Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting The role of the EU and its Member States in supporting global accountability mechanisms, including universal jurisdiction, international courts and specia
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
May I ask you to come to the center, please? I can't see you if you stand there.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you for that cooperation. We managed to do the photograph very quickly. International justice is under pressure at the moment, and there are a lot of challenges. The attacks of the UN, and there is a breaking point here which calls on the European Union to take action. The parliament supports the bodies and the multilateral mechanisms, and that is going to be the point of our first panel.
I'm very honored to have here the judge from the International Criminal Court, Mr. Nicolas Guillaume. Judge Guillaume was personally sanctioned by the US Treasury Department following an arrest warrant he approved against the Israeli Prime Minister. He will explain the impact of these coercive measures on his personal life, but also on his work as a magistrate. All questions can be asked by MPs, but Judge Guillaume will not answer any questions on the dossiers that he is in charge of at the criminal court. Then we'll give the floor to Mister Lauren Havas, head of division of the EAS for external relations law and public international law.
He will share with us the European position on the subject of support to the ICC. And then the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which brings together 2,000 members, published a detailed report outlining the state of play of The U. S. Sanctions system against the ICC, and encouraging the member states and the European Union and the United Nations to react firmly. We're pleased to have with us today the lead author of this report, Missouri Police Coalition Advocacy Coordinator.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm convinced that today we need to take key and courageous decisions, and we need to develop our autonomy to implement our own European foreign policy based on our values. We shouldn't react, hope that yesterday's world will come back. That is a dangerous one-way track. We need to identify the most useful actions given the current situation. I now give the floor to my colleague, the president of the jury committee, mister Ilan. You have the floor for some introductory comments.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Esteemed colleagues from European Parliament and from national parliaments and distinguished guests, it's a great honor to stand before you today at this pivotal event, and to continue the introductory remarks after the meaningful words of the DROA chair, mister Satturi, to which I thank for the invitation and the organization of this event. As chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I'm grateful for the opportunity to also open the discussion about the role of the EU and its member states in supporting global accountability mechanisms. Please allow me to recall that, on the twenty-fourth of February twenty twenty-six of this year, our committees, both jury and draw, held a joint public hearing on the immunity of United Nations and ICC officials. The hearing examined the legal frameworks underpinning the privileges and immunities of international officials in light of recent US sanctions on UN and ICC personnel. That was a good start, to look at increasing challenges on multilateralism and the international justice architecture, and examine the scope and legal foundations of UN and ICC officials' immunity under international law.
The event also assess how the EU instruments can be deployed to pursue the protection of human rights and the multilateral system, and shield its own nationals and the institutions they serve from extraterritorial coercion. Coming back to the objective of today's event, I consider that this continues an excellent opportunity to deepen our common understanding of these issues together with the national parliamentarians and their representatives. The matters covered today have direct relevance for the interpretation and application of international law insofar as the European Union is concerned, but also for the functioning of the international legal order and accountability mechanisms that the European Union supports. Understanding how the principles and practices apply in these areas is essential for addressing emerging challenges to the international legal order, while navigating the complex realities of international governance. On behalf of the jury committee, I'm honored to welcome these distinguished experts who will share their insights, offering perspectives that will help us understand the current doctrine and practice.
I'm confident that we will have a quality debate with good results, which will further build on excellent cooperation between members of the European and national parliaments. Thank you for your attention, and I give back the floor to the chair of the law, Mr. Satori.
Mounir Satouri
And I'll immediately give the floor to Judge Guillaume. You have the floor for 10 minutes.
Thank.
Nicolas Guillou
Thank you very much to both presidents. Ladies and gentlemen, MPs, MEPs, thank you for inviting me along here today to talk about the challenges facing the International Criminal Court. As you know, at the moment, we're subjected to attacks from a number of different directions. We've had some serious cyber attacks over the last years. And then we've got media campaigns, which have been launched against the ICC and certain judges of the court.
There's even been falsified Internet sites and names of the judges. And then we've had issues from Russia against eight judges because of the work they've done. And as you know, there are also sanctions or coercive measures, which have been enacted by the government of the USA against 8 judges and 3 public prosecutors of the ICC. Now what measures are these coercive measures? It's important to know that if you look at the list of people who were affected by these American sanctions, there are about 15,000 people, and they're usually members of terrorist groups.
So Al Qaeda, Daesh, some major traffickers of drugs or drug smugglers, people who commit serious human rights offenses. And in the middle of this list, you have 11 magistrates from the International Criminal Court. Sanctions was a tool that was established in order to sanction people who commit crimes against human rights. It's now being used against people who spent their entire lives defending it. In August 2025, I was put under sanctions, and this means that I can't travel to the U.
S. There's my assets in the U. S. Are frozen. And most aggressive part of it is that no American person, legal or natural person, can supply services or get services from a person under sanctions.
That sounds quite abstract, but it has three major impacts on my private life. First of all, financial and banking impact, because when you're on the course of measures from The U. So, there's a whole number of transactions which are no longer possible. Because even if you have a bank account, once you've got a U. S.
Nexus, in other words, a use of dollars or transaction with an American person, that transaction is blocked. In practice, it means that there's a ban on me exercising any banking activities outside the EU. But what I had not anticipated is there's virtually no means of payment, because at the moment in the EU, we're completely dependent on non-European means of payment. So if you're under sanctions from the U. So, in practice, that means that almost all payment cards are stopped because Europe has no sovereignty in this area.
We await with impatience an initiative from the private sector and the digital Europe, but we don't have it yet. Also, banks tend to bend over backwards to conform. A number of our colleagues have had their European bank accounts closed down within 24 hours, and there are a number of banks in Europe who refuse to carry out bank transfers with people who are under sanctions. So even in euros, sometimes I can't make the transfers. So you're constantly under scrutiny.
And the second impact, which is very important, is from a digital point of view because when you're subject to sanctions, all the accounts that we normally use, email, Airbnb, PayPal and a lot of other things you have on your phone, all of these are blocked or they cancel transactions. So you can't do any transactions on these platforms. And if you have an account on these platforms, it's canceled. I don't do any transaction online because I don't know whether the personal service is going to actually deliver the parcel is America, in which case I won't get it. You all know Alexa.
If you're subject to sanctions, Alexa no longer does what you ask. So that is how dependent Europe is on America at the moment, and sometimes we're not even aware of it. But I can tell you that when you're subject to sanctions, it's like being back in the 90s. And then the third very significant impact is from a health point of view, because the International Criminal Court is dependent on a private company for reimbursement of doctors and dental bills. And I discovered, to my surprise, that the insurance company that covers the ICC, which is French, has decided that it's not going to reimburse people who are subject to the American sanctions.
And that to me that really should make us sit up and take notice, because this is a European company who's not prepared to reimburse another European for something that was done in Europe for service providers in Europe. And that shows to what extent Europe is subjugated at the moment. And this is an excellent example of overconformity. In other words, a company that applies sanctions not because legally they should, but just to avoid any risk. So you can see overconformity is not something abstract.
As far as I'm concerned, I live it day in, day out. So if I it's just a matter of would I actually be allowed to enter a hospital in The Netherlands if I were to fall ill tomorrow? So this is a very serious time for international legislation, because what these sanctions show is the vulnerability not just of the International Criminal Court, but of any institution in Europe. Because if sanctions can completely destroy the International Criminal Court, it means it can destroy any organization in Europe, any court, any media, any private company. So it goes well beyond international justice.
This is our democracy. It is our freedom. Our freedom as a continent is at stake. And if we decide tomorrow that handing down a ruling in Europe is something that can be subjected to sanction, it's not just the International Criminal Court that is hit. It's all courts.
If we say that judges can be sanctioned for their rulings, that is very serious indeed. The ICC is the first institution to be affected by this. But if we do nothing, it will not be the last. Let me remind you that the American administration has already imposed measures on an ex-commissioner and has already sanctioned national judges in Brazil. And the greatest risk for Europe and for us as Europeans, as for us as commissioners, ministers, judges, commissioners, is that we will be careful what we do because we're afraid of sanctions.
Nothing could be more serious for Europe than having people who take decisions which have impacts to public and to have them afraid to take these decisions. That's the greatest threat to our continent at the moment. And to avoid it, we need to react. Now, what can be the response? Well, I can see three ways we can react in the short term, in medium term, and in the longer term.
In the very short term, for those of us who are subject to sanctions, what we need to do is be resilient. And that means that we as judges and public prosecutors in the International Criminal Court should continue to do our work. And despite the difficulties, we're standing firm and we continue to stand firm because we took an oath. But we're not going to stand alone against the buffeting winds. We need your support.
So we need a second response in the medium term, and this European response should be legal in nature, because that is our DNA. We react by legislation. There are mechanisms out there. You all know the regulation on blocking certain initiatives. This is something that has considerable political clout, and it would be a very strong message from Europe to say that Europe supports international justice.
It doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about other things for the future, some way of shielding European sovereignty, but this is what we have at the moment. And then, in the longer term, what we need is electronic and economic emancipation. We need to move back to sovereignty. I know this is not something we can do overnight, but we have to get going. We have to take the first step.
We need to have our own sites for payments and so on, because any dependence is a vulnerability. And we've been seeing this for the last decades. Whatever the crisis, we are dependent on arms, for medicines. We're dependent on the economic level, banking level. And all these dependencies are weaknesses, which are extremely expensive for us as European taxpayers because every time we end up having to shell out a lot of money at the last possible moment, we've got to stand up, but we've got to be Europeans.
We, as legal experts, should perhaps come up with some kind of legislation to reduce the dependency. We could just as we have legislation against monopolies, we could perhaps have something banning states from being too dependent on certain geo poles or geo or monopolies. Now in face of all this, I'd like to be optimistic. I remain a committed European, and I think Europe is well able to react to defend its values. It's up to us as Europeans to build a new democratic sovereignty at the European level.
It's up to us as Europeans to protect our institutions and the institutions to which we are party. It's up to us to make progress in legislation to defend the independence of the judiciary and to make sure that right always wins over force. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much, sir, for your words. And let me say, your resilience is astonishing. So thank you very much. You've given us some food for thought, and that's a good transition for us, a transition onto Mr. Havas from the EAS. Thank you, chair.
I'll be speaking in English.
Lóránt Havas
Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here with you today in front of this distinguished audience and this distinguished panel. And indeed, thank you to Justice Guillaume for these very sobering words and very important ones. I will speak to you about, first of all, the European Union's stance on the ICC. Then I would like to take you through our analysis, how we see The United Nations sanctions and the presidential order 14203.
Why do we think it is not compatible with international law? And then, I would like to say a few words about the blocking statute that was already mentioned, what are the conditions of its activation, and what we see, how we see the future of the blocking statute. And what other possible means do we have to counter the situation that Judge Guillaume and others who are under sanctions find themselves in? So I would start by saying that the European Union has a long-standing policy to support the International Criminal Court. It has concluded a cooperation agreement with the ICC in 2006, and it has adopted several internal legal acts, 2011, the council decision on support and cooperation with the institution.
The ICC is a fundamental element of international criminal justice, and its values reflected in the wrong statute are values to which the European Union itself subscribes. If we look at the European Union treaties, but also the United Nations Charter, we see that the European Union is bound to respect the values on which the court is based, and on which the court is operating. It is essential to keep the court running, to keep the court functional. We have assessed, as lawyers should do. We have assessed what the United Nations and especially the president of the United Nations in his presidential order, United States.
Sorry. Yeah. United States president in his presidential order has adopted, and we find that these measures are incompatible with international law, not only with international law, but also with the US constitution itself. I'll come back to it a bit later. So from the point of view of international law, we find that the UN sanctions are based on a legal edifice that is flawed.
Motivation for the presidential executive order is that the ICC did not have a legitimate basis to assert jurisdiction over Israeli or US citizens. The ICC says the executive order has no jurisdiction over The United States or Israel as neither country is party to the Rome Statute. Neither country has ever recognized the jurisdiction of the court. However, according to the Rome Statute, the court may exercise territorial jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed within territories that belong to parties who are signatories of the Rome Statute. So crimes committed within Palestinian territory give the court ample jurisdiction to adopt the measures it has adopted against leading Israeli officials.
The ICC has not asserted its jurisdiction without a legitimate basis. It does not exercise jurisdiction over states, whether they are parties to the Rome Statute or not, but over individuals who are accused of having committed crimes that are outlined in the Rome Statute, serious crimes of international crimes of serious concern. These rules are reflected in articles twelve and thirteen of the Rome Statute, and a US or Israeli national may be indeed prosecuted for the conduct on the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute. So The US sanctions The current US sanctions are based on an erroneous interpretation of the cause jurisdiction and of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Secondly, these rules are extraterritorial.
The US rules are extraterritorial. They are extra territorial in a way that they do not have sufficient jurisdictional link with The United States. Some of the measures that concern US nationals do have the necessary judicial link. But as judge Guillaume has explained, and I'm sure, miss, Paris will also explain, there's this secondary or even tertiary effect of these sanctions, this chilling effect, this effect of overcompliance that makes the US measures reach too far. These cannot be grounded on accepted jurisdictional links, be it by the International Court of Justice, not the wrong case or other cases. They cannot be qualified either under the territorial, internationality, or personality principle that public international law would accept.
What the US is doing is primarily using its economic clout, and as Judge Guillaume really well explained, using its omnipresence on platforms, in IT services and financial services to coerce economically, coerce operators and make the life of those listed impossible, close to impossible. I would like to add that where the US decide to go even further, we have heard 11 persons, 11 ICC officials are already on the list. Were the US to go even further and target the ICC as an institution that would really target one of the core values of the European Union, that would target an international organization with 125 state parties whose very purpose is the protection of international law. That would truly be an interference with the foreign policy of the EU and its member states who joined and support the ICC as a mechanism protecting international law and as an accountability mechanism, providing for the possibility of criminal responsibility for those committing egregious crimes of international concern. These measures are also incompatible with the constitutional law of the United States.
In July 2025, a number of US constitutional lawyers won a case. Would.
You mind wrapping up? Because you've already exceeded your speaking time. Yeah.
So these measures were also attacked in court and were found to be against the US constitution. Now I'm coming to the blocking statute very briefly, to say that, and we will probably discuss it, the activation of the blocking statute requires a procedure, but, of course, it requires, first of all, an assessment whether or not the European Commission will adopt a delegated act in order to put in the annex of the blocking statute the relevant US legislation. It would provide operators the prohibition to comply with US sanctions. It would have a nullifying effect of court rulings based on these sanctions, it would allow EU operators to recover damages in courts, caused by the sanctions, that would be in the annex of the blocking statute. And, of course, it is the decision of the European Commission when to activate the blocking statute.
I will stop here and leave the analysis or the assessment of whether or not and when the statute needs to be activated for the questions and answer session. Mister president. Thank you very much.
Okay. Thank.
Thank.
Thank you very much. I'll be speaking in English as well.
Zélia Paris
So the coalition for the International Criminal Court is a coalition of more than 2,000 organizations working on justice and accountability around the world. When US sanctions were imposed against ICC officials and civil society organizations, including three of our members, Al Haq, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and Al Mizan, we witnessed the impact in real time of those sanctions. First of all, on those directly targeted, but also on the entire ecosystem of international justice. The CICC has decided to develop a report on the impact of sanctions and highlighting solutions. And for the purpose of the report, we've conducted 45 interviews, including with all the persons and organizations designated.
Sorry.
Mounir Satouri
Would you mind just slowing down a little bit, please, for the interpreters?
Zélia Paris
So we've conducted 45 interviews, including with all those designated under executive order 14203. What we're seeing today is a direct attack on the independence of justice and on the principle of equality before the law. But what is really unprecedented is the scope of the attack. For the first time, the US is targeting the Rome Statute system as a whole, from NGOs documenting crimes on the ground to UN experts advocating for accountability and ICC judges and prosecutors taking decisions based on the facts and the law. The main questions that the sanctions have posed is how a US domestic legal instrument can have such severe and wide-reaching impact even outside of its jurisdiction and threaten the rule of law globally.
And as explained by judge Kiyu, this is because of the world's structural dependency on the US financial IT system and services. As a result, European banks, companies, service providers, and even NGOs have enforced these measures extraterritorially, adopted de-risking strategies, and overcomplied. ICT judge Hoeller already shared her experience a few months back in front of the committee, the subcommittee. Palestinian organizations and Francesca Albenese were present in Brussels a few weeks ago to present on the impact. Judge Guillaume has done the same today, and we really wonder how many more testimonies are needed before concrete actions are taken by the commission.
A strong and immediate EU response is needed to protect not only the rule of law globally but its own sovereignty. What we saw with the interviews is that those designated have faced systemic exclusion from basic banking and IT services, as explained by judge Guillaume, and we wanna give some example to show the scope of this impact. ICC prosecutor Karim Khan had all of his bank accounts frozen in the UK and his account in Malaysia closed. Judge Lod Kipanice had his account in Georgia closed and was required to repay his loan within days, or he would have lost the property he bought under that loan. Judge Holler saw her bank account closed in Slovenia.
Judge Bosa initially had all of her bank accounts shut down in Uganda. UN special rapporteur Francesca Albeneze remains unbanked up until today and has been unable to open bank accounts in Italy, Switzerland, and The Netherlands. Palestinian organizations had their bank accounts closed by banks in the Middle East. All of them are unable to do international transfers. For ICC judges who are based in The Netherlands but have their lives and families in other countries, it means that they cannot send money to their loved ones.
And because there are no structural answers, what we've seen with the interviews is that the impact of sanctions on those designated has been different based on the willingness and ability of their states to support them. And we're talking here about people that have dedicated their lives to fighting impunity and providing justice for victims of mass atrocities, and that are being punished for this. Beyond individuals, sanctions against civil society organizations have gravely impacted their ability to operate. All the designated organizations have lost access to their bank accounts. They cannot receive money and proceed to any payment.
The consequences for their work have been catastrophic. They have been unable to pay staff, rent, and services. They lost up to 60% of their funding. They've lost all of their US staff, including senior staff members. They've lost access to social media platforms like YouTube, which deleted hundreds of videos of this organization.
As an example, Adameer, which was designated under a separate executive order, even had their Meta social media account shut down, their website taken down, and lost access to a year of their data. All of these organizations lost partners, were excluded from some coalitions and federation movements, and, ultimately, their projects and victims were impacted. The objective is clear, is to isolate those organizations, silence them, and make them unable to operate. And they've been left to deal with the consequences of the sanctions alone. And we want to make it very clear that we're talking here about some of the only human rights actors that are present in the occupied Palestinian territories and that have access to evidence, witnesses, and victims.
But, what we saw is that the sanctions do not stop to those that were designated. US organizations and US nationals had to stop any work they were doing with designated persons, including litigation work, advocacy work, and research work. Non-US organizations had to conduct very costly legal risk assessments, restructure their work, and assess their dependency on US service providers and US donors, and prepare for potential designations. And this has led to a diversion of mission, wasting time, resources, and attention away from our mandates. It has also created a chilling effect across the sector, where cooperation with the court on certain investigations creates a liability.
But overall, what we saw from all those that we've interviewed, and as underlined today by Judge Kiyu, was resilience. From all the actors, the message is very clear. ICC judges, prosecutors, civil society organizations, they will continue their work on the third. But in order to do so, they need actions from states and from the EU to protect them from the extraterritorial impact of sanctions and to allow them to continue to operate, and this is not what we've seen. While the EU has denounced sanctions against the court, the sanctions against Palestinian human rights organizations have been met with a worrying silence, which is very different from the 2021 designation by Israel.
All of those that we've interviewed have expressed their frustration at state's parties and the EU's limited response to the sanctions. EU-wide enforcement mechanisms like the EU blocking statute exist precisely for this purpose but have not been activated. Members of the European Parliament have called for the activation of the blocking statute. Civil society organizations have called repeatedly for the activation of the blocking statute, yet the European Commission refuses to act. States and the European Union have both the capacity and the responsibility to protect the International Criminal Court.
What is needed now is a coordinated structural response and political will to protect the international justice system, including civil society organizations. Nobody knows where this will end. More organizations, more judges, the ICC itself, other courts, tribunals, national judges, and prosecutors will be designated. This is why the EU must respond firmly, because what is at stake is the future of accountability itself. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Merci. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the debate now, without further ado. And I will give the floor first to Mister Scaloroto from Italy. You have two minutes.
Ivan SCALFAROTTO
Speak in English as a member of the Italian Senate. The war is back in Europe. The Russian Federation is committing international crimes against Ukraine. Its president is under an ICC arrest warrant for the deportation of Ukrainian children. Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden have given their courts the tools to investigate and prosecute through their domestic codes of international crimes.
Speaker 19
They are doing the work. Italy, unfortunately, is not doing the work. And this is a longstanding Italian gap, spanning governments of every political color. Italy gave the Rome Statute its name. And yet, after twenty-seven years, Italy still does not have a code of international crimes.
And the cost of that gap has a name, Osama Al Masri. In January 2025, an ICC arrest warrant was executed in Turin against the head of Libya's judicial police. Two days later, it was released on a procedural technicality and flown back to Tripoli on a state aircraft. Last June, the deputy prosecutor announced she will ask the assembly of states parties to refer Italy under article 87.7 of the statute, a founding state party, referred for noncooperation. Let that sink in.
But my message today is forward-looking. The Italian parliament can and must fix the gap, and we will work to make it happen. To my European colleagues here, my appeal is simple. Let's build a network of national parliamentarians who treat the code of international crimes, universal jurisdiction, and full cooperation with the ICC as a shared European priority. Because at the moment when Russia is committing atrocities in Europe, and the judges of this court are being sanctioned as if they were drug dealers, the international rule of law is not a luxury.
It is the architecture of a free world. The country that hosted the Rome conference cannot be missing, and we must close the gap. And I count on you to help. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, thank you very much. Miss Adriana, have the floor for two minutes.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon, everyone. I would just like to join the situation and say a word of thank you to the representatives of ICC for their resilience in the situation, because it is really important that we do not stand down to this pressure and to these actions. Coming from the US, we cannot let one person, even leaving already the important and strong country, completely dismantle such a system as the ICC that we have created to uphold international peace and to be able to have these discussions and actually avoid wars as much as possible. And while the current times can seem extremely depressive, and the future doesn't look bright right now, we should never give up. And we should always stand by our standards and always uphold European values, which include human rights, which are protected exactly by the codes, such as the Rome Statute of ICC.
Consequently, I would like to express support to the European Union to actually take action and take concrete steps to actually support people who are working for the ICC and surrounding the ICC, to let them do their job and do it well, because we need to treat all of these situations equally, be it that we look more at the situation in Palestine and Israel or in Ukraine. It is always important to treat international crimes the same way, and absolutely condemn them. And I would like to ask my colleagues here to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Mister Ocular. All the speakers for your contributions. It was very interesting listening to you. I think that there is a lot at stake today. The world order actually is at stake.
Speaker 26
The trust of the people is at stake. The trust of the people in institutions, in what we are doing, in what you are doing, in actually believing that living the lives accordingly is right. I think that we all share a duty to uphold the principles of all the institutions that have spoken here through their representatives. I think that we all share a duty to not give in, not submit to the pressure that is being put on these institutions. There are many people, many countries actually, who are trying to dismantle the word order, who are trying to make people not believe that the order that we have been, that we are actually used to, is righteous.
Speaker 23
And this is very dangerous because when people lose trust, things just fall apart. And I think that none of us wants the things to fall apart and live in anarchy, live in a world where there is no order, where, actually, anyone can do whatever they want, where people only follow their particular interests and profit, personal profit. I think that we all have made many mistakes we can learn from. And one of the mistakes that we have made in my country, particularly in the Czech Republic, is to sort of make an inflation of values. Values are very important.
Speaker 27
If we don't live according to the values that our society stands upon, then we are lost, actually. I think it's time to make the values great again. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you. I'm actually very loud, even without a microphone. I'd like to thank the speakers today. It's been very informative, but I think we have it. It was a very cold message insofar as if the targeting of members of the ICC is allowed. It is not only a threat to the rule of law.
It's not only a threat to our democracy and our values. It is a further signal that every institution, be it in Europe or outside, is under threat. And if we continue to turn a blind eye and only use our words but not follow them up with actions, we could potentially find ourselves in an irreversible position. That is why I would join with my colleagues here today and say that we know words always matter, and the weight of your words always matter. But there comes a point in which we must stop, assess quickly, and move swiftly to ensure that these attacks don't all, don't just spread outside of the institution of the ICC, but also to our further institutions.
This is a very clear message that there are institutions, there are countries here willing to bully their way and make sure that whatever they want, they get. We must be firm in our resolve to stop that. And if we act as one, as we are one Europe, one body against these, we can be successful. But now is the time to act, and now is the time for a swift response. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 29
thank you very much. I'll be speaking in Spanish. We've heard terrible testimonies from people who have been attacked at being part of the judiciary internationally, which is why we need to defend the judiciary, the independence of courts, and separation of power. In Spain, well, there are major concerns about the attacks on judges and magistrates from the Ministry of Justice under the socialist government, which is in coalition with the far left. Any judicial investigation affecting the political party in power or ministers is thrown out by the government with terrible attacks on the judiciary.
Speaker 28
International justice needs to be protected, but also domestic justice in each member state needs to be as well, because justice in Europe also has to comply with this idea of defending judicial power in each of the member states. Europe means freedom, and judges and magistrates cannot be attacked who are merely doing their job, their constitutional job. And in Spain, unfortunately, I have to say it as a member of the Congress of Deputies, judicial power is under attack. In the supreme court today, the anti corruption prosecutor, mister Luzon, has clearly showed a case of corruption affecting the government and members of the government. Former ministers in Spain have shown that political corruption and the attacks on judges are against the rule of law, and this is clearly stated in the case findings.
And he has condemned the attacks on these judges, which is why in this House of European Freedom, we need to realize what the situation is with the Spanish judicial system.
Speaker 30
Well, I don't know whether it's a coincidence, but we go from Spaniard to Spaniard. Yes, talking about the Spanish government. And today, they have asked, the Spanish government has asked for the blocking statute. As mister Havas was saying, we need to be careful not to be under the, to tell of the commission. Why is the commission not activating the blocking statute?
Why is it not happening? What's missing is political willingness, and we, the parliament, need to recall that there is this paralysis about attacking certain regimes, authoritarian regimes, those killing children, attacking churches that are not being protected because of our lack of willingness. There are no penalties. We go ahead with the trade agreements, and we don't even use the blocking statute that could protect us. Political dependence on the US and psychological dependence on Israel because of historical guilt.
What about global accountability? Well, who should pay to rebuild Ukraine? Russia. Who should be paying? Should Israel be paying to reconstruct Gaza or our taxpayers? Why have we got the registry of atrocities, of damage, of illegal acts, a whole range of legal acts against the Russian aggression?
Why are we not doing the same with Israel? We've got the same war crimes. It's double standards, and that is the weakness of European external policy. And that's why we're looking at Meroni Sanchez, because there is inaction in Brussels, which is costing us our reputation before our citizens and the rest of the world. Thank you.
Mister Komala
Mister Komala for Poland. Go ahead, please.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Europe gave the law to the world. Every student of the law starts its journey with learning about what we invented here 2000 years ago. And in this world, when very often rule of the strong replaces the international law,
Speaker 39
As a euro, must be the haven for those who believe in justice. And if we want to be this haven, by remaining the law, the international court, and independence of this court, we need to be can execute this what we deeply believe in. And I'm not a lawyer, but I'm an economist. And I'm deeply shaken by what you said, mister Judge Gille, about your story, your story of how one can be European citizen very deeply touched by what the Americans do. And I'm very sure that you should be going everywhere and telling the story to everyone because European sovereignty is just an abstract idea for the people before they hear the human story, story of you being totally cut off from the whole financial system, putting you back forty years ago.
Adam Gommeler
And, I already made an order to my assistant to cut off your very excellent speech and put it to my social media because I deeply believe that we need to share this idea, your story, to millions of European people. And this is the only way to convince and make a social impact of the pressure of the whole societies, European societies, to execute what we deeply believe in. And this is the very starting point of any discussion about respecting the law in Europe. And I deeply believe in your, our your call for this digital euro and whole idea of European sovereignty. Thank you very much.
Please.
Mounir Satouri
Be concise, because many people want to speak. Miss Menes, now for Portugal.
Maximum.
Two minutes maximum.
The ministers.
Okay.
Speaker 35
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the very interesting speeches and presentations. And I think they call us all to take or live up to our responsibilities. The situation is a paradoxical one that there are more and more conflicts in criminality now. Defending human rights and multilateralism is something that requires more than political speeches. We need credible mechanisms and a firm desire to protect people.
Speaker 37
The European Union has developed a number of instruments to fight international crime and to support international justice, but we need to keep strengthening this action via concrete steps that are coordinated and effective in all member states, harmonizing legislation, improving judicial cooperation, and strengthening information exchange channels between, amongst the authorities. Portugal has a clear, consistent position here as a founding state of the Rome Statute. We think that the ICC is the universal jurisdiction, and universal jurisdiction pillars of a rule based international order. Impunity in terms of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide weakens not just international justice, but also citizens' trust in democratic institutions. In a context of increasing pressure on multilateral institutions, the European Union needs to take strong leadership in defending these mechanisms, strengthening political, diplomatic, legal, and financial support for the International Criminal Court, and strengthening cooperation amongst member states.
Speaker 35
Portugal also values preventative diplomacy and multilateral dialogue, and we have to see responsibility not just as a sanctioning instrument, but also as a way towards reconciliation and international stability. The European experience shows us that sustainable peace is built on defending international justice and defending democracy as a whole. Thank you. Thank you.
Language I speak.
Anna Jordan
Thank you very much. Well, we brought Pedro Salia Alita here from the ICC, and I'm delighted that all the political groups, the majority of them, agree in supporting the ICC. We'll always be here for you. I'm not going to differ from people who have spoken before me because apart from one of the members of the Congress who said that this is an assembly for everyone and not just for Spain. But back to what we are dealing with here, the ICC, we've heard that we should activate the blocking statute, and we have some doubts about the formulation from Mr.
Speaker 38
Hamas. Just wondering what steps should we take to activate the blocking statute. It's not entirely clear, because we requested it. Everyone agrees. It was approved.
Anna Jordan
And we all have a clear idea that those sanctions should not be put into place here because of the attacks on judges. And when the ruling of the court was used against people like Vladimir Putin, we all agree on that. But when it's against someone in Italy, we need the sanctions. It's a double standard. So what can we do to activate it as soon as possible?
Right.
Sofia Fedona
Sofia Fedona, Ukraine. This morning, our delegation started with the news. Moscow federation showed the kindergarten when the children were going there in the morning. Yesterday, we had dozens of people killed by Moscow attacks, and hundreds wounded. That's only for yesterday.
Speaker 40
And I think there is no other country than Ukraine who is interested so much to 100% in the universal jurisdiction, international courts, and special tribunals to be effective to 200%. We are 100% sure that attacks on the judges, on the ICC, are impeccable, and it's not normal in the civilized world. So full support to you. Unfortunately, Ukrainians know what the sanctions are by themselves. But having an opportunity, I want to beg everyone, supposing my colleague who said few minutes earlier, we need not only the decisions, but we need the actions.
We have the warrant against Putin and his minions, his military minions. But, actually, he has total freedom going all over the world, and he makes his own agreements, and he's living his best life attacking Ukraine. The problem is that any European country tomorrow can be the next. And, as we've seen in the discussions about defense and security of the European Union, none of the European countries is ready to withstand that aggression. So we beg for the effectiveness of the institutions because Putin is attacking in a hybrid way, undermining institutions, threatening those who impersonate institutions, and giving us an environment of not sureness and dizziness and not knowing what to do for tomorrow.
We ask you for being less bureaucratic. We ask you to be more effective. We ask you to be quick. All of us have very little time, and we want really much the judicial mechanisms to be implemented to 200% of activity as we want to survive in our European world. Thank you.
Mister Diaz Marin
In an international context where hyperleadership styles are provoking illegal wars that lead to the killing of thousands of innocent civilians, including young children, we believe that it's necessary to reaffirm one of the essential foundations of a society built on peace, respect for international law. Within international law, everything outside international law is only barbarity and chaos. Spain neither remains silent nor looks the other way. Today, we must reaffirm the important role played by the International Criminal Court in the defense of human rights, which is, to say, in the defense of all humanity. However, while monsters such as Netanyahu remained free, sanctions are being imposed on judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court like you, mister Liu.
Speaker 44
11 legal professionals from this court being punished simply for doing their job in defense of the international legal order that we have collectively established. It's time to act. Democrats around the world can only feel the same in the face of these events, but never surrender. Never surrender in the face of this persecution. As our prime minister Pedro Sanchez said this morning, we call on the European Commission to activate the blocking institute immediately.
Speaker 45
To conclude, when the international forces of Hitri deploy all their power to tear down human rights, Spain will continue defending the people and institutions working to uphold them. Thank you so much.
Thank.
Speaker 48
You to our colleagues, and thank you to everyone that's taken the floor before me. Listened very carefully to what everyone is saying. It's so important that we trust our European institutions. And the cases we've heard are shocking, I think. They show us how our community and its, our society is being undermined, and we need to rebuild the trust of citizens in the European Union.
We need to do this effectively, not just with declarations, but by defending our values, which are the basis of our community. We're not a continent of shopkeepers. We are a community based on values, different values, and all of our values have to be appreciated by those we deal with. For Poland, let me tell you, we will always be in favor of a frank debate with our partners. But in a debate that respects fundamental rights, without any backsliding.
Speaker 49
And that is something that should be translated into our commercial ties as well. Our values should not be seen just as a transaction. We're not in a world that is purely a business world here. We're dealing with values. The independence of the ICC is one of the guarantors of our own independence.
Speaker 47
The Rome statute as well, does the same, and it will shield our values. And I have a request, Chair. We would like to ask you and those that work with you to draft a proposal, perhaps at the European Parliament level or perhaps involving the national parliament, so that we can be involved to stand side by side to draft something that on these important values that are so important for our community.
Ismail Ertug
Thank you. For Belgium now, Ismail Mignon. Thank you very much, Chairman. I will be speaking in French. Thank you so much for these very interesting contributions.
Thank you, Judge, for hanging on there. But you're not alone. I didn't know that I was going to speak today, but I see that there is a perfect link between law and sovereignty. Often, defend the law, rule of law in our institutions as if that were enough, as if our institutions were the most important thing that needed to be defended. However, it's with this law that we fight for peace and prosperity.
And it's as we emerge from World War II that we create these structures. And I think that some people have forgotten are fighting only for prosperity and for peace. It's about our energy, our economy in Europe. And people tend to say that we need to defend our law in order to keep the rest. But what we really need to be doing, and I agree with what's been said today, is put all of our energy at the service of that law, because not guaranteeing the effectiveness of international or European law means that they fall by the wayside.
And if in the future we are not in a position to make sure that all our energy, our strength, our energy and financial sovereignty, technical sovereignty are there to serve law, then we will no longer have them. We will be led us to the end of our law. So that's the challenge. You said, judge, if we're not sovereign, if we're not free, we cannot act. So each one of us, in our own place, need to find that freedom, find that ability to choose.
And once we can choose, we will be able to say no. And on that, Europe has a great responsibility. The EU has great responsibility because, for many, and I think this applies to many Belgian citizens, the EU is the right level to act, because it can face this imperialistic strength. But we have to see at the moment that what's really happening is that we remain immobile or find it difficult to take decisions. So what I can say is that we need to commit to act.
We've got the tools, as you said. We need to activate them so that it's not the lure of the jungle, so it's not the strongest always winning. Perhaps we need to do like in the US and make sure that all our economic strength serves law so that we can succeed and win. We have to act. We have the tools.
Speaker 50
The EU cannot give in because the risk is that if we wake up too late, we will no longer be able to do anything about it. Thank you. Finally, for this panel, before giving the floor back to the speakers, I'll give the floor to Arisa Belozir for Ukraine. You are going to close the first panel.
Arisa Belozir
President, dear colleagues, this morning, while we were preparing for this discussion about international justice, Russia once again spoke with the language of missile and drones. Russia attacked Ukraine where I left in order to come to you, three of my children, with over 100 drones. In just one day, yesterday, they killed 27 people and 120 injured. And in Boltava, Russia deliberately targeted and killed rescuers. They are doing double attacks.
Speaker 52
When the rescuers and emergency ambulance crews are coming, they are repeating the attack. So this once again proves that Russia rejects peace, that is why accountability cannot wait until the end of the war. And thank you for this joint committee meeting taking place just the days before, ten days before, in Kishinev, Council of Europe Ministerial Meeting will take place. I'm sure we are on the right track, and I am very thankful to all of your countries, especially the member states of the European Union and of the Council of Europe. And around, I think, around 35 states have already expressed readiness to join in a large partial agreement on creating a special tribunal.
Larysa Bilosir
And actually, five days ago, the European Parliament adopted a resolution and ratified a convention on compensation mechanism. And it's very concrete, practical steps that you are doing in Ukraine. It's thankful for this. A special tribunal is needed to hold Russia's top political and military leadership accountable and to form compensation mechanisms. Within the Council of Europe, a register of damage will already have 150,000 claims for Ukrainian businesses and Ukrainian civilians.
Arisa Belozir
Also, are very central to ICC arrest warrants when Putin and five officials have become international pariahs in much of the world where the Rome Statute was ratified. So I think we are on the right path, and it's very important that we understand that impunity is there. There is no way to end the war when we have the impunity, and Russia must pay. Accountability creates a special tribunal on the crime of aggression is the only dignified way to end this war. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Right. Back to the panel. Judge, you have four minutes for your response. A little bit more for each one of you, but we can't do any better than that, I'm afraid.
Speaker 54
In English now. You all stressed something that is fundamental. We need to uphold our values, and we need to be able to explain that to our citizens so that they understand that our values are not something that is abstract, but something that is very concrete for our peace, our freedom, our prosperity. And in these four minutes, if there is one thing that I would like to say, it is that a case at the International Criminal Court is not about big politics. It's not about this country versus this country.
It's not about going against these people or this person personally. A case for us, it starts with dozens of victims. It starts with children who lose their parents, with parents who lose their children, with men who are tortured, with women who are raped. This is what we hear in our courtrooms. Europe has been built with the idea that we would not accept that.
And for the next generations, if our generation is not able to protect this ideal, I think we will all be ashamed. It's not a question of going against anyone. It's not a question of saying we're against The United States. We're against whoever. It's a question of who we are as Europeans and who we want to be.
And when it is that fundamental, we shouldn't hesitate, because this is so at the heart of who we are as European that we need to defend it and to fight for it. This is why I stand. This is why all my colleagues stand, and this is why I trust all of you.
Mounir Satouri
Over to you, 3 or 4 minutes. And if you could talk about the blocking statute, its nonactivation, the procedures, the political reasons of not activating, that would be great because that's what a lot of people are interested in.
Lóránt Havas
For the reactions, actions matter more than words, and the trust must be kept. And we also heard about preventing the inflation of values. The European Parliament, this house has spoken. The distinguished members of national parliaments have spoken clearly today, and civil society organizations have spoken. And the message is heard loud and clear about the activation of the blocking statute.
The rules on the activation of the blocking statutes, there were questions about that, are also clear. And as many of you referred to it, the European Union is based on values such as the rule of law. And in the rule of law, we cannot but respect the necessary procedures. Article 11a of the blocking statute of this regulation provides that it is the European Commission that should decide to put forward an act, a delegated act. The commission has the delegated powers to do so.
And when the commission puts forward this act, there's a two-month nonobjection procedure by the parliament and the council of the European Union. This is how the blocking statute is activated. This is the procedure. On the political assessment behind it, unfortunately, I will have to disappoint you, mister chair. It is not my role to second-guess the political assessment of the College of Commissioners.
But what I can say is that timing in activating the blocking statute is, of course, the essence. And besides having to act, there's also other considerations relating to the efficiency of detection or relating to when do we act, do we act together with like-minded partners or in isolation. These are all elements that are being taken into account. And what I can promise to all of you is that the institutions of the union, of the European Union, are and will continue to live up to their mandate and live up to the values of the treaties, be it by activating the blocking statute or adopting measures beyond or next to the blocking statute that will help us keep Europe as it is, help to keep the promises, and help alleviate also the burden of brave individuals such as judge Guillaume, who are facing unprecedented difficulties. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much for clarifying that, and thank you for confirming that there's no need for majority in the council for the commission to take an initiative. Because some months ago, we were told that was the situation. We were told that there was no majority in the council for triggering the blocking statute. But apparently, it's a commission initiative. And the parliament can oppose, and the council can oppose if they have a majority of two thirds.
But that is the situation today. The commission has not chosen to take the initiative to propose a blocking statute. That is the situation at the moment. That's where we are. The president's commission has a tool to protect European values and to make life easier for the judges from the court, and it's been going on for 1.5 years.
She hasn't done anything. Although she could be sending a clear message to Trump. The parliament has said over again in annual reports and texts, we've said how important it is to trigger this. A number of member states have said that they want to do it, and here we are. So we keep battling on.
There are perhaps other procedures that could be considered as well, other things that the parliament could do to force the President's Commission to take the initiative. I invite all national parliamentarians present here today to exert pressure on your own commissioners, the commissioners that represent your country, and perhaps have an inter-parliamentary initiative between national and European parliamentarians so that we can express our will to trigger this statute. That could be a good result from today's discussion. And in three, to conclude in three minutes, I give you the floor to the last panelist.
Zélia Paris
I wanna start by saying that we second what Mister Satori just said, that this is a political decision from the commission not to activate the EU blocking statute, which we profoundly disagree with. And we continue to call for the commission to immediately activate the blocking statute, not to wait for further sanctions, not to wait for institutional sanctions. The consequences of sanctions are already being felt today by those that have been designated by the judges, the prosecutors, the court itself, and civil society organizations, and it is an urgent matter. We also want to say that it's extremely positive to see today members of national parliaments and members of the European Parliament agreeing and collectively calling for the European Union to have a strong and principled response to those sanctions. We really encourage you to call your governments to publicly call for the activation of the EU blocking statute.
Spain has done it today, and we really commend this position. Slovenia, Belgium, France have also taken public positions in support of the activation of the EU blocking statute, and we really encourage you to push other governments to do so. In the report, there are recommendations that are set up, including recommendations that can be done at the national level. So while we talked a lot today about what the EU can do, there can be solutions at the national level. We really encourage you to look at those recommendations.
We encourage governments to send clear legal guidance to service providers to continue providing services to the ICC, to those that are designated, and to civil society organizations. We encourage every country to have legislation that protects the rights to bank accounts for individuals, but also for civil society organizations, which is not the case today at the EU level. We encourage, of course, state parties to continue to cooperate with the court at every level, and to find concrete solutions so that the court can continue to operate, including through finding solutions for banking and IT services. There is a lot that can be done at the national level. So, really, thank you for being here today and for your strong positions.
Mounir Satouri
Well done. You managed to say that in 2.5 minutes flat. Let us now go on to the second point under the session, which is the support for universal jurisdiction. There's a change to the panel. I'm desperately trying to keep the time, but let's take a minute to change the members of the panel.
Please take your seats, and we'll continue. Right. I think everybody is sitting down, so we can start. For our second panel, as I was saying very quickly earlier, we're going to discuss the positive developments we have in the potential in terms of cooperation between states and the future of the fight against impunity for international crimes. On the one hand, we will examine developments in the area of universal jurisdiction.
It is my pleasure to welcome Ms. Kate Olofsky, Director of The Hague Office of The International Bar Association, who recently published a report on the subject, shared ahead of the meeting. I hope you all had a chance to look at that. And then we will discuss the latest developments regarding the special court for crime prosecution against Ukraine. Tangible evidence of political will leads to concrete results.
To discuss this with us, we will have Mr. Anton Korinevskiy is joining us remotely. He's the director general for international law and legal actions against aggression, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, and we'd like to thank him for having accepted our invitation. We'll start straight away by hearing from Miss Olavsky for seven minutes, please.
Kate Olofsky
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for having me here today. Excellencies and distinguished colleagues, it's really a pleasure to be here to address you on behalf of the IBA's International Criminal Court and International Criminal Law Program. And these are such important topics. The IBA itself was founded in 1947 with the idea that the legal profession has a role to play in supporting the rule of law and upholding international peace and security.
It's a privilege to be in this forum because it's actually you as states that have the most critical role at multiple levels. As we've heard, the Rome Statute System, which has the ICC at its center, relies on its member states for cooperation and for having procedures available in national law to prosecute international crimes. Domestically, states can address these crimes through universal jurisdiction, and I will go into some detail about that. This is proving to be a really essential tool to close the impunity gap. And finally, I think it's really good today that we're coming around to the crime of aggression and the role of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression, which is incredibly important.
Speaker 57
These mechanisms were all created to ensure accountability for victims of the most serious crimes, and this is really required under international law. It's been mentioned already that the rule of law is under threat globally, and it's never been more important for states to take clear, firm positions and actions to uphold international law. I want to say a couple of things about the ICC. The last panel showed how incredibly detrimental the effects of sanctions are on ICC officials and civil society. States parties have to protect this court, and this is not just through what we discussed in the last session, political support, but also through cooperation and resources.
Kate Olofsky
These attacks are seeking to undermine the court's authority, to obstruct its investigations, and they threaten to undo decades of progress for victims and to weaken the rule of law globally. States have to oppose these sanctions and respect the judicial independence of the Court. And the IBA itself has been very clear, condemning these sanctions on court officials and those cooperating with it. It was said by judge Guillaume, the court is continuing to do its work, and states need to continually concretely support the court with effective cooperation on its investigations, and in particular, on arrest and surrender. There's no trial in absentia at the ICC.
The accused person has to be present in order to have a trial. So without arrests, there are no trials. Without trials, there is no justice, no reparations for the victims, and yet there are over 30 known suspects at large as of today. So it's clear that this is an area where states can do more. National procedures have to be available to facilitate all the forms of cooperation requested by the court.
Speaker 57
National frameworks have to be enacted and regularly reviewed, and we need to critically strengthen responses to noncooperation as individual states parties, through the assembly of states parties and through the security council where it has referred the situation to the court. So I'll turn now to universal jurisdiction, because this is another area where national authorities can make a really vital contribution to the fight against impunity. They can address crimes under international law alongside the ICC, but also, and we really see this happening, addressing crimes where the ICC does not have jurisdiction. It's an area that's continuing to grow. The most recent universal jurisdiction annual review, which was put together by civil society, highlights that in 2025, there were 160 matters under investigation or in different stages of judicial proceedings, 34 new cases opened or made public, and 23 convictions entered.
Kate Olofsky
That's significant. And it also means that we're really getting a sense of what works and what doesn't work from this range of national approaches and cases. So it bears a lot of reflection, and this is one of the reasons why the IBA did a best practices exercise to identify what's working in universal jurisdiction. On the side of legislation, all international client crimes should be included, and really at a minimum, the Rome Statute definition, but it has to go further than that. The standalone crimes of torture and enforced disappearance should be included.
Speaker 57
And, also, we have to take into account the developments in international law since the Rome Statute definitions were established. So looking at the ILC draft articles on crimes against humanity, and also as many states have done, including the crime of aggression. The legislation ideally will enable the prosecution of international crimes committed globally without distinguishing whether the crimes were perpetrated within specific territories or prioritizing certain crimes over others. And it should also not be limited to the citizens and residents of the country that is enacting the legislation. We also know from experience now that there are barriers that have to be removed.
One of them is the requirement for political approval before proceeding. Politically sensitive cases should be able to move forward. Another is the presence of the requirement of presence of the suspect on the territory. So authorities should be able to open a preliminary inquiry or an investigation. Ideally, we are looking for a victim-survivor centric approach, and this would allow investigations and prosecutions to proceed when victims and survivors are present in the country.
This is about the legal framework, and there's a lot more that can be said about it. But we also know that resources have to be available, and this is a policy decision. We know from experience that specialized units with experience on international crimes really make it much more effective. And we also know that we need to have support structures for victims and survivors and for witnesses. And then the last piece, which is absolutely critical, is cooperation. Cooperation and collaboration between states and international bodies, the use of MLA agreements, memoranda of understanding, international treaties, and I'd like to particularly mention the Ljubljana, the Hague Convention, which was designed to deliver justice to victims by delivering effective and efficient cooperation with respect to international crimes.
There have been a lot of signatories and not enough ratifications, so this is really an area where concrete action is needed. The EU itself can play a critical role in supporting the development of these universal jurisdiction frameworks within its member states and promoting them outside the EU. And I'm a little bit close to my time here, but I just want to touch on the special tribunal for the crime of aggression. We have supported this since its earliest stages because it is an absolutely critical mechanism to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression, and it's really an essential component to the legal response for the full-scale invasion. It has significance beyond Ukraine.
It reinforces that the crime of aggression is of concern to the entire international community. And so we'll talk about it later in the session, I know, but all states should be signing the enlarged partial agreement to express their commitment to support this mechanism and ensure that it can move forward without delay. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. I'll now give the floor to Mister Korinev Yech. You have the floor for seven minutes.
Anton Korinevskiy
Good evening from Kyiv, Mister Chair, dear colleagues. I hope that the connection is stable, as well as the sound and video. It's a big honor and pleasure to be present today at this meeting, and thank you so much to the DRA subcommittee for convening it. Of course, the matter of justice and accountability is of key priority for Ukraine. And whereas, we are talking about just lasting and sustainable peace, we, of course, mention justice and accountability as inevitable parts of this peace so that we, Ukraine, and the Ukrainian nation in particular, we will never compromise on justice, including looking in particular on the processes which we today discuss, including the results, interim results, outcomes which we already have and which we foresee and anticipate to have in the future.
Speaker 60
And, of course, for me, it's a big privilege to talk today on the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. As for me personally and for the whole team of the MFA of Ukraine, this is the main legal instrument and the main legal task which we are trying to complete since the start of the full-scale invasion. And talking today in the European Parliament, I cannot avail myself of the opportunity not to thank the whole European Union family, community, institutions for the strong support of this initiative. Of course, European Parliament, with numerous resolutions in support for the establishment of the special tribunal, including the special ones, the European External Action Service and the legal service of the EAS, the legal service of the commission, DigiJust, and many, many other colleagues in Brussels who really showed their not only professional interest, but I'm sure also commitment and dedication to this whole process and to the result. And we assure that the European Union will be amongst the founding members of the named by mister Lofsky in large partial agreement, which was already supported by the European Parliament, which was already supported by the EU Council.
Anton Korinevskiy
So we hope that within the nearest days, the EU will send the official notification to the secretariat of the Council of Europe, notifying the intent to become a founding member of the enlarged partial agreement of the management committee of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. As of now, since we are talking about the recent events and the tasks which we need to complete, we are now moving forward to the ministerial meeting of the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe, which will take place in Kishanel, Republic of Moldova, in May, so literally next week. And we hope that, during this meeting, the enlarged partial agreement will be adopted by the committee of ministers. And since then, the states will start their internal procedures for the enlarged partial agreement to enter into force for each respective state. It's a normal procedure under international law.
Speaker 60
We in Ukraine, for instance, will undergo the same procedure. We will do this through parliament, through the draft law on accession. So I already can ask my dear colleagues from the parliament present here in the room to support this draft law on accession when it comes to RADA. We will make it as soon as possible after the Kishanel meeting. And, of course, it will be important for us to have as many states as possible supporting the enlarged partial agreement and its adoption in Kishaniel.
As of now, when we are talking today, we have 25 states who already notified their intention to join the enlarged partial agreement as founding members. We have 24 member states of the Council of Europe, and we have Costa Rica as a state from other regions. But since we have ten days left, ten days more, we hope to see more states notifying their intention. And I must admit that we still do not have all of the EU member states who made such notifications, and not all Council of Europe member states with such notifications. So I think that now this is a very good moment for all of us to speed up and to talk with our governments with respect to making these notifications so that we have a solid number of support in a weakened Kishanel, which will show the real international and European commitment to the special tribunal and to the enlarged partial agreement on the management committee.
In relation to other things, we are moving forward, of course, with the support of our international partners, expert community, in particular, professional organizations as IBA, as Miss Orlovsky mentioned. And we are trying to fulfill and to complete all the other tasks which are left for us on this road to start the operationalization of the special tribunal, namely, the work of the advance team on the preparation of the special tribunal has already started. Advance team works on technical, financial, budgetary, IT issues, security issues to launch the whole process. And, of course, we are very grateful to the European Union for funding this advanced team for 2026, 2027. We're also moving forward to be able to launch the activities of phase one, skeleton tribunal, the tribunal which will be able to start its operations, and then phase two, fully fledged tribunal, which will be the tribunal which will actually execute its subject matter jurisdiction and will act as a court.
So this is all said. We work hard, and we try to achieve the end goal to seize the start of the work of the fully-fledged special tribunal as soon as possible. And, of course, to reach this goal, permanent support of our international partners, in particular of the EU and of member states, is of crucial importance. We need to keep the pace. We need to show commitment.
We need to show that notwithstanding the fact of what is happening in other regions of the world, in other situations, justice and accountability for Ukraine remain a key priority, and we, together with our international partners, will do everything possible for this justice and accountability to take place. And as my previous fellow speaker mentioned, we are sure that accountability for the crime of aggression against Ukraine is a key element of justice for Ukraine at all. Because if it wasn't the crime of aggression back then in 2014, there would have been not a single war crime, not a single crime against humanity committed on our Ukrainian soil. And it is a crime of aggression and accountability for it, which encompasses accountability for the whole Russian war against Ukraine. For the first time, we may have this accountability in real life in 80 years after Nuremberg and Tokyo.
I think that this is a result which we lawyers all understand, which we are all trying to and strive to get. And with your support, I'm sure that this will be possible. Happy to respond to questions if they appear after the Q and A session. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
We go straight on to the debate at this stage. Mister DeRozartone will be the first speaker for Spain.
Thank.
Speaker 29
Thank you very much. I'll be speaking in Spanish. Ukraine is Europe, and Europe cannot be seen or cannot understand itself without looking at the example that Ukraine is giving against tyranny. Europe is established on a basis of human rights, and we have to understand how the law works in this case of aggression. We need to have a democratic shield that defends freedom throughout Europe, because Ukraine is Europe.
An international order needs the support of member states and the European Union. Ukraine was attacked and has been subject to aggression that should appall any defenders of human rights, and it needs to be protected for this reason. And it needs to be protected with the shield, the shield of justice, and the special tribunal. It's not revenge. It's justice.
As part of the European Union, Spain has to actively comply with this desire to set up this special tribunal to judge the crime of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, and we need to give it every ability, every mechanism to act. This tribunal needs to be able to seek justice, to build peace in Europe, peace in Ukraine. This is why we need and will support EU efforts to establish this international mechanism because, obviously, European values are based on these principles. And these principles are that justice should prevail over aggression, and that justice should prevail over any illegitimate action. That is why we need to support it as the European Parliament, the member states, and the European Union as a whole.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. Merci. Thank you very much, mister Adam Gommeler, for Poland, please.
Adam Gommeler
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Poland stands firmly with the international criminal courts. We cannot ignore the brutal crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. The world has seen the evidence of atrocities that demand a clear international response. These acts are a direct attack on the international order and our shared human values.
This is why Poland fully supports the ICC and the creation of a special tribunal, which we are ready to be one of the founders. We must ensure that Russian political and military leaders are held accountable for their actions, and it wouldn't be another Nuremberg. It would be much more. We also warn against any deals that trade justice for the lifting of sanctions. If we allow the powerful to ignore the law, our global justice system will fail.
Responsibility is not a political choice. It's a moral and legal necessity. Thank you very much.
Well,
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
I wanted to thank you, madam, for your presentation and also our Ukrainian colleagues' intervention, which clearly shows where the problems lie and what needs to be done in the future. We have to remain determined. It's really an issue of safeguarding our democracies and protecting ourselves against authoritarian countries and authoritarian actions. Now I have followed the efforts, right from the start on how to set up a tribunal, where to locate it, etc., and I'm very pleased that we have found the international means to set up such a structure that will be able to judge this crime of aggression. I know we've spoken about the United Nations, about something European, and I think having succeeded in finding the way to set up a structure that can operate at the Council of Europe, I think that's excellent.
And I wanted to thank everyone who's worked on that to make it a possibility. I don't know exactly who are the member states who have shown their desire to be amongst the founding members. Perhaps that information is present in the room and someone could tell me, but I hope that it will be all 27 there. So thank you for all of the work that's been done, and I think we need a lot of courage to keep working on this. Thank you.
Merci, Isabelle.
Speaker 62
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will speak in Greek. Thank.
you. The special tribunals constitution, I think, in setting it up has been dictated by the seriousness of the crimes committed by Russia and the crimes that Russia is continuing to commit that have been described by some of the speakers here. And this proves that existing mechanisms cannot meet the demands and needs of this time we're living in. As the chair said today, we are facing challenges that are unprecedented. This special tribunal will operate under the aegis of the Council of Europe, and it will provide a number of guarantees in terms of its effectiveness and in terms of the European Court of Human Rights, mirroring the European Court of Human Rights, which operates well in the eyes of many.
Miss Olavsky, Commissioner Kubulus has informed the plenary, and we will be welcoming him into the Greek parliament, informing him on progress. But because we're discussing setting up the special tribunal and have been discussing this more than a year, it's no longer a matter of inaction. We have to act quickly and not along the customary lengthy time frame of Brussels.
Thank.
Silva Santiago
you. Silva Santiago for Portugal, please. Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. Portugal welcomes the creation of the special tribunal for aggression in the Council of Europe. It's an important step to strengthen justice, and defend the international rules-based order.
On June 25, 2025, president Zelensky signed an agreement for the budget for this institution that will be based in The Hague, operating out of the Council of Europe. The states who want to join this will have to sign an extended enhanced agreement, which Portugal did on 04/07/2026, stating its commitment to the political and military leadership of Russia being held accountable for crimes in Ukraine. There are shortcomings in the international criminal system. The ICC plays a key role in investigating serious crimes, but there are issues of jurisdiction, particularly in this case. This new mechanism will enable us to bring those to account, those who planned and carried out this aggression against Europe, against Ukraine.
Portugal has had a clear, consistent position since the word go. Violating the UN Charter and the sovereignty of nations cannot go without consequence. And together with other member states, Portugal reaffirms its commitment to international law by fighting impunity, defending peace, and international security. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank.
Marta Temido
Thank you very much, chair. What can we do to defend the international jurisdiction and special tribunals? After the first panel, it's really difficult to try to believe in these mechanisms. This subcommittee received Ms. Tomokane, president of the ICC. And here, we've heard from Judge Gu, and nothing's happened in the meantime.
But we do continue to believe that accountability in terms of violations of human rights is something that we owe to victims, and that's why Judge Gill wanted to show his example of resilience. We are furious with the commission's inaction or refusal to apply the blocking statute, particularly to those who are suffering attacks, breaches of human rights or international rights and international law. We have to be up to it in terms of defending these people, everyone in this room. We have to really fully discharge our mandates as parliamentarians, and defend these mechanisms. Otherwise, there's no point in creating new mechanisms and new institutions.
As a parliament, we really need to defend the ICC. But here, we're talking about a special tribunal. And what I'd like to ask our two guests is exactly what do we need to do, what's left to do to make sure that this tribunal can start working? Miss Orlovsky, I've got a specific question about you defining the crime of aggression. I know this is a very technical point.
Speaker 65
Could you help us try to understand it better? What else do we need to know about it? Thank you.
Madam Lapalor.
Larysa Bilosir
Thank you, Marci, mister president. There was a question from another colleague, what should be done in your countries? Actually, it's very important that we have now this Kishinau meeting of the ministers of the council of Europe to launch the special tribunal on the crime of aggression. And it will be like a political joining, and actually, we need budgets to be put onto this. Of course, we need physically the tribunal that will probably be in Hague. And, of course, we have to have security measures for this tribunal, the salaries for the prosecutors, for the judges, and so on and so forth.
So, of course, you have to then, after the political signing of the enlarged partial agreement in your parliaments, usually countries have, in their parliaments, need to ratify this enlarged partial agreement. And then, okay, sorry to say, but to put budgets on it. I also want to speak today not only like member of parliament of Ukraine, but also member of parliament of Assembly of Council of Europe. And I see my colleagues here, Mister Arminas from Lithuania, from Ireland, from Germany, that played an important role in 2022 in March. This is the only organization, Parliament Assembly of Council of Europe and Council of Europe, that excluded, not sustained or postponed the membership of Russia, but excluded.
And then we understood that on the basis of United Nations, it's impossible to create the special tribunal. And we did it together with you on the basis of parliament of the council of Europe. And actually, there is a political will, and we have to put this political will and push our governments to join this Paris limit agreement and launch the tribunal. And telling the truth, we started with very skeptical opinions at the beginning of full fledged invasion. Nobody believed that we will do the tribunal before the war ends.
It's the only case in the whole history that we have this tribunal. We will have this tribunal in absentia, but still, the crime of aggression is the mother of all the crimes that Russia committed in Ukraine. Now we have together fixed together with your help, with your prosecutors, general our prosecutors have already registered 250,000 crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity and genocidal crimes. And today, within the Council of Europe, we have the compensation. We are creating a compensation mechanism.
We have already registered. We have already registered 150,000 claims, and we have already ratified some of them, especially the EU and Ukrainian parliament, on the same day we ratified the convention on claims commission. And, of course, we need funds. Fund to be created, and, of course, it has to be Russian sovereign assets, not your, how to say, taxpayers of the European Union. So thank you again for all the efforts you put, and thank you to the parliamentarians and all your member states for contributing to the creation of the tribunal.
Thank you.
Mister Diaz Marin
Thank you. Diaz Milan for Spain, please. Thank you very much, chair. Some really great speeches from the speakers. Very briefly, I wanted to convey that the support that exists in Spain for the crimes against Ukraine by Russia should not go unpunished.
No society can grow freely where there is impunity. And after impunity comes forgetting. And that, I think, puts everyone in a lot of, put at a lot of risk, a risk that the horrors of the past could be repeated because we have not learned from the past or have forgotten. A proposal is going through the Spanish parliament so that judges can operate in Spain under the universal jurisdiction, along the lines of the framework we had until 2014. This creation of the tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
Spain is part of the core group supporting its creation and has defended the need to create this tribunal as a model of cooperation for it to operate similarly to the ICC. And this is what the Spanish government is committed to, and I hope that spaces for dialogue like this will see even more support for such a scheme. Thank you. Now I'm pleased to give the floor to Francisco Assis. Thank you, chair.
Francisco Assis
I'll be speaking in Portuguese, the speaker says. I wanted to thank you all for your presentations, and I wanted to stress the importance of the creation of this special international tribunal to assess the crime of aggression by Russia in Ukraine. And I wanted to point out the specificities, which lie in the fact that it was impossible for the UN Security Council to approve this because Russia was present, which shows the limitations of international law at the moment due to the way that the UN is set up. Secondly, I wanted to stress as well that in the initial phase, this means working with the Council of Europe and Ukraine. It's a victory, I think, in terms of European values.
This tribunal is essential for a simple reason. I don't want to draw comparisons to other wars and situations of aggression. They all have their own stories, but this is a very specific war. Ukraine did nothing to Russia. There was no movement in Ukraine that jeopardized the existence of Russia at any point in time.
Ukraine has always tried to have peaceful relations with Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine with the objective of extinguishing Ukraine's independence. So we're seeing, basically, an invasion to try and extinguish the existence of another state in Europe. And as we've been reminded, many crimes have been committed, crimes against humanity, which call for an international tribunal. One specific case, which is particularly shocking, is the issue of Ukrainian children being shipped to Russia, which is one of the most repugnant things that we have seen.
Speaker 70
And we hope that this special tribunal can start to do its work as soon as possible. Thank you. I'll now give the floor to Miss.
Oh, thank you. Czech.
For the Czech Republic.
Speaker 22
We'll speak in English. Thank you. I believe many things have already been said, but, firstly, I would like to express that I am grateful that Czech Republic, even after the change of government, is still supportive of this idea and sent in the notification because I believe this tribunal is one of the only ways we can actually properly prosecute the crimes that are being committed in Ukraine. As has been mentioned, there are children dying almost every day. There are people dying every day, and we shall never turn a blind eye to that, and we should never become insensitive to that, even though it is really difficult in the current times, being bombarded by terrible news from every angle.
And I would just like to probably ask how can we what more can we do for you? How can we persuade other countries? How can we support you in this regard in this specific way besides funding, which has already been talked about too? But that's usually the biggest argument: how much money the tribunal will cost. On the other hand, I don't think we can ever calculate how much money human rights are worth, and I will always stand by that.
Thank you.
Speaker 72
I am impressed by how unified the messages and views expressed here are. As we all work in politics, we know that this is not always the case. We want to defend the rule of law and democracy, as our entire society is built upon them. We need to update our legal tools to hold accountable those who have violated international law by strengthening international criminal courts such as the special tribunal, and clearly show where we stand. The courage of the Ukrainian people deserves our gratitude.
This is also about the future of Europe as a whole. As discussed earlier, we need concrete examples like those we heard today, as well as us as parliamentarians as messengers, because in many EU countries, it may be assumed that exploiting dependencies in technology and banking systems is only a potential threat. As we heard today, it is already a reality that can even target churches. The EU must develop digital self-sufficiency and pursue ambitious research. The world's most valuable companies are US technology firms, and this is also an economic opportunity for us.
In those moments, when the EU has hesitated to use its instruments to respond in the face of rapid disorder.
Speaker 73
The world order, we have lost opportunities to exert influence. We must now have the courage to defend our values. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. Catalina, Vienna. For the Greens in the European Parliament.
Speaker 74
Chair, let me start my intervention by celebrating the setting up of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. In a clear time where international justice is under so much pressure, it's really good to see EU member states, although, unfortunately, not all yet, and I hope that soon all of them are stepping up for universal jurisdiction to ensure there's no safe haven for the kinds of crimes that are committed like the ones that have been committed against Ukraine. And for that, I also echo the words of my colleague, parliamentarian from Ukraine. This also needs budgets, and we need to fund it. So let's make sure that we do.
Speaker 76
Allow me for the rest of my intervention to zoom out a little bit to the issue in general, because it is bigger than Ukraine, of course. Armed conflicts, state repression, and mass atrocities are increasing globally, and international justice is under huge amounts of pressure. The fight against impunity remains one of the central challenges that we face as the international community, because we see powerful states and political actors who refuse to cooperate with the ICC and undermine it actively. So, this is not abstract, and this has real repercussions. Courts can investigate, issue warrants, but without cooperation, justice will just stop at the paper, and justice should be more than what's on paper.
Speaker 75
And this has consequences for the lives of people. And in that, let me talk about three concrete cases. First of all, Palestine. The ICC is examining alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. ICJ is having state level hearings on genocide claims, but enforcement is extremely difficult.
There is contested jurisdiction, no cooperation on arrests, and strong political pushback that are blocking the court's work. Equally, with Myanmar and the Rohingya refugees, we see cases going on at the ICC, and the genocide case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar is still ongoing. But this only deals with state responsibility. It cannot prosecute individuals, which leaves a huge gap in accountability. At the same time, the ICC is investigating the crimes against the Rohingya, arrest warrants foreseen in Myanmar.
Military figures are there, but Myanmar is not a state party, and arrests would depend on cooperation of third states. And finally, the case of Philippines and Duterte where we do see that after the investigation into the war on drugs, Duterte was taken into ICC custody despite the fact that The Philippines had withdrawn from the Rome Statute. And we see that the ICC retained jurisdiction over crimes committed while it was still a member. To conclude, I would like to underline that the EU has a huge role in supporting strong international justice, and it continues to have to support the ICC and the ICJ. We need this commitment from all member states, also by the EU global human rights sanctions regime, in sanctioning those who are obstructing accountability processes.
Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you. We've got 3 people left to take the floor. Mister Gabriel, you've already spoken, but if you could keep it fairly brief. I'll give you one minute, please.
Speaker 77
At the first tie sites, everything is clear, and we agree mainly. But at the background, I guess, as I understood, there is a lot of questions, especially when we look at those issues from the point of view of social trust, because today, we have in parallel the ICC handling the case of on Russia aggression and Bavaria situation indicated by Lithuania. The special tribunal is currently being established. The ICPA in The Hague, CICED at Eurojust, and 18 EU member states, including Poland, are conducting their own investigations on the basis of universal jurisdiction. This is an unprecedented ecosystem.
Speaker 48
And it's also an unprecedented risk of fragmentation, competing outcomes, inconsistent factual findings, duplicate interviews of the same witnesses, including witnesses present on Polish territory. And the question is, is there today any coordination mechanism that secures evidentiary coherence and prevents these fragmentations? Or we are risking a situation five years from now in which different institutions issue conflicting findings on the same facts? Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Just watch out. Otherwise, they won't have the time to respond. Miss Filina for Ukraine, one minute, because you've already taken the floor as well.
Speaker 40
I would like to address all the parliamentarians here in this hall. Please take the situation personally. For every child killed in Bucha, Kherson, Izum, for 100,000 Ukrainians killed in Mariupol, for 100,000 people that are displaced, for thousands of Ukrainian prisoners in Moscow Federation. When you take it personally, you understand what you have to do. We beg you to bring to justice not only the Moscow Federation, but also Belarus and North Korea who are helping the Moscow Federation today to kill Ukrainians and to damage the security system of Europe.
We ask you actually to have the courage to defend values. And this courage is also reflected in the speed of decisions and lack of political rivalry. The discussion of the tribunal to be and not to be, it's not a political question. It is a question of values and of our survival. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 78
Thank you for sticking to the time there. Mister Takinio, to finish off. One minute thirty. So if less is better. Yeah.
Speaker 79
I'll be quick. I'll be speaking in Italian. I think that this is a clear point. I think we all agree that this is an act, a key act, the setting up of this tribunal under the aegis of the Council of Europe. What we've spoken about this afternoon, there is a before and an after.
Speaker 80
The before is the attack on the entire international justice system. International law seems to be up against its re perhaps it's reaching its limitations. And then there's an after, which is what do we do in other situations where there is a war? But we could set up a tribunal, but we can't just do something ad hoc, and that's it. We need to do more.
Speaker 79
And we've said it on a number of occasions. For instance, your initiative chair. I've been to The Hague with interparliamentary delegations, with Italian delegations, with the EU Committee on Human Rights and other Human Rights Committee. Decisions have to be taken. Otherwise, we can set up these special tribunals, but what's the effect going to be?
There are magistrates who are, who have been sentenced in Russia for investigating the issue of these disappeared children, and that's just something I plucked from the news. But there are so many other open fronts as well that we need to investigate too. Thank you. Madame Orlovsky.
Kate Olofsky
Much, and thanks to all of you for showing very strong political will and engagement on these really important issues. So there were some concrete questions. If I may, I'm going to leave the question on the definition of the crime of aggression to doctor Kornevich because he is one of the leading experts in the world on that. So I'm going to focus on a couple of things. One, what more besides funding, and what do we do in other situations?
The special tribunal for the crime of aggression is a statement about how the international community regards this most serious of crimes. It's not something that's necessarily intended to be duplicated, and we have, in fact, the ICC amendment process on the crime of aggression that we strongly encourage states to engage in positively. There is no reason that this needs to happen again, where RCC states parties are involved. If we fix the jurisdiction of the ICC on the crime of aggression, then we go a long way towards not needing another ad hoc tribunal. Secondly, a number of times it's been mentioned today, implementing legislation, domestic legislation, you have to pay attention to it.
Speaker 57
Is it up to date? Can it be renewed? Can it be strengthened? Is it there? This has already been mentioned today.
Kate Olofsky
I commend that vigilance on this issue, because it comes down to what laws are in place. When you get an arrest warrant, what procedures are in place, are you prepared to cooperate? And then the last thing I want to talk about is cooperation. Voluntary cooperation, obligatory cooperation when you have a treaty-based cooperation, more important than funding. These courts are your courts.
They absolutely depend on you. The ICC depends on its member states, and it's completely clear that nothing is going to move without good cooperation. So having the legislation in place, understanding what the procedures are, putting political will towards the cooperation request is absolutely critical. And I think with the will that's been expressed in the room today, sorry. Sorry.
Speaker 57
Very exciting topic, cooperation. But, really, this is how you turn that will into something very concrete, is to ensure that the cooperation is there for these mechanisms in the long term. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
The last speaker, Mister Kodniewicz, for four minutes. Still connected.
Anton Korinevskiy
Thank you very much, Mister President, for this opportunity and for all the comments and questions. I will, of course, try to be brief, as I was before that. So, of course, we value and appreciate the support of every institution and everybody who supported the special tribunal throughout these whole years. And, of course, since we talk today within the EU framework, we concentrated mostly on the EU institutions and EU stakeholders. But, of course, as Miss Belozir mentioned, I mean, the role of the Council of Europe and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is of utmost importance.
Speaker 60
We started this process there, and it ends up there in Strasbourg and, hopefully, in The Hague. So our deep gratitude and appreciation to the whole Council of Europe structure who support us in that endeavor. We, of course, agree that the matters of budget and of premises are of key importance, but we assure that with good political will, this all will happen. I do not see budget or premises issue or anything else as something that can be described as impediment, as a potential problem. If we have the will, the political will, I'm sure that we can work on that.
So we will continue to work on that, including with the Council of Europe, with EU, with a potential host state, The Netherlands, and I hope that we will be able to overcome all the issues. I'm really glad that today, there are no principal questions on the interrelation of the International Criminal Court and the Special Tribunal. Because for us in Ukraine and for any other state who supports the special tribunal, it's quite obvious. Special tribunal is only to complement the ICC and not to make an impediment to it, not to make a burden or hamper it. So we assure that together, ICC as a principal body of international criminal justice, and the special tribunal as an ad hoc international mechanism for the accountability for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, will work very well together.
And this all deals with, as Miss Orlovsky mentioned, potential amendments to the Rome Statute, Kampala two, so called. We, Ukraine, support Kampala two, and we hope that there will be a day when the jurisdictional restrictions for the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression will be terminated, and ICC's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression will be the same as for the other three core international crimes. But in this very moment, we understand that the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine is the only possible instrument to tackle the crime of aggression against our nation. So we believe in Kampala, too. We support it, but we also consider that we need to move forward with a special tribunal.
What can parliamentarians do? I think a lot of things, as a lot of MPs from different nations mentioned today. Influence on governments, draft laws, ratifications. Your pressure on the issue is valuable, and we hope that your active work will continue until we see the building and the people who work there. And as Miss Fadena, I believe, mentioned, special tribunal is not a matter of politics.
It's a matter of values. It's a matter of whether we believe that the biggest aggressive war in the world after the Second World War must be brought to account, or we can compromise with it. We in Ukraine believe that we must not compromise with it. That's why we ask for your continuous support in this matter. I thank you.
Thank.
Mounir Satouri
you. Thank you for all your contributions. Thank you for your participation in this important moment in the subcommittee. We're working on a report dealing with all these issues, and we will attempt to provide new responses. Of course, we need to activate the current responses.
So the third dinner buffet is now on offer. We will be able to continue to get to know each other, and continue the debate. It's frustrating to have to stop our debates, but thank you to all of you for being here this afternoon, and we will continue our work together. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.