you know you're a back series. then and it's not like. i'm nothing if i'm not sure what's a 6 and looks like alex was like me by just 50 nations 50 stories. and 50 very personal tips on berlin very. good now. on d w. i i'm. i think that's actually more of question you should ask him if you do seem 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 as a new enemy in washington in terms of ministration those accused of having no legitimacy. 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. about suzy welcome to conflict zone thank you very much on 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's 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 the call to small because a 123 states parties to it too strongly supported this is the most powerful country in the world and we want them to be a part of the book they're not and they want 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 only 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 what many tell me tell. the source of hostility had been shown in the past never to the sixten that and later on another administration 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 darfur situation to the court the united states government did move for the time and in doing so when you're dealing with them trying to get this straight sure nobody likes ones like that and when they voted in the security council to refer to the 4 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 u.s. and their friends in the u.s. would be targeted i think that's actually or a question you should. koskinen what that means under rule seriously no known seem

to take this seriously you seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you sent it wants you dead why do you think is complacency it is taught complacency what i am saying is leave plant and we are getting them to reconsider their position and join the cotton club parade because this court was established for reasons that america can about in the 1st place. america has been quite strong in the past about international criminal justice they were at the forefront of nuremberg proceedings they help 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 to you about the present because if you're putting your head in the sand who you're not putting my head in the so what i'm saying here is that we need them to join us we the reasons the

court was 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 are many imperative and it's 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 2 weeks ago the u.s. secretary of state might pumpin i referred to a 2017 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 2018 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 would change to

what i already said but these are just the specifics of what pompei i was throwing to he says that is could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing that 2017 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 chamber of this court and we need to be good at that are you going to challenge this incredibly hostile threat from the u.s. . or bowed down neatly and accepted. we'll put it to use those sort of a mood of languages becomes a little difficult. but there are other things that can happen between cow towing the meteor as you put it on board 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. well it is as i said he wants it 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 at like one so tell me this does the court stand by its 2016 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 the trial to what i can tell you is being in the public domain it's come from your court what 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 it 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 cool 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 sort of national sovereignty i understand that your answer candiotti. you've asked a question and this is relevant to it and the 2nd part of the course to restriction those who are not able to do justice there are lots of countries around the world where when these things flare up they cannot administer justice it is easier to do atrocity than to do justice we saw that in rwanda before the times i understand right my question was does the court stand by its 2016 point 2 percent there was

a reasonable basis to believe the us military had committed torture secret tensions . in the court reporter you're talking here our examination report sunday which are made public we were given to the general assembly this is one of the intrinsics let me explain to you have our clock now i am a judge the chief judge of the court. 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 court that has little to me at the front it's not judging around these questions i'm refusing to answer what's already been in the public maybe what people to make of that you can characterize it anywhere you want the point is that when i. asked the judge i speak from my judgment i cannot be making comments on something else

that is not in the within the realm it click is i have to decide what you're talking about it's 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 in this interview just now and so 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 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 3 out of 5 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 and 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 haven't joined this is a big problem is that the most powerful and populous states in the but they run 123

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 3 of them have intended to go in with the mustard to come we must be able to respect the participation of the $123.00 states parties who continue to have faith in the word of the court let's not get all lost in the preferences of those who have not yet joint whom we hope will join at some point these 223 countries do not and large vetoes 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 verifies

a case to the court because we call them situations in respect of countries that are not states part is 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 author already and credibility this is a certain. this is the kind of resistance you're facing among the permanent 5 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. 123 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 aging is pulling on deaf ears well. if you actually asked to solve why it is that those states who have not joined haven't done so. 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 is the most serious crimes on the planet and that is very important we should not lose science and i find the veto that the 3 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 go will not allow any referral of syrian leaders to court under any circumstances we can that's a big gap. it is it is a very important there's no question about that but as things beatles' situation that should ordinarily be brought to court so that humanity is protected . by virtue of mandatory the i.c.c.

it is a serious problem but it is one that all of that protection including you mr sebastian would need to come 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 6000000. jews killed because of their faith during the 2nd world war we 800000 i understand the rwandan genocide in 1900 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 400000 victims of the assad regime who have absolutely 0 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 a world despite your honorable intentions we live in a world where despots to get away with pretty much everything and we're hoping the changes that this why this court was brought into play and there's an irony we 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 400000 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 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 400000 you get invited to peace talks that's hardly justices in the us i think you and i might be able to. extend. thinking loudly whether i should even commented on that but i want to 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 this decision is to store up 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 friends back up to for support the reality doesn't match your rhetoric does it i can tell you this i can tell you that yes this cold. hands 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 nothing you haven't you can see it's not in venezuela not in syria when i cannot comment on some of those issues and as a matter of you read the news well i can read you read the news you see what's happened i read the news but never seen some but can i tell you something there's

a way this is them but as 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 at the i.c.c. . it be a problem for me not much chance is that he's not shocked i'm not sure that it's not much chance we have to keep hoping. that you cannot fail to notice is a human being it's manners within and the states men and women who make these decisions will reconsider their position so that everybody can subscribe to the i.c.c. laws and there are some not reconsidering their positions you have the withdrawal of existing signatories to the rome treaty like the philippines and burundi and i ask you whether you can blame them because the big powers refused to collaborate with you what should this forms and we just recently had in malaysia join us don't

forget this you have that's what about withdrawal of the philippines and burundi where there are clear cases to answer whether or not clear cases of human rights violations 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 under circumstances but that's not what the i.c.c. . it's not ice he says it's a. real 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 what is not a problem for the i.c.c. in the moral sense the 20 plus because i.c.c.

is doing its work and people choose to withdraw and then that's a problem for the i.c.c. i can 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 we regret in 2016 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 such reforms they said would lead to the enhance credibility of the court they have been no reforms since 2060 reforms. it depends on what we need. reform. i need a faster tell you that as a human institution this court yes those knees of erotic review of it manner of doing one to 2 to do battle like we do in our lives not like every

other site institutional company would do that is taken for granted but in advance of what people are talking about the rather some reforms that are more difficult to achieve because. you need 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 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 1st prosecution of a former head of state amnesty international code 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 victims. one can say they should not lead us to taking short cuts to the washoe county you need better prosecutions going to the judge you know the 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 kids might come of the appeal and because of that i certainly 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 a need. that everything is perfect to have everything is imperfect and you have 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. are the ways of trying to attend to the victims for instance the something we call the trust fund for victims by the way. to donate that's not justice that's it that's not justice to donate to the trust fund for something else that's not just the system this program takes there is no conviction am i right or wrong in thinking

that a prosecutor's job is to bring to court he winnable case based on solid evidence that will stand up in court and that hasn't been happening you lost me little questions and he did not want to be easy if he seems to be written out that is simply what we can write a p.c. thesis now so you don't have anywhere you can give me a much simpler than that i cannot give you 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 for your cause i think it can. be the holy of the soul of the inquisition even.

right did not convict everybody or else when failed to stand unfortunately we're running out of temp you know that we really have the only money to get really 3 percent of went through the. city thank you very much for being a complex thank you.

the boxing. with the senses. recognize. and experience the inexpressible.

the cultural magazine the. arts 21. g.w. . film the tumbling tyesha from fires came from jurors are dealing with and then i killed many civilians i mean guys coming cutting my father. says i was a student because i wanted to build a life for myself like these totally but suddenly. life became our show. providing insights global news that matters d. w. made for minds. listen carefully. simply. to get.

discovered. the i. subscribe to documentary. so if you have to get through the bundesliga break without a football. think again. supplements . the results. plenty.

plenty. plenty of the. to c.w. news live from berlin the e.u. leaders get set for a battle over who gets the blocks top jobs france and germany have clashed over who should become the next president of the european commission and germany's chancellor angela merkel this morning base may not reach an agreement at a summit in brussels today also coming up to iran says that it is quote ready for

war after shooting down what it says was a u.s. spy drone iran says that the u.s. crossed into a red line and raising fears of a military.