i think that's actually more the question you should be asking to see remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country in the sense you can consume 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 cheering for sujit always be 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 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 or small because of 123 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 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 couldn't start the that is the answer from the moment we are confident that. there will reconsider we are competent about something that's based on one hand they tell me tell. the source 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 to build this with the i.c.c. and its jurisdictional reach they still did assist the court in very many wasting looting referring the darfur situation to the court the united states government did move for time and in doing so when you're dealing with them trying

to take ministration i want to like once i can 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 they were referring 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 and 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 you know seem to take this seriously you seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful. country on the you saying it

wants you dead where do you think is complacency it is taught 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 get 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 helped 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 sand 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 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 to the rest of the world and that is why this court was created you keep repeating that the 2 weeks ago the u.s. secretary of state might pumpin to refer 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 understands that request is still pending is it still pending i don't know i don't know that my answer to you will change the world i already said but please adjust the specifics of what pompei i was throwing to he says that is. could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions

and sentencing that 2017 request from the i.c.c. prosecutor to investigate the situation in afghanistan cannot comment on pending matter that is a matter now pending before the temporal this court and we need to be good at that are you going to challenge this incredibly hostile threat from the u.s. 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 and the media as you put it on board the other thing you said the point is now we. 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 u.s. secretary of state might. 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 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 the mother your report again the matter pending before the trial to the 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 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. titled 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 author in the territory of sovereign national sovereignty i understand that your answer candy i see. you've asked the question and this is relevant to it and the 2nd part of the course the restriction those who are not able to do justice there are a lot of countries around the world where when these things 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 times i understand that right my question was do does the court stand by its 2016 point 2 percent there was a reasonable basis to believe the u.s. military had committed torture secret tension so you mean that it was going to mean moving in the court reporter you're talking there are examination reports sunday

which are made public been given to the general assembly this is one of the intrinsics 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 literally to make the for its nuclear georgina roundings question list and i'm refusing to answer what's already been in the public may be one of people to make of that you can characterize it any way you want the point is there when this was. asked a judge i speak from my judgment i cannot be making comments on something else that is not in the within the remit because i have to decide what you're talking about it's not the for me as a judge ok so mr pompei was not going to get a. pli from new to his appeal to change course is he he's not going to get he's

going to get the same answer that i've got in this interview just no answer yeah definitely sure 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 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 that why is that a problem for me. it's for the court the right that's what i mean for the court if stage who should join the court haven't joined this is a big problem in that the most powerful and popular states in the but the 123 states nationally go those see one distinct 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 piece that all 3 of them have intended you know in weeks months or 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 that 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 them when cases come to the court is where the security council refers it. attests to the court because we call them situations in respect 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 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 political legal concepts and might make the i.c.c. is work in the future more contentious undermining further its own therapy 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 have right or wrong does it it matters that they have the

power and the veto to block your again. no would right improve on the answer the answer i give you is that. $123.00 state you have faith in this court and we continue to watch that just now we continue to 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 ask 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 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 of the planet and that is very important

we should know lou signed 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 there will not allow any referral of syrian leaders to your 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 the 2 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 use mr 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 6000000. jews killed because of their faith. during the 2nd world war we 800000 people the rwandan genocide in the night and night i only know what i 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 really 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 with the spots 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 have reason to think that it's actually changing there's an irony here isn't there 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 so you have a book you haven't so wanted but syrian officials have and that's the reality of today isn't it that's the america we all 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 400000 you get invited to peace talks

that's hardly justices in the us i think you and i might be able to an extant. speaking loudly whether i should even commented on that but i want want to see where you're coming from but i would say that it is a matter that past all of us you'll be to the actions like. those concerned in these decisions to stalk 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 my friends back up to 1st 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. has been an obstacle. to the conscience of those who would ordinarily but me in ways that would not be if we didn't have the schools well nothing you haven't even seen this is done not in venezuela not in syria when i cannot comment on some of those pieces 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 ever since i can i tell you something has a way this is them 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. . to be a problem for me not much chance is 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 not his will 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 prize 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 why 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 for the i.c.c. . it's not i see this is it's a major we. see your work isn't it. because not only are you having countries withdrawing you having others that are flouting their commitments to the coup or the philippines and burundi the dimensions. with 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 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 that 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 a reform as they said would lead to the enhance credibility of the court there have been no reforms since 2016 reforms. it depends on what we mean reform. i'd be the foster to tell you that as a human institution this court yes does need 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 that's what

people are talking about the rough some reforms that are more difficult to achieve because of you need to amend the rooms tattooed sundance a more difficult proposition but closer to home judges will want to keep on reviewing how we do the want to improve how. we do things there have been some serious missteps doesn't help when you have their. with all 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 coded 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 cut you need better prosecution said going to the judge to not 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 the appeal and because of that i certainly cannot comment on it because what i was saying that i was saying is that. you know how does he live with all the police procedures and means perfect in the court or is it that there's too much of the need is not high that 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 it's a stunning defeat science and understand no victims will be disappointed. but we. 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 that's not just this message that's not just us to donate to the trust fund for something else that's not just with our systems program in the race in the conviction am i right or wrong in thinking that a prosecutor's job is to bring to court he will pour case based on solid evidence that will stand up in court and that hasn't been happening to you 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 a piece if he says now that you have printed so 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 he cites an excuse is not it is not an excuse the fact of the matter is this if you focused on accountability and this we need to focus on the room started promised count ability to people he did not promise that every case that comes to court must result in convictions that do you know. we are not here running for you called i think it can. be the holy of the soul of the inquisition even. right did not convict everybody or else when fell the stand unfortunately we're running out of temper you know that we really have child children the only money to get a little 3 percent of went through the. city thank you very much for being all

comfy thank you.

quadriga international talk show for journalists to discuss the topic of the week of august last protests over proposed extradition was just one skirmish in a larger scramble for how to. get the demonstrators when the battle the lose the war and find out on this week's edition of country. more trigona 90 minutes on d w.

what keeps us in shape what makes us see and how do we stay home from school. my name is dr constantly i talk to medical experts. watch them at work. and i discuss what you can do to improve go ahead. stay choose and let's all try to stay in good shape. on t.w. . logo to the girl next new jersey channel. closed goodbye no stewards. with exclusive insights. and a must see concerning parts culture clear of the place to be in full curious minds

. do it yourself networkers. so subscribe and don't miss out. i am i have. been 15 years since the moon landing. she was the 1st man to walk on the moon. as a small boy she dreamed of the stars. as a pilot she flew anything no matter how to introduce. a church or go to the pole. as an astronaut he took part in the greatest adventure in history.

she wrote a legend or simply a schumann dream who was neil armstrong. the moon was his destiny starts july 20th on t.w. . u.s. president donald trump has played down iran's downing of a u.s. surveillance drone thursday saying he suspected it was shot down by mistake he ron says the drone was on its territory and called on the international community to demand that washington and its quote unlawful and.