derives joint direct attack on her journey. you know we're entering your documentary. entering into and returns home. with different languages we fight for different things that's fine but we all speak up for freedom freedom of speech and freedom of press. giving freedom for us global news that matters w. made for mines. i think that's actually more of a question you should be asking him to see remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you can see why do you think it's complacency the international criminal court set up to try the worst crimes on the planet as a new enemy in washington the trumpet ministration was accused of having no legitimacy and says it wants to die my guess this week here in the hague is. sujit

who is the president of the i.c.c. how can he defend the court against such powerful opposition. susie welcome to conflict zone thank you very much and welcome to the i.c.c. thank you the u.s. national security advisor john bolton has said he wants your court to die and he is happy to help bring about that demise do you realize what a serious blow that is to your work it is not a serious blow to court or small because a hundred and twenty three states parties to it too strongly supported this is the most powerful country in the world and we want them to be part of the court they're not and they won't and we hope there will. we will not cooperate with the i.c.c.

he said we will provide no assistance to the i.c.c. we will not join the i.c.c. we will let the i.c.c. die on it after all to all intents and purposes the i.c.c. is already dead to us now he said to you you want them to join this is the odds it couldn't be clearer it's not the hand that is the answer from him the moment we are confident that. they will reconsider we are competent about confidence based on what many tell me tell me. the sort of hostility had been shown in the past never to the sixten that lead to run another ministration came in even though the maintained in principle that they have difficulties with the i.c.c. and its jurisdictional reach they still did assist the court in very many wasting

clothing preferring the dutch situation to the court the united states government did move the time at ten in doing so when you're dealing with them trying to take in a stray sure nobody likes once like them and when they voted in the security council to refer to the four situation to the i.c.c. they said they thought it because they did not like the idea of impunity and for that reason that they refer notwithstanding the reservations about the court this is not just a refusal to cooperate this is a threat to take punitive measures against anyone even daring to investigate the actions of americans on the court or their closest allies with a view to holding them accountable in an international court i.c.c. judges and prosecutors who investigate americans will be barred from entering the u.s. and their funds in the u.s. would be targeting something that's actually or a question you. should be casting about with that new skin under rule seriously now

learning to take this serious you seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you say it wants you dead where do you think is complacency it is not complacency what i am saying is leave bad and we are getting them to reconsider their position and join the court and cooperate because this court was established for reasons that america can about in the past place america has been quite strong in the past about international criminal justice they were at the forefront of nuremberg proceedings they have zero with the administration of international criminal justice along the way since terminal times in the past you're talking to me about the past i'm talking to you about the present because if you're putting your head in the sun who you're not putting my head in the side what i'm saying here is that we need them to join us we the

reasons the court has created for which the court in its creation have not abated the idea is that there should be a place of accountability for those who commit genocide those who commit crimes against humanity those who commit war crimes but reason those reasons are many imperative that is important to the united states as much as it is for the rest of the world and that is why this court was created you you keep repeating that the two weeks ago the u.s. secretary of state might pompei i referred to a twenty seventeen request from the i.c.c. prosecutor to initiate an investigation into the situation in afghanistan that said poem pale could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing in twenty eighteen the trumpet ministration warned there would be consequences if you went ahead with that request pompei understands that request is still pending is it still pending i don't know the. i don't know that my answer to

you will change what i already said but please adjust the specifics of what compiler is throwing at you he says that is could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing that twenty seventeen request from the i.c.c. prosecutor to investigate the situation in afghan i cannot comment on pending matter that is a matter now pending before the chamber of this court and we need to do it at that are you going to challenge this incredibly hostile threat from the us or bow down meekly and accept it. we'll put it to use those sort of the mood of the language becomes a little difficult. other things that can happen between. cow towing the media as you put it and or the other thing you said the point is now we. to consider that this court case important for the global interest for the interest of humanity they want you to change course the i.c.c.

is attacking america's rule of law it's not too late for the i.c.c. to change course and we urge that it do so immediately direct direct appeal from the us secretary of state my party well it is as i said he wants and i cannot answer that as i already told you that's a matter pending before the team but what do you want me to tell you to tell you all right the temper is going to drop it like when so tell me this does the court stand by its twenty sixteen report which said there was a reasonable basis to believe the u.s. military had committed torture at secret detention sites in afghanistan operated by the cia again how much your report again and matter pending before i try to do what i can tell you is being in the public domain it's come from your court where i can tell you is that let's understand the dearest premise of the court. it is that states have the primary responsibility to do just. this the court is only

a court of last resort is one state unable unwilling to do justice but the i.c.c. is entitled to intervene now that means that for some states the ones we call the states they call them as a mirror of conscience so they need to do justice so that justice does not become an orphan in the territory of sovereign national sovereignty i understand that your answer on the other. question and this is relevant to it and the second part of the course touristic shouldn't those who are not able to do justice there are a lot of countries around the world where when this thing start up they cannot administer justice it is easier to do atrocity than to do justice we saw that in rwanda a before the time so i understand that right my question was does the court stand by its twenty sixteen point two percent there was

a reasonable basis to believe the u.s. military had committed torture secret tensions do you mean that because what you mean in the court reporter you're talking here our examination report sunday which i made probably been given to the general assembly this is one of them here to insist let me explain to you have how we park now i am a judge the chief judge of the quarter. so i speak to you from the perspective of the judiciary i cannot speak to you from the perspective of the office of the prosecutor that is not to say that if i don't answer any question in relation to the office of the prosecutor there is no answer but you're the president of this school that has a policeman make the for its nuclear judging around these questions and i'm refusing to answer what's already been in the public may be what people to make of that you can characterize it anywhere you want the point is there wayne just what. i say judge i speak from my judgement i cannot be making comment on something. that

is not in the within the ram it because i have to decide what you are talking about is not the for me as a dutch ok so mr pompei was not going to get a reply from you to his appeal to change course is he going to get he's going to get the same answer that i've got to listen to or just no answer yeah it definitely shook the case yes ok it's not just america is it america is far from being the only country that that's refuses to deal with you in fact the most powerful and populist countries in the world have decided that your type of justice isn't for them i'm talking about china india pakistan russia that's three out of five permanent members of the security council with the power to block your investigations in countries that are not signed up to your court was a question their veto is another serious block to work isn't it why is that a problem for me. it's for the court is right that's what i mean for the court if stage who should join the court have a joint this is a big problem is that the most powerful unpopular states in the but the hundred and

twenty three states let's not ignore those the one mistake people make often quite frankly is the ignored those who are in focus and those who are not in that's not fact to those who are in the thesis that all three of them have intelligence you know in which must come we must be able to respect the participation of the hundred and twenty three states parties who continue to have faith in the one hope the court left utah lost in the preferences of those who have not yet joint whom we hope will join at some point these two hundred twenty three countries do not and large vetoes in the they're not permanent members of the security council they do it with a veto yes china it poses russia and the united states have a veto it is a factor of concern of course that. one of them when cases come to the court

is where the security council refers it. a case to the court because we call them situations in west specks of countries that are not states parties of course when you have the possibility of somebody blocking that possibility of doing justice. where the court would naturally not reach by where of its membership it is a matter of concern it is a let's give you a concrete example you want to investigate the abuses suffered by the right injured people and me and mine that's that's already china has warned you off your claim of jurisdiction last year in the general assembly was based on an appropriate interpretation of the clickable legal concepts and might make the i.c.c. is work in the future more contentious undermining further its own ferrety and credibility this is a certain. this is the kind of resistance you're facing among the permanent five members of the security council russia and similar criticisms accusing you of

subjectively interpret in what it called the standards of international law it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong does it it matters that they have the power and the veto to block your work again. no would right improve on the answer the answer i give you is that. hundred twenty three state you have faith in this court and we continue to work that just now we continue to watch those who have not joined to do so so that humanity all over the world under the umbrella you're watching is pulling on deaf ears well if you actually ask yourselves why it is that those states who have not joined haven't done so. either way that should be a question you may want to ask or reflect upon what it means we can write number of pages thesis on those we're not here to write ph d.

thesis we can do oh yes let's stay with the facts and what you were set up to do which is to try to the most serious crimes of the planet and that is very important we should not lose science and i find the veto that the three members that i mentioned permanent members of the security council have will keep you for instance from any serious prospect of trying any syrian officials that might be responsible for the mass killing and torture that has taken place that it's their veto that has prevented what human rights watch called a path to justice for syria's victims the fact is most there will not allow any referral of syrian leaders to your court under any circumstances we can that's a big gap we will be there it is it is a very important there's no question about that but i staked vetoes a situation that should ordinarily be brought to court so that humanity is protected. by virtue of the mandate of the i.c.c.

it is a serious problem but it is one that all of us in building all in that protection including the youth minister sebastian would need to get them to reconsider because this is about humanity it is not about the i.c.c. everyone keeps focusing i.c.c. i.c.c. we need to look beyond whine i.c.c. was created there were six million. jews killed because of their faith. during the second world war we eight hundred thousand i understand that the rwandan genocide in the night and night i honestly don't know what they see see you keep going back and i'm staying in the present i'm talking about the relatives of the four hundred thousand victims of the assad regime who have absolutely zero chance of getting the kind of justice that you would wish to deliver for them i'll just say not be a kindness to tell them that finally passed but i can do what i'm doing now using

your program to them to reconsider that position and join in. because the protection humanity under the rule watch this well. that is what we hope to see happen we live in a world that despite your honorable intentions we live in a world where despots to get away with pretty much everything we are hoping the changes that this why this court was brought into play and there's an irony in the reason to think that is to actually change there's an irony here is that if you kill one person with luck you'll be arrested tried and you're convicted you order the death of four hundred thousand people and we all know who we're talking about here and you get invited to peace talks just as i have not invited anybody so you have a book you haven't so wanted but syrian officials have and that's the reality of today but. now i will have more international law great a body of international law more courts more experts more judges but that's the

reality of one person you get tried you kill four hundred thousand you get invited to peace talks that's hardly justices i think you and i might be able to an extant. speaking loudly where the issue is even commented on that but. one can see where you're coming from but i would say that it is a matter that passed all of us. to the actions like. those concerned in these decisions to stalk the reach of isis's jurisdiction to reconsider their petition you told the general assembly last year that the mere existence of this court serves as an obstacle to those wishing to commit crimes against humanity if that were true we would have seen the use of chemical weapons in syria along with the torture and extrajudicial killings the continuing slaughter

in yemen the killings in south sudan the targeted executions in the slums of venezuela and the massive loss of life in your own home country like syria. you can't offer the kind of protection and you can offer the obstacles that you claim a little less for let's back up to first of all the reality doesn't match your rhetoric does it now i can tell you this i can tell you that yes this court. hance been an obstacle. to the conscience of those who would ordinarily but me in ways they would not be if we didn't have the schools well i think you haven't you can see how it's really done not in venezuela not in syria well i cannot comment on some of those pieces as a matter of you read the news when i can read you read the news you see what's happened i read the news but never seen some can i tell you something because

a week this is what i said judge i cannot comment on the propositions you just made contact can speak in general terms about the need for everyone to remember why the court was here the reason why i cannot comment on what you say this case any of those. cases come up at the i.c.c. . it be a problem for me not chances that he's not shot i'm not sure that it's not much chance we have to keep hoping that you cannot fail to notice a human being it's madness when in the states men and women who make these decisions will reconsider their position so that everybody subscribe to the i.c.c. laws and there are some not for reconsidering their positions you have the withdrawal of existing signatories to the road treaty like the philippines and burundi and i ask you whether you can blame them because the big powers refused to collaborate with you why should this forms and we just recently had the malaysia

join us don't forget this you have that what about the withdrawal of the philippines and burundi where there are clear cases to answer why not clear cases of human rights violations what what what what do you expect me to say to think that it is for that they made the decision to draw for reasons that reasons we q. and i. can discuss it in other circumstances but that's not what the i.c.c. . it's not i see this is. your work isn't it because not only are you having countries withdrawing you having others that are flouting their commitments to the cause of the philippines and burundi the dimensions. drew because they say that i.c.c. was investigating cases in relation to that now why is that a problem for the i.c.c. in the moral sense that you're trying to apply because i.c.c.

is doing it's one and people who choose to withdraw and then that's a problem for the i.c.c. i don't see it but you're doing your work i would be because i.c.c. was precisely doing its why some people didn't like it but they made this unfortunate decision that we regret in twenty sixteen the group of former world leaders known as the elders called for the urgent reform of the i.c.c. required it said to improve its overall performance and effectiveness in delivering justice for all in a timely manner not such reforms they said would lead to the enhance credibility of the court there have been no reforms since twenty sixteen reforms continue it depends on what we mean reform. i'd be the faster to tell you that as a human institution this court yes those knees of erotic review of it manner of doing one to two to do battle like we do in our lives not like

every other site institutional company would do that is taken for granted but that's what people are talking about the russell reforms that are more difficult to achieve because. you needs to amend the rooms tattooed on that's a more difficult proposition but closer to home judges will want to keep on reviewing how we do the want to improve how we. no we do things there have been some serious missteps that doesn't help when you have the acquittal of the former every coast president laurent gbagbo for instance earlier this year this was seen as a stunning defeat wasn't it for what was the first prosecution of a former head of state amnesty international coded a crushing disappointment to victims of post election violence in the country do you share that disappointment i do not share the counter rises of stunning defeat

i do. understand the concern of those who speak on behalf of the victims i could see. they would be disappointed by such results but understanding oh i think with victims. one can say they should not lead us to taking short cuts to do was short cut you need better prosecution said going to the judge to no toughest one of your colleagues said the prosecutor had failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the responsibility of mr gbagbo as well as his former youth minister i can satisfy the burden of proof this is a prosecution failure isn't it i cannot comment on that because i mean the appeals court will be of this court and that case might come of an appeal and because of that i certainly cannot comment on it because what i want to see that i was saying

is that. you know it's not just like with all the prison procedures i mean it's perfect in the court is it that there's too much of a need. that everything is possible to have everything is imperfect we've had a string of losses there in a string of reverse and you listen to me please along the way there's all kinds of continuum that we must take into account now as a judge i must tell you that i do not regard acquittal. stunning the kind of. victims will be disappointed but we hang other ways of trying to attend to the victims for instance the something we call the trust fund for victims by the way. to donate is not just this message that's not justice to donate to the trust fund for something else that's not just them with systems programs in case there is no conviction am i right or wrong in thinking

that a prosecutor's job is to bring to court he will pull case based on solid evidence that will stand up in court and that hasn't been happening the last meal is questions and he did not want to be easy if he seems to be written out that is something we can write appears if he says now you know have you where you can give me a much simpler answer than that i cannot give you about simple answer some things are not susceptible to simplistic answers you say that's an excuse it is not an excuse the fact of the matter is this if you focused on accountability and we need to focus on the room started promised counter ability to people he did not promise that every case that comes to court must result in a conviction that do you know. we are not here running for you called i think you can try building up the holy office of the inquisition even.

right did not come because everybody or when failed to stand unfortunately we're running out of temp you know that we're running out of child the only money to get three percent of went through the. city thank you very much for being a company thank you.

he. does. appreciate music. first swiss cheese maker is trying it out on. his lemon tart receives one loving attention. and he plays music for it as well so can you taste the difference was the idea

cheesy. in thirty minutes on t.w. . it's like a huge laboratory of all experiment. india. a society that's changing fast. aggressive ideas. vicious plan. also serious conflict. looking toward the future. credible but came. in seventy five minutes on g.w. . it's time to take one step. and face.

time you're up to such the numbers and find for the truth. to overcome downtrends and connection. it's time for. a new deputy is coming up ahead. mine's. not nothing out of the gym i just sometimes i am but i stand up and whip it up and we seem to have been thinks deep into the german culture of looking at the stereotypes clad in ears think it's nice in the country that i'm not up to the time. needed change the thickness gram a day out to eat it's cold out ok. i might show join me for me again sunday w. . post. african. economy president of the law and end of the london patriotic front to. the rebel army

and to the one nine hundred ninety four genocide wasn't when. there wasn't doing to us could be used in toto me to reinforce the close of the news but does not mean he was not floating in no troops to. a controversial new leader who success is beyond question. time. and the one tragedy starts able fifth on t w. nato secretary general yen stoltenberg has marked seventy years of the alliance at events in washington stoltenberg met with u.s. secretary of states my pump a.o. and other nato foreign ministers he admitted there were divisions of in veterans' atlantic partnership but he called for greater unity and more spending to face off

the growing threats of russia. police in japan have detained automobile tycoon carlos.