I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate if they are not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

In this regard, I ask any members partaking via Microsoft Teams, prior to making their contribution, to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, members will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative to comply with such a direction.

As Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala is aware, the practice of the committee is to publish opening statements on its website following meetings. He is reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that witnesses should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the witness will be directed to discontinue his remarks. It is imperative that he comply with any such direction. That completes the housekeeping and the standard statutory direction.

It is a privilege to welcome our guest, Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala, First Vice President of the International Criminal Court. We are very appreciative of his taking the time to engage with us. We look forward to hearing his perspectives.

I thank the Acting Chairperson. I am very grateful to the committee for inviting me to the seat of Irish democracy. It is a very important engagement for me. Ireland is a key state party for the International Criminal Court. This country has always had a principled position of support for international law and for the court. We are very grateful for what Ireland has done and will do for the court and for the sake of humanity. I do not have a long statement. Instead, I will make three points on which members may wish me to elaborate in the course of the meeting.

The first point is that we are witnessing at this time probably the saddest situation we have faced in 80 years. The barbarism of violence is asserting itself forcefully as the primary measure of interpersonal relations, as a primitive law of international relations and as the main instrument for resolving economic and political disputes. The heart of international law does not stem, as someone sometimes seems to imply, from a pacifist illusion. It arises from the trauma of the world wars. After the atrocities of those wars, states were prompted to establish shared rules, values and courts and a common language. This is where the International Criminal Court came from and, likewise, the European Union. It is where this country comes from. I believe it is important to say and repeat that, because the flow of information and sometimes propaganda on social media makes us forget from where we come.

The second point is that despite the current rhetoric, there is no crisis of international law but there is a political decline. International law is there, has been there for decades and will remain there. What has changed is that certain political actors are being shown not to believe in the rules of civilisation that they gave themselves. I was born in 1967. My parents' generation delivered to my generation a better world than the one in which they lived.

Regrettably, we are set to deliver to our children, for the first time in a century, a world which will be worse than the one we have been given. The International Criminal Court is currently facing sweeping coercive measures which are meant to silence it or make it change its course, including arrest warrants against us, against elected officials, judges and prosecutors; criminal convictions; financial sanctions; and other attempts toward our independence and impartiality. We cannot give up, we should not give up and we will not give up, but it is important to recall the reason the court is being targeted. It is not that the court is able to stop armies or to halt the hand of torturers. The court forces those who set them in motion to justify themselves, to explain. No one ever says, "I attack because I can, I kill because I hate, I invade because I want someone else's land or someone else's riches and properties." Everyone seeks an excuse, a justification, a narrative, but the law, even when it is betrayed and vilified, continues to be recognised as a higher value, a higher good than mere violence. The court, as the committee knows, cannot arrest fugitives without the support and will of states, but it tells the world that power does not erase responsibility. It tells the world that, even in war, there is a morality to be upheld, as Pope Francis said a few months before passing away. It says to the world that without law and justice, force would be the only possible truth and history would be written by the victors while the vanquished, the conquered would be swallowed up by oblivion. This is why someone fears the court. It is because the court awakens consciences of the peoples. The court itself is the word, conscience that names the guilty, one by one.

It is particularly important for us to engage with those, like the committee members, who represent our peoples. There is a disconnect between what the people feel and what governments in general are doing. My feeling, having remained also this year as a university professor speaking with youngsters, is that they do feel a strong disconnect between politics and what they feel, their values and what they believe in. I respectfully appeal to Irish democracy to continue supporting the court and especially to do this within the context of the European Union. Ireland is about to take the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union. We wish that it will mark a change. So far, the European Union has not done enough for the court. We have been calling, for example, for blocking legislation to support European companies, companies of the European Union willing to continue working with us even if we will be designated for sanctions. The legislation has not come. The European Council this year has never once mentioned the International Criminal Court and its situation.

Our wish is that the members, as representative of Irish democracy and of the Irish people, will be able, together with the Government, to support themselves. The court is not our court. Judges come and go. Prosecutors come and go but the court, the institution, must remain. It is for the people and for the millions of innocents who live in despair, who starve to death, who are bombed, kidnapped, tortured and killed, and we owe them respect, justice and hope.

I thank the judge. He is facing sanctions. Is he one of the eight judges?

I have been convicted and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.

Is that by the US Administration?

No, by another-----

By the Russians?

Yes.

It would be great for us to hear. We have heard previously from the likes of Francesa Albanese. She has used the phrase "civil death" about what sanctions do to an individual. For us to understand how insidious it is to attack the ability of individuals, such as judges, lawyers, prosecutors, future judges and people who in the future would like to engage or seek opportunities in the International Criminal Court, ICC, and the international justice system, what chilling impact will this have on the ability of the ICC to attract people into the roles, given the extent to which the sanctions are impacting the lives of individuals and how difficult it has become for individuals to have credit cards, book flights and hotels, etc.? I will ask the judge to speak more about the EU blocking mechanism. Could he perhaps speak to EU companies that have been overly and unnecessarily compliant with the sanctions? Which companies have gone above and beyond what is required? The EU blocking mechanism is obviously one metric, but is there also a way to engage companies that are being overly compliant and unnecessarily so?

I thank the Senator. It is a very long story. Let me try to cut a long story short. We need to keep in mind that, under international law, and notably under the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference, sanctions are legal under international law only when they reach a sufficiently strong link to the sanctioning state. The European Union also has a sanctioning mechanism but it is strictly linked to activities that take place in the territory of the European Union. In this case, there is no jurisdictional link because the ICC has no link with the sanctioning state. It is based in the European Union and the sanctioning state is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. These measures are illegitimate under international law. As a matter of fact, it regulates the conduct of business by persons in the European Union without an agreement to that effect with the European Union. That is the legal matter. The EU members states should care about protecting business and persons in the European Union. I am a European citizen and am speaking as one. I was born in the EU and raised with the ideas of the European Union. I want to live freely in the European Union, as promised for the 500 million people of the Union and anyone who finds themselves in the Union. This is a fundamental matter.

Sanctions are having an impact on individuals.

However the court has been working on measures during these months and it has strengthened a number of internal mechanisms. I do not believe there is a chilling effect on people wishing to work in the court. For example, I know there are many candidates for the upcoming elections of judges in December. I am one of the outgoing judges. Every three years six judges are outgoing and six judges are elected. There are many candidates and this is good news. There are many highly qualified candidates, which shows many lawyers, judges and professors are willing to contribute to this enormous achievement of human civilisation. Our staff have never shaken for a moment, which is moving. We have young staff who have never for a moment thought to leave the court. They have never complained and they always say they are there and ready to do anything and it does not matter if it is potentially dangerous as, regrettably, our work is.

The good news is that there is a lot of interest in the court. Our recruitments normally number hundreds of applicants. The court has never been so efficient, so determined or so fast as it is now. We act in many situations, many of which are secret and I cannot elaborate on them, stemming from the first, and so far only, trial on the exterminations in Darfur 20 years ago, when we had a conviction in the court, to the internal conflict in the Central African Republic and the Philippines, with the former president whose trial is due to begin in November. There are also Ukraine, Palestine and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan we have issued and made public the existence of arrest warrants for the leadership for the persecution of girls and women. Millions of girls and women are being persecuted and for the first time in international jurisprudence we have decided there is a form of crime against humanity. Persecution based on gender, not only biological gender but perceived gender as a free choice of every person, constitutes a crime against humanity. This is a massive step towards the fundamental rights of the people. The court has really become essential not only in the legal system but I would say also in the state of human civilisation. This is why we beg committee members, as representatives of the people, to support the court, speak up and stand up for the court and encourage the Government to continue to support the court, as it has always done in the years when I have been in charge of it.

International law and the wider UN structures that we have are something huge in human civilisation and our collective civilisation, coming from the trauma not only of wars but of centuries of imperial and colonial thinking that dominated so intensely. I was very glad to see this framing because sometimes it gets framed as if these structures came out of idealism and now we are in pragmatic times, whereas in fact they come very much from an understanding of what their absence creates and makes possible.

I am interested in speaking a little more about this. I am trying to think of where Ireland fits. Ireland talks about international law but I have noticed that, certainly at European level, there has not been enough reference to the International Criminal Court.

This is the case even in discussions we have had, and I know Judge Aitala's work and why he has been sanctioned by Russia and others. In terms of Ukraine, there has been a discussion on the need for tribunals in future but not enough reference to the fact the International Criminal Court has active prosecutions that are already under way.

Will Judge Aitala comment on the blocking mechanism? I want Ireland to be serious and not only say we believe in international law and order but use our Presidency to challenge the blocking mechanism. I know it would not be enough to solve everything but it would be a signal to businesses and companies of a counter imperative. Perhaps Judge Aitala will comment on the importance of following through on this. Will he also comment on the importance of the International Criminal Court being referenced when we speak about international law, even in relation to Russia and Ukraine when we talk about that situation? The dedication of the staff and those working for the courts is very clear but practical obstacles to the work are being placed through obstruction of technologies and obstruction of access.

Also, happening in parallel, we see a lot of development aid cuts. This is happening in the United States and in Europe. I know of certain projects that were supporting local communities in the documentation of war crimes and supporting the type of work on the ground that contributes to future justice, the future record or the responsibility and accountability the court recommends in its work in various parts of the world. Is there separate or additional pressure on this part of the court's work? This is with regard to those internationally on the front line who are the documenters and the evidence gatherers for the work of the court. How can we support this more? On a practical level how can we press for Ireland to support more with regard to the kind of curtailment on the judges that we see.

I thank Senator Higgins and I fully subscribe to what she has said. I agree with her that there is not enough interest or knowledge about what the court does. It is vital that anyone here who has the opportunity to speak up does so to build a counter-narrative. We are living in times when barbarism and brutality extend to language. When people are labelled animals, monkeys or rats, they can end up destined for elimination, as though they were actual animals. This kind of attitude in political language and public language needs a counter-narrative, which must come from those like Senator Higgins or me, when I have the opportunity to speak to the public, to students or to the people. This is very important.

In my academic capacity I have done some analysis of the language, and there are verbs such as "decimate", "annihilate" and "massacre". These kinds of verbs clearly evoke collective punishment which are against international law. There are four fundamental pillars in international law.

The first is the prohibition on the threat and use of armed force. The second is the right of people to self-determination without any intrusion from other countries or people. The third is what I mentioned earlier. In the words of Pope Francis, it is about the rules of morality in war. War is always awful but there are minimum rules of morality, such as that innocents, children, civilian objects and civilians cannot be targeted with armed violence. The thought is that governments are not free to do as they wish with their own people. In old international law, there was the principle of non-interference. It meant you cannot look at what I do in my country and I will not look at what you are doing to your people in your country. It is not like this any more. When opponents or people, based on ethnicity, nationality, language or religion, are persecuted, this is a crime against humanity and everyone has the duty to stand up.

This will lead us far from the point but I will mention it. Sometimes I hear international law is not real law because there is not any judge able to forcefully implement it. First of all, this is not true. There are several judges in the international system, but since it is a system based on horizontal power, there is not a higher authority above governments. States themselves are judges. They have a duty to make sure other states behave according to the rules. They have to isolate those who do not abide by the rules. They have to condemn them politically. The international system is based on the duty of each and every state to be the guardian of the others, to behave and make the others behave. That is important because current propaganda says the ICC is not relevant because it does not have a police force to go and grab fugitives abroad, but this is how it works.

In terms of the blocking statute, the Senator said something important. Besides the practical significance, there is a political significance and a political message. The message is that we care about our companies, our people and anyone in the European Union who is free to circulate, do business and so on and so forth. That is the message of the blocking statute. The Senator is right that it would not resolve everything, but it would be a step showing commitment. I have said these things many times, even in the European Parliament, which has been increasingly supportive of the blocking statute and, more broadly, the court.

In terms of obstacles, the work we have done in the court has shown the court is very strong. We have proved to be resilient and this is because we have a number of states who are with us. Some are vocal while some are quieter. It is because 1,200 people of 100 nationalities in the court believe in what we do. We give everything and we cannot give up. We will not give up. It is not a possibility because we know we need to give voice to those who are muted. We need to give hope to those in despair. What we need now and what the European Union more broadly needs is to strengthen its fundamental values.

I am suspicious of the word "identity" because normally it is used to go against others who are different from us, but the identity of the European Union is its values, its humans and its values for humans. If the European Union will not protect those values, it will become meaningless. I am sure this will not happen.

I have been in the judiciary for 34 years, and in university. We were raised with a dogma. The European Union was a dogma. It was our shore, our safety and our morality. I am of the Erasmus generation. Mine was the first generation allowed to study in other countries. My students now are and feel European; they do not see any difference between themselves and the others. This needs to be done by parliaments and governments in the European Union: to think of identity as shared values, not as historic legacies, which sometimes have brought hatred and war. We do not need that; what we need is to look ahead and to feel part of the same human family.

We have discussed at length the blocking statute and its potential benefit. What is the reluctance from the European Union to activate that blocking statute?

I am sure Judge Aitala has been asked this many times but I am speaking generally about international law rather than specifically about the International Criminal Court. Mark Carney, who is in Ireland this week, made a speech in which he said the application of it has not been as consistent as it ought to have been and the international order applies more to smaller countries than to larger countries. Going by Judge Aitala's opening statement, I think he would say international law has always stood in this position and it is the political order that has diverted from that. I am curious to hear his thoughts on that speech.

The first question------

The first question was on the blocking statute that the European Union is reluctant to use. What is the reason for this reluctance?

I do not know. We have been engaging. We have an excellent relationship with the European Commission. We have not seen it but we understand it is not wanted now. Why, I do not know. It is not within our prerogatives. Maybe some feel it is not needed. We said consistently the very things I am saying today before the executive order was issued. At the beginning some said we were crying wolf and nothing was going to happen - it has happened. Then we said we would have individual states in NATO, judges and prosecutors - it has happened one, two, three times. The next step could be an institutional designation. There is a time when one has to stand up and do something. I do not know the political reasons.

In terms of international law, we can maybe have another chat when we have more time. It is a long story. When I arrived in the court, there was this rhetoric that the court was only aiming at African states and only had cases on African states.

It was not true for the simple reason that those cases had been referred by the concerned states themselves because they were unable to prosecute war crimes or crimes against humanity. Apart from Darfur, which was referred by the Security Council, the other cases were referred to the court by the concerned states. In the last four or five years, we have disproven that. We have also disproven that there is any double standard. The reason the court is now paying a price is that we are applying the law equally to everyone.

Let me be very clear. The usual rhetoric, according to which we are attacking states, not only is false but is also misconceived because we have jurisdiction on individuals, not on states, let alone on peoples. We have jurisdiction on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by individuals. This is the legacy of 80 years of international criminal law, starting with the Nuremburg Tribunal through to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Rwanda Tribunal and down to the International Criminal Court. We do not evaluate governments or states; we evaluate, per the Rome Statute, individual criminal responsibility and we do this equally. I think it is evident to everyone that we are doing whatever we have to do regardless of who the individuals are or where they come from.

Judge Aitala is very welcome to the foreign affairs committee. As I do not know what questions have already been asked, forgive me if I am repeating any of them. I hope Judge Aitala does not mind me asking this question. I ask him to describe to the committee the practical reality, both professionally and in his personal life, from the freezing of the assets to the day-to-day consequences that people might appreciate. What has the impact been for him and his staff? How difficult has that been? I know these measures targeted not only members of the court but also Francesca Albanese and Palestinian human rights organisations. Is this part of a broader weaponisation of sanctions against those upholding international law? Where does it lead to if it goes unchallenged?

Obviously, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of any functioning justice system. What message does the sanctioning of judges and prosecutors send to courts and to those who depend on international justice around the world?

I wish to build on the granular detail. We know that Microsoft, for example, cut off its services. It is a concern because many parliaments across Europe are moving away. Ireland has quite embedded systems within our own parliamentary system and others.

Vulnerability is created by the speed with which a company went away and services like that could be impacted. I know Judge Guillou has spoken about the importance of a kind of digital of sovereignty for these key tools of democracy, our courts and our parliaments, to ensure they have protection against that kind of vulnerability to political pressure. Microsoft is one company, but there are many other companies that are relevant in this regard. On a pragmatic level, it is important to remove that as a vulnerability, ensuring we are able to do what we should be doing.

I mentioned the evidence gatherers, the human rights NGOs. We see a huge pressure on all these pieces. I know there is much talk about a future tribunal in relation to Russia, but there are active ICC cases relating to the abduction of children and others.

We have the Board of Peace situation in Gaza. Literally, the four international principles, as Judge Aitala read them out, are clearly in breach. Is there a danger that we end up with à la carte or ad hoc solutions in some cases? If we do that, even though there may be justifications in certain cases, there can be the development of inconsistency in terms of who gets justice and what kind of justice versus the UN structure and the international courts we have established.

I wish to ask about the people on the ground in various places across the world gathering documentation and the information on human rights violations that the court uses to build cases. I asked Judge Aitala about the chilling effect and it is great to hear he does not feel it is having a chilling effect in terms of international justice and the ICC as an institution. However, it may affect the whole ecosystem of international justice for those smaller organisations and individuals who take on the role of collecting and documenting violations through which credible cases can be built. We have seen the attacks on the ICC, whether through sanctions or the withdrawal of critical information systems for doing its work. When an established institution like the ICC is under such threat, what does that look like for people with no protection, people on the ground who are equally important for feeding into the work the court ultimately does in building those cases and providing those pathways for justice?

I have a single supplementary question which is about the arrest warrants. It was very positive to see the new leadership in Hungary confirm that it would apply the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and others. I ask Judge Aitala to comment on the importance of states respecting ICC arrest warrants and engagement with those states.

I also have one final question and I apologise if it is a foolish question. We are talking about attacks on the International Criminal Court and its judges. That primarily relates to financial sanctions. Do judges or members of staff experience other forms of interference such as intimidation or surveillance by foreign intelligence organisations or anything like that? Are other more direct forms of interference taking place with judges or staff?

There are many questions and little time. While I could elaborate, the answer to the last question is, of course, yes.

Let me tie this to the two questions from Senator Black. Let me put together the ones on personal impact and independence. I do not think that this current situation is providing a chilling effect on courts around the world. I believe we are doing the opposite: we are showing the world that there are judges, prosecutors and staff who believe in what they do and are resilient. We will continue our work.

I will not elaborate on personal matters, not because I do not want to, but because I really believe that what matters are the institutions. Of course, we do have tangible consequences in our lives in terms of security or even basic needs, but those who believe they could intimidate us do not understand our motivation. Our motivation is much higher. When we have sworn under the statutes, we have made a promise.

The first hearing behind closed doors I had at the court involved the interview of a witness, a victim of a situation I will not mention because it was confidential. The person was telling the story of how he and his friends were grabbed on the street in their city and thrown into a room. It was not even a prison, just a dark room with nothing in it. Then they were taken to a hill and made to lean over on the ground. His friends were killed one after the other with a big knife to their necks but he survived by a miracle. When he recounted that story, I understood for the first time, after 30 years of studying international law, what was meant by "crimes against humanity". I understood that the man was the entirety of humanity. After that, I would not give in to any kind of influence, threat or anything else, because we owe the victims respect. Our motivation is much stronger than believed. We are giving a positive message to the world, not the other way around.

I do not know whether I misunderstood the question on Microsoft. It has not stopped providing any service to us. It continues to work with us. We have transitioned to another provider but this involves, let us say, a bit of a role model for something that is very much in fashion now, which is digital sovereignty. We are addressing this before the EU. We have switched to another system but, in all fairness, Microsoft has never stopped working with us. We still have a certain Microsoft system but we are strengthening the court and have transitioned to a different system. Our emails now run on a different system, in fairness.

More generally, there are companies that are reluctant to engage with the court, even if they will not be liable to sanctions. Sanctions would come only if, for example, banks engaged with transactions with a connection with the sanctioning state. However, certain companies are cautious. They just prefer not to engage with the court, as they are concerned about possibly being sanctioned one day. That is the problem. What do they need? They need political support. They need the support of their mother, and their mother is the EU. They are European companies that need to see that the EU is behind them, telling them to continue working with the ICC or whatever other body they want to work with because this is the territory of the EU and they enjoy certain rights and freedoms, and have certain duties. This is what is needed. That needs to be translated into political support from the European Council, the European Parliament and action at executive level. I refer to the blocking mechanisms but also to other mechanisms. Discussing those would take very long, though. We are, of course, engaging with banks in order to make them comfortable such that if they work with us in a safe territory, they will not risk anything. If they are within the single euro payments area, SEPA, zone, for example, it is perfectly fine.

There was another question that was more or less the same, on the matter of evidence gathering. Of course, NGOs are very important to us. They are on the ground.

They speak directly with the people, the victims, although this is not automatic because there are different levels, let us say, of knowledge. Ours is very high because it is evidence. Evidence is regulated very strictly by the law because it must be able to be challenged by the defence. It is a rule-of-law-based system and it is very important.

I understand what Senator Stephenson is saying. I do not have an answer. I understand that the small entities may feel very weak and unable to do anything, but what I can say is that the entire movement of human rights has been vital for the court since its inception and even before it existed, because there were already thousands of activists and human rights advocates who supported the idea of the court.

The matter of à la carte justice is very interesting. I would like to have a chat about this with Senator Higgins some day, with more time. Let me say this: there has been an evolution in the international system. If one takes Nuremberg and Tokyo, one notes there was clearly winner's justice. The judges and prosecutors in Nuremberg were appointed by the enemies of the defendants. It is a fact. In Tokyo, it was even worse, because at least two of the judges, who were appointed by General MacArthur, not even by states, were themselves victims of the crimes. They could not claim any impartiality. That was justice à la carte. It was a different time. It was fundamental, however, in that without that, there would be no ICC. Certain principles became the Nuremberg principles. The first is the one I was telling the Deputy about, namely, individual criminal responsibility, and then immunity and so on.

The court is the highest peak of legal and human civilisation because it is untied from a specific territory and specific time. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were tied to the situations in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In general, I am suspicious about any tribunal à la carte that is designed for one state or individual. The Italian constitution came after fascism and it prohibits special judges because special judges meant judges who were there to convict, who were raised to convict. That was à la carte and that is why it is prohibited. For me, it is very important to be careful not to take a step backwards.

The ICC is the first permanent international criminal court. This means that it deals only with crimes committed after it came into existence and with a wide jurisdiction, which could be universal when it involves the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the charter for the maintenance of peace and security. Otherwise, it is linked to the place where crimes are committed, the territory of state parties or states that have accepted the jurisdiction of the court, or nationals of state parties.

We are very happy that Hungary remained in the ICC. Hungary is an important country for us. It would have been the only country in the EU not in the court. Its new Government has withdrawn the withdrawal. It remains in the court and we are very happy that the Hungarian people will continue contributing to it.

I will not make any comment on specific arrest warrants. What I am saying is that we do our job. We apply the law with lots of care. We look at evidence with dedication and when we issue a warrant, you can be sure that evidence and legal grounds exist.

It then becomes someone else's responsibility to execute the warrants or not. We will continue our job. We have done our job and we pass the responsibility to someone else. It is not us. I am unable to make any moral judgment on those who have the power to execute the warrants. They do not have to respond to us but they have to respond to their own peoples and not only the victims. I thank the committee. I am grateful for today's meeting.

I thank Judge Aitala. We greatly appreciate his presence and the work that he and the court are doing in Ireland. It is the committee's view that Ireland needs to stand in full defence of the International Criminal Court and offer whatever supports are required.