from politics to plastic from. this is what. welcome to the seventy seven. people six g.w. . i think that's actually one of questions you should be asking them to see remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you sent it wants you dead why do you think it's complacency the international criminal court set up to try the worst crimes on the planet has a new enemy in washington the trumpet ministration has accused it of having no legitimacy and says it wants to die my guess this week here in the hague is sujit always be president of the i.c.c. how can he defend the court against such powerful opposition.

chile about suzy welcome to conflict zone thank you very much and welcome to the i.c.c. thank you the u.s. national security adviser 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 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 want and we hope there will be 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 its. 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 answer couldn't be clearer it's not the that is the answer from him the moment we are confident that. they will reconsider we are competent about something that's based on one hand they tell me tell. the sort of hostility had been shown in the past never to the sixten that and later on 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 referring the doc situation to the court the united states government did move the tide and in doing so when you're dealing with them trying

to get this straight sure nobody likes one cycle and when they voted in the security council to refer to the four situation to the i.c.c. they said they voted because they did not like the idea of impunity and for that reason that there were a flurry 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 club 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 us in their funds in the us would be targeting i think that's actually a question you should be casting about what that means under a little seriously known seem to take this seriously you seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country in. you saying it wants you dead why

do you think it's complacency it is taught complacency what i'm saying is leave that and we are them to reconsider their position and join the court and cooperate because this coolant was established for reasons that america can read about in the first 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 terminals don't tell you in the past you're talking to me about the past i'm talking about the present because if you're putting your head in the sand who here are not putting my head in the sand 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 and paid 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 women 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 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 a teen the trumpet ministration warned there would be consequences if you went ahead with that request pompei i understand that request is still pending is it still pending i don't know i don't know that my answer to you will change to what i already said but please please address the specifics of what pompei i was throwing to he says that is could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions

and sentencing that twenty seventeen requests 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 temporal this court and we need to be hit at that are you going to challenge this incredibly hostile threat from the u.s. . so bow down neatly and accept it. we'll put it to use those sort of a mood of the language it becomes a little difficult. there are other things that can happen between cow towing and the media as you put it and goes the other thing you said the point is now we. to consider that this court case important for the global interest for the interests 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 u.s. secretary of state. well it is as i say once again 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 a trial are just the way i can tell you it's been in the public domain it's come from your court where i can tell you is that let's understand the jurisdiction the premise of the court. it is that states have the primary responsibility to do justice the court is only a court of last resort is one state unable unwilling to do justice but the i.c.c. is intitled to intervene now that means that for some states the ones we call the

states they call them as a mirror of conscience that 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 can't be honest. you've asked a 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 lots of countries around the world where when this thinks they're 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 do does the court stand by its twenty sixteen point two percent there was a reasonable basis to believe the us military had committed torture secret tension so you mean that because we mean in the court reporter you're talking there are

examination reports on there which are made public when given to the general assembly let's use 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 the school that has little to make the for its nuclear georgina roundings question and i'm refusing to answer what's already been in the public being maybe one of people to make of that you can characterize it any way you want the point is that when. they judge i speak from my judgment i cannot be making comments on something else that is not in the within the remit click yes i have to decide what you are talking about is not the for me as a judge 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 in this interview just now and so yeah it definitely shows 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 populous countries in the world have decided that you. 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 and populous states in the but the hundred and twenty three states nationally ignore those c. one distinct people make often quite frankly is the ignored those who are in

unfocused and those who are not in that's not fact to those who are in these that all three of them have intended you know in weeks months or to 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 let's not get all lost in the preferences of those who have not yet joined whom we hope will join at some point these two hundred twenty three countries do not and large her 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 the cases come to court is where the security council refers it refers 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 range of people 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 thirty 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 again i don't know what 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 watch that just now we continue to watch those who have not joined to do so so that humanity all over the world come under the umbrella you're watching is pulling on deaf ears well. if you actually asked yourself 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 and number of pages thesis on those we're not here to write ph d. thesis we can do all that says let's stay with the facts and what you were set up to do which is to try is the most serious crimes of the planet and that is very

important we should know lou signed 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 care will not allow any referral of syrian leaders to your court under any circumstance we can that's a big gap we will see that it is it is a very important there's no question about that but i stand vetoes a situation that should ordinarily be brought to court so that humanity is protected. by virtue of mandal 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 wine 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 the rwandan genocide in the night and night i only 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 joining. because the protection humanity under the rule watch this well that is what we

hope to see happen we live in the world despite your honorable intentions we live in a world where despots to get away with pretty much everything we are hoping the fact changes that is why this court was brought into play and there's an irony you have reason to think that that has actually changed 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 no you haven't you haven't so why don't you but syrian officials have and that's the reality of today isn't it that's the america we all know had more international law great a body of international law more courts more experts more judges but that's the reality one person you get tried you kill four hundred thousand you get invited to peace talks that's hardly justices in the us i think you and i might be able.

next and. thinking loudly whether i should even comment 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 you me to the actions like. those concerned in these decisions to stop the reach of isis's jurisdiction to reconsider their position 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 nigeria. you can't

offer the kind of protection and you can't offer the obstacles that you claim let let's 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 course 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 it's not in venezuela not in syria when i cannot comment on some of those issues 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 connection to tell you something there's a week this is time what i said judge i cannot comment on the propositions you trust me i 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 said distinct takes any of those. cases come up on the i.c.c. . to be a problem for me not her 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 is that human gene it's man as well and 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 room 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 the sports and we just recently had the malaysia join us don't forget this you had 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 do you expect me to say to that it is for them they made the decision to draw for reasons that reasons we q. and i. can discuss it in under circumstances but that's not what the i.c.c. . it's not ice he says it's a major we. feel work isn't it because not only are you having countries withdrawing you are having others that are flouting their commitments to the cause of the philippines and burundi the dimensions. deal because they say that i.c.c. was investigating cases in relation to that now what is not a problem for the i.c.c. in the moral sense that you're trying to play because i.c.c. is doing it's one and people 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 that because i.c.c.

was precisely doing its why some people didn't like it that 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 sixty reforms. it depends on what we mean reform. i'd be the foster to tell you that as a human institution this court yes those knees of the ready review of it manner of doing what to do 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 rather some reforms that are more difficult to achieve because of you need to amend the rooms tattooed on that's a more difficult proposition but closer to home judges will to keep on reviewing how we do the want to improve how we. no we do things that have been some serious missteps 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 called it a crushing disappointment to victims of post election violence in the country do you share that disappointment i do not share the counter rising 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 the victims. one can say they should not lead us to taking short cuts to the washoe county you need better prosecutions and going to the judge to know 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 in this court on that case michael of the appeal and because of the time something i cannot comment on it because what i was saying what i was saying is that. you know it's not just like with all the press procedures it means perfect in the court or is it that there's too much of it is not either everything is

perfect 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 would be disappointed but we have 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 victims something else that's not just them without assistance program 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 simply what we can write appears if he says now you know you don't have any where you can give me a much simpler than that i cannot give you a bad simple answer some things are not susceptible to simplistic answers you sense an excuse is not 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 what you call the i think. the holy of the soul of the inquisition even. right did not convict everybody or when failed to stand unfortunately we're running out of temp you know that we really have the only money to get three percent of went through the.

city thank you very much for being the company.

i'm not thinking about the job well i guess sometimes i am but i stand nothing with that german thinks deep into the german culture of looking at the stereotypes aquatics put in here think the future of the country that i'm playing. needed to be taken a scrum a day off to me it's all about. bob newcombe good time rachel join me for me the german sunday w. post what's the connection between bret bios and the

european union so you know it's good old monta d.w. correspondent and now baker can stretch the cocaine line with the unspoken sexpot. gene. scott's. snuffing recipes for success strategy that make a difference. baking bread on d.w. . sitting rooms. are always. a symbol of a long complex in the philippines. between the muslims. and the christian population. when lance fighters on the city center in two thousand and seven team president to church's response was little. by little it

will never again football game. the reconquest turned into tragedy. that's not the reason at all this is not the kind of freedom that leon. how did it become a gateway to islamist terror. until now the sarkari more sitting as a result of. an exclusive report from a destroyed city. philippines in the sights of bias starts april eleventh on t w.

this is d.w. news live from berlin crossing the political divide to prevent a no deal brags that britain's prime minister reaches out to oppositional under german orbit to seek a common approach with time running out. meanwhile the german chancellor has to ireland which would be hit hard by any break the trade chaos.