what's the connection between powell and the european union you know. your correspondent and baker chance traps you live with the rules set by the teacher. being recipes for success the strategy that could make a difference. baking bread on d w. i think that's actually in for a question you should cost going to seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you said it wants you dead why do you think it's complacency the international criminal court set up to try the worst crimes on the planet has a new enemy in washington the trumpet ministration was accused of having no legitimacy and says it wants to die my guest this week here in the hague is to sujit me president of the i.c.c. how can he defend the court against such powerful opposition. welcome to conflicts on thank you very much and welcome to the i.c.c. thank you the u.s. national security advisor john bolton has said he wants your court to die and he is happy to help bring about that demise do you realize what a serious blow that is to your work it is not a serious blow to court or small because one hundred and twenty three states parties to it too strongly supported this is the most powerful country in the world and we want them to be part of the cool they're not and they want we hope there will be. we will not cooperate with the i.c.c. he said we will provide no assistance to the i.c.c. we will not join the i.c.c. we will let the i.c.c. die only after all to all intents and purposes the i.c.c. is already dead to us now he said to you you want them to join this is the answer couldn't be clearer it's not the that is the answer from him the moment we are confident that. they will reconsider we are confident about confidence based on one hand it let me tell you. the source of hostility had been shown in the past never to the sixten that and later on another ministration came in even though the maintained in principle that they have to go to split the i.c.c. and its jurisdictional reach they still did assist the court in very many ways including referring the darfur situation to the court the united states government did move for time and in doing so when you're dealing with them trying to take in a stray sure nobody likes once like that and when they voted in the security council to refer to the four situation to the i.c.c. they said they voted because they did not like the idea of impunity and for that reason that they will refer notwithstanding their reservations about the court this is not just a refusal to cooperate this is a threat to take punitive measures against anyone even daring to investigate the actions of americans on the court or their closest allies with a view to holding them accountable in an international court i.c.c. judges and prosecutors who investigate americans will be barred from entering the us and their friends in the us would be targeting something that's actually or a question you should be. asking him what that means country will seriously now learn seem to take this serious you seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you sent it wants you dead why do you think it's complacency it is thought complacency what i am saying is leave plant and we them to reconsider their position and join the court and cooperate because this court was established for reasons that america can about in the first place. america has been quite strong in the past about international criminal justice they were at the forefront of nuremberg proceedings they helped with the administration of international criminal justice along the way since terminals don't times in the past you're talking to me about the past i'm talking about the present because if you're putting your head in the sand who you're not putting my head in the sand what i'm saying here is that we need them to join us we the reasons the court was created for which the court in its creation have not updated the idea is that there should be a place of accountability for those who commit genocide and those who commit crimes against humanity those who commit war crimes but reason those reasons are many imperative and it's important to the united states as much as is the rest of the world and that is why this court was created you keep repeating that the two weeks ago the u.s. secretary of state might pumpin i referred to a twenty seventeen request from the i.c.c. prosecutor to initiate an investigation into the situation in afghanistan that said poem pale could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing in twenty eighteen the trumpet ministration warned there would be consequences if you went ahead with that request pompei i understand that request is still pending is it still pending i don't know i don't know that my answer to you will change as to what i already said but these are just the specifics of what pompei i was throwing to he says that is could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing that twenty seventeen requests from the i.c.c. prosecutor to investigate the situation in afghan i cannot comment on pending matter that is a matter now pending before the temporal this court and we need to be good at that are you going to challenge this incredibly hostile threat from the u.s. . so bow down neatly and accept it. we'll put it to use those sort of a mood of the language becomes a little difficult. there are other things that can happen between cow towing the meteor as you put it on board the other thing you said the point is now we. to consider that this court case important for the global interest for the interest of humanity they want you to change course the i.c.c. is attacking america's rule of law it's not too late for the i.c.c. to change course and we urge that it do so immediately direct direct appeal from the us secretary of state. well it is as i said he wants it and i cannot pass it that as i already told you there's a matter pending before the team but what do you want me to tell you to tell you all right the temper is going to drop it like one so tell me this does the court stand by its twenty sixteen report which said there was a reasonable basis to believe the us military had committed torture at secret detention sites in afghanistan operated by the cia again how much your report again and matter pending before the trial to what i can tell you is being in the public domain it's come from your court where i can tell you is that let's understand the dearest original premise of the court. it is that states have the primary responsibility to do justice the court is only a court of last resort is when states are unable unwilling to do justice the i.c.c. is intitled to intervene now that means that for some stage the ones we call the states they call them as a mirror of conscience that they need to do justice so that justice does not become an orphan in the territory of sovereign national sovereignty i understand but your answer can be on. you've asked a question and this is relevant to it and the second part of the course touristic shouldn't those who want to do atrocity than to do justice we saw that in rwanda a before the times i understand that right my question was do does the court stand by its twenty sixteen point six and there was a reasonable basis to believe the us military had committed torture secret tensions do you mean that because the mood in the court reporter you're talking we're our examination report on sunday which i made and probably been given to the general assembly this is one of the intrinsics let me explain to you have the reply now i am a judge the chief judge of the court or. so i speak to you from the perspective of the judiciary i cannot speak to you from the perspective of the office of the prosecutor that is not to say that if i don't answer any question in relation to the office of the prosecutor there is no answer but you're the president of the school board has little to make of the fact it's little or georgina round these questions and refusing to answer what's already been in the public meeting may be one of people to make of that you can characterize it anywhere you want the point is there when. asked the judge i speak from my judgement i cannot be making comments on something else that is not in the will in the ram it because i have to decide what you're talking about it's not the for me as a judge ok so mr pump air is not going to get a reply from you to his appeal to change course is he going to get he's going to get the same answer that i've got to listen to which is no answer yeah definitely sure the case yes ok it's not just america is it america is far from being the only country that refuses to deal with you in fact the most powerful and populous countries in the world have decided that your type of justice isn't for them and talk about china india pakistan russia that's three out of five permanent members of the security council with the power to block your investigations in countries that are not signed up to your court was a question their veto is another serious block to work isn't it why is that a problem for me. it's for the court is right that's what i mean for the court if stage who should join the court haven't joined this is a big problem is that the most powerful unpopular states in the but the hundred and twenty three states let's not ignore those the one mistake people make often quite frankly is the ignored those who are in unfocused and those who are not in that's not fact to those who are in the thesis that all three of them have intended to go in we can muster to come we must be able to respect the participation of a hundred and twenty three states parties who continue to have faith in the one of the court let's not get all lost in the preferences of those who have not yet joined who we hope will join at some point these hundred twenty three countries do not by and large vetoes they're not permanent members of the security council they do it with a veto yes china it poses russia and the united states have a veto it is a factor of concern of course that. one of the cases come to the court is where the security council refers it verifies a case to the court big goal we call them situations in west specks of countries that are not states parties of course when you have the possibility of somebody blocking type possibility of doing justice. where the court would naturally not reach by where of its number ship it is a matter of concern it is a let's give you a concrete example you want to investigate the abuses suffered by the wreck injured people and me and mine that's that's already to china has warned you off your claim of jurisdiction last year in the general assembly was based on an appropriate interpretation of the a political legal concepts and might make the i.c.c. is work in the future more contentious undermining further its author already and credibility this is a certain. this is the kind of resistance you're facing among the permanent five members of the security council russia and similar criticisms accusing you of subjectively interpret in what it called the standards of international law it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong does it it matters that they have the power and the veto to block your. again. no would right improve on the answer the answer i give you is that. hundred twenty three state you have faith in this and we continue to that just now we continue to watch those who have not joined to do so so that humanity all of the well under the umbrella you're watching is pulling on deaf ears well. if you actually ask yourselves why it is that those states who have not joined haven't done so. either way that should be a question you may want to ask or reflect upon what it means we can write number of pages thesis on those we're not here to write ph d. thesis we can do oh yes let's stay with the facts and what you were set up to do which is to try is the most serious crimes of the planet and that is very important we should not lose sight and i find the veto that the three members that i mentioned permanent members of the security council have will keep you for instance from any serious prospect of trying any syrian officials that might be responsible for the mass killing and torture that has taken place that it's their veto that has prevented what human rights watch called a path to justice for syria's victims the fact is most co will not allow any referral of syrian leaders to your court under any circumstances we can that's a big gap we will need it is it is a very important there's no question about that as things beatles situation that should ordinarily be brought to court so that humanity is protected . by virtue of mandel the i.c.c. it is a serious problem but it is one that all of us a big hole in that protections including the youth minister sebastian would need to get them to reconsider because this is about humanity it is not about the i.c.c. everyone keeps focusing i.c.c. i.c.c. we need to look beyond whine i.c.c. was created there were six million. jews killed because of their faith during the second world war we eight hundred thousand people rwandan genocide in one thousand nine hundred i only know what i see see you keep going back and i'm staying in the present i'm talking about the relatives of the four hundred thousand victims of the assad regime who have absolutely zero chance of getting. the kind of justice that you would wish to deliver for them i'll just say not be a kindness to tell them that finally passed but i can do what i'm doing now using your program to them to reconsider. that position and joining. because the protection humanity under the rule watch this well that is what we hope to see happen we live in a world that despite your honorable intentions we live in a world where despots to get away with pretty much everything and we're hoping that that changes and that is why this court was brought into play and there's an irony you have reason to think that that is actually a change there's an irony here isn't there if you kill one person with luck you'll be arrested tried and you're convicted you order the death of four hundred thousand people and we all know who we're talking about here and you get invited to peace talks just as i have not invited anybody no you haven't you haven't so why don't you but syrian officials have and that's the reality of today isn't it that's the america we all had more international law great a body of international law more courts more experts more judges but that's the reality one person you get tried you kill four hundred thousand you get invited to peace talks that's hardly justices in the u.s. think you and i might be able to. extend. thinking loudly whether i should even commented on that but i want to see where you're coming from but i would say that it is a matter that passed all of us me to the actions like. those concerns in this decision to store up the reach of isis's jurisdiction to reconsider their petition you told the general assembly last year that the mere existence of this court serves as an obstacle to those wishing to commit crimes against humanity if that were true we wouldn't have seen the use of chemical weapons in syria along with the torture and extrajudicial killings the continuing slaughter in yemen the killings in south sudan the targeted executions in the slums of venezuela and the massive loss of life in your own home country nigeria. you can't offer the kind of protection and you can't offer the obstacles that you claim let friends back up to first of all the reality doesn't match your rhetoric does it now i can tell you this i can tell you that yes this cold hands put an obstacle. to the conscience of those who would ordinarily but me in ways they would not be if we didn't have the schools well i think it happened you can see it's not in venezuela not in syria when i cannot comment on some of those pieces as a matter of you read the news when i can read you read the news you see what's happened i read the news but never seen some can i tell you something because a week this is what i said judge i cannot comment on the propositions you just made contact can speak in general terms about the need for everyone to remember why the court was here the reason why i cannot comment on what you said distinct takes any of those. cases come up at the i.c.c. . it be a problem for me not her chances that he will not show that i'm not sure that it's not much chance we have to keep hoping. thank you can not fail to notice a human needs manners when and the states men and women who make these decisions will reconsider their positions so that everybody subscribe to the i.c.c. laws and there are some not reconsidering their positions you have the withdrawal of existing signatories to the room treaty like the philippines and burundi and i ask you whether you can blame them because the big powers refused to collaborate with you why should the spores and we just recently had the malaysia join us don't forget this you had that's one of my withdraw all of the philippines and burundi where there are clear cases to answer when i clear cases of human rights violations what what what what do you expect me to say to that it is for them they made the decision to draw for reasons that reasons we q. and i. can discuss in another second stances but that's not what the i.c.c. . it's not ice he says it's a major we. still work isn't it because not only are you having countries withdrawing you are having others that are flouting their commitments to the cause of the philippines and burundi of the dimensions with drew because they say that i.c.c. would investigate the cases in relation to that now why is that a problem for the i.c.c. in the moral sense that you're trying to apply because i.c.c. is doing its work and people choose to withdraw and then that's a problem for the i.c.c. i don't see it but you're doing your work i would be that because i.c.c. was precisely doing its why some people didn't like it that they made this unfortunate decision we regret in twenty sixteen the group of fellow world leaders known as the elders called for the urgent reform of the i.c.c. required it said to improve its overall performance and effectiveness in delivering justice for all in a timely manner not such reforms they said would lead to the enhance credibility of the court there have been no reforms since twenty sixty reforms. it depends on what we mean. by be the past to tell you that as a human institution this court yes those knees of erotic review of that manner of doing one to two to do battle like we do in our lives now like every other site institutional company would do that is taken for granted but in advance of what people are talking about the rather some reforms that are more difficult to achieve because. you need to amend the rooms tattooed some that's a more difficult proposition but closer to home judges will want to keep on reviewing how we do the want to improve how we. no we do things that have been some serious missteps that doesn't help when you have the acquittal of the former every coast president laurent gbagbo for instance earlier this year this was seen as a stunning defeat wasn't it for what was the first prosecution of a former head of state amnesty international coded a crushing disappointment to victims of post election violence in the country do you share that disappointment i do not share the counter rising of stunning defeat i do. understand the concern of those who speak on behalf of the victims i could see. they would be disappointed by such results but not understanding oh i think with victims. one can say they should not lead us to taking short cuts to do was short cut you need better prosecution so can choose the judge to not toughest one of your colleagues said the prosecutor had failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the responsibility of mr gbagbo as well as his former youth minister i can satisfy the burden of proof this is a prosecution failure isn't it i cannot comment on that because i mean the appeals court will be of this court and that kids might come of the appeal and because of that i certainly cannot comment on it because what i want to see what i was saying is that. you know not just live with all the prison procedures it means perfect in the court and said that there's too much of a need not i that everything is possible to have everything is empowered thank you you have a string of losses there in a string of reverse and you said to me please along the way there's all kinds of continuum that we must take into account now as a judge i must tell you that i do not regard acquittal. stunning the kind of. victims will be disappointed but we have other ways of trying to attend to the victims for instance the something we call the trust fund for victims by the way. to donate has no justice in it that's not justice to donate to the trust fund for something else that's not just them systems program in case there is no conviction am i right or wrong in thinking that a prosecutor's job is to bring to court he will pull case based on solid evidence that will stand up in court and that hasn't been happening the last meal is questions and he did not want to be easy if he seems to be written out that is simply what we can write appears if he says now you know have you where you can give me a much simpler answer than that i cannot give you about simple answer some things are not susceptible to simplistic answers you sense an excuse is not an excuse the fact of the matter is this if you focused on accountability and we need to focus on the room started promised come to belittle people he did not promise that every case that comes to court must result in a conviction that do you know. we are not here running for you called i think. the holy office of the inquisition even back. right did not convict everybody or when failed to stand unfortunately we're running out of temp you know that we really have a child the only money together league three percent of went through the. city thank you very much for being a company. the funny. thing. he. does. appreciate music. for a swiss cheese maker is trying it out on. his i am intolerant same supplanting of loving attention. and he plays music for it as well so can you taste the difference was the idea that cheesy. thirty minutes on d w. it's time to take stuff on. facebook. time you're up to such the up. and find for the troops above is hard to overcome boundaries and connection when. it's time for. a deed of it is coming up ahead. minus. the city in ruins maro a. symbol of a long conflict in the philippines. between the muslim and the christian population . last night as funny as fuck you like the city center seventeen president to tears his response was told. by the terrorists will never gain a foothold in. the reconquest turned into tragedy. this is not the kind of freedom that we want. how did morality become a gateway to islamist terror as in now the same sorry god wasn't as the result of an exclusive report from a destroyed city. philippines in the sun. starts april eleventh on t.w. . this