 I'm pleased to open this second panel of two today on the subject of international competition mechanism and its elements. And we're joined today by we have four panelists again, Ms. Irina Mudra, the Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine, Ms. Alexandra Matfi-Chuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer and civil society leader, head of the Centre for Civil Liberties and indeed the Nobel Peace Laureate for 2022. It's a great honour to have all the panelists here, but it's always an honour to have a Nobel Laureate. We have Mr. Gunther Schermer, head of the Department of Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe, and online we're going to be joined from down under again by Dr. Anton Mazienko, who's a lecturer at the Australian National University College of Law. Each of the speakers will speak for between five and seven minutes. We had a bit more flexibility in the first panel, but we're limited to an hour for this one. So I do ask speakers to stick to the five to seven minutes, please. And then we'll go to Q&A with the audience. Just exactly as Declan did last time, if you want to give a question from the floor, just raise your hands. And if you have a question for online, please put it through the Q&A function on Zoom. I do have to inform me that Ms. Irina Mudra is coming but is running late. She's the only one who's tried to travel in Europe over the past couple of weeks. I appreciate that that isn't unusual now. So she's on her way from Dublin Airport and she's in good hands. So if everyone could just bear with, the minister will be with us in due course. So without further ado, I'm going to ask you, Alexander, to go first if that's okay. And so I'll give a slightly elongated, a slightly extended biography for yourself. Alexandra is a human rights defender who works in Ukraine and across the OSCE region. Ms. Matfajuk heads the Centre for Civil Liberties, Human Rights Organisation in Ukraine and coordinates the work of the Euro Maidan SOS, Grassroots Civil Society organisation. Ms. Matfajuk has vast experience of organising human rights activities against attacks on rights and freedoms and years of experience of documenting violations during armed conflict. Alexandra is the author of a number of reports in various international bodies including for the UN, Council of Europe, European Union, OSCE, the International Criminal Court, and I could go on. But I won't because your time starts now. Thank you. Thank you very much for providing me the floor. It's a huge honour for me to address to this distinguished audience. I am a human rights lawyer and I have been applying the law to defend people and human dignity for many years. But at present, I and other Ukrainian human rights colleagues are doing our job in the circumstances when the law doesn't work. Russian troops deliberately shall in residential buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, attack evacuation corridors, manage federation camps system, organise forcible deportations, commit murders, tortures, rape, abductions and other kinds of offenses against civilians. And the entire international system of peace and security can't stop such Russian atrocities. I said that the law doesn't work, but I do believe that it's temporary, that we have to do everything which we can in order to restore international order and demonstrate justice. And because I work directly with victims affected by this war, I know that people perceive justice very differently. For some people, justice means to see their perpetrators under the bars. For another people, justice means to get compensation. So without this, they will feel unsatisfied. For other people, justice means to know the truth what happened with their beloved ones. And for other people, justice means the possibility to be heard. And to get official recognition that something which happened with their beloved one is not just immoral but legal. And I do believe that we have proposed the complex justice strategy to satisfy all these needs. And I'm here to present the complex vision of civil society, of Ukraine, to international compensation mechanism and its elements. We believe that the right holder of the rights to compensation is a state victim of armed aggression. And we know that rights to compensation aims to guarantee its security, contribute to the restoration of international legal order, and minimize the threats of revanchism. And from this perspective, the confiscation and repurposing of frozen assets is, in our opinion, a component of Ukrainian's rights to self-defense, which is not limited to use of military force, but also extend to economic countermeasures. Also, the main responsibility for compensations lies with Russian Federation as a state that launched an aggressive war. The circle of parties whose actions fall under the definition of the crime of aggression in accordance of the UN General Assembly resolution of 40 December 1974 is broader and includes, but it's not limited to the Republic of Belarus. And we believe that when creating this framework of the compensation mechanism, it should be assumed that a group of aggressor states, led by Russia, will refuse to pay ex-gratia compensation. And that is why we emphasize the need to consolidate efforts to support solutions such as civil society mentioned. You can find this document. They include 12 recommendations from civil society of Ukraine, how this international compensation mechanism has looked like. I only mentioned several because of the shortage of the time. First, it should be recognized that the Russian Federation and other states involved in the aggression against Ukraine should be our absolute responsibility for all damage caused in the occupation of Crimean Peninsula in late February, early March 2014. Second, a unified methodology should be used to calculate damages and numbers, should be correctly interpreted, distinguish damages from actual recoverable needs. Third, it's worth supporting the vision of future international compensation mechanism, which was proposed by the government of Ukraine, which should consist of four elements, the register of damage, the commission of reviewing claims, the fund for making payments, and an international treaty that will establish the provision for the previously elements to functions. Fourth, at each stage of compensation, a victim center approach should be implemented, in particular by ensuring publicity and transparency of decision making, wide involvement of representatives of civil society in the establishing and operation of the compensation mechanism and bringing the guilty part to justice. And also we want to emphasize that gradual shift of emphasis from the needs of the victims of aggression to the protection of the rights, the population of the aggressor state is unacceptable. Ensuring humanitarian needs of Russian population as well as guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedom is the responsibility of the Russian Federation and should be provided without any reference to compensation for damage caused as a result of aggression against Ukraine. Thank you. Alexander, thank you very much and we're delighted fresh off the flight to welcome Minister Irina Mudra. Thank you very much for being with us and for the extra effort it took to be with us. So I'll just introduce you briefly before handing over to you immediately. Miss Irina Mudra is a Ukrainian lawyer and banker who has served as a Deputy Minister for Justice in the Government of Prime Minister Dennis Schmael since May 2022. A graduate of the University of Lviv, Irina Mudra was previously a lawyer at the State Savings Bank of Ukraine. In the international arena she is known for publicly promoting the development of a mechanism for sanctions and reparations against the Russian Federation for the war against Ukraine. Thank you for being with us Minister and the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for being here today. I'm very pleased to be here to welcome all the distinguished participants of this event. I don't know what was that. Today was the day full of surprises whether Riga didn't want to let me out of the country because we were there in the Justice Minister's Conference of the Council of Europe Member States or Dublin didn't want to let me in but we'll now continue our fight for justice in every place of the world. But first of all let me to express my gratitude to the Institute of International and European Affairs for hospitality. The Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, the Ukrainian Embassy to Ireland and the Ukrainian action for the organization of this event and the opportunity to participate and to express the position of Ukrainian government in this very important topic on ensuring comprehensive accountability for violations of international order and restoration of justice. Starting from 24th of February 2022 Ukraine is facing with the most serious challenge since achieving independence in 1991. The ongoing war has already resulted in significant human loss, unprecedented damages and losses, displacement and devastating destruction of infrastructure. And this is without taking into account the horrific consequences of war crimes. Just look at these statistics. More than 100,000 war crimes registered by law enforcement bodies in Ukraine, among them more than 3,115 crimes against children. 11,000 civilians killed or died including 503 children. More than 17,000 civilians wounded included more than 1100 children. Almost 20,000 children were possibly displaced and deported. 1,122 are conceded to be missing. 231 registered facts of sexual violence among them dozens against children. More than 120,000 objects of civilian infrastructure were destroyed or damaged. Residual buildings, hospitals, schools, kindergarten, universities, cultural and religious heritage, energy and communication infrastructure. And this list can go on and on. The Kyiv School of Economics has estimated the damage to Ukraine's infrastructure in April 2023 amounted to $150 billion. And this amount increases all the time. Appropriation based on the cost of reconstruction as well as other damage and losses and harm cost to businesses will conceivably increase this amount. In March 2023, the World Bank assessed the cost of reconstruction and recovery of Ukrainian infrastructure to $411 billion. So these are horrifying figures. And as Alexandra has mentioned, it should be Russia who should pay for all these damages. For Russia to pay the damages is not only moral and ethical obligation, it's legal obligation under the international law principles of state responsibility. Russia is obliged to compensate all the suffering of Ukrainian citizens, all the economic losses through private and public business to pay for the destruction of private and public infrastructure and property. Russia's expanded invasion of Ukraine, accompanied by its war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale not seen since World War II demands decisive actions, decisive response from international community. Thus, the states must invoke the responsibility of Russian Federation by lawful means, such as countermeasures, collective self-defense, and expect it to seek to enforce an existing obligation of Russia to make full reparation for a violation of international law. For more than one year, one year and a half, Western governments strongly condemn Russia's aggression and support Ukraine. Everyone agrees that Russia must be held to account for all atrocities and damage costs, but this is not enough. Political statements should be transferred into real practical actions. We Ukrainian governments know what to do. That's why we propose the action plan on implementation of 0.7 of peace formula of our president, President Zelensky, which is called restoration of justice. So Ukraine proposes to our allies, to the government of our partner states this plan to achieve this goal. First, ensuring effective investigation on the national level, international support in strengthening national capacity to investigate and prosecute international crimes, to operation analyze victims and witnesses coordination center, to provide technical assistance and expertise to the prosecution service. Promoting investigation and prosecution of international crimes committed in or against Ukraine by certain states. Second, securing accountability for the crime of aggression. International support of the international center for prosecution of the crime of aggression, which was recently launched, established in the UK, to build a strong case for the crime of aggression. Establishment of an ad hoc special tribunal for the crime of aggression committed by Russian Federation against Ukraine as a response to existing accountability gap for the crime, for this crime. And Ukraine called the partner states, the Western governments, and not only Western governments, to have the solid support of the special international tribunal, not of hybrid tribunal, but a proper tribunal which can address the issue of immunity of the highest political and legal and military leadership of the country. Third, continuing strategic partnership with the international justice mechanisms. Undoubtedly, the international criminal court has a leading role in ending impunity for international crimes, holding perpetrators accountable and granting redress to victims and survivors. And Ukraine will continue fruitful cooperation with the ICC. It is also important to keep regular dialogue with the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. And of course, continue cooperation with Eurogast, Europol and Interpol in cases related to international crimes. Ukraine, when the war began, Ukraine used all available and all possible legal tools and avenues and forums in order to bring Russia to responsibility. We launched the case before the European Court of Human Rights. It's the biggest case in the history of ECHR, Ukraine versus Russia. To this case, 26 states made intervention into this case. It's unprecedented. We also have a case in ICJ where also 32 states intervened and we will soon have hearing in the Hague on this case. But unfortunately, none of the existing legal mechanisms can be invoked to receive effective compensation of the damages caused as the result of this war. And here, Ukraine also made a proposal to our partners. So we proposed the comprehensive compensation mechanism. It won't be a judicial body, judiciary body. It will be an administrative mechanism which is supposed to ensure the compensation not only to the states, but to the very victims of the war of aggression. Because if we look into the history and see how reparations were paid, reparations were paid to the state, not to the victims. There were a few cases when victims of Holocaust or war prisoners received some compensation. But the scale of damages, loss and injury which is caused to Ukrainian people and Ukrainian business and the state has not been seen since World War II. That's why we suggested this compensation mechanism. This compensation mechanism, I have to say that it was supported, I would say, by the global community through the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which was taken in November 14, 2022. And it caused furtherance on remedy reparations for aggression against Ukraine. So this resolution speaks about three main provisions. First, that it should be Russia who bears this duty, a legal duty to make reparations according to international law. The General Assembly recognized the need of compensation mechanism or mechanism for reparations for damage, loss and injury. And the General Assembly called on member states to create, to establish the International Register of Damage. So after this, when this resolution was passed, Ukraine started the very intensive work with our partners in order to implement this resolution. And as of today, we have the first but very important step already launched. It's the International Register of Damage which is hosted by the Netherlands. The register was created by an enlarged partial agreement under the auspices of Council of Europe. And tomorrow, yesterday, there was the second meeting of the conference of participants of this register and it is expected that the register will be fully operationalized and functioning early next year. So what is this register? The register is the database for collecting all the information and evidences on the damage loss and injury. So we have to be sure that all this information is properly preserved, collected and saved until the proper mechanism is established. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe by enlarged partial agreement nor the register itself can create the mechanism able to adjudicate claims. That is why there should be a solid legal ground for creating the mechanism and adjudicating claims without the consent of Russia because we understand that so well, at least in the visible future, we will not get this consent. That is why our call to international community is to take the measures in accordance with international law to force Russia to fulfill its international obligations to make reparations through creating the mechanism and through getting access to its assets. Minister, if you can wrap up in about a minute if that's okay. Sorry. If you can wrap up inside a minute, that would be great. So that is why this comprehensive mechanism includes register, compensation mechanism and compensation fund. The last but not the least is the source for funding for filling in the compensation fund and this should be Russian assets in the first turn because there is a state with made the aggression and the state should bear its responsibility. Thank you very much, Minister. Extremely evocative and low to come back to with the first two speakers, but our next speaker, third or fourth, and I see Anton on stage there on screen there. Hello, Anton. But before we hear from Anton, we're going to have Gunther Schermer who works at the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly as the head of Department of Legal Affairs and Human Rights since 2016 and Gunther has overseen the secretariat of the committees on legal affairs and human rights and the election of judges of the European Court of Human Rights. Previously, Gunther was the deputy head of secretariat of the legal affairs and human rights committee and before that the executive secretary of the Council of Europe Development Bank. Before joining the Council of Europe in 1993, Gunther worked as a civil servant at the German federal ministry of finance and as a judge at the Langerecht in Bonn. In the 1980s, he taught German and comparative law, Kings College London and criminal law and procedure at the University of Passo. Gunther, thanks a million for being with us. Excellencies and ladies and gentlemen, it's a great honor to sit on the same panel as Minister Mudra who was also invited to our committee legal affairs and human rights in preparation of the resolution in January this year where our committee and our assembly strongly supported the three-stage plan for compensation mechanism that the Ukrainian government has laid out and that Mudra has now summed up. Just allow me a small parenthesis, it's also a pleasure to be here. The first panel was a great pleasure to listen to because the very first international body which posed an international tribunal, international special tribunal for the crime of aggression was in fact our assembly already in April 2022 after what we call the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it's not the beginning of the war, the war began in 2014 with illegal occupation of Crimea and the proxy war in the Donbas where many people were killed, including the shooting down of flight MH17 where many innocent civilians died. So this crime of aggression, the crime of crimes, must be dealt with, must be prosecuted for all the good reasons that I heard and I'm already preparing the next report. I got some interesting input from the first panel this morning, this afternoon. So I'm very happy we were almost laughed at at first including by colleagues in the Council of Europe, better lawyers than I who said this will never fly and you know the Goliaths will stop this. Well they didn't, our idea finally flew, it got a lot of support from many many little ones and that sometimes works. The Council of Europe is a mini-UN in terms of, in comparison with the Worldwide UN for Europe where small countries have what some say a disproportionate weight in the voting in the in the committee of ministers in the parliamentary assembly and it's therefore in a good position to be a ringleader of the rebellion of the small ones against the big bad guys. So let me come to the topic of this panel, sorry for the excursion. The latest estimate of the World Bank is indeed 411 billion dollars damage and under the polluter paced principle or causal paced principle it must be up to Russia to pay why should Western taxpayers here's my old finance ministry beginning of career comes in why should Western taxpayers put the bill let alone the victims the Ukrainian people. So after Mrs. Muta's intervention in our committee we have endorsed our assembly has endorsed a three-step approach proposed by the Ukrainian government first creation of the register of damages that is done it is to support to collect all relevant data and secure the evidence which is key all lawyers know you have the best case legally speaking if you don't have the evidence you lose the Reykjavik summit of the Council of Europe launched the partial agreement the partial agreement mechanism in the Council of Europe is a very flexible legal mechanism to allow a coalition of the willing and it turns out there were a lot of willing countries to join an activity with very little bureaucratic hindrance and so we set up this partial agreement on the proposal also for assembly and this is open to any country in the world it's an open partial agreement open to any country in the world that wants to show solidarity with Ukraine and the Riga principles which were adopted you were there by the justice ministers earlier this week they go very much in the direction of also what Mrs. Matvitschuk said victim oriented approach not just state versus state but victims to be implied to be implicated from the start and civil society to be involved in the collection of of data on what happened to individuals not just the state the state too the state has suffered enormous losses local authorities regional authorities infrastructures but individual victims must be in the focus the Riga principles I would really recommend reading you find them on the internet immediately I read them this morning on the plane they are really wonderful we could have written them in the parliamentary assembly and I think I hope we have inspired some of this the registry is intended to be replaced in the second step by an adjudication commission and here too the Council of Europe can make an important contribution the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has after all a lot of experience in allocating compensation to victims of human rights violations it even has the competence a rational temper is to adjudicate all alleged violations which occurred until six months after the expulsion of Russia from the Council of Europe and from the Convention on Human Rights IE 16 September 2022 I've been to Butcher and European who was the group of parliamentarians and just after their liberation from Russian occupation and believe me what happened there will keep the Court of Human Rights busy for quite some time there enough cases even for that period until 22nd of September 22 but for violations that occur after the 16th of September it would still make imminent sense for the future adjudication commission to make use of the courts methods methodology experience and case law because it's been established for many decades now how to adjudicate claims in compensation for individual victims of human rights violations so I trust the mechanism when it comes to into being with the help of UN with the support of the UN will continue to benefit from the courts Court of Human Rights experience the third and most difficult step will be how to fill the future compensation fund which will pay out the damages established by the register and adjudicated by the Commission Parliamentary Assembly has already floated some ideas which will surely need further study in terms of their legal basis frankly international law as it stands now with state immunity in particular may need to be further developed unless a consensual solution can be found with a future new democratic Russia along the lines of the agreement under which Iraq has paid a percentage of their oil revenue until the damage caused by the invasion of Kuwait was paid the last installment by the way was in January 2023 but remember but what if Russia refuses even if we throw into the deal dropping all economic sanctions well we're in Ireland and the assembly has recently recommended the irish model of non-conviction based confiscation of illegal assets with reversal of the burden of proof to all consular member states island has had great success combating the mafia it actually moved to the Netherlands which was the country of my rapporteur for this report which then introduced the same legislation in the Netherlands he was quite shocked when you heard they fled to the Netherlands because they were softer on criminal assets well in April 2022 still under the shock of the Russian invasion therefore in the mood to go quite far the assembly adopted a recommendation to use the frozen assets of the Russian oligarchs at the time about 80 billion dollars to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine by way of an offset Russia has a claim against the oligarchs who stole the countries which is albeit with the illegal and therefore in invalid authorization of the corrupt regime and Ukraine has a claim against Russia to pay for its reconstruction such an approach would of course require some legislation in the countries having frozen Russian assets and as in the irish model which was quite successful against the local mafia and has since our report been introduced in quite a number of other consular view member states basic rule of law principles namely legal basis fair proceedings possibility of judicial review must be respected after all international rule of law is what we stand for and what Ukraine fights for so valiantly on all our behalf that's the last word somebody in the previous panel mentioned the elephant in the room one elephant in the room there's another one we realistically speaking will need eventually the cooperation of some sort of a future Russian government and if Russia is not defeated this will never happen and therefore it is first and foremost necessary to give Ukraine the tools to make sure that the tools and why not say it weapons to make sure that Russia is defeated and that this regime cannot continue to impose its will on Ukraine and possibly any other neighbors that will fall in the in the firing line of what is now become a dictatorship we've observed over my 20 years in the parliamentary assembly how Russia which was initially when it joined the consulate Europe governed by nibbles democrats which suffered from seven seven dollar oil price and Russian population one generation equates democracy was extremely poverty and misery they didn't invent the dependency on oil and gas but when the price was at seven dollars they couldn't pay the pensions they couldn't pay the salaries then Putin came in $200 oil price and then you know what happened but then over the years I was in Chechnya I was in many times in Moscow with different reporters how slowly slowly at first and then faster and faster democracy was dismantled free speech was literally killed called a koska and others how the the regime descended into dictatorship and we know from historical experience dictatorships become a danger not only for their own people but also for their neighbors and that is why the real elephant in the room is can we ever have any dealings with with uh with Russia unless uh Ukraine wins this war that's oh that's great thank thank you very much Gunther Anton can you hear me because Anton is if you can hear me as well yeah very well look it's it's a pleasure to have you here and we know it's very very late where you are so thank you very much for staying up late to be with us it's appreciated uh Dr Anton is a lecturer in law at the Australian National University A&U in Canberra Australia his work focuses on issues at the intersection of criminal law and international law including transnational crime economic crime and the legal aspects of targeted sanctions Anton was previously a research fellow at Russi the Royal United Services Institute Center for Financial Crime and Security Studies in London his research at Russi covered a wide array of financial crime topics which range from money laundering techniques used by cyber criminals to crime in free trade zones he holds a PhD in law from Queen Mary University of London and a master's degree in law from the University of Cambridge Anton thanks for being with us and the virtual floor is yours well thank you so much and thanks so much for having me um over the past year and a half um quite a lot of my work has focused on the legal and policy dilemmas related to the potential repurposing of frozen Russian assets and what I wanted to do in these remarks is really to try and navigate this confusion that I have come up against and I'm sure many others as well in trying to understand why a number of countries around the world have not yet committed to the idea of repurposing frozen Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine and specifically for the purposes of providing full reparations to Ukraine uh from listening to the other three speakers of this panel uh one might get a very clear idea that in a moral sense and to some extent in a policy sense as well the idea is a no-brainer nobody disputes that Russia owes the obligation to make full reparations to Ukraine and there is the only available significant pool of assets that we currently have in order to discharge that obligation and that's really the frozen currency reserves that belong to the Russian central bank and to a much lesser extent the individual holdings of various oligarchs so what are the sticky points there what are the current obstacles um I think they can be usefully grouped into three major buckets first we've got domestic war then we have international war and finally there is the miscellaneous category of everything else which is basically policy challenges you know would it be a good idea to repurpose frozen assets even if it's legally available so we'll look first at domestic legislation obviously the position there varies across countries but fundamentally the problem is not insurmountable parliaments make laws and parliaments amend laws so unless we're run into some insurmountable constitutional principle there's no real obstacle to enabling the confiscation of Russian assets and their transfer to an international compensation mechanism and there might be a potential constitutional issues surrounding the right to property but this is a right that's typically not absolute in most legal systems and can be modified in the pressing public interest that we clearly see in this situation so the real battlefield is international war and we've had references already today to a couple of key doctrines that are really essential to that debate one of them is the doctrine of counter measures and then also potentially the doctrine of collective self-defense which need not only involve military force you can have collective self-defense that is of non-military nature and I think it's really the concept of counter measures that is key here counter measures are at their essence a very simple idea they rest on a notion that you can deviate from your international obligations against another state in a proportionate manner in a non-punitive manner if that other state has breached its international obligations so here the logic would be given that Russia has committed egregious breaches of international law and owes the obligation to make full reparations to Ukraine it would be proportionate and it would be non-punitive it would be restorative to temporarily cease observing Russia's sovereign immunities and enable the confiscation of frozen assets and their transfer to Ukraine but here we have two basic distinct conceptions of counter measures that have been offered in expert debate some people would argue that it's never permissible to take counter measures that are permanent in their effect like confiscation on that view of counter measures it's okay to freeze Russian assets and use that as a bargaining chip for as long as it takes but it's not okay to actually seize those assets and transfer them over to Ukraine and fundamentally there's a legal disagreement there about the interpretation of what the law of state law of state responsibility requires and how you interpret the concept of counter measures so not proposing to go into too much detail there and get lost in the weeds but I think there's an eminently plausible legal argument that many people have made in favor of using the doctrine of counter measures to enable that repurposing of frozen assets and I think that's by far the better legal position but there's also this third block of questions that is also vital potentially to even a greater extent than the legal side of things and that's the policy aspect of it and very often we hear states making objections along the lines of at least in public that's what you would you know read in the press you know not being privy to any confidential discussions but the objections were drawn along the lines of okay well other countries will worry today we confiscate Russian assets and then tomorrow western nations will seize the assets of everyone else in the global south what about the middle east what about Africa what about all the other countries in the world should they be worried and I think you know fundamentally there are two schools of thought in dealing with that question and one of them is to say that maybe we do want to live in a world where potential aggressors or states that are bent on mass human rights violations know that their state-owned property is potentially at stake if you engage in egregious breaches of international law you can't rely on the rest of the international community but continuously observing your sovereign immunities no matter what you do owe the obligation to make reparations to the victims and you need to understand that in some circumstances you won't be able to hide behind sovereign immunity but there was also the other part of that answer which I think is also important and that's to highlight just how extraordinary the nature and magnitude of Russia's breaches of international war is here we're talking not only about a nation that has violated the fundamental prohibition on the use of force but also we are talking about mass breaches of international humanitarian law international human rights law we've all seen the footage that go into has mentioned of what happened in butcher and a pin we're also talking about acting in violation of the provisional measures order that was issued by the international court of justice in the case that Ukraine brought and indeed widespread non-compliance systemic non-compliance for years with judgments of the European court of human rights and all of those circumstances it can combine to create a pretty unique situation and so I think you know one can be pretty honest and forthcoming in dealing with those policy-based objections and saying that most other countries in the world unless they want to follow Russia on the same sort of path of international outlawry don't really have all that much to worry about in the context of repurposing of the proposed repurposing of Russian sovereign assets but I think that generally speaking those are the three key lines along which this discussion has been unfolding and probably will proceed in the near term and those are the domestic legal aspects in countries involved countries that froze those assets the international law position especially as relates to countermeasures and then the general policy wisdom of of taking those measures that are you know unusual and perhaps unprecedented in the sense that they are far reaching but they're not unprecedented in the sense that there's no solid legal foundation for them this is so stop here thank you thank you so for excellent interventions we started a little bit late so we can run 10 to 15 minutes beyond the time but I will manage this time very tightly and so the first of three things I would like to do just to turn to the panelists perhaps especially Alexander who went first but any of the panelists would you like to respond to anything that was said after you Alexander asking you first seeing as you spoke first and quite briefly I would like to support the idea that we have to go further and to to think not just about Ukraine but how to create a good precedent for the whole world I do believe that countries who violate human rights severely and massively has to know that their assets can be frozen but if we return to the particular topic of discussion I maybe will stop on that point that I I welcome the action of some countries who made the audit of Russian assets in their countries which changed their legislation and now working together with with the Ukrainian government in consultation how to repurpose these assets and to use them for reconstruction and rebuilding of my country thank you Alexander Minister Mudri would you like to remark on anything that went after your intervention well I would just say that I am I'm now more than ever assured after having heard Anton's intervention that the race a solidarity among the legal community that the although we say that international law is not responsive was not ready to respond to the act of aggression it is and there are basis there are reasons for the states to take the countermeasure and collective self-defense in the form of lifting sovereign immunity not permanently but temporarily until the aggression in Russia takes its military out of the state what we need so there is a legal solution and we also propose this legal solution to legal to legal advisors to lawyers of the government now what we have to get is the political will so they may they they we have to work on getting the political will in order to get rid of those of those like frightening things which which Anton has also mentioned with respect to policies that it could be precedent the states other than the western ones would make the same precedent towards other western states but I do agree with with the speaker that those vigorous violations of international order of international law public international humanitarian law human rights law those atrocities the breach of the charter of united nations these are the reasons to take collective measures not in military not military military actions but civil I would say and to lift sovereign immunity excellent thank you very much minister I'm going to briefly if you could if you want to respond to anything Anton said after you I'm very impressed with Anton's explanation how international law can justify confiscation or repurposing of state assets I would like to hear a little more if possible about how to justify confiscation of and repurposing of the assets of the oligarchs which are enormous and which we we attempted in the heat of the April 22 to to construct justification with an offset and an assignment of claims which I try to present is very briefly if you could go go to the Q and A is there any possibility to find a maybe a stronger that's a bit novel but Anton if you give us your 30 seconds on that then I'll go to the audience it's it's a fascinating question and I think that unlike with state assets we do have a real rule of law dilemma there because at the end of the day we I think for the most part accept that we can only confiscate property if it comes from crime now non-conviction based forfeiture the Irish model the Italian model the Georgian model are still examples of confiscating property that derives from crime at the end of the day and we might make it easier for that to be proven but one still has to prove it and I think with a lot of those assets you know the crime that might have been committed is so far back that it's simply unfeasible and you know realistically speaking it's still a smaller amount of assets scattered across a number of jurisdictions and so it would seem to me that the sovereign assets are you know the big ticket issue there. Excellent thank you very much Anton and for your brevity there's a mic in the room Dylan has the mic excellent can I get a show of hands for you might like to ask a question and I'll say there are some young people as well in the room which is always nice and if any young people would like to ask a question you'll get a privilege we have Brian Brian Daley here please Dylan for the first question and I see Ronan Tynan and anybody else you know from this side we'll start a gentleman in the back we'll start with Brian. Thank you Brian thanks to all the speakers fascinating in our presentations Brian Daley is my name I'm a member of the Institute here and on the board of the Institute I can fully understand and understand the rationale and the moral kind of aspect of the debate as to seeking reparations and looking for Russia to to to pay. I wonder what the panelist views would be as to how far one goes in that context I mean as as was said this is in a scenario where Russia has been defeated and there is a history of of impoverishing the defeated party which doesn't necessarily lead to a long-term good outcome in history so if we go back in the early 20th century so how far does one go is kind of a question in my mind in seeking reparations and how damaged do you leave the new framework if that's what we end up in in Russia. Everyone will have a chance to respond but is that directed or any of the panelists I should have said? Not specifically but thank you then Dylan if you can go to Ronan and then the back of the room then and concise as we can manage. Ronan Townan first of all I found this most heartening presentation because the idea of seizing Russian sovereign assets the currencies as our distinguished speaker from Australia or based in Australia made the point that is the largest available to compensate Ukraine for its destruction and I'm very interested to know the status of the EU's attempts to seize those assets because I was quite shocked it's something I've not done any research on but I was interested in doing research for this reason because I understand the European Central Bank believe it or believe it not raised an objection to seizing Russian sovereign assets because it would undermine the bank's efforts to secure the establishment of the euro as a reserve currency and the final question to the Nobel laureate because she made a very good point there about finding universal applicable solutions to this that would be available to every other people's in this situation and it's something I must say this conversation has made me think about now for the first time about how dictators who violate the human rights of their own citizens and the ability to seize their assets to compensate their citizens where it cannot be done within their jurisdiction for example we see the case in the United States sorry thank you thanks very much and Dylan we have one last question at the back of the room this is a lot for the panelists we appreciate it very much but you'll each get a chance to respond to the three questions all the way at the back and if you could just give an affiliation name the other one thank you very much my name is Vivian Kuk I'm a grateful visitor to the institute the panel have met a compelling case for the obligation for Russia to pay compensation and outline some mechanisms by which that can be achieved but I was wondering do they feel if there's any benefit or even need for Russia to admit or acknowledge its liability to pay that case to pay that compensation in other words to admit that it's wrong doings in the world thank you very much for that Vivian I'm going to go back to the panelists thank you Dylan in reversed order so I'm going to start with Anton M and then to go into then to the minister and then to Alexander so over to you Anton yeah thanks for that so first question how far does one go interesting I didn't think it really arises in the context of frozen central bank reserves because they're frozen they're already unavailable to the Russian government they can't be used to support the rubble they can't be used to carry out any monetary policy operations and so from the standpoint of Russia whether those assets remain permanently frozen or confiscated for Ukraine's benefit it's kind of a distinction without a difference either way they won't have access to that property so I think that that doesn't really give rise to any particular questions of hardship that might ensue for the Russian population if we go beyond that and we have a further discussion about reparations then I think there might be a consideration there of what the consequences for the Russian economy would be of that on the EU's attempts the EU has chosen a curious halfway house in its current approach to frozen securities and cash owned by the Russian central bank and they said look we're going to leave the bulk of it untouched but we're going to confiscate the interest that is being accrued on those assets it's a really interesting position because it's still in genders for the same fundamental legal questions and it's still the property of the Russian state so what's the legal basis for that you still need to articulate that but the amount involved will be much smaller so I think there's just a policy reason there that's me speculating but probably if not going quite as far as one might have but I think it's a pretty to be honest and satisfactory halfway house and then the third question was on the benefits of Russia admitting its obligation to pay reparations look I think maybe not necessarily from a legal standpoint Russia has the obligation already whether or not it admits it but from a policy standpoint I think the difference would be immense I think lots of lots of countries would breathe out a sigh of relief and say okay well now we know what we need to do until then they might hesitate quite a bit more thank you so much Anton very clear you're invited to answer each question but you can focus on one or two if you wish but thank you for answering the three of them Anton Gunther well as a German or former German I've been in France for 30 years the question of reparations can also do damages it's true 1918 helped enormous reparations help bring the Nazis to power and you know what's happened after that but the case of Russia is different Russia is a very rich country with lots of oil and gas revenue more comparable to Iraq has many problems but lack of oil and gas revenue because they paid a percentage to compensate Kuwait it's not one of them it can be done in a way that it will not worry Russia will not create more political problems problems as it did in the early 20th century the admission of the need to pay reparations that is what we should really strive for in the long term if we don't want to be once again one of the neighbors of Russia victims of another aggression it's only with with the understanding of of the those who will then represent the people of Russia that this was wrong so wrong that it has to be compensated that we can be hoping for lasting peace and possibility to reduce again our defense expenses for the European Central Bank I really don't agree with this this warning because it is in the nature of having foreign reserves that you want to be part of of World Trade and foreign reserves are needed in order to to export and import without the fluctuations of your own currency and if the euro is a reserve currency like the dollar then why should the euro become the safe haven for for the dictators and aggressors of the world when the dollar isn't I mean that would be a very bad advertisement for the euro and I don't think it would help make the euro more credible as a reserve currency that's all thanks so much minister mudra and ultimately yeah well thank you very very interesting questions if we speak about it well about classical reparations and to look into the history most of the reparations were paid not by money not with money but by goods production facilities techniques so well which means that in any case Ukraine will have to find money somewhere to rebuild the country and those victims we will have to to have their source for paying compensation to the victims either from our budget or from I mean financial support of our partners but if to speak about reparations first we have to have a defeated state or a capitulation or a peace treaty we can't speak that it is it will be possible definitely not was this leadership definitely how much time will take when the the leadership will change and and sit to the negotiation table no one knows but we badly need money now for for reconstruction of infrastructure and for support of the at least vulnerable categories of people and certainly reparations were paid decades after the first world war it took how much how many 90 years to repay a reference well the world war less but mainly it was repaid by reparations were paid by by goods the only state which made which paid full reparations was Finland after Finland USSR war in 1939 it took like several years they put they paid all 300 million and as far as remember correctly dollars but it's what it was it was a good circumstances and a good case when the Finland started to became a they started to develop there themselves economically because of that because their support from European countries was enormous to rebuild to restart Finland back to economy which means that if we want Russia to repay reparations they will have to develop they will have to be strong economically they will have to continue their export transactions they will have to have to sell oil gas etc so it means that we now want them to be like developing more and more that's why we don't see any any chance as of today to to get reparations from them and that's why we mainly we mainly concentrate on the compensation mechanism so whether the last question whether Russia has to to provide consent to compensate to compensation or to reparation I think no there is already an international duty in line with the principle of state responsibility it is already it's it's responsibility and moreover it is acknowledged by the global community by general assembly of united nations with regards to EU I fully support the what has been said about the concerns and I don't think that these concerns are there is reason there are reasons for these concerns thank you very much minister it's indicative of how important and good this panel is that everyone has stayed here beyond the allocated time so it's a real thrill to listen to you possibly the last intervention to you alexandra if you want to pick up any of the questions that were put I think we have to change our way of thinking because we're still looking to the world through the prism of the european trials where national criminals were tried but after nazi regime pedagogy we have assumed that Russia will refuse to pay ex-grazia compensation but this has not to be obstacle for us to find a way how to get this compensation we have to be creative the law is dynamic material and answering your question where I speak with my colleagues human right defenders from Chechnya from Georgia from Mali from Syria from Libya they're disappointed they still struggling for justice but a lot of them have no hope we urgently need Ukrainian success the success of Ukraine to demonstrate justice in meaning of bringing Putin and the political leadership and high military command of russian state to justice the success of Ukraine how to invent a new mechanism to get the compensation when Russia refused to pay it officially will empower people in other countries and will make our world better feels like an appropriate point to which to conclude there's many things I would like to ask right back from the ambassador grasko's presentation this morning with the graphic but really seizing images and all of the remarks on the previous two panels full of ideas and not completely without hope as well and but much work to do and I just want to thank the panelists from Australia to Dublin and everywhere in between thank you very much for your time and the conversations will continue but before that I'm going to hand over to Alex White her director general and who's going to give some closing remarks thank you everybody and if the panelists just want to thank you and smith legal advisor department of foreign affairs who chaired the first panel this afternoon and before I'm not going to hold you much longer in case I forget when I do finish we would invite you to join us just for some refreshments I think there's some left I'm not sure if there's an awful lot left but there's there's something left you certainly coffee down the back and we you know say long for a few minutes if you have the time and we can just have some maybe informal conversations to wrap up the day but before we conclude I would like to invite Hannah Basilo who's the co-founder of Ukraine Action Ireland to address you just with some closing remarks Hannah. Thank you very much honorable panelists and ambassadors and dear guests thank you very much for staying this long both in person and online it's my big honor to say a few concluding words on behalf of Ukrainian community in Ireland today it's a community of almost 90 000 people and it's growing and not everybody in this community is aware of international law of sophisticated legal language or procedures but I can ensure you that there is not a single person whose heart is not bleeding from seeing and knowing about the crimes and horrors that were committed by Russia to our people and everybody knows that justice must be served and today as Alexandra mentioned for everyone justice means something different and it's our duty to ensure that we cover it all Ukrainian action in Ireland has organized many demonstrations and protests to raise awareness and to bring attention of Irish society and people in Ireland to the atrocities committed by Russia in Buchia, in Irpin, in Olinivka, Izum, Balaklia, Kherson unfortunately there are too many people who found protection from war in Ireland who were in occupation who went through filtration who has lost their family members their homes and who has nowhere to go back to we have been planning this event with the embassy for many months and we were trying to make sure that we could bring together the best speakers and the best panelists and so that your messages could be heard to as many people in Ireland and globally as we could and today as we were following this exceptional discussions I pointed out for myself three most important things first of all a current process is a history in making and it's basically the future of international legal order is being decided right now secondly we understood all that it's as much legal process as it's now about a political decision so basically if we really want to change something it's in the hands of our political leadership finally there is a fear of having a precedent that can ruin something that we are so used to right and everybody is very afraid of getting out of the comfort zones but I think that Ukraine and Ukrainian people has shown a very good example that sometimes it's important to be brave and stood up and not to fear I believe we have succeeded in an excellent event and I'm extremely grateful to the team of the international of the Institute for International and European Affairs who have done an excellent job hosting us here organizing online discussion bringing up so many amazing people to this discussion and of course our partners and supporters from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the US Embassy to Ireland every liberated city and territory in Ukraine brings up in us two feelings it's immense joy and tears of happiness that territories and people are liberated that our flag is can be waved there and people can speak Ukrainian language but it also brings up tragedy and a deep deep sadness of seeing what Russian occupants have committed to the people and the mission of our organization is to be the voice and actions for Ukrainians in Ireland and as long as Russia has its steps and has our territories as in in our territories and this war is going on we will be doing our best to keep Ukraine high on the agenda in Ireland and to remind everybody that freedom cannot be taken for granted thank you very much Slava Ukraine thank you thank you very much Hannah and Deputy Minister Ambassador and your colleague members of the diplomatic corps and distinguished guests ladies and gentlemen thank you all very much for being here this afternoon and at this really important event with the agenda of ensuring that perpetrators of international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine are held to account and that the victims are compensated for their loss and suffering as Hannah mentioned the 91 000 Ukrainians here in Ireland each of them has his or her own experience of the impact of Russia's illegal war and of the terrible atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine and we saw some of those atrocities documented on our screen with our own eyes at the beginning of this event the discussion discussions then recognized first and foremost those individuals whose experiences were so starkly documented but the discussion draws us all in everyone in Ukraine self-evidently but people all across the world everyone who believes in the rule of law the rules-based multilateral order and ultimately the principle that might does not make right and these are the principles and the values that the IIA regards as of fundamental importance to our mission just this morning and we've had a long day but a very fruitful day but just this morning quite early we were hosting an event on the EU state of the union and Mrs Van der Lane's address to the European Parliament including the issue of the European Union's objective of seeking justice for Ukraine only yesterday afternoon we hosted an event with the founder of Bellingcat Elliot Higgins discussing the work of his organization and how they are using technology and open source investigations to collect evidence to hold perpetrators of international crimes to account our first panel this afternoon dealt with how we can hold perpetrators of those crimes to account and we heard about the options the various instruments legal instruments that are there and the ways in which Russia's crime of aggression can be prosecuted and these are issues that are not devoid of complexity or even disagreement perhaps even amongst lawyers and people who practice in the field and I think the discussion was informed at least to some extent by a debate about whether the existing institutions are in fact adequate to the task or whether there's a need for as some have advocated like Philippe Sands and others that there needed to be and I know that informed much of the discussion in the first panel a special tribunal so then so there is this discussion and I'm sure we'll all hope that it doesn't end up being a lengthy discussion that's that that it presents or offers an excuse for inaction but in fact that you know action is taken but they are issues that are complex in many ways and I think as point has been made just in the last few minutes that to a very considerable extent it goes to the political will it goes to the existence or otherwise of the political will on behalf of states to push forward with this agenda and we've seen failures historically but we've also seen successes historically and we must remind ourselves of that that we have seen aggressive conduct pursued by the international community and pursued effectively so we while we can think of and reflect on where there have been failures we have to I think reflect also on the fact that when there was a resolute approach to this critical question that good outcomes can ensue. In the second panel we heard of how victims of Russian aggression can be compensated for the pain and suffering caused by Russia's crime of aggression and the ongoing prosecution of its war so I think the two panels together and very well chosen and very well set out in terms of the the the variety of issues that had to be addressed presented a pathway to ensuring that those who commit international crimes whether individuals or as state actors do not go unpunished and that was much of the discussion in the last half hour was in relation to Russia itself the state and what can be done in terms of living against that state and what the options might be there and very interesting discussion which I know could have continued for much longer and the panelists themselves were enthusiastic to question each other and that's always an indication of a very interesting debate and a very important debate and I'm sure it's one that will continue. It's not beyond our capacity it is not beyond the capacity of the international community and is not beyond the capacity of the international legal order for these questions to be addressed and to be addressed properly. I want to thank our partners and the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Embassy of the United States and the Embassy of Ukraine and of course Ukraine Action all of whom have made this event possible and all of whom will continue I know the important work which was discussed in the course of this event. It's not going to be the end of our attention in the IAA to this question nor I'm sure of any of our partners. Each day new crimes are committed but each day two dedicated and passionate people including Hannah and so many others dedicate themselves to ensuring that victims of crimes are not denied justice are not forgotten no matter how long that takes and similarly the global community must stand up against wanton aggression and against this violence and force and not allow that to dictate the international order. Thank you for your attendance, thank you for your attention, thank you for your participation, for your questions, your observations. I know that it has really deepened the discussion. Panelists can come from their area of expertise and give us insights, make their observations but what's really important for us always at the IAA is to have an intelligent listening and participating audience and certainly that's what we had this afternoon. So once again thank you all very much for your attention, we see you all again soon.