 Welcome. My name is Lisa Grande and I'm the president of the United States Institute of Peace, which is a public institution founded by Congress in 1984 with the mandate to help prevent, mitigate and resolve violent conflict abroad. Over the past two months, the world has witnessed an assault on the sovereignty and the people of Ukraine. Russia, a founding member of the United Nations and permanent member of the UN Security Council, has launched a war of aggression under false pretenses, threatening a global system of peace and stability that it helped to create more than 70 years ago. The mounting evidence of atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity have shocked our collective conscience. Accountability for these crimes is essential to any arrangement that ends this war. The atrocity suffered by the Ukrainian people must be recognized and those responsible for committing these crimes must be held accountable. USIP is grateful to our board member, Kerry Kennedy, for convening this important conversation in partnership with Nizami Ganjavi International Center, the Robert K. Kennedy Human Rights, and Robert K. Kennedy Human Rights UK organizations. To submit questions to the panel, we invite you to send an email to accountabilityeventatusip.org. We will collect your questions via this inbox and turn them into questions and answers during the panel discussion. In just a moment, I will hand the floor to Madam Kennedy to lead today's discussion. Finally, I would like to take just a minute to introduce our distinguished panel for today's conversation. Joining us today are Ms. Irina Venediktova, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. We're honored to welcome her Excellency Ekka Keshlavvili, who is the former Vice Prime Minister, Minister of State for Reintegration, and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Georgia and is currently the head of programs at the European Anti-Corruption Initiative to Ukraine and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Nizami Ganjavi Center. We're also honored to welcome Ambassador Beth Van Schok, the US Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice. We're pleased to welcome Mr. Lanny Brewer, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States and current Vice Chair of Comington and Burling. We're very privileged to have with us Mr. Harold Koh, former Legal Advisor of the US Department of State and current Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. We're pleased to welcome Dr. Mark Ellis, the Executive Director of the International Bar Association. Ambassador Bill Taylor, former US Ambassador to Ukraine and currently serving as the Vice President at the US Institute of Peace for Europe and Russia. And finally, if I may formally introduce USIP Board Member and President of the Robert K. Kennedy Human Rights Organization, Ms. Kerry Kennedy, who will be moderating today's discussion. Before we begin the discussion, we're very pleased to share with you a video from Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It's a particular honor to respond to the request by Kerry Kennedy, who has done such great work championing human rights across the world. And to address Robert F. Kennedy, human rights in memory of a leader who stood up against all forms of prejudice, intolerance and racism and discrimination, whenever, wherever and by whomever and for whatever source it came. He gave us a moral compass showing us we need leaders who stand up and don't stand aside. When bad men combine, the good must associate, wrote Edmund Burke more than 200 years ago, or else they will fall one by one. And so today I'm calling on all people of decency and humanity to come together as one to support the call made last Monday by President Zelensky to support the establishment of a special international tribunal to investigate the war crimes committed by Russian aggression on the territory of Ukraine. It is imperative for us to support a country where buildings and lives have been destroyed, but where unity has proved indestructible. Where hearts are being broken every day, but the resolve of the people is unbreakable. This weekend we have published the text prepared by eminent lawyers of a criminal indictment against President Putin for initiating and executing Russia's war of aggression. Our charge sheet detailing the gravity of the case that war crime prosecutors could file before an international court. Already at the request of 39 countries, Karim Khan, the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, has put Putin under investigation for war crimes and for crimes against humanity. And these include the targeting of innocent civilians through rape, torture and mutilation, the bombing of hospital schools and protected public buildings, the breach of designated humanitarian corridors and agreed ceasefires. And if recent reports are accurate, the potential use of ban chemical weapons. He may even have to be under investigation as President Biden has said for genocide. But while the collation of photographic DNA and documentary evidence to link Putin directly to this perpetration of evil will take months of painstaking and forensic research. The crime of aggression, the crime that started some time ago with the planning and preparation of an invasion can be proven by evidence that is readily accessible and fully available now. And can lead as the author of this initiative, Professor Philip Stanz has argued to the laying of charges against Putin within weeks. Aggression is Putin's original crime. It is consistent with the declaration made by allied countries in London in 1942. When what prepared the way for the Nuremberg Trials of 1946, they pledged to bring Hitler and his inner circle to justice for the aggression, which they also called a crime against peace. It was at Nuremberg that aggression was defined not only as an international crime, but as the supreme international crime, the crime that contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. And while a gap in the international law means the ICC cannot heal a case on aggression against Russia, neither Ukraine nor Russia are signatories to this statute of the ICC. A special tribunal can be constituted at the behest of Ukraine and supportive states. And that is what with the encouragement of the Ukraine government, 1.7 million people have signed a petition, 50 former presidents and prime ministers, and 100 international lawyers and public officials representing every continent have joined together to request. And to those who say such a tribunal can never happen and we're on a fool's errand in the hopeless pursuit of a just as we cannot achieve, let us remind people that the indictment of 1942 was in dismissed as an impossible dream. And not only did Nuremberg bring the prosecutions of Hitler's henchmen, but in the last 20 years war crimes in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Liberia have been prosecuted and former Liberian leader Charles Taylor now languages in a British jail after being sentenced to 50 years in prison for his crimes. Recent atrocities have now made such an indictment against Putin more urgent. Allies of Ukraine will now have to extend sanctions and travel bans against Russia. They must also intensify humanitarian and military hell with tanks and not just anti-tank missiles, but even then Putin may still feel he can act with impunity. So it is time that our message that all of us will not stand aside, but we will pursue him around the world and that he will not escape punishment reaches the Putin inner circle who must be warned that they are also liable to punishment for crimes in which they have been complicit. Perhaps even more important, such an indictment now will send a message to the brave people of Ukraine that we will not allow war crimes to go unpunished or unprosecuted. And our justice at Nuremberg resolved to take action to secure justice, the rule of law and the triumph of good over evil. Carrie, may we hand over the floor to moderate this important discussion. Carrie. Sure. Thank you so much, Lisa. And thank you to everybody for joining us today. I'm Carrie Kennedy. As you heard, President of Robert F. Kennedy human rights. And I'm so happy to be with all of you as Lisa asserted accountability for crimes committed in Ukraine is essential to any peace agreement to end this war. And over the past two months, we've seen Putin's attempts to crush its democratic neighbor, Ukraine in a misbegotten quest to reclaim Russia's empire. We've been shocked by images of 20 bodies strewn across the streets of butchers, civilians all slaughtered as Russian troops retreated. Then 50 civilians massacred by Russian troops as they crowded a railway station desperate to flee the onslaught. The hollowed shell of a theater where children three, four, five years old met their deaths while cowering beneath the sounds of enemy planes dropping munitions. And an elderly woman recounting live on international television her rape by Russian troops just a few hours earlier as a weapon of war. All of these are evidence of war crimes and massive human rights violations. Furthermore, we've heard reports of cluster bombs and vacuum bombs, vacuum bombs and chemical weapons. Karim Khan, the international criminal courts lead prosecutor didn't wait for the war to end to denounce these atrocities. Six weeks in, President Biden cited war crimes as did the US Embassy when Chernobyl came under attack. Biden has also charged the Russians with genocide. President Zelensky declared, we expect a firm global response to war crimes. And that's what today's session is all about. We've gathered quite a group. I'm hoping this can be more of a conversation than a series of many speeches. So rather than opening statements, I'll go straight to the questions. Audience, please start thinking of your questions. And again, if you have questions in the audience, which I hope you will please go to accountability event, send them to accountability event at usip.org. Let's start with Irina Vinny-Duktova. Irina, we're so honored to have you here today, speaking to us from Ukraine. Talk about the current evidence collection efforts and the crimes you have documented. Thank you very much for this possibilities. I am very appreciated, Madam Canada, actually that I have this possibility to speak. Good afternoon, all ladies and gentlemen. The topic of today's panel is probably the most timely for the new reality that we found ourselves in since February 24. This war is not unique in causing suffering, death of civilians and destructions of whole cities. What is a typical is that Russia shamelessly violates fundamental tenets of international law. It's committing core international crimes. Hence, the civilized world needs to react to this reality and the best response is holding accountable everyone from the... Sorry, I have just maybe emotional speech, but I think that everyone from the commander-in-chief to ordinary soldiers, I even wanted to say from the president of such country to ordinary soldiers, from military leadership to political and business elite that supports financing AIDS and Abbott's commission of these crimes. Even during the early days of war, it was clear that Russian forces were deliberately killing civilians, targeting civil object and crucial civilian infrastructure by using means and methods of welfare prohibited under international humanitarian law. These methods became more severe when Russia failed to attain its objective to take Kiev in a blisskirk. Consequently, they reverted to a criminal tactic of punishment of civilians that found themselves in occupiers hands. What we have witnessed in Butcher and other towns of Kiev region is simply too horrific to believe in. World leaders and international organization are vocal about these crimes, calling things by their real names. You have all seen haunting images from small town of Butcher with killed civilians having their hands tied behind their backs and short line on streets. Or pictures of freshly dug mass graves with hundreds of bodies in there, where exhumating bodies, currently 400 bodies are discovered and this is only in Butcher. Russian forces are using tortures and rape as a weapon of war. In all territories that temporarily fell into hands of Russians, women and even small kids were raped and grandgraped for days and many other killed afterwards. In Butcher, we even found a torture chamber where Russian forces tortured peaceful civilians and shot them afterwards. I was in this place with prosecutor Han. Butcher-Hauer is not the single out area where such horrific atrocities were. We observe the same scenario in the whole Kiev region following the retreat of Russians. Russian cruelties and cynicism did not end there. Just a week ago, we saw yet another violation of international humanitarian law in the city of Kramatorsk. Right when civilians, including children and elderly, were at the railway station trying to live for safer parts of the country, Russia bombed them. 59 persons died, including seven children. Over 100 were wounded. To date, more than 3,000 civilians, actually the number is 3,300 civilians, are dead, including 205 children. And these numbers are not accurate, since we do not have access to some areas. One of them is Mariupol, a heroic city which we stand siege already for 54 days and which is burned to the ground. We have very little knowledge about casualties there, but from available information we see that the situation is catastrophic. Thousands of civilians are dead and who remain in the city are in the dear situation since Russia does not allow humanitarian convoys to enter. It was even reported that Russia is using mobile crematoriums to dispose of bodies in an attempt to cover up evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity and hide the number the people have died. This is reality on the ground that Ukrainian prosecutors and investigators are dealing with. We see that Russian forces do not shy away from committed war crimes. Moreover, widespread and systematic nature of attacks against civilians is an indication that crimes against humanity are also committed. We will very carefully look at the development in Moscow narratives. There are quite clearly indications that Russia's policy is to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians. Therefore, we should be closely looking into the situation around the crime of genocide. This criminal case we started from the first days of war. Now we have real steps inside. Overall, we have a very clear objective to ensure timely and efficient documentation and investigation of each and every crime committed on our territory. To date, we have opened close to 7000 investigations into instance of violations of law and customs of warfare. We are actively working at crime scenes. We also feel tremendous support and assistance from international community. We already have a team of high-level experts from the US and EU countries that assist us in the documentation and investigation of crimes. We have established mobile justice teams in the framework of which foreign experts will work together with Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors. Moreover, already 13 other states have launched investigations into international crimes committed in Ukraine. We are closely cooperating with the states and have established and joined the investigation teams with the support of EURAJust to enable the exchange of information, facilitate and strengthen the capacity of investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity and other crimes. We also very actively coordinate with the International Criminal Court and actually about EURAJust. Tomorrow we will have big meetings with our partners on the platform of EURAJust and maybe we will join other countries to EURAJust. But we will see to this situation very carefully because it is again we should then share information and we want to understand that people who decided to investigate it's a real independent politic to investigate just in measures of criminal case. It's very important. About ICC, we are in cooperation with ICC. We want to have of course success to prosecute Ruham because his success, it is success of Ukraine actually. Only with joint efforts of international and domestic levels we will manage to adequately respond to the policy of force and human suffering displayed by Russia. Now the world community has a moment to send a clear signal as a commission of international crimes in 10 international responsibility. As prosecuted Ruham advised, crimes are committed by individuals. So when international crimes are committed, world communities should consolidate efforts to ensure that justice prevails both of international as well as national plans. Justice is essential for Ukrainian people more than ever and as a well-known maximum instructs that justice needs to be seen to be done. Only through these measures we will be able to bring Putin and his proxies to responsibility. I thank you for your attention very much but from other side I want to just mention one small thing which about not my maybe sphere. It's not about criminal justice. It's about weapon. Actually I spoke yesterday with military and we need artillery shells. Every day we stay as a last day because we don't have shells at all. That's what if we can do something with weaponry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Irina. Thank you for joining us again for your incredible courage staying in Ukraine and documenting all these horrific abuses and letting the world know what's going on with the reality is on the ground. Bill Taylor, we've heard from Irina a litany of horrific human rights, massive human rights abuses. Now Russia is moving into the next stage. What can we expect to see in the east of the country? Thank you very much for having me here. It's an honor to join you and the rest of the people on this panel. In answer to your question, my main message is in order to get accountability for Mr. Putin and all of the chain of command that are perpetrating, that are committing these crimes, Ukraine must win. Ukraine must win this war. And that means exactly what the deputy prime minister of inaddictive just said. We need to provide the Ukrainians with everything they need, the weapons they need, the artillery shells that she just mentioned, the weapons at all levels. They need to win. And that's the only way we're going to get accountability is when Ukraine wins. The Ukrainians don't say after the war. The Ukrainians say after the victory and they're right. That's what needs to happen. And carry an answer to your question, Putin looks to be doubling down in the east. It looks to be gathering as much of his battered army as he can and throwing them again into the fight. Before they're ready. Ukrainian military has done heroic job has has has been heroes in fighting of a much larger force. Let's just be clear. The Ukrainians have have stopped, stopped the Russians in cave as you've mentioned, and as the deputy prime minister mentioned the Ukrainians have used their own weapons to sink a main battles battleship out in the sea. Generals Russian generals have been killed five six seven eight Russian generals have been killed. The Ukrainians have been doing an amazing job in the last thing I'll just say just on that is. They're rightly concerned about Mariupol. The soldiers, the Marines, the civilians who have been defending Mariupol also heroes. Mariupol will go down in Ukrainian history and probably world history as a as a hero. People will say, remember Mariupol. When they win Ukrainian when they will remember Mariupol and they will be motivated. So all to safety short answer your question is we can look for it to get bad in the east. And Putin's military has been beaten up so far I am confident with our support with the support of the United States and NATO with all of the weapons all the ammunition that the deputy prime minister talked about Ukrainians will win. Thank you so much Bill and thank you again for for keeping all of us informed with hundreds and hundreds of interviews about what's going on in Ukraine and your own courage and heroism for our country. Let's go let's move to Harold co Harold on March 16 by a vote of 13 to to the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling ordering the Russian Federation and its paramilitary forces to immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine. You argued that case on behalf of Ukraine. Tell us what are the next steps for the ICJ. And what are the implications the ICJ is ruling for other international fora, such as the ICC or a special court, which is what Gordon Brown is advocating. Well, thank you Kerry and let me say first that I did this with a team from coming to and burling landing brewers firm and he's on the webinar as well so I hope that he adds his point of view and that of the wonderful lawyers on that team. I think one of the interesting reactions that we've gotten is people saying well the court can't enforce its own order. You know the United States Supreme Court can enforce its own orders where international law is different from domestic law is that it's a system of complex enforcement where everybody needs to enforce the order. That means not just the United Nations but national prosecutors, those who are imposing sanctions, those who are getting companies to leave Russia, all of them to shun and isolate Putin. I think how does it connects to the accountability issues here is to think about this is having five phases that are working simultaneously. The first is illegality. I think what we need to do is to brand Putin's activities and that of his henchmen as illegal in as many forums as possible that whoever as many means as possible. And our ruling is part of that effort. Second is isolation. Someone who is a outlaw in an interdependent world is isolated. And when you're isolated, you have less leverage in terms of bargaining. In particular, I think we need to drive a wedge between Putin and his own people who are suffering because of his megalomania and China, which has been careful about whether to full throatedly defend his activities. Third, I think we're talking about diplomacy, how to get into a situation where a ceasefire can be negotiated and the killing can stop. But fourth, keeping accountability on the table. This is what happened at Dayton during the Bosnian conflict. Milosevic and Karatech went went into diplomacy, but they did not gain immunity. That was not on the table and both of them ended up in the Hague. Milosevic died in the Hague and Karatech is currently in prison in the Hague and that's where Putin should end up as well. And fifth and finally, information and an archive of information through which issues of both criminal and civil accountability can be pursued. And I know Mark Ellis is working on those issues, as is Ambassador Von Scott. I think there are three ideas that we want to just keep in mind. First, that we support an accountability process, whichever institution is able to achieve that. If it's the prosecutor general of Ukraine and the war crimes directorate, that's great. If it's the ICC, that's great. If it's a new tribunal like Gordon Brown is proposing, that's great. I don't think we should be fixated on one institution. This is a multiple process of accountability, both criminal and civil. The second is that if we're talking about a Nuremberg type process, it's going to be fragmented. We don't have all the people in custody. We don't have anybody in custody. Putin, unlike the leaders of the defeated Nazis has 180 soldiers and nuclear weapons. So until they're in the dock, the accountability can't ensue. Although we do need to develop those processes before we enter into the diplomacy stage. And the third thought is trying to accelerate a process toward meaningful negotiations. Just because the longer this goes on, the more we're going to see destruction at the most graphic and horrific scale. What we're seeing here is war crimes in service of aggression as the tool of aggression in a most blatant way, indiscriminate shelling from afar. And then as we saw in Butcher when they get close up, savage murder face to face in the most brutal illegal fashion. And the poor people of Ukraine, the valiant people of Ukraine are suffering from this pattern. And what I think needs to happen is the combination of illegality, isolation. A diplomacy leading to at least a ceasefire with accountability remaining on the table and an information archive that can let us pursue remedies for the various people who have been injured. Thanks. Thank you, Harold. Thank you for that. That great overview and I can see why you're a popular professor. Nice outline. Mark Ellis is the director of the International Bar Association. Mark, and he's also on the board of RFK Human Rights UK. Mark, what role would a potential tribunal on the crime of aggression play in the response and also Mark, just tell us a little bit about the IBAs I witness to atrocities project. Kerry, thank you and thank you for having me here with this distinguished panel and to talk about this very important issue. That question I think comes for me in three major roles. One, I think their mechanism focused on the crime of aggression. I think fills a gap in international criminal law, not in its meaning I think that that's fairly settled but certainly in its enforcement. As we know that because of the statutory limitations Russia's crime of aggression against Ukraine cannot be heard by the ICC so there needs to be, as Gordon Brown has stated Harold just stated it, perhaps a new separate mechanism focused on this crime and there are a number of options. We've heard people talk about a standalone hybrid domestic, but I agree with Harold Coe I don't think we should be fixated with the exact process. We need to support the hybrid approach for the crime of aggression and then allowing the Ukrainian courts the judiciary that General Prosecutor's Office to pursue cases along with the ICC and along with other countries using universal jurisdiction to focus on these other atrocity crimes. But this leads me to the second point about what role this special tribunal crime of aggression would play, because I think we have to remember that Russian is, you know it violates one of the if not the most sacred principle principles of international law not only is it essential that that we prosecute in this but I think the process needs to involve the international community at large and I think it has to because it has to reinforce the important nature of the of the crime. So, if we then move towards the final point, and that to me deals with the crime of aggression is directed at an individual directed at people, a person that's planned or initiated executed the act of aggression, and who has effective control over the political apparatus in the military. And this is Vladimir Putin. And so it's crucial I think that the primary focus remains on him. It's not to say that that it's off base to talk about Russia involvement as a state, but crimes at this level crimes of aggression, crimes against human genocide they don't happen without the involvement of the state. There's a systematic nature to atrocity crimes that require state involvement, but the state inanimate so exists because of actions of individuals and therefore I think it is appropriate that we target through a new core individuals like Mr Putin who make the decisions and we make have to make certain that they he and others are held accountable for the atrocities. And then the final point I wanted to mention just on a side note, as we talk about a new tribunal for crime of aggression. I believe that Mr Putin can will still find himself, the focus of the ICC, and it's jurisdiction on war crimes crimes against humanity, perhaps genocide. And that's under the principle of command responsibility. The doctrine, as we know as well established it's been used it's accepted it's codified in the statute of the ICC. And so the principle really does allow us to look at putting this somebody who has effective control over the operations in Ukraine, and to hold him accountable for the international crimes being committed by by the subordinates by the forces there. So, for me I look towards Mr Putin to be prosecuted for crimes even though he's not the person directly committing them, but whether it's through the ICC or a special tribunal or universal jurisdiction. I think Mr Putin will eventually be held accountable. It's unlikely unlikely be in the short term, but international law I always say plays place the long game. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. And again, for those who have follow up questions. Please send them to accountability event at us IP.org. That's accountability event us IP.org. Ambassador Beth Demchak, who has been in this position. She just told us a little bit over two months. How is the US supporting the war crimes efforts, and including support for the evidence collection. Thank you so much Carrie and thank you everyone for being here this morning and to the organizers for pulling this really important and timely panel together I'm actually just in my second month, but I can give you a little bit of an overview of what the US government is is trying to do to promote accountability. Of course there are enormous lines of effort happening across the government. When it comes to some of the imperatives that Harold mentioned around diplomacy, providing security assistance, humanitarian assistance, etc. So my little piece within the government really focuses on the question of justice and accountability and even there there are a number of agencies, bureaus and offices that are very focused on this. Some of the projects that we're trying to fund working through partners are things like empowering civil society to do better evidence collection. A lot of journalists can speak to this as well but, you know, everyone now has an evidence collection device in their hand in the form of their phone and so if people are going to be out there collecting this evidence. We should make sure that they're doing so and that any risks that they're taking in doing so pays off in the end when it comes to accountability and there are some real tricks and technological tools that can be used in order to create a sort of strong chain of custody when and if that information can be used in a court of law. So empowering civil society journalists, citizen journalists, etc. Also working to collect information from a whole range of sources. Obviously as a government we have certain intelligence sources that members of civil society and the public don't have, but we're also scraping a lot of social media sources to address evidence and preserve it for the purposes of information sharing. And there are a whole range of accountability mechanisms already at work that got stood up very quickly when the current crisis began including a fact finding mission out of the Human Rights Commission, a commission of inquiry the OSCE has been engaged with its mechanism that's bridging the gap between the early invasion and the commission of inquiry being able to exercise its full powers and full and full scope. The Office of Global Criminal Justice has been working with the Prosecutor General and I'm very pleased to see her here again today. Prior to the current invasion, this is of course not Russia's first invasion of Ukraine we need to keep that in mind. Our little office was funding a project whereby we enabled some very experienced international investigators and prosecutors people who had worked at the war crimes tribunals in the past to work side by side with their Ukrainian counterparts in the office of the Prosecutor General. They have stood up a war crimes unit and I think Irina can speak of that in more detail she's already made mention of it. And these experts are working side by side with their counterparts in order to lay the groundwork for prosecutions. This was all happening before February 24 and as the Prosecutor General mentioned, there were a number of cases already underway. This project has now pivoted and is starting to scale its enterprise in order to be able to address the current crisis and the massive scale of criminality that we've seen. The Prosecutor General also made mention of these mobile justice teams. Our office is helping to fund that effort as well and that will pair experienced multinational multidisciplinary experts with prosecutors out in the field who are working on the crime scenes that are now being liberated across Ukraine as Russia's forces retreat and then new crime scenes that are sadly being established as Russia's forces move forward in other parts of the country. And so we're trying to create a sort of network of experienced investigators and prosecutors that can work side by side with their counterparts in Ukraine. And as Harold mentioned, this will be a full team effort, right? The domestic courts within Ukraine will be operating. There will be courts in third states that may be able to be engaged working through the Eurojust network. They, to the extent that they get custody over individual Russians who might flee the conflict because they no longer want to be associated with the degree of criminality that Putin has unleashed. We may see high level political leadership, military leadership, etc. Trying to escape Russia and escape accountability and it will be imperative for the local courts wherever those individuals are found to be able to operate. Congress has also been engaged. I think it's important to follow some interesting initiatives there. Number one would be establishing a crimes against humanity within our penal code. We don't have the ability to prosecute crimes against humanity directly within our courts. And Lanny Brewer was a part of an effort about a decade ago to get such a statute passed so that his prosecutors could bring those cases. And there's also an effort to expand our war crimes act. At the moment, we can only prosecute war crimes in U.S. courts if the perpetrator or the victim is a U.S. person. And so crimes by Russians against Ukrainian civilians cannot come before U.S. courts, but there is an effort afoot to expand that. We've also seen the Ukraine War Crimes Accountability Act in both houses being introduced. And so there are a number of sort of moving legislative vehicles here that could really increase the ability of the United States to play its part in ensuring accountability within our own courts. In the event that a perpetrator is able to slip through our immigration net and find themselves here in the United States. So I'll stop there. I'm happy to take questions about some of these lines of efforts, but it really is a full team effort. As has been mentioned, one of the themes this morning is the entire international community needs to be focused on accountability, working together using existing platforms such as the Eurojust Network, the joint investigative team that the prosecutor mentioned that a number of states are joining to facilitate the sharing of information as between their investigators and prosecutors and also supporting all of the international institutions that are currently engaged. Thank you so much for that overview. Very, very helpful. And that's a great lead in to Lanny. Lanny, can you talk about what steps the U.S. can take to hold Russia accountable domestically and what are the legislative efforts that you envision since this is now a bipartisan effort to to prosecute this war? Well, thank you, Kerry, and I'm incredibly honored to be with this distinguished group and there's probably no issue right now that's more important to the world than what we're talking about. For sure, I do believe as many before me have said that we should in the United States have a crimes against humanity, and I think we should amend the War Crimes Act so that it's not simply U.S. nationals who have to either be the perpetrators or the victims. I think those are very important issues, but I don't know if they'll solve the problems here and frankly I don't know if you will be able to apply them retroactively. When the chief prosecutor just spoke from Ukraine, I was extraordinarily taken and of course some may know we created when I had the honor of being the head of the criminal division, the first human rights prosecution section in the United States. So to me when we hear about the war crimes that are being committed by ordinary people, I think you have to have as the ambassador just talked about a very full comprehensive approach. So to me that would include at the ICC, we should assume that the top people will eventually face justice, Putin, Lavrov and others. And we in the United States must do everything we can to support the ICC, and so I would hope Congress would finally free up the United States to give practical support, financial support, and frankly in my view most importantly prosecutors to the ICC. But even if that were to occur in my view, we will only be able to address the conduct of the top Russian officials. But those soldiers who were raping that elderly woman that the prosecutor told us about, that is not fighting, that's a war crime and those people in my view need to be held liable. And those people have to be held accountable and frankly if they're held accountable sooner, rather than later, I think it'll affect the ability of Putin and those other war criminals to stay in power. And so I agree with Mark Ellis and others and Gordon Brown that there ought to be now a new war crimes tribunal. I think it should be an efficient tribunal. It should work hand in hand with the prosecutor in Ukraine. And frankly you could get leading prosecutors in the United States. I know a number of them have already called me and others to be involved from the start. We've done that in the past, something like the Kosovo Specialist Chamber, which right now the top prosecutors of prosecutor work for me, works closely with Kosovo police and holds people accountable. And so the two things that I would do is one, I would get to the United States right now to support the ICC in every way it can. That doesn't mean we have to support the ICC all the time in everything, but resources, prosecutors and advice. Secondly, I would create almost immediately a very deliberate and nimble war crimes tribunal that could go after the soldiers, many of whom are in custody already who have been committing the kinds of horrific crimes that we've heard about. And third, I think the international community right now should convene a meeting to be as efficient as it can. As the ambassador talked about document collection, that's true. But in all of these war crimes matters that we've had, we then have issues about how to use the evidence that collected. We get evidence from the United Nations, but the United Nations says you can only use it for information gathering, not for the actual prosecution. And so cases that really should take one or two years, take nine or eight or 12 years because of inefficiencies. And right now I think we should have discussions among the UN, other international bodies and NGOs. It's possible to over collect evidence. It's possible to have completely contrary procedures in place. And that's why some of these prosecutions take longer than they should. I think it's important to take them, but right now we should be as efficient as we can. So those are some ideas that I would right now offer as we deal with this horrific situation. Thank you, Lenny. And then our final panelist is Ekka Tkachlochvili, who's very, very sweet about me mispronouncing her name every time we introduce her. We were just, we spent the last week in Poland together talking to refugees and going to these refugee centers. You know, Lenny just talked about how long these court cases can take. And there's been a lot of discussion today about what's the best forum for prosecuting Russia. Can you talk about both of those issues? Sure. Thank you, Kerry. I think I'll start with this. Now, what is important to begin with is that accountability needs to be ensured. So that's the core of the principle so that we break the cycle of unaccountability that Russia benefited for too long. We face now very large scale, very aggressive military invasion in Ukraine from Russia with atrocities that are unmatched in terms of scale when it comes to what Russia in this part of the world committed so far. But it's not the first time that Russia is committing crimes of this kind. We've seen that in my own country. We've seen that in 2014 and 15 in Ukraine. And in Syria, let's not forget, I mean, we're Mosul Aleppo, all the atrocities that Russian forces committed in that part of the world as well. So Russia enjoyed that impunity for too long. And I'm not saying that that contributed only as a main factor for Russia to be emboldened and continuing to be as aggressive as Russia is. But it certainly gave the wrong message to Russia that it could have continued unimpeded on this quest for reclaiming its right as an empire. And then we ended up in the situation when we see horrific scenes as we've seen on the media in Ukraine and then scenes that unfortunately our colleagues who are a prosecutor general of Ukraine, they are seeing with their own eyes on the ground. Gary, you will agree with me. I'm sure that emotionally it was very, very hard trip for all of us in Poland to speak with refugees to see how many families have been uprooted from their normal lives as recently as up to two months. And then it's just the beginning, unfortunately, of this process. And then to realize that that's just a fraction of human pain and suffering that we've seen and observed and so much more is taking place on the ground and so much more will be known to all of us as time passes and more evidence is gathered. It's really very, very important to establish that that core conclusion of the principle for us that accountability matters. And it cannot be a victim of convenience of any negotiations in the future so that at the expense of finding some seemingly peaceful solution to the conflict. And that would compromise on the degree and level of accountability that needs to be ensured for all the layers of those who have perpetrated, abated, incited commitment of the crimes that we all observe. So in that regard, I think that's the commitment that the Ukrainians are very much looking up for international community so that there is no getting used to the fact of what is happening so to say in Ukraine from international community. Now, when it comes to to the forums and platforms, I do agree with an idea, several speakers already mentioned that that it's very early, I would say, and perhaps even impossible to prioritize which one should take a precedent that will be fragmented in parallel processes. And I think that's all good. If that will be happening now we are at this stage when we have evidence that is gathered in Ukraine, and that's a that's a very courageous action by the way I have to mention that from the prosecution service because the prosecutors and investigators go to the areas which are still mined for us to understand. So when we speak about the complexity of the work that they need to do in terms of gathering of the evidence. It's not just emotional hardship and then hardship that you have to do it during the ongoing war, but it's the physical security as well that cannot be assured for none of them. We have to go to the scenes of crime, because, you know, most of the territory still heavily mined where they need to go, excuse the bodies and then continue with documentation of the crimes. But then we have refugees in so many countries right now, and then millions of them. So they are not all of them but many witnesses of the crimes that have been committed, or they could be in the position to give leads to the investigation and the future. So what we see now in different jurisdictions in Europe including in Poland in all the countries, national investigations that have started so that they are able legitimately to collect evidence from Ukrainians that are present on their territories and this is very good. It doesn't mean that they necessarily would prioritize their jurisdiction for for any cases even when they could theoretically apprehend anybody that could be a perpetrator of those crimes. But they do that primarily for the evidence gathering reasons and it's a very good step that they all undertake in this direction. So we see unparalleled to that countries that are already committing more financing to ICC like Latvia, for example, if I'm not mistaken, it's one million extra budget resources that they get to ICC for them to be able to investigate and then subsequently prosecute effectively crimes that are committed in Ukraine. And then Ukraine itself has a natural primary jurisdiction obviously for investigation and prosecution. And as Lenny has mentioned, there are soldiers and then perpetrators of some of those crimes who already apprehended because they are prisoners of war. They are now enjoying that status and then they are kept so to say, on the territory of Ukraine. Some of them are exchanged as the prison swaps right now, prisoners of war, but eventually there needs to be a possibility for prosecution if Ukraine is able to gather sufficient evidence vis-à-vis the individuals that are present already in Ukraine. One aspect that I guess is worth to mention in addition to what has been already said is the digital tools for gathering information and it's not only through phones and then, you know, evidencing through photos and videos, but tracing back the perpetrators through the digital platforms and collection of information by forensic experts in the digital world, so to say, number of perpetrators already identified through social media platforms and they footprint is already there so that those who have committed some of the crimes. It is the novelty that was unavailable back then, for example, when Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has been created or one day it was a different era with different tools for collection of information, so to say. And then final aspect, when it comes to anything that relates to accountability, we have spoken about individual responsibility, briefly touched question related to state responsibility on that as well because this is very much connected with financial aspects of reconstruction needs that Ukraine will have on a massive scale. So all the assets that are either frozen right now for those who are sanctioned or even the national banks assets of the Russian Federation that are frozen right now under the sanctions regime. What could be the legal mechanisms of ensuring that some of these ill-gotten assets of oligarchs or individuals that are connected with the effort of the Russian Federation could actually be available for rebuilding and reconstruction of Ukraine. There are no blueprints in this case, it's a complex issue, but I do believe that we do owe this to Ukraine and Ukrainians to be effective and efficient in contemplating the ways how those assets in a legitimate way could be directed for the cause of rebuilding Ukraine and then providing this as a reparations to the victims of those crimes. And then I'm sorry, I'm just promising final final, but then I'm sort of thinking along the ways but while we talk about war crimes, it's very much merited already and it's important for strategizing why how you collect an evidence around the cases to have strategies both for the prosecution services for war crimes as much as crimes against humanity and genocide as well. So that when the evidence is being gathered both potentially with relation to the genocidal intent as well for crimes committed against Ukraine and Ukrainian people. I think we should not censor ourselves as to what are the crimes by definition that are committed now because as more information is uncovered as more information is uncovered. Including by Russians being so open about the intent to the Ukrainianization of Ukraine that we should be looking into all of the options and I fully agree myself on the need for accountability for the crime of aggression as well. I myself engaged with the Nizamikin Javi Center right now in terms of supporting work related to the establishment together with the former prime minister Gordon Brown on the establishment of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression, whatever it takes, no preoccupation on any given special procedure in this case, but then the fact that accountability for aggression should be established as well. I'll end with that not to be more more than clear than I already was introduction. Thank you, I can thank you for making those great. So many good points there, especially the incredible financial cost that is going to have to go into accountability the that digging out and following all the social media leads for the for the extraordinary number of war crimes and mass human rights violations is going to take an enormous effort so appreciate that. Harold, can you give us a final comment before we go to questions. There are two very important concrete proposals that we heard that I just wanted to underscore the first was Lanny's. I think that one thing that we should focus on right now as a legal community is to ask the Biden administration to send 15 DOJ prosecutors, accompanied by another 15 former prosecutors pro bono from various organizations. And this law firms, including Lanny's firm to go to the Hagan meet with prosecutor con with the necessary resources and be detailed essentially to work on these issues. And to go to Senator Graham and Senator Grassley, who have now become bipartisan supporters of accountability and say, we need you to authorize this if there's any legal issue about doing this, you should say that we support it. And that would put this kind of accountability effort in the same posture as the US love and Rwanda tribunals. It's been a very unfortunate that international criminal accountability has become a partisan issue when it should be a bipartisan issue. The second idea which Katarina just mentioned is securing a fund. You know, there's no reason why legislation couldn't be passed in many countries of the world to allow for Russian assets to be tapped into now for the purpose of civil reconstruction in Ukraine. In the same way as, for example, Iraqi oil assets were tapped into to help rebuild Kuwait under the services of the UN Compensation Commission. So these two very concrete proposals, which were mentioned, amid many other things, I think should be really a special focus here. It's the one that suits this group very well, and would really advance the ball to get prosecutors on the ground helping out in the next couple of weeks and to get money flowing from the frozen Russian assets into civil reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. Thank you. Thank you, Harold. Thank you for pointing that out. And it's, you know, sometimes we have these discussions and you sort of wonder what the outcome is. And that's two very, very concrete proposals we can pursue afterwards. It's now time for our audience questions. Again, if you have questions, send them to accountability event at usip.org. And our first comment and question is from the former First Lady of Ukraine who joins us. Katrina Yushenko. Katrina, of course, knows the brutality of Putin very well. Her husband, Victor, was famously poisoned, as many people assume, by Putin and his henchmen. So, Katrina, we were both together with Ekha in Poland law last week. Good to see you again. Please give us your comment and ask your first question. Thank you. Hey, Carrie. Thank you very, very much. You know, dear friends, I want to thank you all for today's important discussion and for your crucial efforts for the, and the time that all of you are putting in to help my country, Ukraine. In the past, Ukrainians have had to deal with horrors very similar to those today, genocide through famine, ethnic cleansing, mass deportations, Russification, mass arrests, torture, but we were always on our own. And this is the first time in our history that the world is aware and that the world is reacting. This gives us hope. It gives us energy and determination to continue this battle against the enemy. You know, this morning I woke up before dawn because there were air raid alerts on my telephone from throughout the country, Donetsk, Lviv, Chmelnits, Kharkiv, Ivano-Frankivsk, from east to west, from south to north. You know, the Russian army hit Lviv today with four missiles, killing six people, injuring eight, including a child. Kharkiv was hit numerous times, nine killed, 25 wounded, and as people have been told not to even leave their shelters today. This morning we also got reports that 27,000 people are being held in filtration camps in the south and the east. More than 700,000 have been deported to Russia. Men from captured territories are being forced to fight. Teachers, it was announced, will be sent to Crimea for retraining so that they learn the methods of indoctrinating children with false Russian ideology. And as has been mentioned, rape is being used extensively as a weapon. The humanitarian corridors are being blocked. Russians are stealing social and pension payments that are meant for citizens and all of these are war crimes. And Putin's Russia is a terrorist state and must be recognized by the world as such. But for us, as mentioned by Ambassador Vanshak, this is not new. The people of Donetsk and Luhansk, Oblast, Crimea have been dealing with these wars since Russia invaded in 2014, with up to 14,000 dead and millions displaced, even before February of this year. And that's where the crime of aggression started. And this crime of aggression must not go unpunished. We demand, as Ukrainians, we demand justice. Without it, there will be no sustainable peace. Ukrainians demand closure. Without it, we cannot move on to rebuild our country. This is also essential. I want to point out to the future development of Russia, until Russian society comes to terms with these crimes, really understands them, repents, repays. The Russian people also cannot move forward, and their society cannot be sustainable. And of course we must punish the crime of aggression so that other tyrants and despots around the world are not emboldened to pursue their own invasions, destruction, mass murder, and are not tempted to change borders as well. We know that Putin has a major goal in his twisted mind, and that's to pull out at least some victory in this huge debacle he has initiated and to announce it like some generalissimo on May 9 at the Victory Day Parade. So we expect the next few weeks until then to be held throughout Ukraine, but we're confident in the abilities of our troops and the strength determination of our people. And we all, Ukrainian army, government, society understand well that we have no choice but to win this war, as Ambassador Taylor said, because if we give up even one city, that city will be wiped off the face of the earth as a number of cities such as Buche Boroyanka, Mariupol already have, where almost every human being in it will be killed, raped, or deported. They even go to the extent of killing all the animals in these cities. Then they will bring Russian Russians into those cities to replace the Ukrainians just as they have so many times over our centuries. Therefore, the courts and tribunals we're discussing today are crucial. Justice is required, and a major change in Russian society and the de-Putinization of Russia is essential. Now for my question, I had one question that I wanted to ask, and I would like to address it to Dr. Ellis, but it was brought up by ACA as well. You talked, Dr. Ellis, about the difference between holding the state accountable and individuals accountable, and what do you think can be done to ensure that Russia does pay reparations? Well, my first emphasis right now is on the international criminal law approach to hold individuals accountable. And as we've discussed today, I think there's a number of avenues we can follow, whether it's the ICC, whether it's the Special Court for Crime and Aggression, and this very important area of universal jurisdiction that countries can embrace, even though there are some concerns about state immunity, but there are ways around this. And in the long term, I think Mr. Putin and others in the state will be held accountable under that theory or under, as I said, command responsibility. The reparations to me will be separate, but I think that that will be very clear. It's been discussed today as well on how we secure that type of financial reparations for the, not only the crimes that are being committed, but the damage that's being committed as well. I think there's sufficient robust international standards and mechanisms to ensure that both of those interests are in fact embraced, and that we are able to achieve both the accountability on the criminal side, and to ensure that there is reparations on the financial side. So our first question is from George Bradenburg. What are the legal constraints on U.S. assistance in the bringing of an ICC prosecution? And what are the risks to the U.S. or its military and diplomatic personnel removing those constraints? I'm just going to add to this. The United States, Russia, and Ukraine, none of those three countries are ICC signatories, although Ukraine did ask the ICC to look into issues after 2014. So can you talk a little bit about what could Ukraine just become a signatory to the ICC immediately? And why doesn't it do that? So those are basically sort of one about Ukraine, maybe Irina could take, and then one about the U.S. I don't know who that would best be between Harold or Lanny. I can start. I can start if I may, because it's actually a very important question. When we spoke first time with Mr. Hanit was maybe October of the last September of previous year. It was a very serious discussion between us and I asked him to start an investigation about war, which was in 2014. And he told me, please ratify the room. After that, we will speak about this. But actually, Verkhovna Rada gave the possibilities to investigate. In 2018, it was two declarations from Verkhovna Rada. It's our parliament to start investigations. And after the referral of 42 countries, first was Lithuania, after that 38 countries plus, and after that another three. That's why after these possibilities when Lithuania make this referral, Prosecutor Han started his investigations, and again a lot of countries were joined to this referral. That's why now he has all competence to investigate in Ukraine. But from other side, he has competence, but he has not have instruments. And that's true. When he came to Ukraine, he asked about implementations of these possibilities in criminal procedural court. And we had very good discussion in this parliament that actually without these instruments with Prosecutor Han can't do his job properly. For example, he want to interview a witness, but he can't take this witness to hate, because I don't have legal possibilities to take him this witness without mechanism, legal mechanism. That's why this Thursday will be the session in parliament, and I hope that parliamentarian implementator will implement these instruments in criminal procedural court. We give Prosecutor Han our draft flow, and he accepted it. From other side, of course, we need to implement possibilities in our criminal court. For example, every time when I speak with media, I speak about not only about war crimes, I speak about crimes against humanity. We don't have this crime in our criminal court. For me, of course, it's a problem. But it's not a problem for Prosecutor Han. That's why even without implementation of criminal court, he has competence and possibilities if he will have this implementation in the criminal procedural court. About ratification. Actually, of course, Ukraine should ratify because we have this term in the agreement to join to European Union. Actually, all countries of European Union are members of Rome Institute. But from other side, as I understand, it is more political question than legal question. That's why the competence was given by declaration of parliament. It's possible to do the equation of just ratification and to be a member state. It is very important because after this we can be a part of decision making. For example, to be a part of assembly of member state, to vote, to elect judge or prosecutor. We will have our bonuses after ratification. But as I understood now, it's not a question for this period about ratification. We need to implement and to give Prosecutor Han to work. Actually, it's a briefly about our situation. Thank you. And Harold. Yeah, so as many recall the Congress passed something called the American Service Members Protection Act a number of years ago, which had very broad restrictions on US cooperation with the ICC. Fortunately, Senator Chris Dodd, whose father had of course been a prosecutor at Nuremberg inserted a waiver provision. And so the question now is how broad is that waiver provision for certain circumstances. Last week in the New York Times, Charlie Savage had an excellent story summarizing those restrictions and pointing to a 2010 opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel. But one of the arguments is basically that the United States can't give money or personnel to the use of the ICC, which is exactly why Lanny's proposal should be accompanied by legal authorization from a bipartisan group in the Congress to make it happen and make it clear that there's no issue. There's a second issue though, which comes from our Defense Department, which has said that even in a situation like this one where Ukraine consents to have an investigation on their territory, that non party nationals in the who are committing the war crimes cannot be brought before the ICC, which would mean that if Russians or Belarusians or Syrians are committing war crimes in the Ukraine, they would argue there's no jurisdiction. Now, strangely, some people in the Defense Department apparently still stick by this opinion, even though it ought to be in our interest to let these investigations go forward and prosecutions go forward. If American soldiers were in a similar posture, presumably they would be prosecuted in domestic court marshals, so we don't need these protections. So, Ambassador Von Scott, I'm sure is involved in intense discussions on these issues, but that seems to be an objection based on policy, which I don't think should be a barrier in this circumstance and I think the Biden administration should push to get past it. Ambassador Von Scott, do you want to comment? I think Harold captured the situation well, just to emphasize that this argument that for some reason the court has no jurisdiction over the nationals of states that are not party has been rejected by all of the court actors that have had a chance to look at it so far. So it's not clear that it's actually providing any protective cover to US service members. As Harold mentioned, there are many other stronger arguments that can be deployed if and when we would get to a situation sometime down the line when there may be a US service member that might be vulnerable to some sort of prosecution before the ICC. So the three prosecutors since the inception of the court have all rejected the idea that they can't pursue the nationals of non-party states. We've seen, for example, the opening of an investigation involving the genocide in Myanmar and Myanmar itself is not a party, but neighboring Bangladesh is and many of the crimes were culminated on the territory of Bangladesh. That gives the court territorial jurisdiction according to the prosecutor and then many of the judges who have had an opportunity to look at this situation involving the nationals of non-states parties have proceeded. So we have the situation in Georgia that involves Russian perpetrators. Russia is not a member and yet the court is moving forward with that matter. Likewise, with respect to some Rwandans who were subject to arrest warrants by the court. If this is some sort of a jurisdictional bar to the court, the judges don't seem to agree to it. And so then it, as Harold said, it's a question of policy and the imperatives of accountability here and the role, the important role that the international community can play in a comprehensive system of international justice that involves national courts, that involves regional courts like the European Court of Human Rights, that adjudicates state responsibility, that involves Ukrainian courts and the excellent team of the prosecutor general involves third states. The question of universal jurisdiction, as Mark mentioned, we all need to be working together and rowing in the same direction. And jurisdiction, as Ekka mentioned, can be allocated in a way that's the most efficient. And in many of these situations, international courts have an important role to play working in a complementary fashion with domestic courts. Okay, thank you. That's, that's very helpful. Next question is from Noel D'Amico. Hi, she said that Ekka importantly discussed the use of digital footprint during war crimes investigations. To what extent are tech companies like Apple and Meta willing to use data to war crimes investigators? Is there something more that needs to be done so that they can have access to this information? Does anybody have a comment on that? Are you raising your hand, Ekka? Yes, please. I did, but I guess Irina wanted to comment as well. And she needs to leave for another meeting, but then Irina, please go ahead. And then if you need to leave, please mention that as well. But I know from your stuff that you have meeting approaching. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say I should leave at 5.30 if it's possible. I do it in English way very, very calm. But what about, I am very appreciate for this question about technical decisions and technical possibilities and others for us actually. And it's very important. We spoke with the team of Amal Clooney and she actually spoke with Microsoft about possibilities to give us more space to give us iCloud and to give us some securities, some securities platform. Actually tomorrow we'll be on the platform of Hedgeva Just and we again will speak about this, about possibilities how to save this information and how then protect this information from other people. Now we have big platform. It's like unique common hub war crimes.gov.ua. We use IDOL. Embassy of USAE give us these possibilities in previous year and we had experience with IDOL with the cases of occupation of Crimea. That's why we understand how to use it. But from other side now we see that again it's in a size, very huge size. In more times it's bigger than if we spoke about Crimea. That's why it's true. It's a question about different discussion, how to do it in a technical way to give a lot of space to classify it. How to operate with, we need these softs actually and we spoke even here inside the country with our law enforcement agency. We have a huge, huge size of absolutely different information. But we should use soft and special programs how to analyze it and how to manage it. It's very important actually. And of course we should protect all this massive off job. That's why I will be appreciate if we can have this very narrow, take this narrow question and talk about these technical decisions. They are very important in our prosecutor's drop. And actually tomorrow we speak about this with ERADAS2. If I build on that a bit. And Kerry, I might add a point too. Oh, sorry. Mark. Sure. Just very, very briefly. We're still adjusting to the digital ways of conversations without seeing each other fully. But when it comes to sort of work, for searching information, there are two main directions in which assistance is needed and then the work is already ongoing. One, when it comes to perpetrators identification of identities of the persons based on the factual information that is gathered on the ground. Part of what is being done right now is through investigative journalists, CSOs and collaboration with the prosecutor service in Ukraine. Ukraine is very much known for its IT industry of the level of digitalization of the country and then here in vibrant civil society and investigative journalists. From the US government, a lot of assistance has went in this direction and it's ongoing when it comes to bringing capacity to the civil society and to the investigative journalists. So what they do, they do collaborate together with their networks outside of Ukraine to trace back the perpetrators and then identify and pin them, so to say, through the digital tools. Second relates to the assets tracing and that's a very important work as well. There is a task force that is created now at the prosecutor general's office, which combines different agencies in it including national prevention, agency for the prevention of corruption, agency that deals with tracing of assets of corrupt and organized crime group representatives, and then financial monitoring unit FIU as well, apart from the investigative bodies that are in the law enforcement and then prosecutor service. And there is well access to the databases and the political skills that are needed for tracing assets and collaboration with partners outside of Ukraine. This is an important direction of work as well so that that component of accountability related to freezing and then seizure of assets of those who are involved in those crimes at a larger scale especially is well maintained. This has its own digital footprint. I can't comment on the industries themselves in America when it comes to the companies but US government is helping quite a lot in this direction when it comes to Ukrainian counterparts. Thank you, Eka. You know, it's now just past 1030. We said we would stop at 1030 but we also started late. So, Irina, we're so grateful to you for your time and for your effort and I want you to know our hearts are with you. Thank you very much. Actually, I am a Ukrainian prosecutor and Ukrainian citizen very appreciated for your support. Everything for the American authorities, American people do for Ukraine. It's actually great and we all are very appreciated. I spoke about it before when I just started the Prosecutor General. I remember all these searches years how you help us, how you create in our land, on our land, not new Russian Federation or actual democratic society. And now you see from 2014 we actually fight for our choice, for our freedom, for our independence. And I am very appreciate that American state and American citizens have done everything that we are not Russians. It's very actually important. Thank you very much. And now we need at first win. We can't win without weapons. It's very important. After winning, we should punish them. And this is absolutely true. If Putin will not be responsible for his aggression, as told Eka about, she did not say it, but she spoke about Georgia. She spoke about Syria. It was about Chechnya and others. Now this president is not responsible for all previous deaths of all other civilians from other states. Now when in Ukraine have this horror, actually it's true horror. I am very adult person, but what I saw during this more than 50 days, it's very difficult to live with it then. That's why we should stop this war. Thank you very much. Thank you again. It has to go. I don't know how the rest of you are, but anyone who could stay, I think we could keep going until 1045. But that's all right with that. Does that work with everybody? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you, Irina. Terrific. Now we have a question. What is your current carry? Can I just say one thing? Oh, sorry. Please, Mark. Technology, because I think we've talked about it, and it's so important. Harnessing sophisticated technology now to really authenticate some of the evidence, particularly the pictorial evidence is crucial. And we've struggled with this before, and now we're facing a scenario where I'm convinced that this war will be the most documented war in history. We're seeing it every day on social media and television. The key, though, for the international community for justices, can the evidence, can this pictorial evidence really be used in a court of law? Much of it, what we see raises the awareness of the atrocities, and I think that's exceedingly important. But I think we'd be quite surprised to find out that most of it cannot be used in court proceedings because it can't be verified. There's no chain of custody. You can't authenticate it at all, all the metadata that you need in order to prove the authenticity is not included in these videos or pictures. So you can't ensure that the videos aren't being altered or they're fake. That, to me, is a real challenge for the international community in these situations. And you would mention the IBA's project, the Eyewitness to Atrocities project. And that's what we've attempted to do is try to find ways successfully, I might add, to have all of this information that you need to use the videos and pictures in a court of law. To be able to collect them in a way in a secure way that sits there in a secure vault until it's needed for the court proceedings. And it's that type of technology, it's that type of advancement that I think is needed in the General Prosecutor's Office is focused on this as well. And I think this will be a real test when we begin to pursue these cases in court to see if this technology, the new technology efforts have really worked. And I believe they will. And I'm hoping that the IBA's efforts are part of that. Thank you, Mark. Lanny, you must have run into this in the criminal division of the Justice Department. Do you have a comment on it? Look, I do defer to Mark, but I feel pretty strongly that in this day and age with new technologies, we have to be practical. And, you know, they're new concepts of things like change of custody. And that's why earlier on I thought the different groups should be chatting now, because the ideal cannot be the enemy of what's fair and due process does not require moral certainty. And so I do think right now we do have to and I would convene perhaps a new court. But I think we do need to have procedures in place about what in fact does constitute sufficient evidence, what is the basis of that evidence, and frankly doing that before we have actual cases may work. I couldn't agree more with Mark, but I do worry greatly. I worry that in many of these international tribunals cases take eight, 10 years, and it goes back to my point that the United Nations may not want to share something for certain purposes. And so of course we have to be able to ensure that something hasn't been doctored up, but frankly, I do think it's practical and every day in the United States in courts, we have evidence that challenge and we have somewhat practical and real ways of solving it. And so in this day and age, I think that what Mark Ellis raises is very important, but there must be a practical real way of dealing with these issues now, so that work criminals can be brought to justice. And the people of Ukraine can see that justice occurs, not in 10 years, but in one year or two years. And I actually think that is consistent with due process and we ought to be taking on that challenge right now. Thank you. Thank you, Lanny. Next question, what is preventing the US and the UN from naming each Russian general and member of his highest military councils and deeming them conspirators within illegal war, naming them pending evidence investigation to put pressure on the generals to potentially overthrow Putin? What are the constraints? Bots, raise your hand. Well, from a US perspective, the only constraint that I can think of is, you know, we're saying conspiracy, we have to show that people were actually engaged. We can't simply say that the person is the general, we have to be able to demonstrate that he or she was involved, made decisions and took it over and act to make this happen. But within that, you probably could start building these kinds of cases. But, you know, like everything, it goes into what is the actual evidence that we know and simply command and control, at least in US jurisprudence in and of itself wouldn't be sufficient. You'd have to have evidence. Now, I'm hopeful over time and others here are more expert than I that some Russian leader will cooperate. He or she will either be scared or it'll be in their interest and they'll be captured and they'll be able to talk about meetings or steps or memos or the like. And hopefully we can capture electronically materials. And Ukraine, of course, has incredible experts of perhaps that's already happening, in which case perhaps you could start building these matters. Thank you, Beth. You're muted. I was just going to say that Ukraine has published some documents that they have obtained that appear to show all the individuals who have been deployed on this particular operation. And so that will be very helpful, I think, to prosecutors being able to construct not only what the chain of command was, but which particular regiments and battalions were deployed to particular cities, which individuals held those cities and then departed to determine who would have been at least within the community of individuals who would be responsible. It will also be very helpful in understanding the order of battle in terms of how the various operations unfolded. And so we have the names of the individuals if these documents are accurate. And so now it's a question, as Lani is saying, of working liability up the chain of command. And it will be very important to have some insiders who are willing to testify about who was giving orders, how those orders were conveyed, who was the architects of the war crimes that are being committed within Ukraine. And that will go a long way towards building individualized cases before whatever court has jurisdiction. Thank you. Thanks, Beth. This is a related question and something that Bill Harold and Eka talked about. But how does confiscation of Russian assets from oligarchs who don't hold track with Putin not run amiss of the international law regarding due process for Russians who have nothing to do with Putin and disagree with his invasion? Doesn't that violate international law? And how do you overcome that as factual matter? Do we presume that the oligarchs under sanctions are in Putin's team and supporting him? Harold? Well, I don't think anybody thinks that they don't have a relationship with Putin. It's been documented massively, including in outstanding long form journalism, you know, that they're really part of a sort of gang operating under his collaboration. And they are conspirators and a system of smart sanctions is entirely capable of addressing both the leader of the gang and the lead henchmen. You know, how did these people become so rich? It was because of their relationship with Putin. I wanted to also seize on something Beth said, which I thought is really important. This is a campaign of aggression by atrocity. You don't always see that you see aggression, but you don't have along with it, clear set of instructions, which is kill everybody. And so in fact, often aggressors don't do that because they really want the country to be left intact so that they can take control of it. So I think getting to the bottom of that and finding how that strategy was ordered and implemented, are there smoking guns? Are there standing commands is an incredibly important piece of this picture and finding a general who resists or is willing to admit to what they were told is going to be important part of this accountability story. Thanks, Harold. I think we just have time for one last comment. Bill, you've been thinking about these issues, talking about these issues for a long time. How do you see this? Kerry, I will just go back to what I said at the right smack at the beginning in order for all this to be useful for in order to decide what to prosecute, what organizations to set up, what courts Ukraine has to win. If Russia is allowed to win, then this is moot. Ukraine has to win. So that needs to be our priority. We need to get every weapon in the hands of the Ukrainians today, yesterday, tomorrow, because this big offensive is coming and the Ukrainians need to win, Kerry. That's what I would end with. Thanks. Thank you, Bill. Lees, thank you so much to USIB for hosting this today. Thank you again to RFKUK and the Nizami Ganjavi International Center for making this possible. Lees, off to you to wrap it up. Kerry, thank you. I hope everyone joins me in thanking our exceptional, very distinguished panel for educating us and for the leadership that they are showing across the world in holding Russia and others accountable for the crimes that are being committed in Ukraine. We talk a lot about an international rules-based order, and an international rules-based order is as good as the people who uphold those rules. I think every one of us knows that if we are committed to an international order like the one that we have presided over for so many decades, it means we have to go the miles, the distance necessary to hold accountable the people who are trying to undermine it. Thank you very much, Kerry, for convening us. A very special thanks to her Excellency Ekateshek Kavili, to her Excellency Katerina Yushenko, to Ambassadors Bill Taylor and Von Schock, to Mark Lanny and Professor Harold Koch. We're delighted you were able to join us. Good morning to everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.