Now on bbc news, hardtalk. Welcome to hardtalk. Im stephen sackur. President trump has just strengthened us sanctions against the International Criminal court, describing it as an extraordinary threat to the United States. Well, my guest today is the president of the icc, chile eboe 0suji. Now, the court was set up to and impunity for the worst of crimes. So is it now time to acknowledge that that grand ambition will never be realised . Judge chile eboe 0suji in the hague, welcome to hardtalk. Thank you very much for having me. Its an honour to be here. Well, were delighted to have you on at this very sensitive time for the International Criminal court. President donald trump has declared your court an extraordinary threat to the United States of america. You are locked in conflict with the worlds most powerful nation. How damaging is that for the court . We look at it in terms of from the perspective of what this court was established to do. This court was established as a place of last resort where victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, victims of the crime of aggression can go in the last resort to look for justice, access to justice for them. When that access to justice has become unavailable or was unavailable anywhere else at a national level, that is what this court was established to do. But you cant be an Effective Court of last resort or, indeed, any resort of the United States of america, the most powerful nation on earth still, refuses not just to recognise your legitimacy, but now, go so far as to impose sanctions on top officials at the court, not letting them into the United States and talking about imposing financial sanctions too. Dont use that word sanction, just so you know. Ill get to your answer in a minute. But the reason why we dont use the word sanction, we have to use the word for what it is, what happened that is these are acts of coercion against an International Court ofjustice, acts of coercion. Sanctions is what you impose on apartheid, south africa for grave gross violations of human rights. Sanctions is what you impose on countries and entities that are said or known to sponsor terrorism, sanctions are what you impose on states that violate the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. What happened here was a frontal attack against the rule of law and the idea of judicial independence. Now, the question you ask is what then for a court of justice . Lets remember again that this is a court ofjustice, and we have to stand by doing our work. The idea that we have to shy away or be deterred by bringing flaws to bear goes against the whole idea ofjustice. As you remember, was it plato that says, you cannot expectjustice where might is right. It is for the world now to decide whether might is so right is to detract this International Court of law from doing what it. To be clear, judge. For the sake of victims, for their access to justice. I just want to be very clear about what youre saying. Youre saying you have no regrets that you and of course the Prosecution Team at the icc decided to launch an investigation into allegations of serious crimes, crimes against humanity, war crimes potentially in afghanistan, involving notjust afghan forces, taliban forces, but also us military personnel you have no regrets about that . We have no regret about doing justice, let me put it that bluntly. The prosecutor decides what case to bring to the court, and when the prosecutor does that, thejudges have no influence on what the prosecutor does in that regard. But when she poses a question of law, a question ofjustice for the judges of the court, the judges must answer it. It is no excuse or we cannot be deterred because somebody flexes muscle in this way. To do that is, quite frankly, to accept the proposition that it is ok to bribe judges or a court of law from doing their work and we should all say, well, yes, because a powerful state has bribed a court ofjustice so we should all accept it as a new norm. We cannot accept that proposition. But im looking at the Mission Statement of your icc, and it says, you, the president , one of your responsibilities is specifically in the area of external relations to maintain relations with the nation states. Now, i would put it to you that you have grossly failed in yourjob in the sense that whatever the rights and wrongs of the us response, you should surely have seen it coming. Is there no way that you could have headed off what is now a profound crisis for the icc . Because if you have this toxic relationship with the United States, however you slice and dice it, youre in big trouble. I think you characterise it too strongly, in a hyperbolic way grossly failed. I dont believe that the bbc would have been said to have grossly failed in their mission of trying to educate and inform the world and make it a better place in the way that you can, because youve tried and it didnt work. Whether or not somebody decides to see that as gross failure, thats up to them. Now, the question is this we have been on this mission of trying to encourage the United States to be with us, and we continue to hope that they willjoin us and support the court thats established to cater for justice, for those who have endured genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crimes of aggression. That is what were established to do. Of course, it will be a difficult task to do, because the world accepted this idea of creating this court, because they said we are tired of a long history of a chronicle of humanity that is riven with those stories and. But. Justice for them. So that is a difficult task because if the people knew to behave, we would not have this court. This court was created because of failure of humanity to respect the humanity of one another. I understand that. I just want to know what you do now on this specific and rather grave problem. Youve lodged this investigation. We do ourjob, stephen. We will keep on doing our work ofjustice, we will keep on the cause. With respect, judge, you clearly wont to do that when it comes to. With respect you cant and wont do that in afghanistan because its quite clear the Afghan Government wont cooperate with you and the United States has no intention of cooperating with you. Im going to give you a couple of quotes. The defence secretary says that is mark esper in the us says, rest assured the men and women of the Us Armed Forces will never ever appear before the icc, and mike pompeo, the secretary of state, describes you a kangaroo court, corrupt, grossly ineffective, the court is an ideological crusade against american servicemembers. So, whatever you want to do in the future, you certainly will not and cannot take on the United States in afghanistan for their actions in the past, because theres no way the us is going to cooperate in any way. First of all, i must have ignored of course the slur language you just piled in there from you have taken that very seriously as to bring it into the question. As you know. Well, obviously, its not my language, its language coming from the very, very top of the us government. They do their work, there is a Smear Campaign against them. In the uk, judges were called enemies of the people, everywhere else in the us, when the judges do their work, they are called political, so it is part of the judicial cause, if you like, that when judges or courts of law do their work, those who dont like what has been done find a way to embark on a Smear Campaign, and that is what has happened there. Now, that is the matter ofa smearcampaign. As to the question of the people not wanting to. Coming here actually, that can be a legitimate objective, to say, american servicemen must not come to the icc forjustice. Afghan nationals must not come to the icc forjustice. Thats legitimate to that, on the basis that icc is a court of last resort, so Justice Needs to be done at home. So it is for the United States authorities to do justice where theres a cry for it. It is for afghan authorities to do justice where theres a cry forjustice, where theres nowhere else to go. Then people come to the icc and we have to do our best to answer the question. Yes, well, the United States, not just in the trump administration, but for many years, many, many years has made it plain that it wont sign up to the statutes of rome and wont bow to the authority of the icc because it is absolutely confident that its own judicial process, civilian and military, is more than sufficient to ensure that any american citizen will be held to the highest of standards when it comes to their behaviour on the battlefield or anywhere else. So, are you saying you dont believe that . But you can see the flaw already in that argument, dont you . Its very much like saying this, and ive been hearing this argument made a lot, forever more or less. Its like this let us say somebody comes to me and says, eboe 0suji, lets say the Child Welfare society, eboe 0suji, we see that your children are malnourished, youve not been feeding them well. It has to be an excuse, is it, for me to say, go away, i can very well provide for my children. But that doesnt answer the question are they malnourished or not . That is the issue here. It is not whether or not america or afghanistan or any country can bring their own people to justice. It is the question of are they doing it . That is what we want them to do. If they do it, we have no jurisdiction. The icc is a court of last resort. That means that if states are doing justice at home, we do not have the authority to step in, and it should be that way. Well, alright. It is their right and responsibility to do justice at home so we dont get into this situation of saying, people come to the icc for justice or not. Let them do it at home. There was one other strong element to the us condemnation of the icc just a few days ago that came from secretary of state mike pompeo, and that was your stance on launching an investigation into the gaza war, and the israel palestine conflict. Now, on what basis exactly did you launch that investigation . Because israel, of course, is not a signatory to the statutes of rome, it doesnt recognise your authority. So, what basis did you launch that investigation on . For purposes of clarity and facts, im not aware that there has been an investigation launched. That is a matter of fact. Im not aware that that is the case. What has happened is this. Well, excuse me, but as far as i understand, your chief prosecutor has decided to launch to open a formal investigation into the violence in gaza in 2014, she made that decision in december of 2019. See, whats going on is this the palestinians referred the case to the icc, and the prosecutor decided to ask questions of thejudges, even a pre preliminary question, the question being do we even have jurisdiction to entertain this case . That is a pre preliminary question. And youve obviously. Please, i need to finish this so people understand. It is a question of law that was provoked by the fact that theres some dispute as to whether or not palestine is a state, and so that is a question for thejudges, and those who have legal submissions to make on that question of law are welcome to the court to make the argument. States have lined up, some states have responded to the call of the judges to if you have any submissions to make on this question of law, please come forward and make it. Some states have joint issues on it on either side. Judge, forgive me for saying this, but i need to keep this as simple as possible. The point surely is this you and your fellowjudges have decided to recognise palestine as a state, and as i understand it from the documentation, youve said that the icc has legal standing in gaza, the west bank and eastjerusalem. Now, of course, eastjerusalem was annexed by the israelis after the 67 war, so are you saying that you recognise eastjerusalem as palestinian sovereign territory . Now, this is now difficult, because i dont know what youre reading, where youre quoting from. Normally, as a lawyer and a judge, we do not allow, you know, materials like that to be introduced if you havent shown it to people you are addressing, so they can verify it fully. It is not a complicated question. 0ne second and context. So i dont know where you got it that the judges have come to that. I do not recall any such judgement from this court. Well, i looked at the documentation, and as i understand it, the icc. But you said, you and your fellow judges. I and my fellow judges, i have never said any such thing, because ive never had that kind of question presented to me to answer, so i dont know how you where youre getting this from. If i may say so, judge, the Israeli Government clearly believes that it is none of your business to even be considering whether palestine is a state. And benjamin netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has said youre showing yourselves to be politicised, obsessed with carrying out a headhunting operation against israel and the us while turning a blind eye to the worlds worst human rights defenders, including the regime in iran. Now, again, here we go with slur language, you know, calling characterising a court of law thats supported by 123 states parties, by the United Nations, the human rights organisations, the European Union is strongly behind us. So all this slur language is used to detract attention from any issue. The issue here is about the humanity, the common humanity that we share. The palestinians have presented a question for the court. So, apparently, as you would know, israel is on the other side of that question. So it would not be correct to assume the palestinian position as correct or the israeli position as correct. It is an issue that the judges have to contemplate, reflect upon, hear arguments from both sides on that question, and then come to a decision. So we cannot take it that when one side says something, that is the law. No, thats not how it works. Alright. Well, youve addressed what you call slurs coming from washington, coming from israel. But there is a much wider critique of the icc that goes far beyond specific cases, and that is that after almost two decades in operation, your court has a deeply disappointing record. As you said, it was set up with such grand ambition to be the court of last resort for the worst of human behaviours. But the truth is, after 1. 5 billion, 18 years, you can claim just eight convictions of which only three individuals are currently standing convictions. That, given all that has happened in the world over the last two decades, is a really, frankly, pathetic record, isnt it . Again, hyperbolic characterisation. Can you tell me what it should be, for you to measure it as successful . Well, if one only looks at the egregious humanitarian sort of abuses we have seen, from myanmar to syria, to a host of other conflict arenas where we know that crimes, terrible crimes have been committed, that will not be prosecuted in their home courts, one would like to think the icc might have played a more proactive, more effective role. I think that question comes from not understanding how icc works, and the International Law itself. The icc works on the international plane. What is the hope you are offering to syrians, when the truth is the Syrian Government of course will not cooperate with you, and the un Security Council, which could give you a mandate to investigate in syria, will not, because the russians would veto any such exercise . What hope are you giving to people in syria of justice . You, when it comes down to it, in far too many situations, because of geopolitics, simply dont have the power to intervene. There is the hope, stephen, there is the hope. There is the hope. First of all, what you describe is the very deficiencies which i am talking about, which International Law suffers from time immemorial. But still, it is better that we have it than not at all. But here is the problem you should be taking to task those at the Security Council who block the referrals. These are the places you are talking about. What i am saying is this. That what you just pointed out, the very deficiencies of International Law that i spoke about earlier, which we all have to, both you, me, everybody, civil society, needs to take to the United Nations and the Security Council, encourage them to refer these cases where we see Human Rights Violations occurring, and bring them so thatjustice can be had. Now but even in spite of that, and i hope that gets done, so that we can have justice. But there is the hope even that eventually, as long as we have the icc and i need to say this again, as long as we have a permanent International Criminal court, there will always be hope that those who do these behaviours, who grossly violate human rights, commit international crimes, they can run, but they cannot hide forever. Icc will be there. There will be a court where they can be asked questions ofjustice. That is the hope. You keep using this word, hope and i want to end with this thought. I accept everything you have said about the difficulties of operating in the geopolitical climate that you have to operate, particularly the european Security Council, which, clearly, is stalemated so often. But nonetheless, one of your friends in the international community, the Dutch Foreign minister, stef blok, has made these points. He says, number one, your operations are often far too slow, far too cumbersome. Thejudges, he says, are too focused on trying to raise their own salaries, which are almost 200,000 tax free per year, when they should be focused on streamlining their own operations in the hague. And he says, we dont expect the unattainable, but we do expect better. The icc too often focuses on, for example, countries in africa, where you have got extensive investigations, and doesnt touch the more difficult areas. We have mentioned syria, but there are others too, and he says you have got to do better. Do you accept that . Now, mr blok is a very strong supporter of this court. I know. Let me finish, please. He is a very strong supporter of this court, and i have told him that. And we know that even in recent events, he was one minister that stood up firmly against this behaviour that the icc was subjected to in the last couple of days. But i disagree with him on that, and i told him plainly that i disagreed with him. I regret that youve brought the matter up. Of course, whenever you talk about salary, its something that excites interest. Now, i hope that. I was hoping you wouldnt bring it up. Let me tell you this. I know that the salary of iccjudges is just a fraction of what you pay some of your people at the bbc. You pay up to £1. 7 million to some sports broadcasters. I havent asked you yourself. Excuse me. Judge, with respect. And i do believe somebody said that £250,000 is chicken feed for them. Now, we dont earn that much. All we were saying was that the pay of iccjudges needs to be brought up to the level of other internationaljudges. I need to tell you that. Look, the point mr blok is making is that in many different ways, you could do better, even within the difficult environment you are working. Do you accept that . That is absolutely correct. Yes, indeed, and there is no question about that. I will be the first to tell you that, as a human institution, theres room to do better. In your country there, thejudiciary also has faced its own difficulties. All over the world, the judiciary does have questions about needing to improve on doing justice, and we are doing that at the icc. We are not perfect, but i say it is much better to have this and work on it, to improve things, and we wish everybody to join us in improving the matters. But in the end, in the end, we need a court of last resort. We cannot. Even if we do spot instances, like happens in everyjudicial system in the world, i repeat that in everyjudicial system in the world we cannot then, because we can spot some areas of improvement that need to be had in those systems, because of that, lets throw out the whole thing, and leave no place for victims to go forjustice in the end. Alright. We have to end right there, butjudge chile eboe 0suji, i thank you so much forjoining me from the hague. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello there. Im sure its not going to be to everyones liking, but this week, it is going to be turning hotter and more humid across many parts of the country. And for the first time this year, the temperature is likely to reach 30 degrees plus. Now on monday, the highest temperature was at Heathrow Airport and in cambridgeshire with temperatures of 2a degrees. And that was with a south westerly wind with lower pressure and weather fronts bringing some rain towards the north west. Higher pressure bringing the sunshine towards the south east of the uk. Now, as the position of the High Pressure changes and as it moves northwards into scandinavia, so will change the wind direction and were going to draw in all the heat and humidity from continental europe. Temperatures rising by day and perhaps by night as well. Quite warm first thing actually on tuesday morning. A little bit cooler perhaps towards the far south east of england and across highlands scotland. But tomorrow looks like being quite cloudy again across scotland and northern ireland. Theres still some more rain to come, although it wont be as windy, itll be drier and brighter in eastern scotland too. Some early cloud for wales and the north west of england but more in the way of sunshine here, lots of sunshine for england and wales, those temperatures continuing to rise. 27 28 Degrees South east england, the midlands, east anglia and lincolnshire. That High Pressure is going to be more dominant around the middle part of the week. Building across this weather front, it tends to weaken it all the while. So, on wednesday, there may well still be some cloud and some outbreaks of rain left for scotland and northern ireland, but it should tend to peter out. The cloud thins and breaks and we get a bit more sunshine. The sunnier skies continue for england and wales where the winds are still light, and those temperatures are continuing to rise. Perhaps making the low 20s in the south east of scotland, but 30, 31 degrees is likely through the midlands and the south east of england by this stage. And another hot day to come on thursday with light winds. Watch out for a few showers, it could be heavy and thundery towards the north west of the uk. Otherwise, its going to be dry with light winds again and its warming up. Were missing the extreme heat in northern ireland, mid 20s through the central belt of scotland. 31 or 32 in the south east of england. Thats 90 fahrenheit. Its an uncertain breakdown towards the end of the week. Likely to find some heavy, thundery showers coming in from the west on friday before were into atlantic air on saturday, and it will feel cooler and fresher again. This is bbc news. Im Sally Bundock with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. Protesters and police clash outside the white house as demonstrators try to topple a statue of former us president andrew jackson. Closing the gap the Prime Minister borisjohnson is expected to reduce the two metre social distancing rule in england to one metre. Latin america remains the current epicentre of the pandemic as brazil registers more than 50,000 deaths. And good news for cartoon lovers we may be seeing more animation films in the cinema, as the pandemic brings the rest of the Entertainment Industry to a halt