>> good afternoon. i'm the president of the carnegie endowment for international peace. it is heartening to me to see so many people in the room and know there are many watching online. this event with the prosecutor general of ukraine comes at a critical moment for ukraine and for the world. it's an important moment because terrible and tragic war that began with an invasion for a tremendous amount of time cost huge amounts of money, the cost to reconstruct ukraine at this point runs probably more than $400 billion. but the human toll of the world is far greater and far more

important. we think about more than 500,000 who've been injured in some way or killed. millions of lives that have been disrupted and continue to be disrupted. for those of us who spent time thinking about international, we know one of the bedrock distinctions for international law is between combatants and civilians. those distinctions have been routinely disrespected by the invading power in this case, creating a situation that has harmed a great many civilians across the small towns, large cities and everywhere in between. as the world copes with the situation, various different players and countries around the world with international tribunals have all acted in different ways trying to take stock of what it means for the world to still be grappling well into the 21st century. while the international criminal court is playing the role in all this and they should have an arrest warrant, the ukrainian

government itself plays an absolutely critical role. in fact over 80,000 cases of suspected war crimes are being investigated at this moment tragically perhaps many more will be investigated. prosecutor general andre is with us today to discuss all of this and the efforts that he and his colleagues are making as part of the effort to make sure that the rule of law remains meaningful even in the midst of war. a day in and day out as the war continues, as the fighting continues and efforts to protect civilians continue, they gather. they look around and try to document what's happening. we think about how this event got started. we have an event in this room with nobel peace prize laureates from russia and from ukraine. there was much discussion then about accountability, historical memory, about justice. this event grows out of that in an effort to understand how in a

situation is complicated and challenging as ukraine, those words, justice, accountability, documenting for historical memory can be made a reality. before i begin this conversation with the prosecutor general, i also want to note that the ambassador from ukraine to the united states was unfortunately not able to join us because she's detained and busy in congress continuing discussions about the situation and about how the u.s. and other countries can continue the support to ukraine. but i am very pleased to welcome my friend and colleague the ginsburg professor of international law at georgetown university who will speak in a moment on behalf of the american society for international law that is cosponsoring this event along with us and the ukrainian embassy. the society of international law has a long-term in fact we were there at the founding to try to support that and this played an important role helping americans

understand how day in and day out even as many technologies and social practices change, the commitment to the rule of law and ideally the international law puts us in this country so welcome, professor schaefer. [applause] thank you, keynote, for the generous remarks. mr. prosecutor general, gentlemen, ladies, excellencies, my name is gregory shaver and i'm the president of the american society of international law. our society is the world's largest convene are an expert on international law and it's been here for nearly 120 years. the thousands of members include the top academics, attorneys, judges, government officials and leaders. with cambridge university press we published a number one journal in the field the

american journal of international law along with other important titles. each year here in washington, d.c. where the ambassador has spoken as a keynote we host our annual meeting of over a thousand people and we are having the 118th annual meeting this year scheduled for april. our mission is to foster and promote the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice, and issue that is under strain today. international law is a major important fraud in this conflict. membership of our societies open to all who value international law and some 40% of our members reside outside of the united states. i encourage you all to learn more about us given the importance of international law for ukraine and for the world. for coming here this evening, he

mentioned how important the links are between the carnegie endowment and asil. we are named after our founders. andrew carnegie's lawyer but more broadly he was the renowned turn-of-the-century statesman having served as a senator from new york as well as the secretary of war under president mckinley and secretary of state under president teddy roosevelt. together with a small handful of others, they founded the american society of international law in 1906. a few years later in 1910, they founded this institution, the carnegie endowment for international peace. he served as the first president for nearly 20 years and simultaneously as the first president of the carnegie

endowment. in founding asil, they had a novel idea. they believed that international conflicts might be resolved through international law, specifically through international arbitration. as we know, there are many now addressing issues which are central to the ukraine conflict. in 1912, he won the nobel prize, peace prize and he did for the international law and resolution of international disputes with international courts. in closing i would like to say a word about ukraine and what we are doing with regards to ukraine. this december in partnership with the ukrainian association of international law, the ukrainian government and civil society, we will convene and lead a conference time to

coincide with the 75th anniversary of the declaration, the universal declaration of human rights and the genocide convention. leveraging these milestones to inform public opinion and catalyze concrete action. international law owes a great deal. providing the conceptual framework for the crime of genocide, he coined the term genocide and champion to the che adoption of the genocide convention. you may know that the book introducing the word genocide was first published by the carnegie endowment. developing the concept of crime against humanity for which nazi leaders were held accountable at nuremberg and an international bill of the rights of man he

advanced the notion that individuals could be subject's of international law and set forth many of the concepts that made their way into the universal declaration of human rights. louis was instrumental out of drafting the un charter and of thestatute of the international court of justice. but it's perhaps best known for the extraordinary human rights advocacy. all three of these men studied law in love eve. all three were members of the american society of international law. that's where many of these innovative ideas both were born and propagated. a delegation of 75 legal experts together with 75 ukrainian counterparts will unpack in december the complex legal challenges that we are

identifying together. from our side, the initiative is led by the executive director, and with our international law fellow. the endowment we were always meant to work together and providing legal advice and policy advice with respect to the major conflicts of our time. i hope that you will join us this year if you are available. it is now my honor to call to the stage mr. prosecutor general. thank you. [applause] welcome again. it's an honor to have you at the

carnegie endowment. you have an extraordinary career, you've been a board member of the international bar association, a parliament member, head of the justice and safety committee of the parliament, but this is know doubt particularly challenging as an assignment. can you share with us a bit about how the efforts to document war crimes fit into president zelenskyy's peace strategy? >> first of all, thank you for organizing this event. thank you for your time, thank you for your attention. i really appreciate that we will not only discuss the sport of aggression and war crimes committed not only discuss them

from the legal point of view but also from i would say the humanitarian point of view because every victim and survivor has his or her name and everything we are doing is for them, for restoring of their dignity, for restoring of their belief that justice is important, that justice exists and that rule of law prevails over the rule of course. what we are doing, not only we in ukraine, i say we meaning not only ask, but everyone who is helping and supporting us in all of our endeavors.

we are doing it not only for ukraine victims and survivors of this war. we need to ensure long-lasting peace in europe and beyond when this war will be ended we hope by our victory, but this is also our common obligation before us, our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren. we also are doing our job as tribute to those victims and survivors of the previous war and conflict that has not received their matter of justice because of absence of international instruments or the

inefficiency or because of many reasons and we need to remember about them. on some occasions, when we fight for justice, it's very difficult. we are doing it once again not only from victims and survivors in ukraine but also for those who still suffer from the same crime and the other parts of the world. i've been asked sometimes very difficult questions.

people from the places of the world where still conflicts and wars are ongoing, asking me, i don't know why me that they are asking why the world is helping ukraine in justice and accountability efforts and didn't protect us in our situation. it's a difficult question. maybe it's not fair that i need to respond to it, but what i tell them first, we've been supportive because we do our best to ensure justice for all victims of this war and if you do everything on your side, anyone that is ready to help

assist you will do it with more and more energy and i feel it throughout these 18 months. i feel that we are supported more and more. i hope that we will have time to speak about this in detail. and second, i tell them that with this very wide support, if we will succeed in our situation, then you will have a chance in your countries, in your societies because we will create these successful practices. very few elements. we are talking about special tribunal. we don't have time to talk about it in detail. what is important first time

after trials in nuremberg and far east, first time we tried to make aggressors accountable on the international level. a lot of wars and conflict happened in the world during this 80 years and there was know attempt. many tribunals, but they were dealing with other war crimes rather than the crime of progression. now we have itc independence, judiciary institutions, the strongest one that deal with war crimes and genocide, but we understand that international mechanism that could prosecute and punish those who are the

architects and masterminds of these international crimes. this mechanism is not efficient. we have know hope the security council of the united nations will refer our case. we know that they've ruled the jurisdiction on the crime of aggression are not efficient. we need to create something new, based on previous experience but to create something new and to be after a second world war two prosecute and punish the aggressor. second, you're the first prosecuting now in environmental crimes as war crimes never done before even with a piece of legislation, i'm not even speaking about the crime, just

environmental crimes of war crime and we for one year engaged huge international support and we are moving together because we have no right to make a mistake. and even our friends and our partners i can say this from the team of prosecutors, we demand their independent work but we are partners for them providing them with evidences in a very efficient manner. even they have no yet experience and third, cyber attacks as war crimes, never done before in history. we need to be prepared because making them accountable we can detour any future aggressor even

to try because any future aggressor will know that there is existing mechanisms in place to prosecute and to punish them. it's not of course a guarantee that there will be know wars and conflict. we are not naïve, but we need to do what we can do as lawyers not only to prosecute and punish or ensure fair prosecution and trial, but also to detour. and with this i want to say that our discussions with humanitarian elements we will speak about later is very important because we all understand. our predecessors did a lot in order to establish international

system of law and order to prevent future conflicts and prevent international crimes, but we understand that this system unfortunately is not fully efficient, and this is our obligation once again to do our best to improve, to adjust in parallel with documenting, investigating and prosecuting war crimes of this war. >> there are those you've probably encountered who ask the following questions. they say it may be important to document, but isn't it more important to get the keys and is in the focus on documenting the atrocities something that may ultimately complicate a peace agreement? what do you say to people that say that?

>> first of all, we understand there could be no justice without justice. it's impossible. it will be a cease-fire. if we are talking about peace, and this is very explicitly indicated in the formula proposed where justice, the restoration of justice is one of the important elements, and my president always says that we are fighting on both front lines to restore our territorial integrity, independence, and freedom. and to ensure justice for all victims and survivors of these wars. these elements are interlinked and how you can feel at peace

from the point of view of person in ukraine who suffered from this war, who suffered from war crimes. just end of the war and no justice. looking on the tv screen where perpetrators from russia will will affect them. i'm not speaking now about something strange. these are real cases of wars and conflicts of the territory of former yugoslavia then victims of sexual violence meet their perpetrators from the street and can do nothing. these are real stories.

when someone proposes peace without justice, i will propose these people to come back to a city, community country and ask him or herself are you ready to leave the community where people are killing, torturing and raping others? and just letting them do what they want without any punishment, without any order on your streets. do you want to live in this community and probably everyone will say know. everyone who has committed a crime should be accountable or isolated if these crimes are very severe and atrocious because these people want to secure communities in a secure space. why they don't wish us, the ukrainians, to live in a secure

community, international crime means the community where the crimes are committed are our planet. are we ready to allow international criminals to live with us, to go to the same restaurant, to go to the same kindergarten? i believe know. that's why i think that those who want peace without justice just need to close their eyes and imagine this pitcher when killers, rapists are going with them in the same streets and they just allow them to do what they want. >> it's a very clear answer and that brings up a practical problem which is you are in the midst of the war at the same time you and your colleagues are gathering information on tens of thousands of cases with about

100,000 now. to say a little bit about how you are organizing to do that volume of work. >> this is very important because first of all, together with everyday work on documenting, and what they always say to the prosecutors and the investigators you never know this case, whether it will be prosecuted here in ukraine so you need to apply high standards. i think everyone here will say the standards are absolutely okay so in our communication and cooperation and even training courses provided by itc to our

prosecutors and investigators are very important in order to ensure that evidence is documented in a proper manner. it's also very important when we document war crimes to be in collaboration of cooperation with the civil society organization. this is very important because they have, sometimes they have even more resources than we. we are limited because we have limitations in power and procedural limitations. they on some occasions can provide us with more information and survivors trust them more than governmental authorities. we are changing this approach, but anyway, cooperation with civil societies. in my office we have a platform. it's called international council of experts where we have

more than 45 organizations who have divided their activity into six groups. they chose from children journalists, sexual violence and others. we've added two more on the environmental crimes and when we have interaction and exchange information, this is important because the people who approach ngos and -- they want results because they can't apply procedural, they can't apply the law in this dimension so documenting, of course when you

prioritize the investigations. of course the priority is where the villain are killed, less civilians were wounded. civilians are raped, humiliated illegally detained. so all types of war crimes where they are physically damaged or harmed. in my work crime department we have three groups. the first group for the crime of aggression, second for a crime of genocide and others working with more crimes. so this is to understand how we distribute. we also have established nine units in the region close to the war where we provided facilitation and war crime

investigation and prosecution within the regional union. in order to ensure because it is in the central office and then we ensure that these people are also properly trained on the regional level and we are -- they are new because there was know practice. therefore, this vertical and horizontal lien is also very important. .. and also discussed in order to

be a document we also prepared strategic document. it started with sexual violence. we also document for cases where children are affected. environmental crimes. because once again we do something new even based on previous experience we need so many is incidents. we need to make it work more systemic. what we also do is an element of the strategy is when we combine cases. a lot of incidents for instance i will give you and example. the blow up. i created made the biggest in history a group of investigators and prosecutors. it's not only about the initial blow up.

initial case of when it was blown up. as a difficult story of your evidentiary base. but the consequences for people for the environment. many regions. do fix everything. reported to their local police stations. no we are collecting all of these reports all of these cases. or will me know for instance missile attacks were committed as we have information or we have evidence by one specific unit of russian army. then we can combine the cases of different attacks and a big one. this of course make our work

more efficient. we has a lot of techniques and when we are coming from investigation to prosecution during the ongoing or i have identified more than formative perpetrators. we have over elite russian war criminals convicted. and this is only our national part of accountability. plexus brings up a subject of must abate what you alluded to. you are documenting these cases, building these cases are still uncertainty whether they will be heard. one of the debates as you do well is whether it ultimately international to be on the russian side of it it's dealt with in a tribunal based on ukrainian law or purely international or international tribunal based on the law the country. what does ukraine most want to get out of that process?

how would you create like to see the process of figuring out the right system? >> you mentioned i think one of the most important elements of our accountability web as we call it. it was first presented in the lviv of an hour at united for justice conference in march. it was a conference we combined all the elements at one place. it was three days. it was also chosen intentionally. for the reasons you also mentioned in your opening remarks. the crime of aggression. we know the proposition of g7 about type of tribunal based on criminal law.

we are in discussion i hope even the same dialogue. i am in this process from the very first month of the work. and let's come back to september when there was no country that supported the idea of the creation of the tribunal. we have some friends and allies that unofficially supported it. but first official support. let's not forget about it. one year now we are in the very precise that is very strong not strong but very difficult discussion on future tribunal. one year ago it was discussion whether we needed it or not. i remember the fifth of october i was in paris for one day. it was the biggest event in

france. i was together with prosecutor and two other presenters of the panel. all the time i have been asked or tribunal whether we need tribunal if we have itc. i said look, and, they are complementary. we will delete everything. you will never imagine what will be the result of our war. now everyone saw. march of this year i'm sorry, it took us only five months to build this case. five months never before in the history. this is second historical of the war and third is one 100%

partnership. let's not forget its complementary mechanism. itc intervenes when the national authorities are unwilling or unable. we are willing and we are able unless there is a person who ensures personal immunity like putin. they have personal immunity. therefore prepared by the team prosecutor as a matter of respect to file the prosecutor. it is complementary in its nature because we cannot match putin. we can touch people below him but we cannot touch putin. i intentionally come to the issue of immunity. because if someone will use a national criminal law then putin and other members will enjoy

immunity. i hardly believe the ukrainians will accept the idea of tribunal where putin is not prosecuted. to those who propose this i say okay look, don't tell this to me. come to gather ukrainians people and say look, we want to establish special tribunal for the crime of aggression. but without putin and then hear what ukrainians will say. when i am talking about what i'm speaking about legal and humanitarian ethics, there is a combination. we think something is fair but people treat something fair because they are people. something which is fair for you

they not be fair for the others. that's why it is very important to be fair at large. not only legally but when you are talking about people and they want to restore their sense of dignity. so only two conditions are important. they should be prosecuted by the tribunal. and we all know icc, try them in absentia. where tribunal can do it. and second, the tribunal should be up international level. let it be called it's not about the name but this is global war. at the response on the crime of aggression should be global. the other potential aggressor and the other part of the world

will start this. i do not want to threaten you. we are leaving and we are breathing the air of war. you don't imagine what will happen if ukraine will lose this war. you will see this war and conflict in other places of the world. these potential aggressors are looking very carefully at our collective response if response will be weak we will see more and more. on someone will pay for this. >> you bring up a powerful point for us who are lawyers we have a technical way of understanding what is legitimate. but if we don't find a way to tell the story to the larger public it's very difficult for someone who is truly seen as

legitimate. i want to race one more question for you before we got from questions from the audience. it's a special difficulty simultaneously dealing with the war, documenting war crimes, investigating potential war crimes and at the same time the people who savor ukraine is fighting two wars the work it's russia and the work its corruption. say a bit about how your team is approaching the corruption challenge and promoting the lot generally? it's because the demands of justice. ukrainians demand of justice is not only against russia. it is in general because how can you divide your demand of i need justice for the atrocities committed by russia but i will leave it unattended when it's happening in ukraine. of course it is challenging.

but how we deal with this. first of all let's not limit the fight against corruption only to corruption. it's also about perception. we start some legal discussion what's included and corruption as a set of the articles of our criminal code. some of them corruption some or other. but perception of people is even wider. people think that corruption is about many, many other cases where the state does not perform properly on someone learn something from this. it even if some one does not learn something's perception of people that it is corruption. we cannot limit people and say no, you are wrong.

it's a waste list discussion. there demand for justice is to fight against this internal evil of course we try to deliver. but we cannot limit it to fight against corruption. i mentioned the same in my inaugural speech and parliament when i was appointed we had to enemies external russia and its collaborators and traders who help russia and the second is corruption. we need to win in both wars. we are fighting for a better country for a successful ukraine. how can we have a successful career if it is corrupted? fighting against corruption alone is not enough. we understood there are three elements which are destroying every society.

corruption, organized crime, they are so interlinked. it's organized criminals they are infiltrating the governmental authorities for their infiltrating law enforcement authorities. if you are just looking at specific cases of corruption, you are not breaking the system. because organized crime is a very powerful and strong. not only in ukraine, everywhere. i'm speaking about this with colleagues here in the united states, and you work. believe me i know quite a bit of what's going on in europe and the united states and this is a big problem i would need to fight both. and third, our president starts to fight even before the war creating oligarch legislation. because oligarchs their

structure is the same like organized criminal or organizations i'm sorry organized crime yes. also having political influence having media influence. having a lot of businesses being monopolized in many businesses. infiltrating government authorities with people who work not only in high positions they work at medium levels but they are experts who know where to input certain provisions in governmental decree, and law which will work for years. the monopolies the oligarchs will receive money. will receive a super prophet and no one will understand what's going on. you can change people on the top politicians will be changed but these people in the middle will

stay because they are paid by the oligarchs. so, what we do? we fight simultaneously on three fronts internally. corruption errors, organized crime, and oligarchs. the biggest case of corruption in ukrainian history the president of the supreme court. who organized this bribery? one of the oligarchs. it is an explicit example of how it works in ukraine. that is why our commitment to clean our country as much as we can from these three elements which could destroy any society. >> thank you. were going to go to some questions from the audience.

question about how ukrainians may be unaware they may seek justice for war crimes committed against them or disillusioned about whether that will be effective? the question or want to know what ukraine can do to raise awareness of people can make such claims and have justice done? let's first about i think in ukraine most of the ukrainians they definitely know because for war crimes we have two investigative authorities the state of the national police if they apply to any office of any state authority, and a prosecutor office their case will be registered and we will work with the case. what we want to improve, i have

created. actually i'm going to take several minutes, it is important. and september 1 month after i was appointed i immediately organized a special unit and our war department to prosecute sexual violent crimes. they are most severe. they are highly underreported, what was the reason? i thought we would have a huge support i understood we need to change approach even though it was made a law before me but i wanted to do it as a sustainable elements. we were and contacts with the special representative of the un general secretary for sexual violence but she had training for our prosecutors we also

changed our strategic documents to apply principles i hope you know this documents are. to ensure we will use survivor centered approach with full respect i will not go into details. so full respect to the survivor. and when i saw how it worked, by several months we saw more and more cases. because we don't only change the approach we change techniques of communication. and for instance we did not just wait for reports only got information that it could be the case our prosecutors and our investigators approached, communicate, and they saw the cases were real.

we also tried to ensure the comprehensive support for the survivors of these crimes. i mean medical, psychological, financial, immediate relocation from their community. so this worked and they understood that we need to ensure such approach, survivor centered, to all. i created the coordination center. center. it is now operational. they haven't training. they are not prosecutors their state servants whose job is to communicate and help victims and survivors. from this is only the first stage. thinking about these every day like our president, every day, i want to change this approach

throughout the whole system of law enforcement. micco still in ukraine we had soviet style the soviet model more dependent on how many criminals you sent to jail while the interests of victims sometimes are aside. i went to change his approach. it's a changing of philosophy that survivors and victims will understand they are in the center of our attention. it will take time. it will take proper communication training but it is possible. >> one important point to highlight to the audience is one thing to go out and gather information about atrocities to prepare cases is another thing to try to do it in a way that is profoundly respectful of the people been affected so they never end up feeling like objects and they are the ones

being partly responded to. my staff are telling you have time for only one more question. so try to be short. >> they are both about challenging issues. one set of issues is more for your staff and one's for you. of course war crimes is a very broad category this lotta specific judgments how to charge specific offenses. one question is a little bit how your team thanks about mapping out specific charges the other question is about reparations. worried that with $400 billion to be a trillion dollars these are large amounts of money. like you go back and look at world war i and world war ii these were very large. i think about assets that are frozen and other issues like this, how are you approaching the reparations issues? >> civil liability i think is an

important part of our comprehensive accountability approach. every damaged caused by this war of aggression should be compensated by the efforts of the perpetrator. this is the principal which we want to implement. health insurance, yes we have a the federation for this approach. we have private funds which are frozen. we have successful cases. $5.4 million it was announced on the third of february. i was together with merrick garland. he announce it in my presence this was the first case of the war internationally. of course this also should

somehow inspire the other countries to follow this way. canada has the same legislation are likewise legislation but they have long procedure in court. we have more cases in the united states i cannot report you will all see the results. these amounts are not very substantial to compensate. you mention 400 billion elect dollars at world bank. it's only about material damage the state of the government but from my point of view the most important is the people who suffered for people to receive their compensation for their beloved relatives who were killed. for those who were wounded or humiliated or raped.

they need to be first to receive this compensation. we know how to establish the channel. that first step is done. it was established under the auspices of europe of an large partial agreement 45 countries with this idea this is on the register of damage which will document. we need compensation, commission on the top which will decide transparency independently. who will receive and which amount of money and compensation funds. if you want to compensate you need to compensate with funds. and with this we are approaching the issue of potential compensation of the russian

federation. once again showing immunity. so the two most difficult cases from legal point of view tribunal for the crime of aggression and russian efforts both are related to the issues of immunity. in tribunal it's personal it's immunity of sovereign funds. how to explain. it appeared that two words which we use immunity and impunity. only one letter is different. and if we pertinent damage, for

compensation of damage because of because of respecting immunity over russia as a sovereign state i am not sure this is fair. of course you will just return me too legal aspects that this is not legal this is more political. legally it's easy to do. it's about parliament to the law. of course there will be consequences more even economic or financial because russia can use the same action i mean make the same action. but one and a half years of full scale invasion has already passed. and i have not heard very

comprehensive deal. have not heard very comprehensive counter argument that it is dangerous for the free world to start to touch russia. if it's an issue of mathematics for instance of one country can confiscate $100 of russian stolen funds in the other country as a matter of counteraction may be this 500 could be used as compensation by the first country from the compensation fund for victims and survivors. i in intentionally simplify this very comp located story. but is very important to understand once again justice is

not only something which is the result of the work of some judicial instruments. justice is something people feel is just and fair. the first question? >> site map fact patterns. >> we do it because it's very important. we use our cooperation for helping us in our accountability endeavors. we use systems like volunteers where we're working with microsoft. we are working with some it companies it is a mapping. of course we do it but we do it by hands, yes it is quite difficult. i've been told by my team the amount of evidence which are collected in different databases

already is more than 500 terabytes at the moment. this is the most documented war in the history. you have to challenge first about you cannot use every video imagery as a matter of evidence. sometimes it is not enough. but when you have not evidence by itself and when you have additional photo and video from another site, yes we have met then you can add one to another. and you have more evidence. once again very simplifying the story. but of course we are doing it. you mentioned is very important story establishing the chain of command. it is very important because what russians did once again when we all saw atrocities

committed they were all committed in february and march. russians also saw them. nevertheless they were trying to brainwash their population this is something like a movie. nevertheless they saw and their soldiers saw they liberated in september. he saw torture chambers. you saw the people who were killed with stripes on their backs. the same types of crimes, the same rapes, the same killings. we start to exhume the bodies and do forensics the same crimes were committed not only and

march but also in april, may, june, july, august. they liberated curaçao on november the same type of crimes we also saw what happened the same crimes were committed in october, november. on the 19th of april this year we have committee hearing here and u.s. congress for international crimes. we invited to survivors. one of them more witnesses before the congress. one of them was a lady who fought through the sexual violence. this crime was committed in january of this year still occupied region. her friends helped her to flee

then she came to us and witness before the u.s. congress. this means these crimes are not committed by some soldiers who go crazy. they are not committed by some units that was somewhere then somewhere a group of servicemen gone crazy. no, this is intentional. this is orchestrated for the very top. it is our obligation to find evidence of all of those who ordered to commit these crimes the progress and going to ask the audience to think of just a moment but i want to thank you for your candor and also for making a powerful case so much is happening in your country affects everybody in the world print thank you so much for your time. [applause]

back. [applause] [background noises]