of universal jurisdiction. And the most common limitation to universal jurisdiction is the requirement that the perpetrator be a resident or at least be present on the territory of the prosecuting state. Can you have universal jurisdiction in absentia? In other words, if somebody is really bad, but he is not within the state, not a citizen of the state, is there any way that universal jurisdiction can pry him in absentia? This again, it's up to the constitutional framework of the single state. So we have some states which allow for an absentia trials. I'm thinking about Italy, let's say. And then we have Germany which does not provide or does not allow for an absentia meeting. So as an example, you mentioned the Syrian generals that were tried in Germany and convicted in Germany on the basis of universal jurisdiction. They were present on German territory. They were apprehended, arrested and tried in Germany. And the crime wasn't committed on German territory. The crime was not committed against German nationals, but the perpetrators were present on German territory. So the case originated on the basis of universal jurisdiction because we were talking about international crimes. We were talking about crimes against humanity, maybe war crimes, torture. And yes, this was the basis for the whole proceedings, but the proceedings commenced and came to an end only because the trial could be celebrated in the presence of the accused. So... That's fair enough, fair enough. So what I get so far is that the conventional international criminal system in and around the United Nations hasn't really indicted anybody out of Ukraine just yet. But we have this very promising possibility that there will be war crimes trials under universal jurisdiction in not one or two, but a number of countries in Europe to advance the notion of prosecuting criminal war crimes and for the protection of their own citizens, to provide safety for the whole EU, I guess. And so have there been war crimes trials under universal jurisdiction in the countries of Europe, the EU so far? I mean, about Ukraine? About Ukraine that I'm aware of, no. I can say that Germany has initiated investigations, what is called structural investigations into the situation in Ukraine. So the German trial prosecutor is collecting evidence, is analyzing evidence, is looking for witnesses and is building cases right now. And so maybe one day if someone will cross the German border, we will have war crime trials in Germany. I know in other, the Baltic States are looking to Ukraine and are investigating right now. And these all constitute promising traditional fora when it comes to fighting impunity in Ukraine. And I would again say right now we're experiencing a phase of investigation on the international and on the national level. This will progress into full-fledged prosecutions and trials, maybe if we get here in Europe hold of those responsible. So if we have the person on our territory, it's a matter of time, I think. So now it's just really interesting. The investigators from other countries who went to Ukraine early on and who presumably are still there and who in any event have done investigation, they've documented what they could find, they've talked to witnesses and victims who survived and so forth. They've taken photographs and video and we've seen a lot of that on television and in other places. But my question is who would do the investigation of this sort of structural arrangement that's happening in Germany, maybe France, maybe Italy, other countries in the EU, the Baltics? Who would do the investigation? Is it the investigation done by or potentially done by investigators who belong to that justice system in that country? Or could it be investigators who have been present in Ukraine? For example, investigators who have worked with the four project expedite justice in Ukraine. And we've talked to some of them. Who would deliver the evidence who accord in EU, in the EU, which is prosecuting under universal jurisdiction? I would say that every time we talk about international crimes and particular international crimes, we're talking about mass violence, mass atrocities, widespread attacks against civilian populations. So we have cases which involve a very high number of victims and of perpetrators. So when we look at the investigation of such crimes, we often see an interplay between state prosecutors, state authorities, investigative units of the state, of the national prosecuting authorities, and NGOs that I would call strategic litigation NGOs. Like project expedite justice. Like project expedite justice exactly that are conducting open source investigations, are talking to witnesses, are analyzing very complex legal scenarios and factual scenarios. And they're drafting dossiers or analysis of the situations that are being assessed and investigated. And so we have this interplay between the national prosecutors and the NGOs that become somewhat of a watchdog of national prosecutions and maybe something that resembles an assistant prosecutor because they're providing information, they're pointing out problems, issues related to the investigations. Maybe they can bring forward witnesses that would otherwise be very cautious when talking to national authorities, state authorities. They can have a very, they can have a crucial role when it comes to persuading people to come forward and talk about what they had to go through, what they had to experience and to get in touch with national prosecutors. So I think... And to develop trust. Isn't that a big part of it? Yeah. That's a big part because we're talking about traumatized people in the majority of cases. And this involves and this demands a lot of work, a lot of trust building and not just empty promises of justice. One needs to be professional and clear when it comes to prosecuting or trying to hold those responsible accountable for what's happening in Ukraine. And one can offer help, one can offer expertise, but one cannot offer false hopes and illusions. So this is, I think, where NGOs may play a very important part in investigating crimes and prosecuting international crimes that are happening right now as we speak in Ukraine. And yes, this interplay between state authorities and NGOs and universal jurisdiction and national prosecutions on the basis of universal jurisdiction, I think work all together in order to build a net that fights impunity on every possible level, state level, international level. The rules of evidence may be different. And if the NGO is going to be able to fulfill its promises to victims and witnesses, they will need to be sure that the evidence they take will be admissible because if it's not admissible, no conviction, very likely, and no conviction, then you lose the trust that you had to try to develop with the victims and the witnesses. So how do the NGOs, and for that matter, the individual prosecutors in different countries, which may have their own versions of universal jurisdiction and may have their own rules of evidence, so to speak, or international crimes, how do we make sure that everyone knows the score and that the evidence that is presented to the prosecutors is admissible? That's a brilliant question, actually, because a lot of international cases, a lot of cases before the ICC, risked to be dismissed or to crumble because the prosecution relied without any further analysis and reports of NGOs that were not very transparent as to how they got the information, how they got the witnesses, did they vet the witness, yes or no, did they influence the witness? So every state, every prosecutorial unit within a state has its own rules on evidence and procedure. Things get a little bit muddy when it comes to NGOs because NGOs, we talked about NGOs as assistant prosecutors, but that's not the whole picture. NGOs are non-governmental organizations, so one could say they're not bound by any standard as to evidence and evidence collection. There, so what I'm trying to point out is the fact that there is a need when it comes to strategic litigation brought about and the strategic litigation as exercised by NGOs, there is a need for a certain degree of professionalism within the NGOs. That means training. That means training, that means a qualification of those involved. Not everyone can start an investigation, even if it's an open source investigation. If the outcomes of said investigations will be directed to furthering or start, kickstart national prosecutions. So what is needed is serious work, professional work, high legal standards. There is the Berkeley protocol that was developed to give general guidelines to NGOs or open source initiatives, investigation when it comes to gathering and assessing evidence, open source information and evidence. And these are the, let's say, the most important guidelines when it comes to international criminal law NGOs because if you want to investigate, if you want to kickstart an investigation, so if you want to act something that pretty much resembles the prosecution, the prosecutorial authorities of state, you have to hold yourself in the first place, accountable for the methods you're using to gather evidence. If you follow the Berkeley protocols, it's likely that the prosecutors in these various universal countries, universal jurisdiction countries would respect your work and would respect the evidence that you derive. So what about you, Federico? I mean, I take it you'd be able to talk to them in Italian, maybe German, maybe English, of course, your English is terrific. But what other languages would be useful to you, for example, if you went to do investigation in Ukraine, is that possible within the parameters of your internship? Could you go there, do that? Would you need a translator? Do you speak Russian? How could you, in what way could you do the investigation yourself as a member of PEJ? I'm part of let's say the legal team when it comes to PEJ and my work with PEJ. So I'm not primarily involved in the evidence gathering and analysis process. So I bring to the table a legal analysis and assessment of the facts. But yes, I mean, I have to be very honest about this. I wouldn't be able to go to Ukraine and start investigations on my own. I would need people with experience. I would need a translator first of all, because yes, maybe my English would help me but just up to a certain point, I would need a Ukrainian speaker and a Russian speaker. And again, I wouldn't need people that have experience that know how to respect the victim and how to respect the process. You need to trust the process but you have to respect it as well. So in order to come up with a final product that can be used by national prosecutors, you have to think to certainly agree like them and work as they do. And again, the beautiful thing about NGOs is that you're free as to the scope of your investigation, you're let's say freer as national prosecutors. But if you want to cooperate then with national prosecutors and start national prosecutions, you need to come up with something that resembles their work that can be respected and that can be understood by them. So this is how I would act when it comes to investigations. Do you think there will come a time when somebody physically spirits a Russian soldier or officer or general out of Ukraine and takes him against his will physically out of Ukraine into a country which does enjoy universal jurisdiction? In other words, he's kidnapped essentially and he's taken to another country and then presented for trial. Has that happened? Is there room for that within this system or would the universal jurisdiction countries say, no, no, no, we don't try to kidnap the defendants? Okay, I will respond to this question with a very lawyerly depends. I mean, we certainly know of presidents, so my mind goes straight to the Iceman case. So the Nazi criminal was abducted by Israeli secret service forces in Argentina, brought to Jerusalem, tried, convicted and executed in Jerusalem after a trial that was celebrated on the basis of universal jurisdiction. We're, so this construction of illegal abduction and then celebration of a trial is what in Latin we could call the malecaptus paradigm. So we have an illegal act that then enables national prosecutions which would normally be seen as legal. So celebrated on the basis of universal jurisdiction. And I think we, it's quite possible that something like this will happen in the future or could happen in the future. And it will give rise to a lot of jurisprudence in case law, no doubt about this. But if you would like to hear my spin on this, it depends how grave of a violation of the individual rights of the defendant, the subduction was. But if, let's say, if it is acceptable in light of the atrocities committed and the atrocities that need to be prosecuted, I am confident that a court would be able to come up with an argument for saying, let's celebrate the trial, even if we got the accused in some sketchy ways. Yeah, that sounds like that's what would happen. Depending on the country, of course, different countries have different equitable approach, but it's an equitable point of view with the consideration of various issues. So I get from our discussion that the classical modalities around the United Nations may not work now, and for that matter, they may not work in the future, but that universal jurisdiction is a promising alternative. Do you feel that both can exist or will we simply wind up moving to universal jurisdiction in the countries of EU? I would go as far as saying both must exist because when we talk about international criminal law and we look at the enforcement of international criminal law, we have direct enforcement models, so through international courts and something that resembles an indirect enforcement of international criminal law, so via the national states. Right now, it is impossible to say that the international level is the promising one, the efficient one, and this goes, it boils down to budgeting. So if we look at the ICC, we have quite frankly a lot of problems and the case selection at the ICC level is dictated to some degree by budgeting, budgeting problems. So when we have gravity thresholds, one could argue the ICC wants to hold only those most responsible accountable, but I would argue it's quite peculiar to say that there is an act of genocide which is more or less grave than another act of genocide or there are two categories when it comes to gravity of war crimes. So I think it's a very cynical view, I know that, but I think it corresponds to the reality that quite often budgeting and the financial problems within international institutions are one of the driving factors of inefficiency on the one hand and the loss of confidence of the broader public. Public confidence, yeah. Because the mind doesn't go to budgeting logics straight away when it comes to international criminal law, but it's one of the relevant things to take into account when talking about international criminal law and its enforcement by international institutions. So I think that again, it's a balance between international fora and national fora. And I think both can coexist and in the architect and the legal framework of the ICC they actually do coexist because the ICC and the Rome statute of the ICC explicitly states that the court is complimentary to the national jurisdiction. So every state has an obligation. So that's the thought behind it to prosecute international crimes only if the state is unable or unwilling, the ICC will step in. So I think both can exist and they should exist. So you always have a plan B if national prosecutions do not work out. Yeah, that's encouraging. You wonder where the future of this is. As you said, it's really the outline is not yet clear and it may depend on the move to autocracy in Europe. I would imagine that an autocratic government be less interested in universal jurisdiction simply on a nationalistic, populist basis. But one last question I wanna ask you is, before the show and during the show you've referred to impunity. And in a larger sense at the 50,000-foot level we were talking about the war against impunity. And it's a great concern because that goes way beyond Ukraine. It goes into the future. It goes to actors who would do these things elsewhere. And right now we see some people on one side of that war like Vladimir Putin and we see other people on other sides of that war like Project Expedite Justice and many other NGOs. But could you comment on that in a long-term historical context? The war, how do we get to a war against impunity and where is that war going and how will it be won or lost? How do we came to a war on impunity? I think it's a human response to trauma. We see the expansion of international criminal law of modern international criminal law came as a product of the post-World War II world. So after humanity witnesses, the atrocities committed during World War II a general conscience rose up that this is not possible. We need to do something about it. There are some general minimum rules that need to be upheld when it comes to international justice, to international criminal justice. And impunity, when we talk about the fight against impunity, the war against impunity, we are talking about this belief that fighting impunity is not only a matter of individual cases. I'm engaged in fighting impunity in the Ukraine situation, not only because I think that the Russians need to be punished per se, but we're fighting impunity with a view to the future and in the logic of prevention and deterrence because fighting impunity also has repercussions on the global level. So we show the dictators of tomorrow, the torturers of tomorrow that we're not giving up on fighting them, fighting their impunity. And yes, that the world will remain vigilant. I'm going to a rhetorical speech, I know, but that's pretty much what I believe. And so we will not let our guard down. And we're fighting for the good cause. So we're fighting for justice and peace, the well-being of the world. I'm starting to cite the preamble of the International Criminal Court, which by the way is worthy of read, very well-drafted and very beautiful. And yes, that pretty much sums it up. So we're, it's a fight that defends the fundamental values of the international community as a community, not only of states, which are an abstract entity, if one talks about state, but it's people. It's humanity. It's humanity, exactly. Yeah. Well, Federico, this has really been a great discussion with you. I so appreciate your participation in Project Expedite Justice and your familiarity with these issues. And thank you so much for helping us understand them. Federico Tofer, in Rome, Italy, joining us today on transitional justice. Thank you so much. Thank you. What's a pleasure to be here. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechawaii.com. Mahalo.