 everyone good evening or good morning if you're over on over the the shore in London. Students, faculty members and guests at Topf University welcome to the 35th annual Norris and Marjorie Bendetsen Epic International Symposium on preventing genocide and mass atrocities. My name is Alex Smith and I'm a fourth year undergraduate student member of the Institute for Global Leadership's 2920 Epic Colloquium. I am pleased to be your moderator for our panel titled After Genocide, Prosecution, Transitional Justice and Reconciliation. Just to give a little bit of announcement the format of this will be I will be introducing our three panelists then we'll have a period of time that will involve just dialogue between the panelists you can submit anonymous questions to me through the chat and then at that point after the fact we will invite you all to join different breakout sessions with any number any one of these panelists where you can ask them questions and you can meet them face-to-face in the Zoom in the breakout sessions that you'll access through links that will be provided in the chat. Mass atrocities are deliberate large-scale attacks against civilians. In international law mass atrocities are defined as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Also under international law states have a responsibility to protect to have a responsibility to prosecute these crimes. Holding people and states accountable for mass atrocities is believed to be a strong and critical deterrent against future atrocities. Over the years prosecuting and judging mass atrocities have taken a number of different forms in the courts and trials established at Nuremberg to judge the perpetrators of the Holocaust to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. There's also the International Court of Justice which just handed down a judgment on Myanmar's treatment of the Rohingya ad hoc tribunals such as those that judge the perpetrators in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and hybrid courts such as those used in Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Increasingly human rights monitoring and documenting initiatives and commissions have included international criminal investigation mandates. These bodies are encouraged to cooperate with and complement international criminal mechanisms and processes wherever possible. One such mechanism created by the UN General Assembly in 2016 is tasked with collecting evidence of violations in the Syrian Civil War to support criminal proceedings in national, regional or international courts in accordance with international law. And in addition to the prosecution of mass atrocities there is also the question of how to rebuild a community following a genocide. What does transitional justice look like for the perpetrators and what about the victims? How can a community be reconciled after so much anguish? Can it be ensured that such atrocities will never happen again? These are all very complex and important issues and we are delighted to have our distinguished panelists with us this morning or evening to discuss it. The format, as I've mentioned before, will follow. You'll be hearing five minute opening remarks from each of our panelists. First we will hear from Dr. Vivian Dittrich. Dr. Vivian Dittrich is Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principals Academy. She is also a visiting fellow at the Center for International Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science and an honorary research associate at Royal Holloway University of London. Previously she has been a visiting researcher at I-Court's Faculty of Law University of Copenhagen. Drawing on extensive field research her work comparatively investigates the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the special court for Sierra Leone, the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia, the International Criminal Court and the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. She has written on the notion of legacy and the process of legacy building at the International Criminal Tribunals and hybrid courts. She has broad teaching experience at LSE, Royal Holloway and Sciences Poe, inter alia on the politics of international law on global crime, on international institutions and on U.S. foreign policy. Dr. Dittrich, thank you. Oh, first make sure that you're unmuted. Good evening and good morning. Thank you very much for this kind introduction. It is such a great pleasure to participate in the Tuft Symposium 2020 and I'd like to thank the organizers for kindly inviting me and for putting together such a wonderful program on such an important topic. Preventing genocide and mass atrocities is a pressing topic today as David Sheffer so powerfully and thoughtfully explained in his keynote speech yesterday. Prevention certainly requires political will. Once mass atrocities are committed, prosecutions of these crimes is one avenue of action and certainly judicial action comes after the event. The links between justice and peace are very strong. Properly pursued accountability for atrocity crimes can serve not only as a deterrent but also as one key to reconciliation processes and the consolidation of peace. Impunity actually may destroy the social fabric of societies and communities and perpetuate mistrust hence undermining a lasting peace. Allow me to share some reflections today on the immensely important and complex topic of prosecutions, transitional justice and reconciliation. Transitional justice consists of a range of measures, judicial and non-judicial and today I'd like to focus on the role of prosecutions which is one out of the panoply of possible responses following genocide and mass atrocities. Let me take you back for a moment to an iconic prosecution of the 20th century that started in Nuremberg and today I'm joining you virtually from courtroom 600 which is the backdrop of my video. I will focus on three brief points today. The Nuremberg trials as a reference point for prosecutions of international crimes today, the Nuremberg principles and wider accountability efforts today. Some 75 years ago world history was actually made in courtroom 600 of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice and Nuremberg has since been considered as the birthplace of modern international criminal law. On November 21st in 1945 Robert H. Jackson the American Chief Prosecutor opened the trial of the major war criminals in Nuremberg with words that have a lasting resonance today. Quote that for great nations flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason. Quote end. Now Jackson understood that the four victorious powers France the Soviet Union the United Kingdom and the United States were at historic crossroads. Instead of taking vengeance they decided to try the top functionaries of the National Socialist regime before an international military tribunal and let the law take its course. In the trial of the major war criminals 24 individuals were charged. The focus was on three particular crimes against international law. The first category was crimes against peace what today is often referred to as crime of aggression. The second was war crimes and the third category concerned crimes against humanity illegal novelty at the time. What was markedly absent in the Nuremberg trials as they unfolded was genocide. Now one of the most common misperceptions about the Nuremberg trials is that it precisely was about the genocide the Holocaust. Philip Sands has powerfully shaped our understanding of the origins of the concepts of both genocide and crimes against humanity and is critically acclaimed and powerful book East West Street. Following the Nuremberg trials a resolution 95 of the General Assembly in 1946 we confirmed the principles that came out of the international trials that was recognized already in the charter of the International Military Tribunal and the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Later in resolution 177 from 1947 the General Assembly actually tasks the newly founded International Law Commission with formulating what are today known as the Nuremberg Principles. Now the Nuremberg Principles is the fundament of the work of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy today and guides our work forward. What were the Nuremberg Principles or what are the Nuremberg Principles? The Nuremberg Principles articulate such matters as individual criminal responsibility. Even those in the highest office it articulates the right to a fair trial but also it articulates principles that the lack of imposition of a penalty in domestic law or acting pursuant to superior orders does not relieve a person from responsibility. Now the principle of original the principle of individual criminal responsibility originates from the trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. It was prominently enshrined as the first principle of the Nuremberg Principles and as can be read in the Nuremberg judgment crimes against international law are committed by individuals not by abstract entities like states. This is important for transitional justice efforts given that not states or entire groups are tried but actually individuals are put on trial. The paradigm shift since Nuremberg has set new standards for accountability and criminal prosecutions at both the international and the national level. Nuremberg has become a reference point in more recent calls for prosecutions and action to hold accountable particular individuals. For example there's an entitled an article entitled Nuremberg Now by Milko Klarin on the onset of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in 1991 or more recently Amal Clooney who said this is your Nuremberg moment when addressing the United Nations Security Council and representing Yazidi survivors of sexual violence in April 2019. How did everything evolve ever since Nuremberg? Well the history is of course too complex to to wish to summarize here and I look forward to getting into some of the details further in the discussion but allow me to just mention that after decades of political inertia the significant legal principles emanating from Nuremberg were revived and incorporated then in the statutes of the new generation of international at-hoc tribunals and hybrid courts and found its way certainly into the statutes of the international criminal court. Other milestones of course of legal developments that we have seen in the 20th century include the genocide convention of 1948, the amended Geneva conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977 and more recently we see the activation of the international criminal courts jurisdiction over the crime of aggression on 17 July 2018 as well as the current efforts to establish a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity which will actually fill a gap in the edifice of modern international criminal law. It has been observed as one of the most common and yet to this day contested strategies for coming to terms with the past and the legacies of genocide and mass atrocities at least in the 20th and 21st century has been adjudication. Domestic and international trials have increased in size, scope and sophistication today. However we know that there is an interplay of law and politics and I just like to quote Antonio Casseza the first president of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia who about the tribunal said that quote it remains very much like a giant without arms and legs. It needs artificial limbs to walk and work and these artificial limbs are state authorities. Now indeed cooperation of states is key factor for effective prosecutions and trials. There has been certainly an awareness that international criminal tribunals and hybrid courts should leave a lasting impact beyond prosecuting a select number of individuals. As United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Ana foreshadowed in the 2004 report on the Secretary-General on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies he said quote it is essential that from the moment any future international or hybrid tribunal is established consideration be given as a priority to the ultimate exit strategy and intended legacy in the country concerned. Indeed the legacies of the ad hoc tribunals and hybrid courts continue unfolding to this day and legacy building is ongoing as I have written on extensively elsewhere. Now in countries emerging from violent conflict and repression around the world prosecutors often face significant challenges and pressures when seeking to investigate and prosecute. Hence the important commitment to prosecute without fear or favor is fundamental. In many jurisdictions around Europe groups of dedicated prosecutors are taking the lead in investigating and prosecuting serious crimes today under the principle of universal jurisdiction and one current example of that are the international crimes committed in Syria which are prosecuted by the federal prosecutor general in Germany on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction and under the German code of crimes against international law. Finally it bears mentioning the vital role and the resilience of victims and civil society who play a critical role. It is often their determination and cooperation with prosecutorial efforts that actually ensure that prosecutions can proceed sometimes decades after the crimes were committed. Equally important is of course the effective cooperation between international and national mechanisms as well as with civil society. Allow me to close with quoting Ban Ki-moon who in 2012 said we live in an age of accountability. It is an age in which there is an ever-growing emphasis on the responsibility of states to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other egregious crimes. Well to conclude the calls for prosecution of international crimes and for the primacy of reason, louder than ever today. But international criminal justice continues to be shaped by the interplay of law and politics. There is no immediate prospect for an end to impunity for all international crimes committed but the outstanding significance of the Nuremberg trials for modern international criminal law and modern accountability efforts is evident in the lasting relevance of legal proceedings addressing wrongs committed and in the effect of force of a rules-based international order down to the present day. I very much look forward to the discussion. Thank you. Thank you Dr. Geekbrink. Now we will hear from Dr. Tawanda Hondura. Dr. Tawanda Hondura is advisor and head of the rule of law section in the governance and peace directorate of the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. He was formally the executive director of the World Federalist Movement Institute for Global Policy, the organization that houses and coordinates the work of the coalition for the International Criminal Court. Dr. Hondura has extensive experience of using research, campaigns and advocacy, grant making and strategic litigations to influence change especially in the context of fragile and conflict-afflicted states. He previously worked as an investments director in the private philanthropic sector and as head of strategic litigation at Amnesty International among other senior roles. Dr. Hondura. Thank you Alex and thank you to Tush University for inviting me to take part in this symposium and many thanks again for that introduction. As we all know genocide is a crime under international law in much the same way as war crimes, crimes against humanity are crimes and often these crimes as you've noted Alex are called mass atrocity crimes. With respect to genocide there have been many genocides in the world both before and after World War II but with most situations of conflict whether or not a killing, a forcible transfer, the prevention of births within a group or serious bodily harm bodily or mental harm to members of a group with intent to destroy it in whole in part whether or not that constitutes genocide is highly contested. Of course the most famous trial or cases that we know of are the Nuremberg trials as Vivian has so eloquently described and recent memory following the conflicts in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia the tribunals that were established there found individuals to be guilty of genocide and again you know Vivian you know aptly described the situation in Syria where there are allegations or at least some of the people in Syria say they are victims of genocide. In Sudan in the case of Darfur we had, we have the former president indicted by the international criminal court for genocide but of course these are not the only genocides that have crossed you know and acts that have of atrocities that have crossed the threshold. Historically and in recent memory we have the killings in Namibia of the Herero people and the forcible transfer most wars of independence from colonial rule involved acts that many of the survivors would classify as genocide. Syria obviously Myanmar with the cases that we've seen with the killing and forcible transfer of the Rohingya people those survivors say they are victims of genocide. I'm hoping that today we're going to discuss some of the reasons why only some and not all acts of master atrocities end up being labeled genocide and why there has not been prosecutions and redress for victims of those particular crimes. So the question here is why? There's also a related question of have we done enough? Are we doing enough to make sure that all survivors have access to justice and there's the question of which institutions both domestically as well as internationally should be the ones that are used to ensure that no single survivor nor single victim is left without justice? Related to that is a question again which I hope we're going to be discussing today which is about the international criminal court so the only and first permanent court with jurisdiction to try those responsible for committing master atrocities including genocide with the move away and fracturing of multi electoralism and an increase in nationalism. The risk of war increases has increased and at the same time we see a consented effort not only to undermine but in some respects to destroy the international criminal court. Are we witnessing a world where victims of genocide are more likely to not get justice because of the onslaught and attacks against the court the international criminal court and what it stands for and if that happens what hope do victims have and survivors of genocide have and what hope do we have to ensure that the principles that we've worked so hard to establish since World War II remain to be the standard against which the acts of individuals are judged and for with respect to which victims can use in order to be able to get justice so clearly at play they're geopolitical factors and again it'll be interesting to discuss which of those geopolitical factors are likely to undermine and or strengthen and create opportunities for perpetrators of genocide to be brought to justice and what we can do as students, as academics, those of us who work for in civil society or international governmental organizations in order to ensure that the phrase never again is not only a mantra but a statement that brings reality and that brings justice to victims of acts of genocide and other mass atrocities. Thank you. I hand over back to you Alex. Thank you Tawanda. Lastly we will hear from Terry Seng. Terry Seng serves as the founding president of Civicus Center for Cambodian Civic Education, a local Cambodian NGO. Prior to that she founded the Cambodian Center for Justice and Reconciliation, now a major component of Civicus. Terry was born in Pen in 1971 and under Khmer Rouge she lived in Svai Rang province bordering Vietnam where the killings were most intense and where she spent five months in a prison. Khmer Rouge killed both of her parents and she and her surviving family trekked across the border to Thailand in 1979 and emigrated to the U.S. one year later. Since 1995, Terry has been in Cambodia volunteering with various labor and human rights groups. In January 2004 she moved permanently to live and work in her country of birth after earning a BS from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a JD from the University of Michigan Law School. She has written about her life in a book entitled Daughter of the Killing Fields. Terry? Hello everyone, greetings from Cambodia. Thank you to Tufts, in particular Dr. Abby Williams and Heather Berry and their team and the student organizers. My goodness it's past midnight for you guys. You are such troopers. And hello to my co-panelist Vivian and to Wanda. I'm so glad to be in the conversation with you over Zoom. The topic is after genocide, prosecution, transitional justice, and reconciliation. After genocide, in the Cambodia context the question becomes which one? Everyone knows about the Khmer Rouge genocide and I use the term genocide expansively in the vernacular. The legal definition up until recently was questionable. The term auto-genocide came up in the Cambodia situation. But the Khmer Rouge genocide is well known but what is less well known or really not known at all in particular to the younger generation is that the Khmer Rouge genocide was sandwiched by multiple genocides immediately previous to the Khmer Rouge years, April 1975 to December 1978, the years of the Khmer Rouge. Immediately prior to that we have the US bombings, carpet bombings. That is arguably legal genocide. And then immediately after the Khmer Rouge genocide without a split second difference we have the decade long military occupation by Vietnam. Third largest military in the world then. Loading over the survivors, the immediate survivors of the Khmer Rouge and during those dark years which no one writes about really because it's been overshadowed by the Khmer Rouge years multiple genocides, legal genocides also occurred. It speaks to what Dr. Tawanda was alluding to the selectivity of genocides. How do we choose which genocide to acknowledge and which one not to. And then it also alludes to the interplay of law and politics here as mentioned by Dr. Vivien. So I'll just focus on the Khmer Rouge genocide because that is well known in and during this next few minutes of introduction. I'll reacquaint or reacquaint you with the Cambodia situation and bring it up to date. We have prosecution. We have the Khmer Rouge tribunal. Notice that it's not the US bombing tribunal. It's not the occupation tribunal. It's the Khmer Rouge tribunal. That's informally we know that. The official name is the extra ordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia. So we have a legal mechanism prosecution the court. So if this is pure domestic court system and this is pure international court system and there's a spectrum here. The Khmer Rouge tribunal is right here. It's a hybrid court. It's not like the one in Rwanda where it went through security council because it so it has UN players and actors and prosecutors and judges and officials with Cambodian judges and officials but the Cambodians always are one more and what we call the super majority. So it's closer the the extraordinary ordinary chambers is closer to the pure domestic court. Thus the name in the courts of Cambodia and it's a hybrid court. It's funded by the international community. It's based located in Cambodia in a military compound of all places on the outskirts of Phnom Penh until they realize oh the agreement said that it has to be in Phnom Penh so they redraw the map of Phnom Penh to include the military compound to satisfy the language of the agreement after the facts. Anyway so these are some of the limitations of prosecution I will address in the breakout session. Right now in Cambodia we have the Khmer Rouge tribunal or the extraordinary chambers. It took 10 years of political negotiation between Cambodia, the state of Cambodia, the Hunsai regime really, and the United Nations. The international community wanted to go through this and wanted to establish a tribunal by the security council because then it would have allocated funding from the ghetto but of course we know China at every turn made it clear that it will veto any effort to establish a tribunal anywhere especially not through the security council because the China was the patron of the Khmer Rouge and it was not going to try its protege or its pawn. So it's a hybrid court and so I guess I'll leave the jurisdiction the limitations I'll briefly touch on the limitations of the tribunal. The jurisdiction, the authority, the court's authority to try to put individuals on trial. The personal jurisdiction, the individuals who could be put on trial are of two groups. One, the senior Khmer Rouge leaders that's that's a technical term and those most responsible. Senior Khmer Rouge leaders refer to the individuals who were responsible, who had authority over all of Cambodia and those most responsible for example is the director of Doslang, who recently passed away, who was not a senior leader with overall authority but was responsible for enough deaths, in this case 16,000 deaths, to be included under the jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction. The temporal jurisdiction, the time limitation which the court has authority over are specified from April 17, 1975, when Plumping fell, to January 7, 1979, when Vietnam had, after Vietnam's Vietnamese invasion had complete control over Cambodia. So crimes committed one day before April 17 is not included in the Khmer Tribunal. For example, if you were killed by a bomb or killed by a Khmer Rouge soldier on April 16, you're not included and if you were killed or murdered or died or after on April, I'm sorry, on January 8, you're not included. So that's the the limit, the temporal jurisdiction. The subject matter, mass crimes, genocide and penal statute be had at the time of the Khmer Rouge years. The Khmer Rouge Tribunal as a judicial mechanism is necessary, oh it's still ongoing, so let me, it took 10 years of negotiation between the Cambodia, the government Cambodia and the UN and then it came to establish the agreement. The court was and came into operation in mid-2006 and now we're in 2020 and it's still going on but no one knows about it and no one cares. There are of the five individuals which have been put on trial, three of them have already died and the other two are in their late 80s and 90s with death looming any day now. So oh and there's also a military compound which is one of the limitations which we can go on, we can discuss here and also in the breakout sessions. The Khmer Rouge Tribunal as a court of law is necessary but is extremely insufficient and moreover in the Cambodia situation deficient. But it served as a powerful catalyst to jumpstart mechanisms for transitional justice for reconciliation and for dialogue and it was during those first few years of operation when we in civil society were empowered by the funding that came in because of the presence of the court. So it had a very useful purpose less on the judiciary side on the legal side but because of its physical presence and the attention that it drew in terms of funding for us and in terms of triggering the attention among the population thinking wow who are all these individuals and the discussions were surrounding the court whether they be positive or negative corruption or someone has been brought to and brought to dark. So discussions were had dialogue were had all good things so the the court acted as a very very powerful catalyst in jumpstarting these conversations and one closest to me is trauma. Prior to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal we were not allowed or we were ashamed to speak about trauma. It was a taboo subject. It was and we didn't have the vocabulary so we didn't even know how to go about it even if we wanted to. So I was very aware of this and so I am intentionally told of my trauma's experience how I was suicidal as a as a survivor of the Khmer Rouge living in the United States dealing with with the past flooding over me to break the taboo and I knew I had to do it by example and we also created a trauma handbook. So this is one of the elements of transitional justice. One of the mechanisms dialogue conversations and the particular and the specific topic of trauma and not only in Cambodia but anywhere where there's mass crimes there are issues of trauma and many of these societies I know and many of the individuals who encounter trauma are reluctant until someone from that society push the issue and help to pierce the taboo. Transitional justice so prosecution transitional justice and reconciliation are issues that really focus on the Khmer Rouge years not on the other genocides and I hope to bring more light to the other genocides but you know it's also good to remember we can't well we won't forget and we can't forget the Khmer Rouge years but it's these are efforts that have been that have been had with regards to reconciliation I'll say on transitional justice. One of the elements of transitional justice is is dialogue and it's it's non-judicial it's it requires the non-judicial actors to be involved and this is where civil society and the media have a very very important role in helping to expand the the arena so that more voices are had in the conversation and I was very very fortunate to have been leading then another NGO before Civicus where we conducted public forums and we continue with Civicus but to a lesser degree but during that time we had so much funding and everyone was so excited about our forum which we conducted throughout Cambodia with victims and perpetrators in certain provinces there were more and there were more victims who participated and and others more perpetrators for example by Lynn the former Khmer Rouge hamlet and we broadcast these conversations so by the time we went to the Khmer Rouge hamlet the the perpetrators already had heard the conversations of the victims so they couldn't deny you could see in their faces as I was pushing them and and I genuinely I mean I didn't accuse them of crimes but you could tell the conflict in their eyes because they have been denying it and they haven't and generally they didn't know to a to a large degree until these they heard these conversations so these public we don't have an official truth and reconciliation commission like the one in South Africa but these forums conducted by organizations like mine and other organizations with a little bit more different focus on psychological healing or or peace building are important players and we need to retain them and we need to recognize them now in Cambodia the these efforts and the Khmer Rouge Tribune or the prosecution continues but without but I think it's more harmful now the transitional justice mechanisms have been lessened or always brought to a standstill because we have no civil society we have no opposition party we have no opposition leaders we have no independent media I'm speaking now and we have no civil society really for example right now my work with reconciliation is more online which is extremely limited and my organization is really also very very extremely it's it's more of a personal private platform and semi organizational because of the political repression and the larger political context so the also it impacts on our reconciliation efforts we had progress and it was recognized around the world this the Cambodia situation and our reconciliation efforts but now those efforts are regressing and reconciliation is regressing more over we have the same actors who were involved in the Khmer Rouge era back in Cambodia they are the Khmer Rouge which is Huynh Sain he was former Khmer Rouge and now continues to be the leader of Cambodia and one of the longest serving leaders of Cambodia we have China the patron of the Khmer Rouge we have Vietnam who has always maintained a presence but more low and we have of all the thousands with bloody hands they're still there because only five will put on trial and three have died and so here we are I'm so sorry to end on such a down note but I still have hope because I'm living Cambodia I continue to live and work here and there has to be hope but the challenges are great and but but there's always space if we're creative enough but but the challenges are great at the moment with regards to the using the court as a means toward peace building and reconciliation and transitional justice is limited because of the lack of civil society and and the reconciliation efforts have been regressing so I'll end there and open up for discussions back to you Alex Harry thank you so much for speaking from your personal experiences in Cambodia that was really powerful to hear about so we've received a lot of positive feedback from the other panels about the interaction between the panelists and so we've decided that we're not going to hold the breakout sessions after the fact we're just going to leave this time now for you three panelists to interact with one another we can receive anonymous questions from people who are viewing in the audience but to start with right now I'm opening it up to the three of you if either of you would like to ask one another questions of curiosity or comments about one another's work or experiences please feel free to do so I have a question for both to Landa and for Vivian but maybe more so for Vivian with regards to the the growth of international law in the 1990s and now I mean how do you see the future of international law how do we jump start the the the need for institutions and agreements to focus on international criminal and justice great so in terms of the question I mean fantastic fantastic question I mean it's one that is of course of concern to to all of us we've seen a great deal of activity we see actually number of crimes that are being addressed both at the international level and at the national level but as both of you have actually pointed out certainly we're wide away from ending impunity for all international crimes there is a certain effort that we see which has also been propelled by civil society actors and there we see really some states on a national level taking leadership and you know really making pioneering efforts to prosecute some of these crimes at the national level in domestic courts but certainly also the international courts are contributing on a very very profound level to the accountability efforts that we are seeing it remains a continuous challenge for sure it presupposes certainly the political will to come to terms with the past to put individuals on trial and thus it's it's a constant if you like it's a constant demand both on policymakers as well as of course upholding then the independence of the courts and allowing the investigators and the prosecutors to thoroughly and independently conduct their work going forward. I know Tawanda has been very active of course in the arena of the civil society engagement in particular vis-a-vis the international criminal court and there again I'd be curious to hear more in terms of how do you see what the kind of current challenges are we've recently had the independent expert review for example of the international criminal court a number of fascinating developments at the international level and in the Hague what is your sense in terms of the perspectives of civil society and certainly there is an enormous heterogeneity amongst the different actors but what's your sense there in terms of the the current pressures and the current windows of opportunity that you that you see there. Thanks Thierry and Vivienne for those questions. Perhaps let me give you what I think what is essentially my own take on what's happening and prospects especially for victims and survivors of genocide. There are obvious challenges and headwinds and most of those are geopolitical in nature. Now I think Thierry asked the question about you know what opportunities there are you know with respect to developments of international law. The value that I see and I think that's quite obvious is the norm setting since the 90s and even before that and that has actually been growing so the pronouncements and decisions of the international criminal court but all of them are you know exactly consistent but that in itself has resulted in norm setting and which has peccalated into jurisprudence of various courts domestic courts and so that's a positive on the negative is the issue that for survivors of mass atrocities you know Vivienne, Myanmar you know in Syria in many of the other conflicts that we see in you know on the African continent in Sudan and other places. There has been precious little in the way of justice in the way of perpetrators being brought to account and for the ability to be able to move forward with the acknowledgement not only of just the domestic state but also regionally and internationally off the challenges that survivors went through and the question is why part of that can actually be found in the architecture international architecture where the United Nations system is failing to uphold peace and security international peace and security where the conflicts and and and competition between especially between the p5 so the permanent five members is stalling progress not just on issues as that we're talking about now which is about international justice but on many other issues and including with respect to progressive non-setting in the world so that's one of the key challenges now so very briefly you know Vivienne there is absolutely no question that the international criminal court is at a crossroads it at a crossroads internally because of the cases that it's handled the pronouncements that is issued which has clashed with some of the expectations of those of many survivors in many in civil society who believed and believe that if an individual is indicted and again this tends to be evidence that those who are indicted are you know are likely to be responsible for when then there are acquittals sometimes based on the fact that not enough evidence was put before the court that has created discord and you know disaffection with how the court itself works that said there's absolutely no question that the court about the role the very important role that the court displayed the international criminal court displayed and continues to play the other danger are the sanctions or sanctions regime that has been imposed by the United States and if we have the United States acting as it has and imposing sanctions what's to stop are the nations doing that and if the United Nations then impose economic sanctions against the court that will destroy it already by putting individuals under the sanctions regime will have a chilling effect on its ability to undertake investigations impartially independently and effectively and so from all of us and especially I think from those in the civil society the concern is that we have entered not that we're entering that we but we have entered a new era in which issues of international justice be they at a domestic level or originally so high with hybrid courts or and internationally face numerous challenges and victims are less likely to get the effective justice that they require and where there is justice it's likely to be victor's justice or where the state is the one that picks up an individual and sends them to the international court so the hope is I hope is that the international court survives that the European Union will stand by the court make sure that they pass regulations that enable the court to be able to survive in case that the US does activate its what it has activated is the executive order but by placing economic sanctions against the court itself as an institution rather than against individuals so that's the hope but it will take a lot of effort from all of us but especially within the United States of of America with both parties needing to take a stand but the question is how likely is that going to happen well I mean I think you rightly point out that absolutely the recent developments are quite disconcerting and it's a new quality in terms of engagement or disengagement vis-à-vis the court and certainly you mentioned multilateralism you know the contestation surrounding multilateralism today at wider level but certainly also as it pertains to the international criminal court in particular is one where the you know there's a reshuffling if you like in terms of the engagement and the disengagement of particular states so you rightly point out that it's certainly important to continue observing these developments incidentally yesterday I attended an online conference on the UN at 75 effective multilateralism and international law organized by the UN Office of Legal Affairs and the Federal Foreign Office of Germany and importantly the the role of courts in international law and the development of international law and the implementation of international law was highlighted and and certainly the the complex interplay there that we're seeing playing out in terms of the necessity of cooperation of states for allowing these international institutions to function is is of vital importance. If I could ask you have been a question do you see increased or reduced international cooperation in the world especially in where you know with respect to issues of international justice? Well I mean you know not an easy question to answer I think certainly there's a there's a quite heterogeneous more fragmented picture that we're seeing in some instances there is a very strong level of cooperation that we're seeing a strong engagement on the accountability front and in certain instances there is certainly a disengagement and a lack of cooperation which is undermining the efforts of bringing individuals to trial. Certainly there it I think depends in terms of there's a whole amalgamation of course of factors that explain the particular instances of cooperation or or lack of cooperation but it's certainly one where one sees that the effectiveness of these institutions is linked to the wider act of landscape which includes states which includes other actors in terms of being able to perform the functions in in the set time so that's certainly where it becomes important to you know uphold or to to renew the resolve and I know you've just mentioned that within within civil society there is a strong resolve and among the advocates and scholarly community to precisely point out then where cooperation is most dire needed where cooperation actually is is a key to allowing these beneficiaries of justice efforts and accountability procedures being taken forward. I have a question for both you Vivian and to Wanda with regards to the rising role of China and all of this we in Cambodia filled the heat because it's just sort of I mean China is we're becoming a village of China but I wonder how how China is viewed from your part of the world with regards to these issues of international justice and their rising role a global role in terms of creating multilateral institutions heading and leading new multilateral institutions and efforts. Maybe let me you know answer the question and again this is a personal opinion. I think we're seeing an interesting development where especially when you look at in the context of the United Nations where in some parts China which used to be known for not necessarily being very multilateral and supporting excuse me supportive of multilateral institutions right now if you take the World Health Organization right China is one of those that's actually coming up to engage and support. When you contrast China and the United States with you know the number of international agreements to which the United States is pulling back from it's clear that we're entering into a world that's highly complex where positions that we used to take for granted are being upended and this is obviously unsettling but my personal views are that there is an opportunity here to engage all countries particularly for those in the P5 but also emerging powers on the needs to increase international cooperation not decrease international cooperation. COVID-19 has just shown us the need for increased cooperation. I'm using international cooperation instead of say multilateralism and there's absolutely no question that we face the risk of increased conflict in a world where countries of nuclear weapons and more countries of nuclear weapons where the ability to deploy not just chemical or biological agents but also using technology you know more than computer software and that becoming you know cyber warfare that that become becoming one of the weapons that is used to attack so the risk to us as humanity and to the world at large is more than it ever used to be and the as a consequence of which I think my view would be we do actually need to make sure that we push countries particularly the P5 particularly you know the emerging powers on the need to increase cooperation and push back against increased nationalism as well as the big powers fighting each other including on issues of international trade. I think now we're going to take some questions from the audience I have one that's directed at Dr. Hondura from Andres Borjas he's also a member of the Epicoloquium. He asks what is the role and I think you've touched on this a little bit but he asks what is the role of geopolitics and the changing world order and the ability of the ICC and other institutions in pursuing transitional justice. The role is a significant one. It's a one that will determine the future of the International Criminal Court and international justice as a whole. As I alluded to there's a very real risk that at the stroke of a pen the ICC can be destroyed if the United States lists the court as an entity under its executive order or at least many more individuals especially those in the prosecution team within that executive order and the reason why that's critical is because individuals will the court is going to struggle to attract individuals to undertake investigations. Judges are likely to not want to take cases which they think might offend the United States and that will harm the reputation. So even if the court survives its reputation will be destroyed if the current efforts are not you know if the United States has not pushed back and pulled back rather on its current efforts. At the same time it's not just the United States the many more powerful countries that are not party to the Rome Statute that are perhaps you know will see and take comfort from what the United States is doing and although we have what 123, 124 countries that are you know part of the of the Rome Statute there are the bigger powers out there that we would want ideally to be part of International Criminal Court so you take Russia you take China you take India these are big countries the United States itself in order for the Rome Statute to be universal why should it be universal because obviously after World War II after wonder we said no more but did we really and with what's currently happening it's clear that it is geopolitics because it's a multilateral institution it is geopolitics that's going to determine its future and it's going to take a lot more from us opinion makers to influence and to change the direction in which the world is currently traveling which is an undermining of the International Criminal Court. Thank you so much our next question is directed at Vivian I think you can answer it first but then I think I think all three of you would have really interesting perspectives on this um this comes from Anna what do you think is the limit between punishing the individual and the state because all actions taken by a state are commanded by individuals so it is a fine line how do you know when to punish the state and when to punish the individual Vivian if you could start with this that would be awesome sure great question in terms of the you know conceptual developments of how to handle crimes that were committed this postulating individual criminal responsibility lies at the core of modern international criminal law which means that precisely it is you know an individual who is accountable for his or her acts this is very important for transitional justice in the sense that there is not a general you know blanket culpability of the state or rather of the groups that are involved in a particular conflict but really it's down to the individual level so the atomization of responsibility sees an effort being played out to attribute responsibility correctly and at the same time allowing wider societal processes of reconciliation to go by now if the question is about you know certainly many of the crimes especially relating to some of the historic examples were committed with the full backing of a state apparatus so there we certainly have individuals operating in a very very particular if you like framework and hence the difficulty of dissecting kind of state responsibility and individual responsibility international criminal law is about individual responsibility certainly there is a wider paradigm about state responsibility and we have the draft articles from the international law commission which deals precisely with state responsibility and yet there I think is an important conceptual distinction to be made in terms of the accountability efforts that we've been speaking about in terms of our discussion here today mostly focused on these individual criminal prosecutions the state responsibility and that particular framework has seen very interesting developments and some of the cases at the international court of justice have of course been more on the state-to-state level but certainly in terms of the international criminal law paradigm those individual cases have been most prominent. Thank you Vivian if any of the other panelists would like to to consider that question or if not we can move on to other questions posed by members in our audience. I'd just like to add sorry if you hear the noise when the background noise is ringing Captain Downs here I would just like to add that prosecution or the legal mechanism is very limited in terms of it's limited to symbolic justice so with regards to responsibility and punishment again because Cambodia is the best situation I know when thousands of bloody hands and only five are prosecuted it's necessary the prosecution to uh it's necessary for the prosecution to move forward but for its symbolic value because justice needs to be seen to be done and a court procedure allows for that it allows for collective reaction and action to and to express our collective disgust at the crimes so we need to remember that it's symbolic and it's limited the punishments and the the issue of fairness and responsibility. Another example with Deutsch for example he was the director of one prison among 200 but this government and now with the stamp of approval of the United Nations have tried to place and have succeeded in placing the blame of the whole Khmer Rouge era on one director of one prison among 200 prisons so how does that play into individual responsibility and state action and the rest so just a reminder that prosecution is important for its symbolic justice in this regard. Carrie may I just ask you in terms of thank you again for also your earlier wonderful presentation and very intimate knowledge of course of the of the Cambodian context and just on the point that you mentioned the discussions on the the legacies of the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia I'd be curious to get your own insights in terms of some of the recent discussions that have taken place I recall vividly you know very early major forum of discussion on legacies was the legacies conference that took place in 2012 actually just after one case had been concluded so at a you know temporarily speaking at a much earlier stage than comparatively at the other ad hoc tribunals and when discussions of legacy had come up after numerous cases had already been concluded I'd just be curious in terms of your own insights into into that discussion how it's continued how obviously civil society has continued its engagement in observing and being very active as the legacy discussions in Cambodia have evolved. One of the encouraging benefits or one of the benefits that we had hoped for was building on the legacy via the documentation produced by the court I mean the prosecutors have a very efficient way and have a very trusted way of acquiring and accumulating evidence to tell the larger stories for the sake of future generations but now that legacy is being is jeopardized because the documentation the documents and the archives of the court will be in the hands of this current government and without the participation of civil society in archiving in accessing the documentation of the court so one of the one of the biggest legacies they had hoped for is is jeopardized so this is why for the longest time I support the court and this is why I denounced the court because it the benefits of the court of the the harm outweighed the benefits and one of the benefits that we had hoped for was the documentation for future generation to come to and to search and research to better understand the history and so the and again and currently we have no civil society really infected civil society who are focusing on human rights on sensitive issues of of justice which touch on government rules we we don't have those individuals and organizations anymore who are active we have them I mean I consider myself one of them but I'm extremely limited in what I can do now as an individual without without the larger platform of an institution so this is one of the reasons why I no longer supported the court because because of the legacy issues thank you terry for sharing your thoughts I can go to one of our next questions this one is for Dr. Andorra from Beatrice what are your thoughts on the idea that there exists and this is something that we actually talked about in our in our epic class one in one of our lectures what are your thoughts on the idea that there exists a predominantly Eurocentric model of international justice considering allegations that the ICC has a racial or Eurocentric bias for example as all of the individuals who were ever indicted by the court are black or Arab Africans or on the contrary the claims that such allegations are attempts made by the perpetrators of atrocity crimes to impede justice thanks well I think there's a you know an interesting question it's is a powerful one as well the question there I think that is raised is about the role of power politics in the arena of international justice now an argument can in fact be made that the international criminal court the way it has operated so far and the nature of the justice is racialized that argument can be made but part of the challenge is that that's not looking at it in you know it's not it won't be as considered an analysis because if one looks at how individuals have ended up at the international criminal court with most of the early cases it was states themselves that referred the situations to so those in african other words to the court so there's an issue of power politics at play but that's very local and there is a lot to do with the conflicts in a particular country or conflicts that are subregional now right now one of the key risks to the court is is not actually the cases that he undertook in africa which resulted i think in some african countries threatening to pull out of the rome statutes is actually to do with the united states and the conflicts in afghanistan and potentially the conflicts that we see with you know with the mamara incident with israel and palestine and according to the us are the instances where the us is opposed to you know if you look at the executive order you know it'll you know the sanctions are in response and retaliation for the court investigating and potentially investigating in the future cases in which the us is in interest if again one looks at it from that perspective it becomes clear that although the court has come under a lot of attack from very many different quarters it is young it is trying to do the best under exceptionally difficult conditions and so i would argue that some allegations or accusations including of racial bias may miss the mark if not enough attention is paid to each of the individual cases that the court has focused on and the power politics inherent in that particular situation or jurisdiction i think that will be my my my response to that so yes an argument can be made but i don't think it'll be able to withstand close scrutiny thank you so much um i have a question for um for both the panelists but also for um maybe more toward um for wonder with regards to the role of regional courts um how do you see the role of regional courts um in light of the icc i think my personal view on this is that um justice needs to be done locally uh and if locally it cannot be done because of you know particular uh political situations then regionally and only if that fails or that opportunity does not exist should you go internationally there's so many numerous challenges that come with for victims the ability to attend courts the ability to communicate to empathize um having this system as a whole uh to know your challenges as a victim or as a survivor to be able to reach out and make sure that you know you're protected as an individual and as a community those are some of the challenges that have come that we currently see uh with international criminal court and and to be fair the court is well aware of those so they have outreach sessions they engage but even then that cannot and will not be able to replace uh local mechanisms um and how those discussions that come locally will be able to help a country move forward or where people move forward and resolve and help resolve the challenges that they went through it just has to be local I mean I would add to that perhaps that the you know primary consideration is whether accountability um can be done and often it's not a question of whether but where when and how and where that's precisely the question that that you answered um perhaps it's it's a secondary consideration in terms of the forum of where such trials are being adjudicated um in the sense that whether it's locally um regionally or internationally um the main effort is to actually have uh legal trial to um seek accountability and you know as to wonder highlight it of course you know there's a reason we've seen in the developments from the ad hoc tribunals which had the the principle of primacy to the international criminal court operating more under the principle of complimentarity and there's a reason why only if a state is unwilling or unable to do the cases actually come forcefully to the international level and certainly this idea of holding the trials in the most effective arena so that it can make a meaningful contribution to the affected communities is of critical importance and so there often is this artificial juxtaposition of the either the international and the regional level or the regional level and the the domestic level and and certainly there is a more prolific synergies that that can be you know dissected if you like in terms of how the various courts scenarios can actually play out that being said of course the you know instantiations or the idiosyncratic settings of a particular court you know need some scrutinizing in terms of upholding the rule of law fair trials and the normative underpinnings that are demanded of such justice efforts. Perhaps if I can just quickly respond to that but actually adding an extra point which is about what does justice mean to individuals and to communities and what should we be advocating for in many of the countries where there's an accusation that the countries are then willing or unable there's also an issue typically an issue of resources and about the domestic criminal justice system itself so one of the issues that we ought to be pushing for is the strengthening of domestic criminal justice systems and mechanisms in order that if there's a domestic trial the jurisprudence that comes out of that is local and there's an understanding and an acceptance locally it's quite different in my view and again this is just looking at it from a political lens rather from a legal lens but for political lens there tends to be greater exceptions of domestic jurisprudence progressive than regional than international because we said it and so I think it touches on to the point that I think Terry you've raised and Vivian is right you know it tends to be this artificial distinction between domestic sub-regional and international and perhaps that's that may not you know be I think the best way of approaching or reviewing the the issue however there's a lot to be said about making sure that domestically your strong institutions and in regions where there have been atrocities or that there's need for some justice mechanisms to be created those be sub-regional in Europe we have those institutions with you know the court of human rights the european court of human rights the you know court of justice to deal with local challenges and for most domestic criminal issues those are dealt with domestically so there's a sense I think in using that as a model for some of the regions in the world and there's clearly and definitely a role for the international court within that superstructure and I think Tawanda you very rightly point out I mean there is no one-size-fits-all model if you'd like for how to deal with the past how to deal with atrocities being committed we've seen that in various instances where there have been you know new developments that have been on the horizon I'm just thinking of the Hissen-Harbury trial for instance where the african union had a fundamental role to play in which was very different to some of the developments that we had seen hitherto in terms of what was you know imaginative in terms of which level or how atrocities would be dealt with and certainly in terms of the domestic arena as you rightly point out you know oftentimes these trials may happen in the immediate aftermath or actually years if not decades after the fact and certainly that's also very important that there you you rightly point out the local buy-in the the ownership over the process which makes it all the more meaningful and you know productive in terms of the wider reconciliation processes that are ongoing in in that particular context and setting I think those were the considerations for the Khmer Rouge Tribunal the failure the failure of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal is not because of its location here in Cambodia we have a very weak judiciary system the we tend to focus the and we tend to cast the blame on the Cambodian government and the Cambodian government has its share but we need to also focus on the UN players and the what the United Nations mean in Cambodia in a place like Cambodia when we speak about the United Nations we speak as if it's monolithic or the international community in Cambodia but we have Japanese judges or officials we have a New Zealand or we have German we have French all those individuals who represent their nations when they are in Cambodia with varying interests with political interests not at the same level as the Cambodian side but we need to be aware that they do exist and that they play a role in the success or the failure of the court I put also put a lot of blame on the UN side in the Cambodian situation we already know the failures and the problems and the challenges on the Cambodian side and they're real and and I and I know they're real because I speak about and and and address them regularly but what is common and not commonly addressed is the lack of political will in certain critical situations in the in the process in in the Khmer Rouge tribe you know so I not equal blame but I I also want to draw attention to the role of international players in a place like Cambodia which determine whether a court fails or succeeds in this situation it fails because of the Cambodian government and we know their feelings but also because of the UN and international community I mean if I may just pick up on the extraordinary chambers as part of my multi-year research on legacies I also looked at the extraordinary chambers and you know it resonates in terms of what you're speaking about and sharing the insights of they're particularly in my work I looked more at theorizing the construction of legacies rather than measuring the effectiveness of the of the tribunal per se and there there was a clear early impetus to pursue legacy at the extraordinary chambers which however got caught up in a in a political tussle about ownership of the narrative of legacy and meaning making and and funding and and eventually was was largely abandoned as a result when I studied the issue the tribunal appears to have hesitantly or ambiguously embraced this role of legacy lever and you rightly point out I mean it's a whole amalgamation or or wide and and rich actor landscape in which the extraordinary chambers have operated within the Cambodian setting so it it appears that the engagement on legacy has accelerated and decelerated over over the years and the contestation of meaning that you alluded to also and what the ECCC could or should actually leave behind provides a window into the broader contestation and the normative significance of the construction of meaning in Cambodia in that particular setting. So you're in a place like Cambodia. So I was just going to say quickly has Victor has Victor's justice been a consistent theme that has acted to undermine or to yeah to undermine the cause of international justice all the way from you know World War One to today? I mean it's certainly been you know a concept that has dominated the discussions, the public discourse but also the scholarship especially early on we've seen this with the Nuremberg trials as you as you say this was often the you know most prominent critique that was addressed vis-a-vis the the Nuremberg trials it was also what dominated discussions and much scholarship on the the Tokyo trials for instance and only in more recent years has once seen the scholarship become much more nuanced and go beyond this particular very important discussion to be had for sure but also a bit limiting if you like discussion because it disallows then the nuances and the you know sophisticated engagement with actually the politics as they played out in a particular instance of international trials to go forward. But certainly you know the critique of Victor's justice is one to grapple with one that each and all of the settings that we've seen has played out differently has been also used differently in terms of you know legitimizing or delegitimizing particular instances but certainly it's one that deserves to be taken seriously but also you know to go beyond that particular critique to to be able to dissect much more you know astutely what actually is going on in this very complex interplay of of law and politics. We have time for one final question from the audience and then I'll just give some wrapping up remarks um this is a question for Terry this is from um Injun Kainchi is also a member of the epicoloquium so I'll be quoting her right now she writes please correct me if I'm wrong but I know that you're a huge advocate for education as a form of justice for the Cambodian people I want to know more about your definition of a good education how would civic education play a role in reconciling with the past and mitigating mistrust and fear among the Cambodian society here in Myanmar that is where Injun is from here in Myanmar there's really very few conversations going on regarding the Rohingya genocide and far from that the xenophobic sentiments remain highly prevalent in a Burmese society so today even though we are going through a process of getting legal justice for the Rohingyas getting social and other forms of justice still remain very far-fetched in in the in this Burmese society so I was wondering if you could expand on the situation in Cambodia regarding the culture of having conversations about huge tragedies like genocide and others in order to reconcile with our painful past or if there are any consequences to speaking up about these issues. We need to find ways for individuals to have their voice heard now or later have their narratives be preserved be it in a court which is more official or be it in storytelling but preserve them we have a film be a written in written form but we need to collect stories for if the situation of the political environment allows for for the dissemination of these narratives now great if not preserve them for later so back and this ties in with the legacy whose narrative is being heard and and the rewriting of history I'm very concerned about the rewriting of history because history requires many voices many competing voices to be heard so that we can sit through the competing factors if there are any or the compete and competing narratives if there are any and of course in these situations there will be many and we need to hear from all sides no matter how difficult they are so and I was very aware of this that and for take for example the Khmer Rouge I gave him time the perpetrators I I didn't belittle him I didn't accuse him I I allowed the victims voices to resonate through him and let him and work that out within himself but we need to hear and which is which is nothing new really when you write something you want to hear from all sides to get a more comprehensive story and that's what we're trying to do it's just more difficult in conflict zone and as well as a place like Cambodia where the conflict has has ended but but still simmering in society the violence has taken different shape and different forms that aren't necessarily the war battlefield so yes and so I'm back to the not back to but it ties into the legacy the narrative and a place like Cambodia or and the Rohingya situation which I really don't know that well but in conflict zone we need to preserve and to collect victims voices as soon as possible in whatever forms and preserve them for later usage or if they can't be used in the immediate sense because these because in the future institutions leaders with invidious intentions will create institutions to tell their history and when there are no competing places for narratives be it in school or be it in in homes or in in other institutions to counterbalance these official narratives then we're in trouble in Cambodia we have two slang which is a very politicized institution but it's a learning institution and then we have the carousel tribunal and now this is back to the the documentation that will be had and be controlled by the government this is why I'm so concerned because the narrative there now has a UN and stamp of approval so it will be controlled by the government to manipulate and or to deny access or to delete and erasing information from from the the rich corpus of materials which have been accumulated over these years by experts in the legal process so but we can we can do it through film we can do it through poetry we can do it through the arts we can do it through music we need to preserve victims voices because they will help to counteract the official narrative which will always be very skewed thank you terry um i just want to thank all three of you vivians calling in from nuremberg tolanda's calling in from london terry's calling in from cambodia for me right now it's uh 237 a.m for all the people in the east coast who have been tuning in this whole time we thank you so much for your interest in this very very very important topic of after genocide prosecution transitional justice and reconciliation the next panel will be at 11 a.m um on the topic of memory survival and genocide so um if you're interested in please look out for that for those zoom links and um thank you everyone who has made this possible and um we hope you enjoyed this thank you thank you thank you