this is bbc news. the headlines: police are treating the fatal stabbing of three people in a park in reading on saturday as terror—related. intelligence service sources say officials were made aware of concerns about the 25—year—old libyan refugee last year but an investigation found there was no immediate threat. he is currently in custody. germany has seen another sharp increase in the coronavirus reproduction number. however, health officials say the rise is largely due to specific localised outbreaks. in the town of goettingen, extra police have been sent to a housing block where a number of residents have been resisting quarantine restrictions. president trump's re—election team has rejected claims that a social media campaign reduced the turnout for saturday's rally in the city of tulsa. the local fire department had said just over 6,000 people attended.

now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i am stephen sackur. president trump hasjust strengthened us sanctions against the international criminal court, describing it as an extraordinary threat to the united states. my guest today is the president of the icc, chile eboe—0suji. the court was set up to and impunity for the worst of crimes. so is it now time to acknowledge that that grand ambition will never be realised?

judge chile eboe—0suji in the hague, welcome to hardtalk. thank you very much for having me. it is an honour to be here. we are delighted to have you on at this very sensitive time for the international criminal court. president donald trump has declared your court and extraordinary threat to the united states of america. you are locked in conflict with the world's most powerful nation. how damaging is that for the court? look at it in terms of, from the perspective of what this court was established to do. this court was established as a place of last resort where victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the terms of the crime of aggression can go in the crime of aggression can go in the last resort to look forjustice,

access for justice for them. when that access to justice has become unavailable or was unavailable anywhere else at a national level, thatis anywhere else at a national level, that is what this court was established to do. but you can't be in effect of court of last resort oi’, in effect of court of last resort or, indeed, any resort of the united states of america, the most powerful nation on earth still refuses just to recognise your legitimacy, but now go so to recognise your legitimacy, but now go so far as to impose sanctions on top officials at the court, not letting them into the united states and talking about imposing financial sanctions as well. don't use the word sanction, just so you know. i will get to your answer in a minute. but the reason we don't use the word sanction, we have to use the word for what it is, what happens, that is these are acts of coercion againstan is these are acts of coercion against an international court of justice, acts of coercion is. sanctions is what you impose on

south africa for gross violations of human rights. sanctions is what you impose on countries and entities that are said to sponsor terrorism, sanctions are what you impose on states that violate the nuclear non—proliferation treaty. what happened here was a frontal attack against the rule of law and the idea ofjudicial independence. now, the question you ask is, what then for a court of justice? let's question you ask is, what then for a court ofjustice? let's remember again that this is a court of justice, and we have to stand by doing our work. the idea that we have two shy away or be deterred by bringing floors to bear goes against the whole idea ofjustice. as you remember, it was plato that said,

you cannot expectjustice where might is right. it is for the world now to decide whether might is so right is to detract this international court of law. for the sake of victims, for the access to justice... i want to be very clear about what you are saying. you are saying you have no regret that you and of course the prosecution team at the icc decided to launch an investigation into allegations of serious crimes, crimes against humanity, war crimes potentially in afghanistan, involving not just afg ha n forces, afghanistan, involving not just afghan forces, taliban forces, but also us military personnel. you have no regrets about that? no regret about doing justice, let me put it that bluntly. the prosecutor decides what case to bring to the court and when the prosecutor does, thejudges have no influence on what the

prosecutor does in that regard. but what she poses a question of law, a question ofjustice for what she poses a question of law, a question of justice for the what she poses a question of law, a question ofjustice for the judges of the court, the justice —— question ofjustice for the judges of the court, thejustice —— judges must answer it. there is no excuse will be cannot be deterred because somebody flexes muscle in this way. to do that quite frankly is to accept the proposition that it is ok to bribejudges in a court of law from doing their work and we should all say, well, yes, because powerful state has bribed a court ofjustice we should all accept it as a new normal. we cannot accept that proposition. but i am looking at the mission statement of your icc, and it says, new, the president, one of your responsibilities is specifically in the area of external relations to maintain relations with the nation states. now, i would put it to you that you have grossly failed in yourjob in the sense that whatever the rights and wrongs of

the us response, you should surely have seen it coming. is there no way that you could have headed off what is now a profound crisis for the icc? because if you have this toxic relationship with the united states, however you slice and dice it, you are in big trouble. i think you characterise it to strongly, grossly failed. i don't believe that the bbc would have been said to grossly failed in their mission of trying to educate and inform the world and make it a better place in the way that you can, because you have tried and it didn't work. whether or not somebody decides to see that as a gross failure, that is up to them. now, the question is this. we have been on this mission of trying to encourage the united states to deal with us and we continue to hope that it willjoin us and support the court that is established to cater

forjustice, for court that is established to cater for justice, for those court that is established to cater forjustice, for those who have enjoyed genocide, crimes against amenity, war crimes that are endured. that is what we are established to do. of course it will be difficult and it has to do, because the world accepted this idea of creating this court, we are tired of creating this court, we are tired of the long history of a chronicle of the long history of a chronicle of humanity, that is riven with... justice for them. that is a difficult task because if the people knew to behave, we would not have this court. this court was created because of failure of humanity to respect the humanity of one another. i understand that. i don't want to know what you do now on this specific and rather grave problem. you have lodged this investigation... we will keep on doing our work ofjustice, we will keep on the cause... you clearly

wa nt to keep on the cause... you clearly want to do that when it comes to... with respect you can't and won't do that in afghanistan because it is quite clear the afghan government won't co—operate with you and the united states has no intention of cooperating with you. i am going to give you a couple of quotes. the defence secretary in the us is rest assured the men and women of the us armed forces will never ever appear before the icc, and mike pompeo, the secretary of state, described as a kangaroo court, corrupt, grossly ineffective, the court is an ideological crusade against american servicemembers. so, whatever you wa nt to servicemembers. so, whatever you want to do in the future, you certainly will not and cannot take on the united states in afghanistan for their actions in the past, because there is no way the us is going to co—operate in any way. first of all, i must have ignored the slow language you just said, you

have taken that very seriously into the question. as you know...m have taken that very seriously into the question. as you know... it is not my language, it is linkage coming from the very top of the us government. there is a smear campaign against them in the uk, judges were called enemies of the people, and everywhere else in the us when thejudges people, and everywhere else in the us when the judges do their work, they are called political, so it is pa rt they are called political, so it is part of thejudicial they are called political, so it is part of the judicial cause, if you like, that whenjudges part of the judicial cause, if you like, that when judges or courts of law, those who don't like what has been done, find a way to embark on a smearcampaign and been done, find a way to embark on a smear campaign and that is what has happened. that is a matter of a smear campaign. as to the question of the people not wanting to... coming here. actually, that can be a legitimate objective, to say, american servicemen must not come to

the icc forjustice. american servicemen must not come to the icc for justice. afghan nationals much not come to the icc forjustice. 0n the basis that icc isa forjustice. 0n the basis that icc is a court of last resort, so justice needs to be done at home. so it is for the united states authorities to do justice where there is a cry for it. it is for afg ha n there is a cry for it. it is for afghan authorities to do justice where there is a cry forjustice, where there is a cry forjustice, where there is nowhere else to go. then people come to the icc and we have to do our best to answer the question... notjust in the trump administration, but for many years, many, administration, but for many years, any administration, but for many years, many, many years has made it plain that it won't sign up with a start of roman won't bow to the authority of roman won't bow to the authority of the oath adjustment icc because it is absolutely confident that its ownjudicial process, it is absolutely confident that its own judicial process, civilian and military, is more than sufficient to ensure that any american citizen will be held to the highest of

standards when it comes to their behaviour on the battlefield or anywhere else. so are you saying you don't believe that? already in that argument, it is very much like saying this, but i am hearing this argument made a lot, made forever more or less. it is like this. let us more or less. it is like this. let us say somebody comes to me and says, chile eboe—0suji, let us say the child welfare society, chile eboe—0suji, we see that your children are malnourished, you have now been —— not been feeding them world. it has to be an excuse for me to say, go away, i can very well provide for my children. but that doesn't answer the question, are they malnourished or not? it is not whether or not america or afghanistan or either country can bring their own people to justice. it is the question of, are they doing it? that is what we want them to do. if they do it, we have no jurisdiction. the icc is a court of last resort. that means that if

states are doing justice at home, we do not have the authority to step m, do not have the authority to step in, and it should be that way. it is their right and responsibility to do justice at home so we don't get into this situation of saying, people come to the icc forjustice or not. let them do it at home. there was one other strong element to the us condemnation of the iccjust a few days ago that came from the secretary of state mike pompeo, and that was your stance on launching an investigation into the gaza war, the israel palestine conflict. now, what is exactly did you launch that investigation? because israel of course is not a signatory to the statutes of rome, doesn't recognise your authority. what bases did you launch that investigation on? for purposes of clarity and facts, i am not aware there has been an investigation launched. that is a matter of fact. i am not aware that

is the case. what has happened is this... excuse me, but as far as i understand, your chief prosecutor has decided to open a formal investigation into the violence in gaza in 2014, she made that decision in december of 2019. what is going on is this. the palestinians referred the case to the icc, and the prosecutor decided to ask questions of thejudges, the prosecutor decided to ask questions of the judges, even the pre— preliminary question, the question being, do we even have jurisdiction to entertain this case? that is a pre— preliminary question... please, i need to finish this so people understand. it is a question of law that was provoked by the fact that there is some dispute as to whether or not palestine is a state, and so that is a question for thejudges, and state, and so that is a question for the judges, and those who have legal

submissions to make on the question of law are welcome to the court to make the argument. states have responded to the call of the judges, if you have any submissions to make on this question of law, please come forward and make it. some states havejoint forward and make it. some states have joint issues forward and make it. some states havejoint issues on forward and make it. some states have joint issues on it on either side... judge, forgive me for saying this, but i need to keep this as simple as possible. the point surely is this. you and your fellowjudges have decided to recognise palestine asa have decided to recognise palestine as a state, and as i understand from the documentation, you have said that icc has legal standing in gaza, the west bank and eastjerusalem. eastjerusalem was the west bank and eastjerusalem. east jerusalem was annexed the west bank and eastjerusalem. eastjerusalem was annexed by the israelis after the 67 war, so are you saying that you recognise east jerusalem as palestinian sovereign territory? now, this is now difficult because i don't know what you are reading or

where you are quoting from. normally asa where you are quoting from. normally as a lawyer and as a judge we do not allow, you know, materials like that to be introduced. you have to show it to people you are addressing so they can verify it fully. it is not a complicated question. one second, and context. so i don't know where you got it that the judges have come to that. i do not recall any such judgement from this course. well, i look at the documentation, and as i understand it, the icc... but you said you and your fellowjudges. i had my fellowjudges have never said any such thing because they have never had that kind of question presented to me to answer. so i don't know where you are getting this from. ifi may don't know where you are getting this from. if i may say so, judge, the israeli government clearly believes it is none of your business to be even considering whether palestine ‘s estate, and benjamin netanyahu, palestine ‘s estate, and benjamin neta nyahu, the palestine ‘s estate, and benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister, has said are showing yourselves to be politicised, obsessed with carrying out a headhunting operation against and the us, while turning a blind eye to the world's worst human

rights offenders, including the regime in iran. again, here we go with slower language, you know, characterising a court of law that is supported by 123 state parties, by the united nations, human rights organisations, the european union strongly behind us. so all this slower language is used to attract attention from any issues. the issue here is about the humanity, the common humanity, that we share. the palestinians have presented a question for the court. so apparently, as you would know, israel is on the other side of that question. so it would not be correct to assume the palestinian position as correct or the israeli position as correct or the israeli position as correct. it is an issue that the judges have to contemplate, reflect upon, hear arguments from both sides

on that question, and then come to a decision. so we cannot take it that when one side says something, that is the law. that's not how it works. all right, well, you've addressed what you call slows coming from washington, coming from israel, but there is a much wider critique of there is a much wider critique of the icc that far beyond specific cases. and that is that, after almost two decades in operation, your court has a deeply disappointing record. as you said, it was set up with such grand ambitions to be the court of last resort for the worst of human behaviours. but the truth is, after $1.5 billion, 18 years, you can claim just eight convictions, of which only three individuals are currently standing convictions. given all that has happened in the world over the last two decades, thatis world over the last two decades, that is a really frankly pathetic record, isn't it? again, hyperbolic characterisation. can you tell me what it should be, for you to

measure it as successful? well, if one only looks at the egregious humanitarian sort of abuses we have seen, from me and mark to syria to a host of other conflict arenas, where we know that crimes, terrible crimes have been committed —— myanmar. that would not be prosecuted in their home courts, one would like to think the icc might have played a more proactive, more effective role.|j think that question comes from not understanding how icc works, and the international law itself. the icc works on the international plane. what is the hope you are offering to syrians, when the truth is the syrians, when the truth is the syrian government of course will not co—operate with you, and the un security council, which could give you a mandate to investigate in syria, will not because the russians would veto any such exercise? what hope are you giving to people in syria of justice? you, hope are you giving to people in syria ofjustice? you, when it comes down to it, in far too many situations, because of geopolitics, simply don't have the power to

intervene. there is the hope, stephen, there is the hope. there is the hope. first of all, what you describe is the very deficiencies which i am talking about which international law suffers from time immemorial stock but still it is better than we have it than not at all. but here is the problem. you should be taking to task those at the security council who block the referrals. these other places you are talking about. what i am is this. that what you just pointed out, the very deficiencies of international law that i spoke about earlier, which we all have to do, both you, me, everybody, civil society, needs to take to the united nations and the security council, encourage them to refer these cases where we see human rights violations occurring, and bring them so that justice can be had. now... but even in spite of that, and i hope that

gets done, so that we can have justice. but there is the hope, even, that eventually, as long as we have the icc, and i need to say this again, as long as we have a permanent international criminal court, there will always be hope that those who do these behaviours, who grossly violate human rights, commit international crimes, they can run, but they cannot hide forever. icc will be there. there will be a court where they can be asked questions ofjustice. that is the hope. you keep using this word, hope, andi the hope. you keep using this word, hope, and i want to end with this thought. i accept everything you have said about the difficulties of operating in the geopolitical climate in which you have to operate, particularly european security council which is stalemated so often. but nonetheless, one of your friends so often. but nonetheless, one of yourfriends in so often. but nonetheless, one of your friends in the so often. but nonetheless, one of yourfriends in the international community, the dutch foreign

minister, has made these points. he says, number one, your operations are says, number one, your operations a re often says, number one, your operations are often far too slow, far too cumbersome. the judges, he are often far too slow, far too cumbersome. thejudges, he says, are too focused on trying to raise their own salaries, which are almost $200,000, tax—free, peryear, own salaries, which are almost $200,000, tax—free, per year, when they should be focused on streamlining their own operations in the hague. and he says we don't expect the unattainable, but we do expect the unattainable, but we do expect better. the icc too often focuses on, for example, countries in africa, where you have got extensive investigations, and doesn't touch the more difficult areas. we have mentioned syria, but there are others too. and he says you have got to do better. do you accept that? now, mr blok is a very strong supporter of this court.|j know. let me finish, please. he is a very strong supporter of this court, andi very strong supporter of this court, and i have told him thanks. and even in recent events, he was one minister that stood up firmly against this behaviour that the icc

was subjected to in the last couple of days. but i disagree with him on that, and i told him plainly that i disagreed with him. that you have brought the matter up. of course, whenever you talk about salary, it is something that excites interest. now, i hope that... iwas is something that excites interest. now, i hope that... i was hoping you would bring it up. let me tell you this. i know that the salary of icc judges isjust a this. i know that the salary of icc judges is just a fraction of what you judges is just a fraction of what y°u pay judges is just a fraction of what you pay some of your people at the bbc. you pay up to £1.7 million to some sports broadcasters. i haven't asked you yourself. excuse me. when asked you yourself. excuse me. when a judge, with respect... and i do believe somebody said that £250,000 is chicken feed for them. now, we don't earn that much. all we were saying was that the pay of icc judges needs to be brought up to the level of other internationaljudges. i need to tell you that. the point mr blok is making is that in many different ways you could do better. even within the difficult environment you are working, do you

accept that? that is absolutely correct, yes, indeed. and there is no question about that. i will be the first to tell you that, as a human institution, there's room to do better. in your country there, the judiciary do better. in your country there, thejudiciary also has do better. in your country there, the judiciary also has faced its own difficulties. all over the world, the judiciary difficulties. all over the world, thejudiciary does difficulties. all over the world, the judiciary does have questions about needing to improve on doing justice, and we are doing that at the icc. we are not perfect, but i say it is much better to have this and work on it, to improve things, and work on it, to improve things, and we wish everybody to join us in improving the matters. but in the end, in the end, we need a court of last resort. we cannot, even if we do spot instances like happens in everyjudicial do spot instances like happens in every judicial system do spot instances like happens in everyjudicial system in the world. i repeat that, in everyjudicial system in the world. we cannot then, because we can spot some areas of improvement that need to be had in those systems, because of that, let's throughout the whole thing and

leave no place for victims to go for justice in the end. when i we have to end right there. butjudge chile eboe—0suji, i thank you so much for joining me from the hague. thank you. thank you very much. hello. i know not everyone is a fan of intense summer heat, but that's what parts of the uk are facing in the week ahead, particularly into england and wales, with soaring heat and humidity as well. all areas, though, will be turning warmer. but for scotland and northern ireland, close to low pressure, it'll be atlantic air, there'll be a wriggling weather front for the first half of the week. that will give cloud

and outbreaks of rain. there'll be warm air, sunny spells for a time from mid week. but it's england and wales, close to high pressure, with a lot of dry weather. increasing sunshine and the flow of air around that high will be coming in from the continent, a hot continent, lifting temperatures in some spots into the low 30s, the hottest weather of the summer so far. this weather front will serve as a dividing line between that heat and something a bit more bearable. it will be a refreshingly cool start to proceedings for monday morning. bear in mind the nights get warmer and more humid as we go through the week. and, although a lot of us will start the day fine, there will be cloud and outbreaks of rain pushing into northern ireland, into parts of scotland. not too much of that reaching towards the north—east. it will stay bright, and some outbreaks of rain will affect some of us in north—west england, north and west wales, whereas elsewhere in england and wales, warmer, sunny spells to be had over the weekend. it will be a blustery day wherever you are, though, in particular through western parts of scotland and various sea coasts. gusts of 40 mph.

and as for the temperatures, low to high teens. scotland and northern ireland low to mid 20s, and the warmest in england and in parts of wales. to end the day, some heavier bursts of rain in england and wales at times on tuesday. in scotland, could be a bit damp and drizzly through parts of north—west england and wales as tuesday begins, and it will be a warmer night on monday night into tuesday morning. and on tuesday, this weather front is still around. scotland and northern ireland. close to that, you may well see a bit of rain at times. eastern parts of scotland could well say largely dry, with some sunny spells. there may be a damp start for parts of north—west england, north and west wales, but the rain here is going to clear away northwards, and we'll get to see some sunshine around. and that will allow temperatures to head up even further and build more by the time we get to wednesday. not all of us seeing a bit of rain. in scotland and northern ireland, there will be some warmth in the sunshine, if you get to see that occasionally. but it'll be largely clear in england and wales, and this is where temperatures head up into the high 20s — cardiff, birmingham, leeds — and some spots into the low 30s,

but with that higher humidity as well.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm samantha simmonds. the suspect in the multiple stabbings in britain was already known to the intelligence services. having come to their attention last year. a big spike in the virus reproduction number in germany following two localised outbreaks. and questions about numbers in india. health workers tell the bbc that virus infection statistics are being deliberately minimised. saudi arabia reopens mosques in mecca, but there's still no word on whether the hajj will go ahead.