Most first novels are emotionally explosive, going to the heart of the individual. Novelist Paul Pickering changed from journalism to fiction after a meeting with a man, known by some to be the war criminal Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death at Auschwitz. Mengele performed deadly experiments on prisoners at the Auschwitz II (Birkenau) concentration camp, where he was a member of the team of doctors who selected victims to be murdered in the gas chambers, and was one of the doctors who administered the gas. He eluded capture possibly because he knew about high-placed people complicit in the Holocaust. Following his encounter with Mengele, Pickering no longer found it possible to write in the simplistic way that newspapers demanded. This journalistic approach could not express the intensity, range, and subtlety of feeling he required, especially as this encounter awakened links with his gypsy and Jewish background. And so he turned to fiction and produced his first highly acclaimed novel Wild About Harry , and he is about to publish his eighth novel, Lucy , on 15 July (Salt), about obedience, rebellion, and genocide.   Here he tells of his meeting with the man he was told was Mengele and about his new book, Lucy . After university and a spell on a local evening paper I went on to work for the nationals. I worked for The Times, The Sunday Times, Punch , and Tina Brown’s Tatler . I was then head-hunted by Sir James Goldsmith’s Now! Magazine , and had to set up offices in New York and Washington. One rainy day, buried in the obscure anthropological magazine Survival International,  I found a footnote which said that Josef Mengele, the camp doctor and Angel of Death at Auschwitz, was alive and well and poisoning Aché Indians in Paraguay with small-pox impregnated blankets. Wow! I thought. A scoop! Slowly, I gained the trust of the exiled Paraguayan community in New York and the Adams Morgan area of Washington, where an ambassador’s daughter who had been tortured by the far-right government of Alfredo Stroessner, led me to a grief-mad poet named Joél Filátiga. His son had been tortured to death and dumped naked and burned on his doorstep in Asunción. He said he knew where Josef Mengele was and if I helped him and the coup he was planning, he would tell me. Under the guise of a timber importer, I stayed with the poet’s family. I ran messages to the Movimiento Popular Colorado in Posadas, Argentina, which was in the middle of the ‘dirty war’. People were being thrown out of planes over the jungle and I have never seen anywhere so scared, at one house an Alsatian backed away whimpering, thinking I was like the soldiers who had called that morning.   I found it easier to identify with the Paraguayan and Argentinian dissidents and desaparecidos than think of Mengele as relevant to me. To this end I carried a copy of a receipt for a histological section of a head of a 12-year-old gypsy boy Mengele had checked out of Auschwitz to take home. He later murdered everyone in the gypsy camp.   After the coup failed, Filátiga and everyone not in prison fled. But a German diplomatic contact and a colleague of his I met on the chain-link ferry to Posadas in Argentina, who knew I was looking for Mengele, arranged a meeting with a man called Rodriguez, who the diplomat said was working for the Indian organisation API (Association de Parcialidades Indigenes).   On a red dirt road an hour from Hohenau in the south there was a large farmhouse, where a young man took me to a comfortable and unpretentious room with bookshelves loaded with Spanish, English, French, and German books, and a television. French windows opened out onto a garden where another young Paraguayan man sat in a chair, looking in. In a cage was a pink and black bird, a Paraguayan magpie-jay.   I tried to hide my surprise as a man who came in immediately resembled the pictures of Mengele I had seen published.   He went over to the bird, which knew him, before sitting down. He seemed fit and in late middle-age but was probably older, handsome, and relaxed with a twinkle in his eye and, above all, exuding a straight-backed European charm, as if we were in a café in Berlin. He was warm and expressive.   The man did not smoke and we drank coffee. I knew there was a Rodriguez who worked for API through English contacts in the organisation and had seen a picture of him. The man sitting in the chair opposite me was not this Rodriguez.   I said I was writing about the south of Paraguay and that the German diplomat in the capital said I should contact him, and we started to talk. The man spoke fluent German-accented English. On the desk was a book in German about Günzburg in Bavaria, Mengele’s hometown. Our talk moved to the local Germans and he mentioned Alban Krug and said he stayed with him (as Mengele had) and with Armand Raeyners, ex-SS owner of the Hotel Tirol in Hohenau, I said he must not have expected to have to leave Günzburg. He nodded and said he had been there for almost five years after the war ended.   He paused and was looking at the man outside the French windows. Then he said: ‘I did not think I would have to go over borders dressed as a woman’, which caused me to blink.   I then asked him if he was Josef Mengele. I tried to make the question as gentle as possible. The bird shrieked. The man just sat there smiling. The silence went on and on and an old clock was ticking away. He was staring at me with vivid blue eyes. The young man I first met came in through the door and the other, outside the French windows, approached the glass. The one who had come through the door beckoned me and the man who I had asked if he was Mengele continued smiling.   No further words were said but there was no doubt our meeting was over. He stood, we shook hands, and I left. There were no guns, no security, no one followed my rusting Volkswagen beetle. I saw no other cars on my way back. I remember my mouth being very dry. Mengele knew how to use the power of his own myth in a post-colonial world.   The relaxed meeting is where the transformation of the Faustian character, the Doctor, into the affable Harry originated in my novel. Mengele playfully used the alias Dr Fausto Rindón. Dark humour was never far away, as when I got lost in Asunción and had to ask the secret policeman following me the way. He did not know either. In the south, one house where I stayed, an orphan’s refuge, was frequently surrounded and machine gunned by the local warlord, a South African priest, who shot a man in the foot for talking in church. Back in Asunción I was arrested, but managed to escape across the Paraná river, under blankets in the back of a taxi.   Photographic or taped proof of my meeting with the man I was told was Mengele was not possible, so there was no journalistic coup and the complex, paradoxical nature of Paraguay, inaccessible to journalism, impelled me towards my first novel, as did the meeting itself with the calm, amused, blue-eyed man with his red-bound copies of Balzac that somehow reminded me of my anti-fascist father, a note of nostalgia for the innocence of childhood that I had not expected to be triggered by Mengele, who embraced power in a terrible but non-political way. I think he enjoyed the mass-killing, the torture, the fake experiments as a diverting entertainment and when it was over adapted, smiling, to the peace. I have thought of him increasingly since writing Wild About Harry  as, for me, he is the ultimate destructive protagonist. The apotheosis of the absence of good.   I had been working undercover for months and was sacked for using my company American Express card to support the coup, but fortunately had a contract and a pay-off so went to the Trinidadian carnival. In the meantime, my wife had fallen off a platform bed in our flat and broken a vertebra in her back—we were not able to talk and for a while she did not know I was alive, because Private Eye,  so helpfully, had said I had committed suicide. When I returned to London, I wrote a funny column for The Times  and an agent asked if I had ever thought of writing a novel. My near fatal hunt for Mengele, the coup, the shootings, the torture, and the repression, provoked an earthquake change to fiction and my first novel Wild About Harry .   My new novel Lucy , my eighth, is a return to my core themes of the bargains we make and authoritarianism. And to Berlin, like my third novel, the New York Times Notable Book of the Year, The Blue Gate of Babylon . Lucy takes as its epigraph the quote from Hannah Arendt: ‘No one has the right to obey’, whatever bargain they have made, Faustian—with the devil—or otherwise. The book is about how one survivor in Berlin takes over the lives of three others, in the way Hitler took over a country. In Lucy  the man takes them over sexually as well. Operation Lucy, once an idealistic if shabby espionage ring against the Nazis, has changed into one that murders communists and rebels not killed by Hitler, and ultimately its own operatives. Like the authoritarian character in the book, or the Third Reich, Lucy  becomes a self-devouring monster. The novel is absurdist and at times darkly comic, pointing out the best intentions, when they pass through the looking-glass of human failings, are most often changed to the opposite.   Lucy taps into a welcome sea-change across the world about obedience and rebellion, the mounting student protests across America and Europe and Africa and Asia against the horror in Gaza. Lucy  takes place in the actual and moral wasteland of immediate post-war Berlin. For me, no one has the right to the Nuremberg defence, ‘I was only obeying orders’. Set partly in a German kibbutz, founded by Nazis to remove Jews from Germany, Lucy  shows a clash between the utopian ideas of the kibbutz and the toxic nationalism and colonialism necessary to found the state of Israel, a state the rabbi in the book points out was forbidden by God after the destruction of the temple.   I hope Lucy  is an anti-war novel in the tradition of Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut and Catch-22  by Joseph Heller. Catch-22 means no escape because of contradictory rules, Lucy  is the Lucifer paradox, where the only good is bad, and only bad is good. And it is a gypsy woman and refugee who most completely rebels, and literally washes herself clean in the blood of revolution. I believe Lucy ’s story prefigures the new tectonic changes, alive and growing in our world, which will be for the better. I am an optimist. Paul Pickering Paul Pickering is the author of seven novels, Wild About Harry, Perfect English, The Blue Gate of Babylon, Charlie Peace, The Leopard’s Wife, Over the Rainbow and Elephant . The Blue Gate of Babylon  was a New York Times notable book of the year, who dubbed it ‘superior literature’. Often compared to Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh, Pickering was chosen as one of the top ten young British novelists by bookseller WH Smith and has been long-listed for the Booker Prize three times. Educated at the Royal Masonic Schools and the University of Leicester, he has a PhD in Creative Writing from Bath Spa University where he is a Visiting Fellow, presented his doctoral thesis to the Bulgakov Society in Moscow, recently completed a Hawthornden Fellowship Residency on Lake Como and is a member of the Folio Prize Academy. The novelist J.G. Ballard said Pickering’s work is ‘truly subversive’. As well as short stories and poetry, he has written plays, film scripts and columns for The Times  and Sunday Times . He lives in London and the Pyrenees. A major theme of his novel Elephant , published by Salt in 2021, is innocence. His new blackly comic, absurdly realist novel Lucy , about obedience and rebellion, political and sexual, is published on July 15 by Salt. He is working on a new novel, CONVERSATION WITH A LION , about how things fit together and fly apart. The novel tries to explain the impossible absurdity of living, impossible like a conversation with a lion.

Knuckle dragging, low-slung, dead pig-eyed, A belch or a growl passes for thought, Ogres, tramping through dirty snow fields To sniff out banks of flowers in the cold:

1. Historical Overview of Wartime Collaboration   In situations of armed conflict, it is almost inevitable that there will be instances of civilians or combatants cooperating with the opposing side. The parties involved in the conflict often attempt to gain an advantage by turning their opponent's people against them. At the same time, individuals may collaborate with the enemy for various reasons, including personal conviction, desperation, or coercion.[1] As historian Gerhard Hirschfeld says, wartime collaboration ‘is as old as war and the occupation of foreign territory’.[2]   There is ongoing debate about the precise definition of collaboration.[3] However, common practices can be categorised as wartime collaboration, such as sharing information with the opposing side, defecting to fight for the enemy’s forces, engaging in propaganda activities on behalf of the enemy, or providing administrative support to an occupying power.[4]    Notably, international humanitarian law, which applies in armed conflicts, does not explicitly prohibit these activities or the recruitment of collaborators.[5] However, it does forbid the use of coercion for such purposes, particularly against prisoners of war or civilians in occupied territories.[6] The repercussions for those involved in collaboration may not become apparent until after the armed conflict has ended. This delay in consequences typically occurs when evidence of their actions becomes known, power dynamics shift, and a relative sense of stability returns, making it possible to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.[7]

Nadia Murad is a Yazidi human rights activist. In 2014, she was abducted from her hometown in Iraq, Kocho, by the Islamic State, as part of the Yazidi genocide. After her escape, she founded Nadia's Initiative, which advocates for survivors of sexual violence. In 2018, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize alongside Denis Mukwege for her fight to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflicts. CJLPA : Throughout history and to present day, we see that whenever armed conflict arises, rape and brutality against women and girls follow. Just recently, we see it repeat in Palestine, Israel, and Ukraine. Outside of war, we see it embedded in society with high rape crimes, forced marriages, inability to choose what we do with our body (whether wanting an abortion or the force of FGM). We expect more for women’s rights. Despite acclaimed efforts from the UN, NGOs, and Member States, in your opinion why does inequality remain a leading global crisis to combat?   Nadia Murad : This is a really interesting question, and you are right because women, wherever in the world they live, are still not afforded true equality.   This inequality is historical, systemic, and cultural. It exists because no one in power has ever felt the want or need to change it. Why would they?   To truly combat inequality, we need to completely rethink the way we approach society.   From their earliest years, children need to see gender equality modelled at home. Both boys and girls should have access to secondary schooling, where the curriculum promotes equality, and the infrastructure of the school building allows girls privacy when changing for sports lessons and access to facilities and necessary products when they have their periods.   Additionally, equality needs to be built into our systems. That begins with basic rights like bodily autonomy and equal pay—but carries on into meaningful female representation in politics, the judiciary and in policy work.   I think we need to look very carefully at our world and ask if it is working well as it is—or do we need to change the way we think?   CJLPA : Further to the above, what are the biggest disappointments from the international community and their responses in respect to helping the victims of sexual violence from armed conflicts? This could be inaction during the conflict, perhaps enabling it (funding state actors responsible), or the response in helping victims after.    NM : I am always disappointed when survivors, like me, give so much of ourselves to tell our stories on a public platform, just to be met with kind words but little meaningful action. From the earliest records of history to the first written stories and poems, women have been used and abused in wartime. For thousands of years it has been accepted. As we saw in Iraq, this abuse is not a momentary loss of morals in the midst of battle on the part of the perpetrators. It is a tactic deployed to break not only the women, but their communities as well. In Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used rape as a weapon of genocide. I have been calling for 9 years for the ISIS militants who raped my friends and family members in Iraq to be tried for their crimes. Thousands of Yazidi girls have given testimonies to investigators—at personal cost. Yet only 3 militants have been to court on the charge of genocide. I am disappointed that the international community and the Iraqi government isn’t moving faster here. After all, unless we start showing the world that these kind of heinous crimes will not be tolerated, then sexual violence in conflict will continue with impunity for perpetrators.   This perhaps feeds back into your first question about inequality. Perhaps the international community doesn’t see rape and the ensuing lifelong trauma as problematic enough. It still accepts rape, which mainly happens to women, as simply a side effect of wars begun by men.   CJLPA : What has been overshadowed and not emphasized enough in our world and yet is fundamental for our understanding in helping the victims of the targeted violence against the Yazidi women, and victims from all armed conflicts?   NM : I don’t believe enough emphasis is placed on survivor-centred policies. Only survivors know what they need and what is best for them and their communities for the long term. That’s why Nadia’s Initiative works with and for survivors in Sinjar to rebuild infrastructure like schools and hospitals, but also run educational and economic programs and projects. I think that authorities and organizations are often not practical enough in the help they give the victims of conflict related sexual violence. These survivors, who are often stigmatized, need meaningful reparations to rebuild their lives. This could come in financial form, but also in psycho-social support or help with housing.   There is also another dimension to the support we can give survivors, and that is how they are treated by investigators and reporters. These vulnerable women are at risk of retraumatisation every time they re-tell their story. This is why I happily put my name to the Murad Code, which is a code of conduct that investigators and reporters should adhere to when speaking to survivors. It allows them agency and control whilst promoting honesty and safety throughout the process.   CJLPA : For you, what is the meaning of ‘justice’?  Can we ever find ‘justice’ for even the most grotesque crimes against humanity such as those inflicted on the Yazidi women and girls? If so, how?   NM : I am often asked this question and I have come to believe that justice is multifaceted. For my community it is certainly judicial; our attackers must be held accountable in court for the evil crimes they committed against us. However, justice can also be more practical; we must rescue the missing women and girls so families can be reunited and reparations can be granted so lives can begin again. Justice can also be more emotional; it can be having a space to grieve for our lost loved ones and it can be found in the acknowledgment of our pain. And, justice can also be found in healing and surviving, in showing the ISIS militants that they did not succeed in eradicating the Yazidi community.   CJLPA : How would you like to see the perpetrators held accountable for these crimes?   NM : My counsel, the barrister Amal Clooney, and I, have been advocating for the implementation of a hybrid court. It would be an internationally supported tribunal which would sit in Baghdad and act as a continuation of UNITAD (the UN team which is investigating ISIS crimes in Iraq). There are a vast number of fighters to process, more than any national court could process at scale, so there would have to be international cooperation and financial backing. This hybrid court would need to be operated in tandem with another country which could then hold homegrown and foreign fighters accountable for the crime of genocide. At the moment they are charged with ‘membership of a terrorist organisation’ which is far more anodyne than the genocide charge of which they are also guilty.   CJLPA : Can you walk us through what happened to the Yazidi women and children upon their escape? What reparations did they receive and to what extent were they supported psychologically and financially?   NM : Everyone has a different story. I lived in an Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp with survivors from my family and then was taken to Germany as a refugee. Thousands of other girls like me are still in camps, without access to privacy, education, or employment. Although the Iraqi government promised reparations—and I am pleased that some Yazidis have benefitted—it has been increasingly hard for many survivors to access them.   It is worth saying though that at least two thousand Yazidi women are still in captivity and we also need to work hard to get them home.   CJLPA : Further to the above, can you speak about the support that is missing for victims currently?   NM : I think that policymakers are often fixed on the short-term and the quick fix for survivors. However, rebuilding communities sustainably requires long-term vision and planning. That's why my initiative plans for decades rather than days. We run economic empowerment and educational programs. We help women set up businesses and then give the support they need to succeed.   Survivors need to know they have a long future in which they can be safe, active, and equal participants in their communities.   CJLPA : How can the international community help prevent sexual violence from occurring in conflicts? Are there countries currently that you have seen have begun an inspiring change in their policy that other countries should follow?   NM : The international community must start prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict so that it is universally acknowledged that it is not acceptable in any country, in any instance. Germany has led the way in prosecuting its ISIS citizens—but much more needs to be done globally.   CJLPA : You have devoted your life to combat the sexual violence occurring in conflicts and to help save women and children falling victim to these inhumane crimes. You are constantly meeting with policymakers, NGOs, the UN, and going before the courts. How has this experience been to date? Do you find they are responding with the urgency needed?   NM : There is never enough urgency. When I wrote my book, which details the horror of my experience, I said that I wanted to be the last girl this happens to. But I haven’t been the last. There have been so many more which is heartbreaking. It’s not due to a lack of political will, but a lack of political action. I don’t advocate at the UN and with other policy makers just for Yazidi girls, but for all girls. And if we want to keep our girls safe, there has to be a stronger framework.   CJLPA : Further to the above, what laws—domestic and international law—do you think need to change in order to ensure accountability? Inaction is a crime in itself. It is one thing to hold the perpetrators accountable, but what about the countries that are able, but unwilling to help?   NM : I believe that you are right when you say that inaction is a crime in itself. I often think of the governments who looked the other way when my community was under brutal attack. One of the first steps they can take now is to officially recognise the murder of Yazidis in 2014 as a genocide. The second step is to adopt universal jurisdiction so that more foreign fighters can be prosecuted. Beyond that I would advocate for reparations for survivors to be put into law. I have been advocating for reparations for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), not just in Iraq, but in other countries where sexual violence has been used in conflict, including in Ukraine, where I asked the President of Ukraine to consider passing a law that will enable survivors of CRSV to receive reparations.   CJLPA : You created The Murad Code Project which is a set of guidelines aimed at building a community of better practice for, with, and concerning survivors of systematic and conflict-related sexual violence. Can you briefly walk us through what prompted you to this initiative and your hopes for how it will be used moving forward? NM : When I first started telling my story, I was interviewed by many investigators and reporters. Some of them had my best interests at heart and treated me with kindness and gave me agency. However, many did not.   I was not always aware of how my story would be used and I was subjected to questioning that was heartless. Therefore, I wanted to lend my name, experiences, and expertise to a code that worked to protect other survivors from this.   The Murad Code lays out the bare minimum of standards that interviewers should adhere to when they speak to traumatised survivors. It has also been translated into a number of different languages so that survivors know how they should be treated by their interlocutors.   I hope that eventually it will be put into policy frameworks, as well as newsrooms, so that survivors are treated as people with agency, not a walking headline.   CJLPA : What is a final message you would like to send to the reader, in the name of spreading awareness and inspiring hope?   NM : There is always hope. Even when the world seems dark, there are good people working for justice, peace, and a stable future. This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, Legal Editor and Founder of Human Rights Volume of CJLPA 3. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is a qualified lawyer in England & Wales specialising in public international law.

Since 15 August 2021, the Taliban Government continues to suppress the progression of women’s basic human rights in Afghanistan, resulting in their systematic oppression as a result of state sponsored crimes against humanity which has also encompassed gender apartheid. Gender apartheid has been defined as the economic and social sexual discrimination against individuals because of their gender or sex. This manifests itself as a system enforced by using either physical or legal practices to relegate individuals based on their gender to subordinate positions. [1] While I certainly believe that the de facto government is engaged in gender apartheid on a daily basis against all women and girls in Afghanistan, the focus of this paper shall be on arguing the legal case that can specifically be brought against the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Interior of their committing crimes against humanity to the over two hundred and seventy women and girls detained in Pul-e-Charkhi prison. These women and girls are victims of gender apartheid, torture, imprisonment, sexual slavery, and other inhumane acts, intentionally causing great suffering as well as serious injury to their bodily and mental health, all in violation of the Rome Statute Article 7.   In October 2023, I visited Pul-e-Charkhi prison in Afghanistan and talked with numerous guards, administrators, detainees, and children. I have worked as the only foreign attorney litigating cases in Afghanistan since 2008. As part of this work, for over 15 years I would routinely visit the prisons and have litigated numerous cases in both criminal and civil courts, particularly for women and girls. Certainly, before the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan’s government on 15 August 2021, the legal system was far from perfect in meeting conventional rule of law standards. However, there was at least some attempt in following a system where women were treated more humanely, and certain basic standards of human rights were adhered to. Between 2022 and 2023, however, Afghanistan was deemed one of the countries with the largest decline in human rights.[2]

Shona Illingworth is a Danish-Scottish artist and Professor of Art, Film and Media at the University of Kent, UK. Her work examines the impact of accelerating military, industrial, and environmental transformations of airspace and outer space and the implications for human rights. She is co-founder with Nick Grief of the Airspace Tribunal ( https://airspacetribunal.org/ ). Recent solo exhibitions include Topologies of Air at Les Abattoirs, Musée—Frac Occitanie, Toulouse (2022–23), The Power Plant, Toronto (2022), and Bahrain National Museum, Manama (2022–23). Illingworth was a Stanley Picker Fellow, is an Imperial War Museum Associate and sits on the international editorial boards of the Journal of Digital War and Memory, Mind & Media . The monograph Shona Illingworth—Topologies of Air was published by Sternberg Press and The Power Plant in 2022 ( https://www.sternberg-press.com/product/shona-illingworth/ ). With over 40 years’ experience as a legal academic in three universities, Nick Grief is now Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Kent where he completed his undergraduate and doctoral studies. Throughout his career he specialised in public international law, international human rights law, and EU law, with particular reference to airspace, outer space, and nuclear weapons. Nick also practised at the Bar for 25 years, mainly as an Associate Tenant at Doughty Street Chambers, where he is now an Honorary Associate Tenant. He was a member of the legal team which represented the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice in cases against India, Pakistan, and the UK concerning the obligation to negotiate in good faith towards nuclear disarmament. This interview was conducted in September 2023. CJLPA: First, I just wanted to say thank you both for taking the time to interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  to discuss your work on the Airspace Tribunal, a revolutionary human rights project that considers the case for the freedom of individuals to live without physical or psychological threat from above.[1] So I would just like to start by asking if you can tell us a little bit about the inception of the idea, and how things have progressed thus far with respect to the work of the Tribunal.   Nick Grief : It sounds crazy, but the germ of this idea originated at a meeting that we both attended at the University of Kent in 2016. It was a planning meeting, and I was at the time Dean for our Medway campus. Shona was there as a senior member of her school, and during one of the breaks we found ourselves sitting next to one another. We didn’t know each other, but we got chatting and discovered mutual interests in human rights, airspace, outer space, etc. And that’s what led us to start talking and thinking about this project. I think that’s probably where it dates from Shona, isn’t it?

Jessa Crisp is a licensed professional counsellor, public speaker, and anti-trafficking activist. A victim of sex trafficking as a child, Jessa is now working on a PhD in Counsellor Education and Supervision. She is the former CEO of Bridge Hope, an anti-trafficking non-profit within the Denver-metro area and has worked with hundreds of individuals who’ve experienced trauma, depression, grief, and anxiety. CJLPA : Welcome, Jessa. I would like to begin by thanking you for taking the time to share your story as a heroic and courageous survivor of human trafficking. I want to start the interview by asking you to tell us about your childhood and how you first became a victim of sex trafficking.

And the windows are into pieces I have to go With my shoes torn With my clothes torn With my heart broken With my mind heavy With my hands painful

Raji Sourani is a Palestinian human rights lawyer and Founder and Director of the Palestinian Centre of Human Rights. He was an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in 1985 and 1988, a member of International Commission of Jurists EXCO and IDAL EXCO, and Vice President of the International Federation of Human Rights. Sourani has devoted his career to advocating for Palestinians in both domestic and international courts. His unwavering dedication and passion to the rule of law and the Palestinian cause earned him the Right Livelihood Award in 2013 and is a true testament to Palestinian resilience. CJLPA :   Good afternoon, Mr Raji Sourani. On behalf of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art , we would like to thank you for your time today to discuss your experience as a highly prominent human rights defender, and the challenges faced throughout your career. As Vice President of the International Federation of Human Rights, and Founder and Director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), which aims to promote the protection of Palestinian human rights, your award winning work has had a significant impact on the decades-long Israel-Palestine situation. We would like to begin by asking how your life experiences shaped your career and what sparked your passion for your work?   Raji Sourani : In 1967, I was 14 years old. To experience invasion and occupation at that age, and the extent of destruction and imprisonment, surely left a big impact on me. Of course, Gaza was a special situation because the resistance began from day one. Every day since the occupation, we would see martyrs, injured people, houses demolished, and curfews imposed. They destroyed all aspects of life, economically or otherwise. We were subject to curfews most of the time, unable to move in or out of our homes. So it was a difficult environment for years, and I lived through that. In the first year of the occupation, in 1968, my brother was sentenced to prison for three years. Another one of my brothers fled the Gaza strip. Almost on a weekly or monthly basis, our home, like all other homes, used to be raided and searched. I was occasionally stopped, searched, and beaten by the Israeli army myself. But that was our day-to-day life. It was unspeakable, people do not talk about it.   My family and I lived near Shifa Hospital, which was the central hospital in Gaza. Martyrs would be brought there daily—it was difficult to watch. There is never a just or fair occupation, but this was a new part of our life, and we felt the deep injustice—it’s something that lives on your skin. It’s not abstract, you feel it, you know it, you live it, and you cannot ignore it, wherever you are. My father was arrested and imprisoned during the distribution of 1936, during the British Mandate. Then he was exiled—that was stage two. Then my uncle, my brother, and other family members were sentenced to prison. So that was my early childhood under the occupation.   I eventually decided to study law and to go back to Gaza to be part of the resistance against the occupation. I studied in Beirut and Alexandria, I graduated in 1977, and I came to the occupied territories. I was arrested for the first time two years later, in 1979. I used to believe that torture was only physical, but after my arrest, I discovered how naïve my view was, as I did not always have cuts and bruises as marks of abuse. What was practiced on me was moderate physical and psychological pressure. That means you are made to wish to die, every day, hundreds of times, without a need for physical harm. For example, this can be through sleep deprivation for days while being kept standing, handcuffed, and being subjected to hours-long cold showers. In some other cases, you would be forced into what is called a tomb, with wet clothes. The guards would turn on the fans and you begin to shiver rigorously, and they leave you there for a few days. It comes to a stage where you cannot distinguish from what is real and what is imagined, and the guards will simply inform you that if you want to rest, you would have to confess to the allegations made. After standing for four days I decided to sit on the floor because I could not stand anymore. They began to kick me so I stood up the first and second time, but the third time I was not able to. I told them I was sick and cannot stand anymore. The officer insisted I confess to get some rest. I refused and told him ‘You are blackmailing me. You are compromising my health. This is racist, this is fascist’. Normally, I would never speak with that kind of language to an authoritative figure, but I was totally unbalanced. He began to slap me in the face and body, spat on my face, many times. These were the more trivial examples of the torture they practiced—I can go on for hours about other techniques. This interrogation lasted seven days.   I had also observed the relationship between the Secret Services, the police, the prosecutor, and military judges. It is a vicious circle, as any opportunity to appeal the torture is pointless because they do whatever they please. When you’re asked to repeat your confession to the police, the police ask ‘Would you like to say what you told the Secret Service? And if you don’t, then I’ll send you back to them’. You’re forced to confess and sign the statement, and then, in Court, the military judge or prosecutor would ask ‘When giving your statement, did the policeman torture you or not?’ Technically, the policeman himself did not physically torture me, but all the dirty work had already been carried out, where I had been threatened with the consequences of not confessing. You think of the 87 days under interrogation, then you think ‘It’s alright, I cannot tolerate that anymore’. It is a vicious circle that all those in charge are aware of and are in agreement with; that is why the Israeli legal system acts like a legal cover for organised crime.   After my personal and eye-opening experience as a prisoner in Israeli prisons and learning about how inmates are truly treated, I decided to focus my work on defending political prisoners and victims of all sorts of crimes such as war crimes, human rights violations, house demolitions, expulsion, torture, death, and death caused by torture. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that only through a legal system would we achieve dignity or justice for Palestinian prisoners or victims. But as the Americans say, you have to use the system effectively. So, you may firstly minimise the damage—as lawyers, we have to respect the rules of the Court, but the Court too, whether they like it or not, have to respect the submissions made by a professional lawyer. Secondly, being a lawyer meant that we were first-hand eyewitnesses for this era, and these are crimes that should be documented. We were reading and documenting all these crimes ourselves. Thirdly, we wanted to challenge the notion that Israel had a fair and just legal system. During my time in prison, I decided to comprehensively study the Israeli military orders with no exception—all of it—in addition to the Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, the Geneva Conventions and its commentary, and so on. We had evidence that no Israeli perpetrators can be held accountable within the Israeli legal system, despite utilising the entire legal system from the military courts in Gaza to the Israeli High Court of Justice.   I was the one of the first of the younger generation at the time to fight the occupation through challenging the Israeli legal system itself, and I think many young lawyers followed after that. There was an influx of young lawyers taking part in such resistance at the time. Another important point is that we never agreed to any plea deals. The Israeli court system, similar to the American system, allows for plea bargains, but we decided to defend every single case because every single individual deserve justices for his or herself. We wanted to exhaust the Israeli legal system and did not want to make their life easier by agreeing to a plea deal.   So all those experiences shaped my career trajectory—the experience of the occupation, imprisonment, torture, and learning about the extent of the injustice and degrading treatment within Israel.   CJLPA :   Thank you for sharing your story and your experience with the occupation from its early days, in addition to your unique perspective on both sides of the law. We are aware that the ICJ has already condemned Israel for essentially committing crimes of apartheid against the Palestinian people. You mention the corruption of the Israeli system, and we wanted to ask, at the domestic level, what laws, procedural rules, or policies have the Israeli state put in place that would prevent Palestinians from achieving justice? Do you have an example of a difficult case that you have worked on previously?   RS : First, I would advise you to read a joint report we [PCHR] published with B’Tselem .[1] It’s called Unable and Unwilling , and it particularly focuses on the Great March of Return which we utilised as a solid example of Israel’s lack of accountability. The Great March of Return consisted of very, very peaceful demonstrations taking place in five designated areas on the borders of Gaza, to protest the blockade. Now, the blockade itself is a human rights violation, and we previously tried to challenge it at the Israeli High Court of Justice. The Israeli High Court of Justice decided that ‘Nobody should be worried about a famine in Gaza. The blockade would not create a famine as we are counting how many calories the Gazan people are to consume, and we would never allow that to create a famine’. We did not complain of a famine—it is blatant racism to admit, publicly, that they are counting how many calories people may consume every day. Of course, we were outraged and we were angry, but what other means do we have at hand?   We challenged this issue in Court, but as usual, we failed to achieve any justice in this regard. Now, we provided examples of how many Palestinian people were dying because they had been denied adequate care in Israel, we showed them how students’ futures were destroyed because they were unable to study and enrol themselves at universities. We showed them how Israel, through the blockade, controlled what we eat in Gaza, how we dress in Gaza…you know, when it comes to what we eat, they make decisions on specific details, such as whether we eat long or short forms of pasta, the type of sweets we consume and where they come from, specific colours of things. They just control everything and our lives, and you’re talking about more than 2 million people. We are not allowed to import, to export, there is no freedom for movement for goods nor for individuals. We are not allowed to interact with the outside world, not even with the West Bank or Jerusalem.   With the Great March of Return, the Palestinian people decided to collectively demonstrate against all that. Now, from the minute the protests were declared and before they could even go ahead, Israel declared that they were going to allocate snipers all over the Gaza strip borders, and any individual coming close to the borders will be considered a target. Honestly, we did not think that they would seriously shoot and kill innocent people, especially if it were children who would not threaten the life of a soldier or army officer. Large groups of people showed up at the peaceful demonstrations—there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people in these five designated areas. People all around, even around me, were dropping like flies, being shot and killed. They were shot in the head, in the chest, even if they were 200 or 300 meters away from the fence. It’s your lottery number—you would not have to do anything to be targeted. People would not be shot in their knees or in their thighs, no, we are talking about direct sniper bullets to the head, and heart area, and so on. Every single shot was very deliberate and intentional.   So, as recourse to these actions, there is a right to submit a complaint to the American military Attorney General within 60 days. So we build a first-class legal file which includes all the relevant evidence, our lawyers take affidavits from the victims or the eyewitnesses and build a map and story of what happened. We translate the file documents and we send them to the Attorney General. If the complaint is not submitted within the 60 day period, it would be voided and there would be no investigation. If you do abide by the limitation period, they agree to look into the complaint. At the end of each complaint, we write one last sentence, ‘If you require further information, evidence, or eyewitnesses, please let us know and we will ensure our best endeavours to provide such evidence’. The Attorney General’s office do not actually investigate the case, they send it to the army—there is an army unit which deals with the military investigation. They assume that if they do not provide an outcome within a month, a year, or two, then we would forget about it. We nonetheless keep sending memorandums, notes, we keep calling them, and most of the time they respond with the following: either there is no case to answer, or the actions were carried during a military operation and anything carried during a military operation is deemed absolutely legally legitimate, or they would say ‘Well, unfortunately, the army found this file does not exist, they lost it. Perhaps we can compensate you for your lawyers’ fees, but nothing else’.   I’m talking about hundreds of cases, thousands of cases, that I have represented throughout the course of years, and it just does not work. So, this report is precisely aimed at those who question why we had to resort to universal jurisdiction and the ICC. This is the reason—we exhausted all legal remedies within the Israeli legal system, and all we found is a legal system that provides full legal cover for organised, systemic war crimes. An entire family of 22, they honestly had nothing to do with occupation, and the bomb dropped on them, out of the blue, just like that, none of them exist in seconds. You legally challenge these actions, you provide all evidence needed, you ask the authorities to provide the basis and reasons for why they did that. The answer is collateral damage, just as simple as that.   I can tell you about the last offensive attack in May [2023]. I was with my dentist at seven-thirty in the evening. He was a friend and my doctor. We parted ways at 15 to two in the early morning. He was sleeping. His wife was a doctor too. His son should have been graduating this year as a dentist. The father, the mother, and the son, the three doctors were gone just like that, they were killed with GPU 39 rockets. Allegedly, four of the rockets needed to penetrate the ceiling in order to target somebody below their apartment. Yet again, a legal complaint was issued in this regard and they say, ‘Well, every target was given approval by the Israeli legal advisors in advance of the operation’. So, the Israeli military legal adviser involved in approving the basket of targets before the war began, and during the war—how can he be the one to investigate my complaint on the war crimes, when he is the same person who authorised these acts to assassinate and kill innocent civilians in the first place?   We represent neither Fatah, nor the Jihad, nor Hamas. What applies to them are different rules of engagement. We defend entirely civilian people, but Israel knows neither international law, nor international humanitarian law, nor human rights. They recognise one thing: their own laws, and their own laws are the laws of occupation. And the rules of the occupation are the rules they made and tailored as a means to all their ends, without accountability. Even Israel’s open-fire regulations appear to have no limits. What are the rules of engagement of the open-fire regulations, when children, working women, young women, and civilians are being killed? We have the right to know what the army is doing and what they can do, but Israel would not be able to tell you where the limits are, nor would they care. So, in summary, not only does Israel have military orders, internal regulations, internal mechanisms, in addition to laws designed to protect the entire legal and political apparatus, but there is somehow no recognition of any international law. If you are an Israeli Jew, you have superiority, you can have justice and dignity within the Israeli legal system. If you are a Palestinian, Muslim, Christian, atheist, even Druze, no, you do not have such privilege and legal protection, unfortunately.   CJLPA :   Based on your difficult experience with achieving justice in the domestic Israeli legal system, you founded the PCHR organisation in 1995 and worked with other international bodies to achieve justice for Palestinians. You touched on the principle of universal jurisdiction earlier, which the PCHR previously applied. Can you walk us through how you have utilized this principle and what challenges you faced, for example, in the cases of Tzipi Livni and Doron Almog?   RS :   As previously mentioned, we have not had a victory and justice for Palestinians achieved within the Israeli legal system. Now, one of the pre-conditions to utilise universal jurisdiction, or the ICC Rome Statute, is whether national remedies have already been exhausted. The legal remedies here, in the case of Israel, mean the laws of occupation. If this condition is not satisfied, you have no right to use universal jurisdiction, or the ICC. Unless—and the law makes this very clear—the legal system cannot be accessed. Now, the Israeli legal system was preventing us. I mean, we want to use it, but we are unable to. We cannot use it anymore.   The concept of universal jurisdiction really shone through in the Pinochet case—it was a landmark case for ourselves and our colleagues from Latin America, countries such as Argentina and Chile. It was big news in our legal careers. It was a real source of inspiration, that this legal mechanism can work. If it worked in the Pinochet case, then we had to invest our best efforts to successfully apply it. At the time, I did not realise that it was so complicated, but the principle was there. We have friends with whom we have very good professional and personal relations, in Switzerland, France, UK, Spain, US, even Auckland, South Africa, Sweden, and so on.   So we decided to use the principle of universal jurisdiction and use it effectively. We issued the first three cases in Switzerland and worked with some Swiss lawyers. I think the cases were legally perfect, very solid, very strong, and we had a fantastic legal team working on it. But in three months, the Swiss Parliament, Federal Parliament, decided to change the laws. They changed the law, in a country like Switzerland, because of three cases we represented. That indicated that our cases were stronger and more effective than we realised. People were taking in what we were doing. It actually motivated us further. We thought maybe Switzerland is a very special place, and that’s why they blocked the case politically, but not legally. So we were unable to apply universal jurisdiction in Switzerland at the time, this was in early 2000.   We then thought of applying universal jurisdiction in London, where we represented two cases. One was against Shaul Mofaz, the Defense Minister at the time, and another against Doron Almog, the military commander of the Gaza strip.   In Almog’s case, we requested the Court not to leak the outcome to anyone except the body responsible for enforcing the order. We provided the enforcing body the Court Order details which included the flight number and the time of arrival to Heathrow. It all seemed to go according to plan, but some reported seeing him going back to the aeroplane even after all other passengers had left. The Israeli media reported that Almog received a message not to leave the aeroplane otherwise he would be arrested. He was not arrested for this reason, and the doors of the aeroplane closed and Almog flew back to Israel.   After the Mofaz and Almog cases, the laws began to change. Not only is the accused’s physical presence required for a warrant, but also a special police committee has to be allocated and the onus was on us to find such committee. In addition, they asked for a special committee in the prosecutor’s office who would decide on the case. So it’s two additional levels. And we nonetheless provided good evidence to apply universal jurisdiction even with these conditions, to issue a warrant of arrest in Tzipi’s case. At the first attempt of applying universal jurisdiction, although we managed to get a warrant for her arrest, by a miracle, I mean, she left the country although she was meant to be arrested. And she left London through the back door, for diplomats, not for ordinary people. I think she left in a special manner, with MI5 or MI6.   After that, it was declared that even if all the conditions apply to the accused in the UK, diplomats can employ something called a special mission letter which essentially means they cannot be arrested so long as they are on such ‘special’ diplomatic mission. Accordingly, Tzipi or any other Israeli diplomat coming into the UK, the special mission letter is more than enough to protect them, to say ‘I’m here on a special mission from the Israeli government, and here is a piece of paper’, just like that. So that was the way the UK has provided full, legal, and political immunity to war criminals. Imagine, I mean, if Russia did that for its wanted victims. What will happen? This is totally unfair, and I would even say illegal—it’s essentially the European state providing legal cover for war criminals. I did not understand why they were so worried about the court. I mean, this is not a Palestinian court, it is the British legal system. If the accused is truly innocent, they are easily able to appeal against the decision and they would be free to go. But no, even an arrest was not possible to enforce.   In Spain, what had happened was much more critical. We issued a case there, we had great hopes and we invested our best efforts to ensure the arrest at the National Court of Spain. We also had the Pinochet case as precedent. I met with the judge recently in Buenos Aires. He told us that what had happened was that there was incredible pressure on judges by the executive branch. You can see how the system works in Europe, the continent with its supposed values, standards, with its rule of law. This is Europe, I’m telling you Europe provides full, legal, and political immunity for war criminals even when their crimes are proven in their courts. Not in Palestinian courts, not in Ouagadougou courts, no, this happens within the British system, within the Spanish system, within the Swiss legal system.   We managed to get a decision against six of the Israeli leaders, military and security, including Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who was the Minister of Defense, in addition the officer in charge of strategical planning in the Israeli army, the Military Commander of Gaza, and so on. After the decision was made, Mr [Miguel Ángel] Moratinos said, ‘I apologise on behalf of my colleague’, the Foreign Minister at the time. ‘I apologise to the Israeli government, and we promise you that this will never happen again, and we will make all the necessary changes in Parliament to guarantee that this will never happen again’. This was in around February or so, and in December a decision was issued by the Legislative Council of the Parliament which provided full legal immunity to the Israeli leaders. So they dropped our case, although the law does not usually apply retroactively. The case outcome had already been decided, it should not be voided. This decision was meant to be implemented.   Anyway, these are a few good examples to show how the legal cases evolved, and how Europe actively blocked us from holding accountable any Israeli suspected war criminal. If it was an Iraqi, an Algerian, Sudanese, Syrian, he or she would be arrested the same day. An Israeli, however, that would not happen. Some individuals apparently have very cheap blood, very cheap dignity, whilst others are holy. So that was one of the lessons learned from these experiences.   We kept trying, we attempted issuing a case in South Africa. Tzipi cancelled every trip to South Africa for that reason. We were able to do it in Auckland, as well, in New Zealand. There was a warrant waiting for Bogie [Moshe Ya'alon] when he landed there, but for political reasons this also was not implemented. We came to the conclusion that we really wanted to continue and keep trying, but it was too much work, too much investment, too much money, too much time being consumed. There are many people who are involved in this, and each nitty gritty detail had to be thought of. It’s not just Raji Sourani, it’s not five or six or seven or 10 or 15 people, it’s many more, who are all involved in a very orchestrated manner.   That is why we then began to think of the ICC more seriously as an avenue for justice. I knew the ICC since its infancy. At the time, I was the Vice President of the International Federation of Human Rights, and board member of the ICJ in Geneva, two bodies involved in the drafting of the Rome Statute to the Human Rights Council. We followed all the discussions and deliberations between Geneva, New York etc, and we witnessed how the Israelis and the Americans intervened, especially with regards to the retroactivity issue and other elements. Anyway, once the Rome Statute was eventually enacted it was a big celebration—we considered it as an ideal tool for achieving justice, and it was a form of accountability for individuals, not against a state, so in theory the Court should not be as hypersensitive when it comes to exercising its powers.   We attempted to engage with the ICC in 2006, or 2007 and it did not work. We attempted once more in 2008, it did not work either—we decided to speak with the prosecutor then, Ocampo. We had a few meetings with him, and then Oxford decided to have a meeting for the people involved in this, namely the prosecutor of the ICC, Al Haq, PCHR, and Human Rights Watch. The meeting was set in Chatham House. It is a very nice and unique place, but the discussion was so ugly. I insisted that he provides one reason, one legal reason, for what is happening. He said, ‘I have to be very frank. At some stage, if the Americans don’t agree on taking on a case, I would not work on it’.  I said, ‘You are meant to be the global guardian of justice. You are the legal conscience of victims across the globe. You are our backbone, and you are telling me, if the Americans do not give you the green light then you’re not going to move anywhere. I mean, shame on you, I mean, how can you accept such words coming out?’ That just goes to show how tough and bitter the discussion was. It was unforgettable for me. I mean, in such a sensitive institute, to have such quality of people who are responsible for ensuring justice. It is a total shock.   We did not give up, we have no right to give up. We have to keep the fight. The best scenario for our opponents is that we decide there is nothing further to do and to move on with our lives. But I don’t trust the system. No, keep challenging them, keep reminding them how ugly they are, how racist they are, how they are liars, how the colonial mentality lives deep in their mind. And that is why we kept asking the Palestinian Authority [PA] to request to apply the four conditions of jurisdiction, and we managed to do that in 2012, but unfortunately, it seemed there was a genuine threat by the US and Europe not to sign and ratify the Rome Statute. In 2014, we thought ‘Fantastic. This is a golden opportunity’. I made a very orchestrated campaign against PA, during the war. I said, if the Palestinian leadership does not defend the blood, the souls and dignity of Palestinian people, they are not legitimate. And I said that on Palestinian TV during the war, while people were being killed in Gaza, like flies, literally, I mean, we were bombarded by rockets, hundreds of them, and the entire city was shaking from the explosions. Anyway, the pressure worked and we were contacted by the PA, they asked for our guidance and advice on how to proceed. We told them we are happy to assist and ready to invest our best efforts to help facilitate that. They eventually signed and ratified the Rome Statute. Not only did we convince and pressure the PA but we also pushed Hamas and Jihad Islamic to sign and ratify the Rome Statute as well. That is how we began our journey in the ICC.   To make the ICC story short, Fatou Bensouda was a real piece of African marble; solid, strong, clear, professional, decent, honest. We were aware of how much pressure she was under, but she was able to push through nonetheless. It took her five years to carry out the preliminary examination, although I did not think it needed that much time as this was the most documented conflict in history. The next stage was the Pre-Trial Chamber to assess whether this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC or not. Then a presidential decree was issued by President Trump that any individual bringing a case against an American or Israeli soldier to the ICC, whether it is a lawyer, or prosecutor, judge, will have their visas cancelled, accounts frozen, property confiscated, etc. And some of these people are part of our legal team—we have American lawyers in our legal team, the prosecutor assessing the merits of the case may be subject to that. But we continued nonetheless until the Court decided in February 2021 that Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Bensouda was then threatened twice in her office, with her life, by two diplomats. Europe knew about that, the Dutch government knew about that, and nobody did anything to interfere. She then decided to form the Investigation Committee, and we had one last meeting with her in May 2017 before she left, where she introduced us to the members of the Committee. Mr KK, Karim Khan, then took position in June.   Since 2017, until today, in simple words, he did not move matters one millimetre forward. Obviously, for political reasons, he is selective in dealing with cases; he’s essentially politicising the ICC. From day one, we told them we are on the ground, we legally represent the victims, we have the power of attorney, we have the legal files, we have the eyewitnesses. Whatever you need, we are at your disposal, anything you want. We knew that Israel would never, ever will allow the Committee to come to the Occupied Territories because there was not a single instance where Israel allowed any committee to come and investigate what is happening. We asked them to use us, please. Yet every time we go to The Hague and we meet with them, we talk to them, we offer once again our assistance, but they don’t say or ask anything. Which was very strange, what are they waiting for?   Now, Mr KK does not even want to see us as representatives of victims, yet he claims wherever he goes, that he is the friend of Palestinians and the world civil society. He is not a friend, neither to the Palestinians nor the world of civil society. I know what our Colombian counterparts say, I know what our Kenyan, Afghani, Iraqi, Palestinians, and many others say about him. No, he is not a friend of civil society. He is a friend of the States, of power to the States, to America, to the UK, to Germany. He is just in their pockets, unfortunately. And I’m not saying this because I want him to be my enemy, I’m saying it because we as human rights activists, our mission is to speak truth to power—this is one thing—second, there is one concrete example. The entire basis of the Ukrainian file is the invasion and occupation by Russia to Ukraine. It is invasion and occupation. That is why the US and Europe decided, one, they are against the invasion and occupation. Two, Ukrainians are entitled to self-determination, and that means they are entitled to resistance by all means, including armed struggle. They publicly announced that they will support the Ukrainian resistance by all means, including arms. They asked the free Europeans to go take arms and fight with Ukrainians. Three, they imposed on Russia six layers of punitive measures, which, I mean, would destroy any country.   We are not against these decisions, we agree completely with them completely—yes, Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people have the right to resist, but how is it possible that all this was achieved in one year? The right of self-determination, the right of resistance, asking the free people across Europe and the world to join, to support Ukraine by all means, and punishing the Russian Federation. How is it possible that within just a year, an office in Kiev was opened with 43 staff members, while in Palestine, since January 2015 until this point, nothing moved. I mean, there is not even a need to investigate, the files are there. You press a button, you have everything you need. Even with some areas of law, you do not need files, it is all in the public domain. For example, with the illegal settlements, everything is in the public domain.   This is what we are dealing with, and that is really our dilemma with the ICC. We do not think it is Mr KK’s doing though—it’s the ugly Europe, unfortunately, which like I said before, no law for slaves, and we are the slaves of the 21st century and they are the masters. This is racism, this is colonialism, and it is totally unacceptable. It is totally unjust and unfair. What is happening with this world? We say in Arabic ‘Mohammed yarith , Mohammed layarith ’ or ‘Mohamed inherits, Mohammed does not inherits’. Either Mohammed inherits or does not inherit. Either you have rule of law and democracy for human rights for all., or we just do not talk about it. Is it because we are not white? We do not have their hair, we do not have blue eyes, we are not Christians, we are not close to Europe. There has to be some logic, some respect for the intelligence as human beings, but they do not care, and this is what is really going on with Israel. They are encouraged by what is happening to continue their lack of accountability. Look at the Coalition Framework Agreement—you do not need more than the Agreement to say that this is essentially codification of all the war crimes they are planning to commit, they are openly discussing it and sending this message to the whole world, and they are actively carrying out the plans as we speak.   CJLPA : It is unfortunate that an institution such as the ICC, which is meant to be an impartial body, can still be prone to political influence and motivations. Following from that, do you see any progress for the case of Palestine at the ICC? How do you think it can progress?   RS :   We are romantic revolutionaries, right? This is our mission. We have no right to give up. We cannot give up. This responsibility is ours. This is not something personal. We represent victims, and we promise them that we will bring justice and dignity for them. Whatever that takes from us, we will invest our best. They want us to give up, to say we are tired or exhausted, that we do not believe in pursuing this anymore. No, we will keep confronting them. We will keep sitting on their chest. We will keep telling them and the world about their corrupt reality. This is our fight. This is our battle, and we will continue with no compromise, and we should always enjoy strategic optimism, we should not lose that, at all.   CJLPA :   Definitely—through your unwavering hope and persistence on achieving justice through the legal systems in place, a solution can be achieved. In addition to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people, as you have already mentioned, it is disappointing to see that other states take part in the prevention of justice for the Palestinian people. Finally, is there anything that the international community can do today to put further pressure to hold the Israeli authorities accountable for their actions?   RS : Yes, there are many viable options. We want to see some countries stand for their legal obligations, I wonder if there is a possibility for universal jurisdiction to be applicable somewhere else. Not just in Europe, it can be anywhere. Yes, I think there is an opportunity there.   Another option is an ICJ advisory opinion. I think it is a big shame that Europe’s overwhelming majority voted for either abstention or against seeking an advisory opinion by the ICJ. I cannot even comprehend why that would be an issue, I resort to the most important court on Earth, and I’m seeking an advisory opinion, what’s the problem?   So, I think we have a just, right, and fair cause. We have to keep fighting for it—our mission is to speak truth to power. We have a very good case in our hands. We have international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law supporting our cause, in theory. We have to continue with that, we should not lose the hope. We have to keep the strategic optimism. Hard times always push either to give up or to stand for each other, and we have no right to give up. We stand for a challenge and continue to not because this is personal, but because it is the victims’ pain, blood, souls, and suffering. We have to continue with this.   CJLPA : Thank you, Mr Sourani. It has been an absolute pleasure to speak with you today, benefiting from all the intricacies of your vast expertise, which has deservedly earned you several awards such as the National Order of Merit. Your ICC work, overall bravery, and dedication to the rule of law for your people is truly extraordinary. We look forward to seeing what PCHR has in store for the coming future and we wish you all the best in your endeavours. This interview was conducted by Shahad Alkamas, who graduated in 2021 from Middlesex University and obtained her LPC the following year at the University of Law. In addition to her Legal Researcher role at CJLPA, Shahad is currently working as an in-house litigation paralegal, with previous experience in various legal fields such as personal injury, immigration, and civil litigation. [1] ‘Unwilling and Unable: Israel’s Whitewashed Investigations of the Great March of Return Protests’ ( B’Tselem , December 2021) < https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/202112_unwilling_and_unable_eng.pdf > accessed 10 March 2024.

Oleksandra Matviichuk is a prominent human rights defender, currently leading the Center for Civil Liberties and coordinating the Euromaidan SOS initiative group. Her work focuses on protecting human rights and promoting democracy in Ukraine and the OSCE region. The Center for Civil Liberties engages in legislative advocacy, public oversight of law enforcement and judiciary, educational initiatives, and international solidarity programs. Euromaidan SOS originated in response to the 2013 Kyiv student rally and has since monitored political persecution, documented war crimes, and campaigned for the release of political prisoners. Matviichuk, recognised for her extensive experience in human rights activism and documenting violations during armed conflicts, initiated the ‘Tribunal for Putin’ to document international crimes in regions targeted by Russian aggression. Her contributions earned her several awards, including the Right Livelihood Award and acknowledgement as one of the 25 most influential women by the Financial Times in 2022. Additionally, the Center for Civil Liberties received the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year.   CJLPA :   You have led, and continue to lead, an inspiring career in protecting and upholding human rights as a n international human rights lawyer, serving on the Advisory Council under the Commissioner for Human Rights of Ukraine’s national parliament, representing Ukraine to the UN Committee against Torture and of course, and heading the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine. In 2022, t he Centre for Civil Liberties was awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, a further indication of your remarkable work. What prompted you in this career?   Oleksandra Matviichuk : In high school, I considered becoming a theatre director. At that time, I met the philosopher, author, and head of PEN Ukraine, Yevhen Sverstiuk. He took care of me and introduced me to the circle of Ukrainian dissidents. I got to know people from my history textbook. They courageously dared to fight against the totalitarian Soviet machine. They spent many years in camps, exiles, and psychiatric hospitals. Since then, I know that even when you have no tools left, you always have your own word and your own stance. It is not so little, after all. This experience shaped my life. I chose to study law so that I could defend freedom and human dignity.   CJLPA : There is a lot of literature and philosophy about how we see human rights : do we see them as morals (which are in themselves subjective), a set of standards defined by intellectuals and philosophers, rights promised by states (which at any point can be taken away the same way it was given), or something else? What do human rights  mean to you?   OM : Human rights are humanistic ideas of how to protect the person’s freedom from the arbitrariness of the majority, no matter what form it takes—be it the dictates of the society or the state machine. After World War II, these ideas were enshrined in international standards at the level of the UN, the Council of Europe and other regional international organisations. However, human rights are more about a way of thinking, about a certain paradigm of world perception that determines how a person thinks and acts. They lose their meaning if their defence is delivered to lawyers and diplomats alone. Therefore, it is not enough to pass the right laws or establish formal institutions. The values that dominate society are stronger anyway.   CJLPA :   After World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights codified the protection of our fundamental human rights. It signified a time of solidarity, a time where we thought we had helped end all wars and prevent future human rights abuses. And yet, in the present day, people around the world are fighting for their fundamental human rights and freedom. Countries, even ‘developed’ countries, began to take them for granted. How do we make human rights meaningful again?   OM :   The problem is not only that the space of freedom in authoritarian countries has narrowed to the level of a prison cell. The problem is that even in developed democracies, forces calling into question the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are gaining weight. There are reasons for this.   Others have replaced the generations that survived World War II. They have inherited the values of democracy from their parents. They began to take rights and freedoms for granted. People are increasingly manifesting themselves not as carriers of these values but as their consumers. They perceive freedom as making choices between cheeses in the supermarket. Therefore, they are ready to exchange freedom for economic benefits, promises of security or personal comfort.   In a large part of the world outside the theatre of World War II, there was some experience that determined the development of the societies. For example, they were formed in the process of decolonisation and related confrontation with the metropolises, which became the architects of the new world order. It is obvious that in the absence of developed democratic traditions and a weak legal culture, trust in the entire concept of the existing world order and human rights is undermined.   Freedom and human rights cannot be achieved once and forever. We make our own choices every day. Human rights should be a no less important factor in our decision-making than economic benefit or comfort.   CJLPA : From your extensive experience in working with national governments and the United Nations or from your encounters with diplomats and politicians, are human rights given the importance in political decision making that we would expect?   OM :   Now, the armies are speaking because the voices of civil society have not been heard. We may have been listened to at the UN Human Rights Committee or the annual OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, but definitely not in the rooms where people in power make decisions. If we do not want power to remain with those who have the most powerful military potential, then the voices of civil society require much more support.   We are witnessing before our eyes the collapse of the world order based on the UN Charter and international law. Yes, this system did not do well before, but now it is slipping and performing the ritual movements. The Security Council is paralysed. We have entered a period of turbulence, and now fires will occur more and more frequently because the world’s wiring is faulty, and sparks are everywhere.   Hence the question—how will we, people in the 21st century, protect people, their rights, freedom, and dignity? Can we rely on the law? Does only brute force matter? It is important not only for people in Ukraine, Syria, China, Iran, or Sudan to understand this. The answer to this question determines our common future.   CJLPA :   As of 2022, the world has responded in shock about the emergence of Russia’s disgraceful regime, but the reality is that Russia has been committing crimes in countries around the world for decades (eg Syria). Why do you think there was no international response?   OM :   This impunity has a long tradition. The Nazi criminals faced the Nuremberg Tribunal, but the Soviet totalitarian gulag has never been condemned or punished. Neither for Holodomor exterminating the Ukrainian people in 1932-33, nor for the forced deportation of the Crimean Tatar people, nor for the aggression of the USSR against Czechoslovakia.   Unpunished evil grows. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian military has committed terrible crimes in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Mali, Libya, and other parts of the world. However, the countries of the democratic world have turned a blind eye to this for a long time. They have continued to shake hands with the Russian leadership, build gas pipelines, and conduct ‘business as usual’. The world did not respond properly even to the act of aggression and annexation of Crimea, which became the first precedent in post-war Europe. Russia has come to believe that it can do whatever it wants.   Now, when I am asked why the Russian military shelled the car with the mother and children, to whom they themselves gave permission to evacuate and waved their hands as if to say goodbye, I have a simple answer. There was no legitimate purpose to do this.  There was no military necessity for this. The Russians did it only because they could.   CJLPA : In addition to the above, the Russia-Ukraine war did not start in 2022 but years earlier. Could this war have been prevented altogether if our response had been different, or was it inevitable, given Putin’s horrific ideals and motivation? What can and should politicians learn from this?   OM :   In February 2014, Russia unleashed the war against Ukraine, occupying the Crimean peninsula and a part of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. At that time, the Revolution of Dignity was over in Ukraine. Millions of people courageously stood up against the authoritarian and corrupt regime. They fought for the chance to build a state in which every person’s rights are protected, the government is accountable, the courts are independent, and the police do not beat peaceful student demonstrations. They paid the highest price for it. The police shot dead more than a hundred peaceful demonstrators in the capital’s central square.   When the authoritarian regime collapsed, Ukraine had a chance for democratic transformation. To stop Ukraine on this path, Russia began this war in February 2014. In February 2022, Russia expanded it to a full-scale invasion. It is not NATO which Putin is afraid of. Dictators fear the assertion of the idea of freedom.   The democratic world has become accustomed to concessions to dictatorships. That is why the willingness of the Ukrainian people to resist Russian imperialism and defend the values of freedom and democracy is so significant.   It is necessary to stop disguising postponed military threats as ‘political compromises’ or selling the Russian occupation and its terror against the civilian population under the guise of ‘peace’. Politicians are tempted to avoid difficult decisions. They often act as if global challenges will disappear on their own. However, the truth is that global challenges are only intensifying.   CJLPA : It is important to address how unprecedented and terrifying this war is and its implications for humanity. Can you provide us with some details about the crimes that have been occurring and of which we have evidence?   OM :   Since the full-scale invasion, we have faced an unprecedented number of war crimes. Russian troops are destroying residential buildings, churches, museums, schools, and hospitals. They are shooting evacuation corridors. They are torturing people in the filtration camps. They are forcibly deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. They are destroying the energy infrastructure to deprive millions of people of heat and light in winter. They are abducting, robbing, raping, and killing in the occupied territories.   Russia is deliberately committing these war crimes. Russia is attempting to break the resistance and occupy the country by inflicting immense pain on the civilian population. Russia uses pain as a tool. Therefore, we are documenting violations of the Geneva or Hague Conventions. Not just violations: we are documenting human pain.   War turns people into numbers. The scale of war crimes is increasing so rapidly that it is simply impossible to tell all the stories. That is why it is so important to tell them. Like the story of Svitlana, who lost her entire family after a Russian missile hit her house.   I heard them dying. My husband was breathing, straining, as if he was trying to throw off the slab, but he couldn’t. One moment, he simply froze. My grandmother and Zhenia died instantly. I heard my daughter start crying. In a moment, she also fell silent. My mother said about my son that he called me several times and fell silent.   People are not numbers. We must give people their names back. Because the life of every person matters.   CJLPA:  What are key international laws Russia is violating?   OM :   There are probably few provisions of international humanitarian law that  Russia has not violated. Before the full-scale invasion, Russian officials at least covered up war crimes, but since 24 February, no one has been hiding anything in particular. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the photos and videos of the murdered people’s bodies in Bucha, still lying on the streets until the city was liberated, shocked the world, Putin gave an award to the army unit which had been deployed there. He thereby gave a clear signal that the Russian army could continue killing, raping, and torturing the civilian population. Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to the genocidal character of this war.   Russia is a contemporary empire. The enslaved peoples of Belarus, Chechnya, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Yakutia, and others are undergoing forced russification, expropriation of natural resources, banning of their native languages and cultures, and forced identity change. An empire has a centre but no borders. An empire always seeks to expand. Therefore, if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it will go further.   For empires, culture is only one of the tools of expansion and assimilation of enslaved peoples, just like the languages of these empires. Therefore, it is not surprising that first Russian tanks entered Kherson, and then banners with Pushkin appeared immediately after them. These are the road signs that the Russian Empire used to mark the territories it seized.   At the international level, there are still discussions about whether Russia’s actions can be called genocide. However, there is no need to be a lawyer to understand a simple thing. In order to exterminate a certain national group, it is not necessary to kill all its representatives. One just needs to destroy their identity, and the whole national group will simply disappear.   CJLPA :   Does the war demonstrate international law is weak?   OM : It is not international law that is weak. Our efforts to comply with the provisions of international law are insufficient. I had many conversations with the heads of various countries, government officials, and parliamentarians. We still perceive the world through the lens of the Nuremberg Tribunal, where war criminals were convicted only after the Nazi regime had collapsed. However, we are living in a new century. Justice should not depend on how and when the war ends. Justice must not wait. We must establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression now and bring Putin, Lukashenko and other war criminals to justice.   CJLPA :   Alternatively, what are the implications under international law if any ‘political compromises’ (eg concessions offered by Ukraine) were made, either through neutrality or an agreement not to join NATO? Would this have a lawful effect?   OM :   People in Ukraine desire peace more than anyone else. Nevertheless, peace does not come when the attacked country lays down its arms. Then, it is not peace but occupation. Occupation is another form of war.   Russia has commenced terror in the occupied territories to keep them under control. The Russian military is exterminating communities’ activists—mayors, public figures, journalists, volunteers, priests, artists, etc. People do not have any possibility to protect themselves, their freedom, property, life and their relatives.   The story of Volodymyr Vakulenko is a vivid example. His body was found in an unmarked grave number 319 after Kharkiv Oblast liberation. He wrote stories for children, and entire generations grew up with his ‘Daddy’s Book’. Volodymyr disappeared during the Russian occupation. His family hoped to the last that he was alive and, like thousands of others, was in Russian captivity. It was difficult for them to accept the results of the identification.   Occupation is not about changing one state flag to another. Occupation means torture, deportations, forced adoptions, prohibition of identity, filtration camps, and mass graves.   People cannot be left to die and be tortured in the occupied territories. People’s lives cannot be a ‘political compromise’. Sustainable peace is the freedom to live without fear and to have a long-term perspective. Calls for Ukraine to stop defending itself and to satisfy Russia’s imperial appetites are not just wrong. They not only conflict with international law, but they are immoral.   CJLPA :   Are there any legal or political mechanisms to stop the Russian atrocities now?   OM :   Throughout the entire period of the full-scale invasion, Russia has demonstrated complete disregard for international law. Russia has refused to fulfil the interim measures of the UN International Court of Justice regarding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine. Therefore, the law is currently not working, although I am sure this is temporary.   One of the possible political mechanisms to stop Russian atrocities is to officially invite Ukraine to NATO with the provision of security guarantees until the moment of accession, which will extend to the part of the territory of Ukraine that is under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian government. The beginning of the actual accession of Ukraine to NATO is a way to end the war, not to expand it, for the reason that ‘strategic uncertainty’ will constantly serve as a reason for Russia to continue attacking Ukraine.   Russia has always acted proactively. Russia used wars and occupation of foreign territories as a fait accompli, thus creating a new reality and forcing the international community to reckon with it. The democratic NATO member countries should finally seize the initiative to start managing this process.   Ukraine deserves to be a member of NATO. Ukraine shares the values of freedom and democracy and is ready to defend them. Ukraine will not be just a beneficiary but a powerful contributor to the security of the Alliance. These are not promises. This is a fact proven on the battlefield. Ukraine will strengthen NATO.   CJLPA :   The UN system, created after World War II by victors, created a structure that allowed for unjustified indulgences for individual and powerful countries. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not the first time military power has been abused—we saw this with the US’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO bombing in the Kosovo crisis without permission. Did the latter examples create dangerous precedents, or can they be distinguished?   OM :   The international peace and security system no longer works. The UN is not capable of protecting people from authoritarian regimes and aggressive wars. Created after World War II by its victors, this system established unjustified indulgences for individual countries, which individual countries are increasingly abusing.   We must launch the reform of the international system to protect people from wars and authoritarian regimes. Effective guarantees of security and respect for human rights are required for all states and their citizens, regardless of their membership in military blocs, their military potential, or economic capacity.   Expanding the number of privileged members of the Security Council, as proposed by the President of the USA, will not solve this problem. We are once again offered a hierarchy where countries of greater size or economic potential determine the fate of the entire world. However, we need a fundamental change in the world order, which should be based on respect for human rights.   CJLPA :   A particular weakness in the UN is the veto power for the Permanent States in the UNSC. Two of the veto powers, Russia and China, are authoritarian regimes that contradict our values for human rights and democracy. Time and time again, they have blocked crucial resolutions that were reacting to international conflicts that violated democratic principles. How can we overcome this?   OM : A special responsibility rests with state leaders until the fundamental transformation of the peace and security system takes place. The UN General Assembly should become more proactive in ensuring peace and security. We already have instances when a coalition of states led by Liechtenstein promoted the creation of a special mechanism for Syria. Russia has vetoed the decision to refer the case to the International Criminal Court for years. Establishing the institute of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Russia by the UN Human Rights Council was equally important. This is the first case of an ‘inviolable, permanent member’ of the Security Council being subject to independent monitoring of the fulfilment of human rights obligations.   CJLPA :   Should any state have veto power in the UNSC? Would it be realistic and feasible to change this structure?   OM :   I cannot predict the future. Nevertheless, I can use examples from world history. It convincingly testifies that the ideas of changes, which were considered too radical and therefore unrealistic, were eventually implemented. The UN is such an example because, for the first time, the charter of this international organisation enshrined the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a state that grossly violates human rights. Before that, this very possibility sounded like nonsense.   Certainly, this became possible after World War II, which caused millions of casualties, the destruction of entire states and the total dehumanisation of people, symbolised by the Holocaust and Nazi concentration camps. I would like to believe that we are able to learn from historical mistakes and prevent such upheavals.   Nevertheless, I am optimistic about the future. We are accustomed to thinking in categories of states and interstate organisations. However, ordinary people have much more influence than they think. The voice of millions of people in different countries can change world history quicker than the intervention of the United Nations.   CJLPA : How do we (and international law) ensure that Russia will bear responsibility for this age of its history?   OM :   We have faced the problem of the responsibility gap. Ukrainian legal system is overloaded with the amount of war crimes proceedings. The International Criminal Court shall limit its investigation to a few selected cases, and it has no jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in the situation of Russian aggression against Ukraine. We need to establish a special tribunal regarding the crime of aggression now and bring Putin, Lukashenko, and others guilty of this crime to justice.   In addition to the crime of aggression, there are other international crimes—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These crimes should not remain only in the databases of human rights defenders or in the reports of international organisations. For this purpose, the international element should be involved at the level of national investigation and justice. The support of foreign experts—judges, prosecutors, detectives—is required to properly investigate and ensure judicial proceedings of dozens of thousands of international crimes in accordance with the standards of justice, particularly Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is essential to create a hybrid mechanism where national investigators carry out investigations together with international investigators, and national judges administer justice together with international judges.   We must break this circle of impunity. Not only for Ukrainians but also other people who have already suffered from Russia’s actions. And also for people who may become the next target of Russian aggression—this time, to prevent it.   CJLPA :   We see crimes against humanity around the world—in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Palestine, and many more nations. How can the international community improve the protection of human rights for these victims around the world?   OM :   Frankly, we have been defeated so many times lately regarding justice that we greatly need success. Ukraine can become such a precedent that will inspire people in other countries of the world to fight. As my colleagues from Syria said: ‘Tell us what is required to achieve justice for Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Because your success will also be our success’.   CJLPA :   In addition to the above, do you think we are in a position to instil our ‘Western Principles’ in these countries?   OM :   I do not completely understand what ‘Western Principles’ means. If we are talking about human rights, which dictators like to refer to, then the ideas embedded in them are universal in nature. We can find the idea of human freedom or dignity in various cultures and religions worldwide. The truth is that mechanisms for defending freedom are developed in quite diverse ways, and still people in many countries cannot defend their violated rights.   Therefore, human rights advocates in different parts of the world need to work harder to build on local traditions and local historical experience, in which we can find the origins and confirmations of these universal humanistic values.   CJLPA : What can and should the ordinary person who is not a politician or a lawyer do to help make a difference and influence change in our world?   OM : The states that have experienced totalitarianism share a common characteristic. They may have a large population, but they still have only a small number of citizens. Living in fear produces a certain way of thinking, like, ‘I’m an ordinary person; nothing depends on me; anyway, it’s not up to us to decide’. This is a ‘learned helplessness syndrome’ in action. People voluntarily renounce their subjectivity. They turn into objects of control, ‘simple cogs in the mechanism’, as Soviet propaganda said. People become citizens not when they receive their passports but when their area of responsibility starts covering broader categories than themselves or their families.   The countries in transition can demonstrate some consequences of this. However, a person can voluntarily renounce his or her subjectivity even in a developed democratic state. Quite often, people do it for the sake of personal comfort, in order not to take the responsibility and to be inactive. Nevertheless, you cannot make a cat’s paw full of heroes; everyone should make efforts to support social institutions. This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, Legal Editor and Founder of CJLPA: The Human Agenda. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is a qualified lawyer in England & Wales specialising in public international law.

Professor Mark P Denbeaux is an American attorney, professor, and author. He holds the position of Law Professor at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey, and serves as the Director of its Center for Policy and Research. Denbeaux is renowned for his extensive work on the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, producing influential reports and testifying before Congress on the subject. He, along with his son Joshua Denbeaux, served as legal representatives for two Tunisian detainees at Guantanamo. Additionally, Denbeaux is the lead Civilian Military Commission Counsel for two individuals who were subjected to torture by the CIA in black sites before their detainment. CJLPA : Welcome, Professor Mark Denbeaux. Thank you very much for taking the time to come and interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . Today, we would like to concentrate this interview on your research on Guantanamo Bay. Can you briefly tell us why you became involved in legal work around Guantanamo Bay?   Mark Denbeaux : I have always been a civil rights lawyer. It started in Selma, Alabama, in 1965 and kept going. I represented Black Panthers, handled sex discrimination cases, and various other issues, including criminal defence work.   My son came to me—he is also a lawyer. Josh said to me, ‘Dad, what do you think of Guantanamo?’. I said I had not thought much about it. This was right after the Supreme Court decision came down, giving the right to some kind of legal representation in Guantanamo. And he said, ‘Well, do you think they have the right guys there?’ I said, ‘I am sure they have some of the right guys, and I am sure they got some of the wrong guys. And it is the normal thing: they can’t tell’.   He said, ‘Do you think Grandpa would have believed that Patton’s Third Army could distinguish the good Germans from the bad Germans?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not. Dad would not have thought Patton had a clue who the good Germans were from the bad Germans’. Then I said, ‘But Josh, Dad would not have cared either. Because he did not believe there were any good Germans’. (They had liberated two camps.) So Josh said, ‘Well, is not that the point?’   I thought about it a little bit, and then he and I agreed that we ought to try to represent a couple of people down there just to see if we could do what we normally do as lawyers: figure out what the cases are, who should be released, and who should not.   Josh got me into it. We joined a group of people who were talking about how to do it—other lawyers, and we went together. At those meetings, they, among other things, referred the names of people who wanted lawyers. They gave Josh and me two, they were two Tunisians. This goes back 20 years.   We were given them because the belief was that they were a father and son. Therefore, they thought it would be nice for a father and son to represent a father and son. Well, they were not father and son. They did not know each other. It was a class difference. There was a big difference in many ways. But we represented them.   Over the course of years, we got one out to Slovakia. It was about 2009. His name is Rafiq Al Hami. We went to Slovakia to see him. He was quite grumpy. It turns out he had been released to Slovakia, but he had been held in Slovakia in what was a former Soviet prison, which had been renovated so that it was not as harsh. There were sort of groups of people living together. They had quite a bit of freedom.   We went to see him, and he said, ‘You know, I can’t leave here for two years. They are teaching me Slovakian’. I said, ‘Well, that’s good’. He said, ‘Can you think of a language that is less useful in the world today than somebody who knows how to speak Slovakian?’ All I could think of was to say, ‘Well, now it opens you up to the whole world of Slovakian literature’.   He was not very impressed with that. He was grumpy and unhappy.   The truth is we had both Tunisians released and life was not good for either of them when they got out. Rafiq’s brother lawyer in Tunisia. So was his sister. He came from a fairly substantial social class.   My other client—Lotfi Bin Ali—was also a Tunisian. He was not healthy. He had rheumatic fever as a child, and he had a rheumatic heart. He left Tunisia when he was 19 to go to Italy, where he was illegal. He was hiding, living on the streets, hand to mouth, and doing various criminal activities, some for which he was captured and prosecuted. But he had surgery on his heart there that helped him. He always wanted to return to Italy to be a chef.   Both of them were taken through the various routes. Both of them were tortured in Kabul in the ‘Prison of Darkness’, which is a gross story I can share if you want. They slowly got released: Rafiq to Slovakia and then Lotfi to Kazakhstan.   Kazakhstan was not a good place for Lotfi as access to healthcare could have been better. They were very hostile. He was also six foot eight. I did not realise at the time that Kazakhstan is basically an ethnically Chinese country. He could not find any clothes that would fit him. In the wintertime, he could not get winter clothes. He had a tough time. After a lot of work, we had him move to Mauritania, which was at least a Muslim country. Kazakhstan was only nominally Muslim. Mauritania was much better. He had a community there. Sadly, two weeks before he was about to be returned to Tunisia, he dropped dead of a heart attack. He was a very witty, funny man. My wife enjoyed talking to him, and we could use WhatsApp. He was enjoyable in conversations.   CJLPA : It means a lot that you built a bond with your clients during your representation of them: you know their story, you were moving forward with them, checking what was happening after they were released. I would encourage you to tell that story about the ‘Prison of Darkness’.   MD : I did bond with them. Most of the Guantanamo lawyers, if they stayed any length of time, we all bonded. There was nothing you could really do for your clients except, to some extent, be a human being and have a relationship with them, because they had no other relationships. They were in real isolation except for guards who were hostile to them. As years went by, we got closer and closer.   At the beginning, they were not friendly. In the beginning, Rafiq asked what I could do. I said, ‘Well, I’m a lawyer, and the Supreme Court says I can do various things for you’. He said, ‘How big is the Supreme Court’s army?’ Of course, I had to say, well, they do not have an army. He was not impressed, therefore, with the Supreme Court.   Over a period of time, I helped him just by keeping human contact. We could send him books to read, do various things, and develop some rapport.   I got a phone call about the ‘Prison of Darkness’. One of them was Human Rights Watch, who called me up and said, ‘You know, your client Rafiq was in the Prison of Darkness’. I said, ‘What is the Prison of Darkness?’ He said, ‘Oh, it is in Kabul, et cetera’. He did not describe it to me then. I said ‘Why are you telling me this?’ He said, ‘Well, we are trying to find out all the people who were held in the Prison of Darkness. We know he was there. We would like to know when he was there to fill in the gaps’. I said, ‘Okay, but I do not believe he was because he has never told me this. I have represented him for almost five years’. He said, ‘Believe me, he was there’.   Josh and I went down to talk to him. It was a fairly complicated time. He could have been more talkative. Finally, he came into the room.   See, one of the things that detainees can do is say ‘no’ to lawyers. It is one of the few things they can say ‘no’ to. So they say ‘your lawyer has come here from New York City. They are here. They would like to see you’, and they can say, ‘No, I am not going to do it’. And that would happen. That was very difficult. You could go down there and maybe have no visits. It is a long trip.   During the second part of our visits, he showed up. I was in another meeting with my other client—Lotfi Bin Ali—I came in late, and I walked in. My son said, ‘Dad, do not say a word, sit down, sit there and shut up’. I felt like he must have enjoyed that! He was no longer 17, so there must be something going on. Rafiq had said, ‘I will tell you everything I know about the Prison of Darkness until you ask a single question. As soon as you ask a question, I will not tell you anymore. I had not heard that statement. That is why Josh did not want me to start asking my questions.   The story Rafiq told was quite elaborate. First of all, we said, ‘Rafiq, why did you not tell us about this?’ He said, ‘Well, you did not ask’. I said, ‘Rafiq, I would not know to ask about a “Prison of Darkness” in Kabul’.   So he did tell us. Here is the story he told us the first time, and Lotfi confirmed it, because they were more or less overlapping in their time there.   The Prison of Darkness was in Kabul near the airport, sometimes called the ‘salt pit’. NPR found the location and described it, and they have shown it on television, but they described it in a less vivid way because it was already gone when they got there.   First, for some context, Rafiq’s story. Rafiq was from Tunisia and had gone to Germany, where he had been selling drugs, making money, and getting into problems. He had stashed a lot of money away. Finally, a group of people came to him and said, ‘Look, you are being a bad Muslim’. They made arrangements to send him to Pakistan, where he went. While he was in Pakistan, the US started bombing Afghanistan after 9/11. The Pakistanis did not want the Arabs there. So, he was pushed into Afghanistan and ended up in Kabul. When the US started bombing it, he had enough money to hire a guide to guide him through the mountains into Iran. As he said, that was not a great choice for a destination. He paid a certain amount of money to be taken there, and then his guide sold him to the Iranians for even more money.   He was held in five different Iranian prisons. I asked him about Guantanamo. He said, ‘Oh, there are many worse prisons. I have been in five war prisons in Iran’. I said, ‘Well, how did you get to Kabul?’ He said, ‘Well, what happened was the US wanted all of us who were captured to be given to them’. So Iran gave them—those many people who ended up in Guantanamo—over to Afghanistan, who then handed over them to the US. Officially, Iran was sent not intervening, but they were flown to Afghanistan by Iran.   He was brought in and put in the ‘Prison of Darkness’. You go in a big building. There is loud noise, very few windows, people shouting, music. They move you into another room. They get all your clothes, everything off there. That room is really like a hallway, it has a door into the hallway that gives some light. When you close the door, there is no light in the hallway. The door was open when he went in. They took his clothes off, and he was naked. They then closed the door and then took him through another door into a smaller room. While they took him in there, there was a bar going across, four feet up from the floor, in a five-foot-tall room, so you could not stand.   Once in the room, they were made to stand up with one hand, the other hand, or both hands locked to a pole, for an unknown amount of time, because there were no clocks, lights, or calendars. They were naked. They were quite upset that there was no way for any sanitation facilities. They would have to soil themselves. They stopped eating. They went through a very difficult time. Occasionally, they would be put against a wall with one hand in a ring just above their heads. They could sit and lean against it. Sometimes, they rotated their hands. He was here for about six weeks. About once or twice a week, he would be taken out of the room naked.   Rafiq described how he was taken into a room to be interrogated by a woman interrogator speaking fluent English, an American woman who was dressed, and he was standing there naked. It was incredibly difficult for all of them to be naked, even moreso in front of women.   He was at some point released and sent to the Bagram International Airport Prison. He was there when one of the detainees was killed. There is a documentary about it called Taxi to the Dark Side . He was brought as a witness, but he did not know anything.   I learned similar things from Lotfi Ben Ali. But the picture is the same. It is dark, cold, naked, no food, no ability to sit or stand for an unknown length of time.   CJLPA : How would you interpret the impact of international human rights laws and conventions on the legal framework governing the detention of individuals in Guantanamo Bay?   MD : Well, I am a law professor, so I would like to think that somehow the law mattered here. But it is not easy to see where the law mattered in any of this. Torture is illegal, no matter what the Department of Justice says. And they tortured: I have represented four people, all of whom were tortured. Two were held as high-value detainees, and all that means is the CIA wanted permission to torture them, not because they were important. Both of the clients I am talking about now—my Tunisians—were released. In theory, they were supposed to be free to go.   One of the things that I have been interested in is how basically benign these individuals were. The truth is, they were a mixture of people, some lost souls looking for something to do, some swept up at the wrong time in the wrong way. The clients I had, the government admits, never committed any hostile acts against the US or its allies, but they were captured for a variety of reasons.   Now, the real problem was America panicked. We were hysterical. We did not know what to do, so you reach out and think you have to do something. They grabbed people but did not even know who they had caught. One of our reports concluded that only 4% of the people held in Guantanamo were held because the United States caught them. Warlords, tribal chieftains, and local police in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places turned over 96%. The US never even knew the evidence against people because they were just being handed over.   When it comes to torture and interrogation, there are three models of torture involved. The simple one is the American, the Western world’s view of interrogation, which is that the US police and the FBI bring people in and almost always talk to them. This is what is called ‘relationship building’ by the FBI. They will come in at a certain date and bring people in to talk to them. Those people know what crime has been committed and where. They have reasons to want to ask the person questions, and they have a pretty good focus on what they are trying to find. They are pretty good at it. Much as I would not admit it in court, they do not do a whole lot of physical abuse.   Then you have military intelligence, which is really designed only to find out what is over the next hill. They want to have no ambushes, and so on. That works.   Then we invented something that said, let’s find out who are bad people who do not like the United States. That is all they were looking for because they did not know what else to look for. All of these people brought into Guantanamo were brought in by people who did not have any evidence because there was not any.   It is important to note that of all the 773 people initially brought to Guantanamo, there are about 15 left. All the others have been released. And there has been no problem. The single biggest indictment of Guantanamo is the fact that whenever people were released, they went back. Rafiq, when he was released, ended up in Tunisia. He was married, had a couple of kids, and was running a used appliance store in Tunis. All of them did that.   So they had the wrong people in Guantanamo from the beginning. That made things difficult for everybody. The problem was the torture once 9/11 happened. We decided we needed to find out who the people who did not like us were and what they planned to do to hurt us. The CIA were the ones trying to be the inquisitors, but they were humiliated by having missed 9/11, and they were desperate to prove how good and clever they were. But their problem was how to get information out, and there were a lot of meetings in September and October about who they could target. The debate was between the FBI and the CIA. The question was: who was the target? How could they deal with it? They all wanted to torture.   The problem is that everybody would like to have a magic bullet that will make people tell the truth. Of course, nobody trusts anybody. They end up feeling like they have to coerce. The American model ended up saying: We have got to find some way to find out the truth. As I have pointed out, the ancient Chinese, the Romans, the Florentines, Russians have tried to do that. The Nazis have tried to do that. The one problem they have is that it is not hard to make people talk. Everybody will talk. Al-Qaeda’s rule was: if you are caught, they are going to make you talk. But they needed to feel like they were doing something magical, having missed the opportunity. A lot of this was driven by the CIA’s desperate desire to find a way to discover truths through a magic secret that no one else has ever been able to do. That was a big part of it.   CJLPA : If we start talking about the techniques of torturing, we should also mention Dr James Elmer Mitchell, who developed a list of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. What distinguishes Dr Mitchell as the significant figure behind the Guantanamo Bay torture regime? What specific role did medical professionals serve in this context?   MD : Those are a lot of very good questions. Let me start by saying that it is not the Guantanamo Bay torture. It is the torture program. Much of the torture was done before  they got to Guantanamo. In fact, by the time people arrived in Guantanamo, the torture was virtually over.   Now, Guantanamo would like you to believe they never tortured there. They would like you to believe it was never, for any moment, a dark side. But they were tortured there. It was a dark side for a while, something that is never confirmed objectively, but all circumstantial evidence makes clear that was happening. It is clear Mitchell was in Guantanamo.   Let’s talk about Mitchell and the CIA. The problem is that Mitchell worked for the Air Force. He worked for a program helping retrieve downed pilots. He had set up a program called Survive-Evade-Resist-Escape. So they are supposed to survive, evade, and then try to resist and escape, and resistance is avoiding interrogation. Michell was running that.   The thing that Mitchell was doing was teaching Americans how to resist being interrogated. But he was in the Air Force. Let me stop to make one point clear. All of the Mitchell activities that are relevant to torture began the weekend Abu Zubaydah was captured. On 27 March 2000, the night before he was captured, the CIA had a meeting with PowerPoints and descriptions of what would happen, and their key role was that they would be the only people interrogating. They specifically did not want the military or the FBI doing it. That is kind of shocking because the FBI knew how to interrogate. Ironically, the CIA did not. The CIA is in foreign countries. You cannot catch somebody, take them to jail and ask questions. Generally, the CIA buys spies or uses electronic materials and rarely interrogates them. When they did, like in Vietnam, they did terrible things that were also pointless.   The CIA hired Mitchell on 4 April. It is remarkable: on 27 March, they did not want the Defense Department or the FBI involved. By 4 April, they hired a former DOD person who was in charge of helping people resist interrogations. The Deputy Director of the CIA at that time was asked why they did it. And he said, ‘Well, we were in unchartered waters. We needed help’. This is pretty staggering if you realise that three days earlier, they said, ‘We do not want any help from anybody’. Then they admit, four days later, that they did not know how to do it. It may have been the first and maybe the last truthful thing they said about this.   The techniques that he developed were reverse engineering of this air force program. Most of the torture program after Abu Zubaydah was captured was a bureaucratic fight between the FBI and the CIA, and not enough has been made of this. Zubaydah was the first person the CIA ever caught in this area of the world. They shot him, and he was almost dying. The FBI agents were there. They were the first people to interrogate him and talk to him, partly because they had some Arab-speaking agents, whereas Mitchell is anything but an Arab. The CIA began to box out the FBI over and over again, in a variety of ways. The FBI was only around when Zubaydah was seriously injured, and needed some attention from people he was more comfortable with. He was being interrogated in April after he was captured, but most of the month, he was very ill. Then, in May, there was some further interrogation. On 2 June, the FBI quit. They pulled out.   One of the reasons that Mitchell and Bruce Jessen developed their techniques was not because they knew they worked. Their techniques had two components: they had to be so harsh that the FBI agents could not use them. Because the FBI is regulated by domestic law in the United States and anywhere in the world, they needed techniques that were too horrific for the FBI to be able to use. Once they permitted those, the CIA could use them, and the FBI would not. So, this dispute between agencies is crucial here.   When the FBI pulled out on 2 June, Abu Zubaydah was never interviewed again by the CIA or the FBI until he was tortured in early August. He was put in isolation in June until 4 August. The justification for torturing him was that he was claimed to be aware of imminent attacks on the United States, and that they therefore needed to get the truth from him quickly. They got that permission on 4 August, but of course, two months had gone by when they never even asked him a question, so it is quite clear that the techniques were not designed to get information from him.   That is understandable because the FBI has reports of the interviews in April and May, where he did not know much. The CIA eventually had to admit, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established certain facts, that Abu Zubaydah had never been in Al-Qaeda, never run an Al-Qaeda camp, committed no terrorist acts, and attacked no one. However, he was the first one they caught, and they needed permission to use these techniques. If they did not have permission from the Justice Department to use these techniques, there was a very good chance the FBI agents would report them for using these techniques, because they were crimes were under American law.   In late June and early July, the CIA was asking the Department of Justice to agree not to prosecute CIA agents for the acts they had already done, as well as the acts they were planning to do. The CIA, with Mitchell, worked out a series of techniques that nobody could be permitted to use without permission from the Department of Justice, and indeed, the FBI could not, so there could be no competitors. All they needed to do was convince people that these harsh techniques were very successful because they could get information out.   Based on that, they put together a series of lies in which they claimed they had found things from Abu Zubaydah. The Senate Select Committee of Intelligence, in its mammoth report of 556 executive pages, which cites Abu Zubaydah 1100 times, made it clear that the CIA got nothing the FBI had not already gotten. So before they sent him in to be tortured, they knew everything there was to know.   My students ask me the question: How can it be that people wanted to invent a torture system to torture somebody who they knew did not know anything? That question is the hardest question I ever have trying to publish our materials. It is understandable why anybody, and certainly Americans, would be so horrified to find out that they picked somebody who was not an Al-Qaeda terrorist and got permission to torture him, in order to get information that the torturers knew he didn’t have. And the answer was simple: they wanted permission to use these techniques on other people, and they wanted to be sure that they could not be prosecuted for the techniques they had used. That is how the torture program began. In this sense, it does not have a lot to do with Guantanamo. One of my discoveries going through research on Guantanamo was that terrible things were happening everywhere else in the world. Guantanamo could not be worse if you looked at it, but it turns out other places could be far worse.   CJLPA : How would you describe the psychological and emotional toll on the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay? You previously told us that they sometimes thought it was not the worst prison they had been in, but the conditions there were far from humane.   MD : We are talking about Guantanamo. As the world knows, Poland had to pay hundreds of thousands of euros because they allowed the US to torture people there. Lithuania is the same way: countries that the European Court of Human Rights did not cover.   So, first of all, the worst torture always happened outside of Guantanamo. The worst of the worst in Guantanamo were brought in September of 2006. All the harm had been done then, and they were badly tortured. I do not mean them just being held in isolation. They were chained and could not walk. I have never seen my clients take a step. I only see them chained to the floor when I go into a room. It is hard to measure how isolated it is.   The torture we described was horrific, but it was constant. For instance, they were held nude almost all the time in brightly lit, white rooms. They were nude with loud music and air conditioning, and it was cold. Intermittently, they would be sprayed with water. The Department of Justice approved none of these things. These were inventions of the young men, thinking they could find a magic secret.   People should look at the report, which includes not only 40 drawings by Abu Zubaydah but also his descriptions of each of them. The government probably wishes we had not been able to get them. But we did. It is the history of what torture was, not the history of the program that was approved, because here was no connection. There were three or four pictures in there when somebody had been drowning in wooden boxes, put underwater and held there. They could barely breathe, and would have to urinate on themselves.   They would have all sorts of things. There were threats of anal rape. The Department of Justice approved none of these things. These were just people out there trying to find some new gimmick, Mitchell and Jessen primarily. Of course, there were other people, but we do not know their names. So, Mitchell ran the whole thing. He has made at least $100 million for this project, and the CIA was happy to pay him so they could control who the interrogators were and what techniques could be used. Now, the CIA is stuck, having failed to get useful information.   America, for the first time, officially and formally created a torture program. It is very difficult to absorb. For 15 years, I have taught many students who do not believe it when they walk in. When they come out, they are shocked.   What is the effect on those tortured? Sleep—they do not sleep. Some have gastrointestinal problems, some have headaches, and some simply have anger issues. It would be hard to imagine the emotional and physical problems that they do not have. You cannot just do that to people for six years or more.   Imagine 35-year-old people having broomsticks shoved near their anus, making things like they are about to be raped and never knowing if it was going to happen or not, whilst being chained to the floor with women watching, spraying water on them all the time in cold rooms.   Mitchell’s trick was called ‘learned helplessness’, which psychologists are aware of as a technique. It’s not a rational technique in this context. He wanted to make them feel so helpless that they could not resist telling the truth. The problem was that they had already told their truths over and over again. They wanted to find more truths that did not exist. The ‘learned helplessness’ comes down to sleep deprivation. If you look at each of the torture techniques, where they are confined in a small box, where they are put in a little cage, where they are being sprayed with water, or people threatening anal rape or being banged against walls and hit—all of the things they did, they were done consecutively and constantly. For the first 17 days Abu Zubaydah was held after their permission to torture him, they constantly went through all of the techniques, one after the other. They did not stop and ask him questions that you would think they would do. They did not do that. They were just trying to break him, so they could get him in a state where it would be easy to get him to talk.   For 17 days, 24 hours a day, they were doing this to him. So even what they got out of him would have been incoherent and irrational, and all of them agree, they would easily have talked. None of them believed you could resist it. It is impossible. You cannot resist somebody hurting you in some way of that nature. So, how much harm did it cause? I would not want to mention it, but I cannot measure it. It is hideous. That is horrible.   CJLPA : What were the primary legal and practical issues faced by attorneys presenting detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and how did you overcome them?   MD :   There were no legal challenges to talk about because there is no law in Guantanamo. They have a right to a habeas corpus  lawyer, but people cannot win habeas corpus  cases because even if you win your case, the government can still prevent your client from being released to another country. There is no victory possible. Everybody released from Guantanamo has been released through political issues, some human rights organisations, countries wanting their citizens back, various things like that.   So, I do not want a misunderstanding: nobody should believe the legal system helped get anybody out of Guantanamo. They may have helped them see lawyers, but the system did not do anything, the system as we understand it.   The problem is dealing with people who are so foreign to you. When I was going down there the first time, I remember telling somebody, ‘You know, when you put a bunch of guys together in a room, and they do not know each other, what do they talk about?’ My friend said, ‘Well, we talked about politics, sports, sex, and religion’. I said, ‘What else is there?’ Hell, I’m about to meet a fundamentalist Muslim, and I cannot sit there and talk to him about religion. I cannot tell him about politics. I do not think I am going to be talking to him about sex. Maybe it is sports, but I do not even know what sports they have. So we started not knowing anything, but it turned out they were like everybody else: they wanted to talk about sports, politics, religion, and sex. It is the same there. It is a universality that continues, but it was very hard to establish a relationship.   They did not think you could help them. And we could not. All we could end up doing was having a relationship with them. Slowly, with the State Department’s help, you could find somebody to get out little by little. But the legal system should not get any credit for getting anybody out or stopping torture.   CJLPA : How, if at all, did Guantanamo Bay impact the US legal system?   MD : I do not know if it has any effect on the legal system. The most useful things were probably human rights organisations trying to use political power. Lawyers, with some political power, were quite effective at getting people out. I would have said that an informal, low-key political conversation about it would do it; it would be very hard to see how the legal system did it.   I think one problem is that it has damaged a lot of lawyers’ belief in the system. I have come to conclude that every country if it panics and gets scared, does stupid, crazy, and occasionally mean things. America panicked and was scared, and after 9/11, did many horrible things, thinking it was a good idea. Panic, fear and hysteria do not bring out the best in people. Every country when they are cornered like that, will do that, and we did.   I do not know, but I do feel like, slowly, people are looking back, saying, ‘We sure do not want another Guantanamo’. This kind of thing will not happen. But, in the Second World War, we locked up Japanese people on the West Coast, and we said that would never happen again. There is always something that will never happen again because it is a pretty ugly world out there. People just keep working. The legal system works well when the world and the system itself are going well. When it gets all blown up, the legal system is no better at stopping this than anything else.   CJLPA : People largely do not talk about Guantanamo Bay anymore. How do we make American citizens understand history, to ensure that these tragic events remain in the past and do not get repeated?   MD : Well, we have been writing reports about Guantanamo and torture. They have got some attention. We have collected some data, people have been looking at them, and PhD dissertations are going through materials that have been collected. I think there are a whole lot of facts out there that people are paying attention to. I do not know if it is enough, but it is significant. All we can ever do is just try to get the truth out and help people learn. I do not think there is a silver bullet to keep America from doing terrible things if it is scared and attacked again, either. That is true of every country.   CJLPA : Many thanks. This interview was conducted by Angelina Spilnyk, a graduate of the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine, in 2022 with a major in International Public Law. Alongside her position as a Legal Researcher at CJLPA, she is pursuing a Master’s in Maritime Law at the University of Southampton.

Moneim Adam is a human rights attorney and the Gisa Group’s Program Director for the Sudan Human Rights Hub (SHRH). He began his career in Sudan as a criminal and human rights lawyer, representing numerous activists and non-governmental organizations in local courts. He has been in practice for over a decade. During this time, he worked with organizations like Redress and others, focusing mostly on strategic litigation. Following that, he moved into the field of international law, helping and working alongside international organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC) in their operations in Sudan, supporting the ICC’s efforts to establish connections between survivors and victims in Darfur and Khartoum and to link victims with international mechanisms. During Sudan’s transitional period following the 2018 revolution, he gave special attention to supporting the transitional justice initiative. He collaborated closely with regional, international, and UN organizations, including the OHCHR, to support the process of working with all parties involved. His current areas of interest are advocacy, archiving, and documentation related to accountability. This interview was conducted on 15 December 2023. CJLPA : We would like to begin by thanking you, Moneim Adam, for taking the time to interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . Your extensive career as a lawyer combined with your advocacy provides a valuable perspective on pressing Sudanese issues. In this particular segment, we would like to address the events going on in Sudan, specifically, human rights issues, the role of international actors, and most of all the place of justice and peace in Sudanese society in the midst of rising conflict in the region. Moneim Adam : Thank you for having me. It is a pity to say that Sudanese people in marginalised communities are suffering in different regions in Sudan as we speak. Actually, in fact, in the entire nation. Efforts are being made, and this has taken place for many decades, we have grown up in this atmosphere, we are looking at the positives and we are always looking for venues and efforts—how we can help people to address human rights issues, to be able to articulate, to be supported, how they can address the issues. We have different types of initiatives, being a lawyer and being an activist. I think we will get to speak during the interview about all of these subjects.   CJLPA : How has your work before domestic courts and as a legal adviser for international organisations shaped your perspective on justice and accountability in Sudan?   MA : I worked in Sudan as a lawyer about 13 years ago, and I started my career working in domestic courts as well as working with international organisations, addressing issues [such] as torture, battery arrest, and other issues facing young activists and politicians, by guaranteeing the right to assembly and [addressing] how they can work and advocate for the local societies. This experience really was shared throughout the years as I started working immediately with an international organisation that was based in London. During this time we helped to protect the youth to be able to demonstrate their rights as non-violent activists, so we faced issues connected to domestic laws, domestic systems, and domestic authorities, as they can detain the activists arbitrarily. They can even detain lawyers without waiving their immunity. So during this time, from 2010 and onwards, the experience was only about protecting [people]. There was no active war in Sudan, that was only in the marginalised communities and we immediately shifted to work with marginalised communities around Darfur, eastern Sudan, and northern Sudan. We also supported the people who came back as migrants from South Sudan. Working in this area, something always comes up that we are supposed to help protect. So we used a system called strategic litigation in order to test the system and the laws and to protect rights when it is possible.   CJLPA : Can you explain more about how strategic litigation functions? You also mentioned that there was an organisation that you used to work with in London—what specific issues did you work with?   MA : The strategic litigation, as I mentioned, has some obstacles connected to domestic litigation itself. For example the law of evidence has issues, the criminal procedures law has a lot of issues, and the criminal code has a lot of issues. The aforementioned issues are contradicting with international human rights standards, as well as the standard for human rights in the African region by the African Union and other regional institutions. There are challenges which are connected to laws, which are connected to institutions. So we use strategic litigation to test the institution itself. Then when we go about the case, we take it to the media. We can take that case internationally or regionally when we face like real challenges using the domestic courts. Doing that, [my colleagues and I] actually managed to push for legal amendments and to protect rights for activists and individuals. We mainly used strategic litigation at that time—I was working with an organisation called Redress Trust and with others as well.   CJLPA : Is there any specific case or scenario where you used these strategies through which you could paint a practical picture?   MA : Yes, I am just going to give an example to bring us back to the current situation [in Sudan]. The Law of Evidence in Sudan has many challenges regarding accepting visual evidence such as a video or a picture. Using strategic litigation, we try to push for [visual evidence] to be accepted. They were rejected, and then when we went to the Court of Appeal it was accepted. Actually, in one case, we took the case to the African [Court of] Human Rights, the African Commission. We do that in order to show that even if the system fails you can take another step, or can tackle the same matter from another angle. So this is one case—and actually, in a case, the visual evidence was accepted by the court itself and the case was successful.   CJLPA : What challenges did you encounter with your work? Through all of these cases and working with the NGOs in Sudan, how have your experiences influenced your approach to human rights issues?   MA : Sudan was under the ruling of Islamic government for about 30 years, which has a lot of implications for the system. [This includes] the practices of lawyers and judges—the entire system. Working in that area, we always try to connect with local, regional, and international organisations in order to have all our experiences channel together in pursuit of justice and human rights. Working towards that we managed to build a very clear channel of international lawyers who are involved with different kinds of law and like international legal groups. We are [helping] local lawyers and practitioners to benefit from the support of international experts and we can also use international justice venues. We have different kinds of cases and now we have many cases pending at different levels regionally and internationally. So what we are trying to do is to help more lawyers to be able to use these systems in order to bring justice for the people.   The main challenge is, for a district attorney’s practitioners for example, having the knowledge to navigate international mechanisms, for one, and secondly having the connections and the resources to do so. [Lack of] resources is actually one of the main challenges in pursuing a case internationally, because [the cases] take a very, very long time, even up to ten years or more. The case before the ICC has now gone on for more than 18 years. This shows exactly how pursuing cases in different types of jurisdiction outside of one’s country can be challenging. The victims are waiting for justice for so long. Even for practitioners, it is going to take a lot of resources to be able to do this. There are not very many places where you can find funding for cases from an institution or an individual because it takes a long time and it is so difficult to have a clear timeframe.   CJLPA : We can now go to the crux of the matter, the ongoing conflict in Sudan. As you said earlier, Sudan has had historical cycles of conflict particularly from the second Sudanese Civil War and the first Darfur conflict. What do you believe are the root causes that perpetuate violence in these situations?   MA : Speaking of the conflict in the region, and just coming back to Sudan and the recent war in Darfur, Sudan has never had a continual peace for more than ten years over the last 70 years. So from the Independence Days [in 1956] it has been in this circle continuously. There was only one break after the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972, which ended in 1983. The root causes of all these conflicts are never dealt with. I think some of that is inherited from the old regimes historically in Sudan and mainly because of the [significant] marginalisation and injustice that has happened over [Sudan’s] history. There are also issues with democracy and inclusion, and I think that all of those issues are causing these wars and encouraging people to participate in wars. In the region, [Sudan] has the longest history of internal conflict.   CJLPA : You mentioned the Addis Ababa Agreement. What did this agreement entail? I ask this especially because later we will cover issues to do with peace and justice.   MA : When we speak about peace and justice, historically Sudanese leaders dealt with peace and justice not as international law defines it or as an international debate. I think in Sudan, leaders have always dealt with peace and justice as two separate things. They consider peace as stopping the war, which does not really mean that there is peace. But they are referring to stopping the guns and pursuing wholly the peace agreement. All of the peace agreements [that have taken place] in Sudan’s history were only meant to stop the guns, and actually not with a strategy, but just dealing with [the problem] for now. I think that because of this people are never satisfied. Going back to the Addis Ababa Agreement, it was a peace agreement in 1972, one of the peace agreements that tried to speak on the issue of inclusive peace. But both parties at the time, the government and the rebel groups, did not consider [handling the agreement] from a place of trust. The government and the rebel groups at that time did not actually have the will to implement the agreement, even withstanding the issues that the agreement itself has. Regarding other peace agreements in Sudan, they always speak about stopping the guns but they never pursue the issue of justice. Justice then always remains an issue throughout the peace agreements and throughout [our] history.   CJLPA : In your opinion, coupled with local conflict, how has international interference affected the ongoing conflict in Sudan, both now and in the past? What role do international actors play in promoting enduring justice in Sudan?   MA : International institutions—I can put them in two boxes, with the diplomats on one side and the UN agencies on the other side. I do not really want to speak here about the regional mechanisms because they never played a great role. The only role that was played regionally was during the Addis Ababa Agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). In those two instances there were major roles played [by regional powers]. Even though both of [the agreements] were led by international actors and not the regional powers, they were hosted in the region. So the international actors always played with Sudan, exactly like I spoke about with the local actors. They always say ‘let’s stop the guns for now’. Even now, efforts taken with current wars always deal with [the problem] as ‘let’s stop the war for now’. One example is the efforts led by the US and Saudi Arabia in Jeddah which are entirely about having a ceasefire, not having a lasting peace, but just having a ceasefire and a humanitarian corridor that can help humanitarian support to move around. We cannot deal with the current war [that way], excluding all the civilians and just dealing with the warring parties. That is one issue. If we look back into all the peace agreements done in Sudan’s history, they all came from that angle, dealing with both warring parties but not including the civilians and affected communities.   CJLPA : Besides the peace agreements, the international community and state actors have been accused of hindering justice in Sudan. Can you shed more light on this?   MA : Sure. So the warring parties are backed by some states, in the region or elsewhere. And I believe there is very clear evidence of accusing one state or another. At some of the meetings that were held recently, both warring parties in Sudan were accusing states of supporting the other [warring party]. Especially the military in Sudan, they are always accusing states. This causes some issues with the legal powers that are accused of supporting one party. As an example, the military, which is the Sudanese Armed Forces, have accused some regional states, namely Kenya. One of the spokespersons of the military spoke about when William Ruto was proposing to send troops to protect civilians and to ensure that the humanitarian corridors could deliver humanitarian aid. One of the military leaders came out and accused William Ruto of wanting to occupy [Sudan] and he said, ‘you have to bring your forces and come to fight’. That is actually one of the leaders of the military. That speech made it very difficult for Kenya—I am not saying I am with or against that initiative, but it made it very difficult for Kenya to continue that initiative.   During another event, the same leader [who accused William Ruto] came out last week and accused the UAE of supporting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). That caused a lot of diplomatic tension between the de-facto government of Sudan now and the Emirates. Many people accuse Egypt. They have collected evidence that Egypt is supporting SAF [the Sudanese Armed Forces]. Just looking at all these scenarios—like this country is supporting this side, that country is supporting that side—makes brokering peace in the current situation very difficult because all these regional powers have a great role to play. For example, the Emirates now have a very good relationship with the RSF, Egypt has a very good relationship with the SAF. If they are not brought to the table to stop supporting one side or another…   Of course, this war would not have continued to this day if the regional powers were not supporting the warring parties, because that is how they get weapons. That is how they receive support. I think that how the war has lasted for this long, and it is going to continue if that situation continues, and if the international powers are not going to hold regional powers accountable for their support.   CJLPA : You previously mentioned the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the war between Sudan and what is now South Sudan in 2005. What do you consider having been so vital in the CPA, so that it stopped the war? Maybe in all of this conflict, including the current conflict, something is not being understood that can be borrowed from the CPA.   MA : So actually mentioning the CPA in this context here is hinting at something scary, because the CPA led to the country splitting into two countries. That is something really negative. I am very supportive of the South to have their state because they have a very long history and were being marginalised. There was a lack of inclusivity. This is something we have to consider that like this, this is your choice after the referendum, which is supposed to be guaranteed and I am very in support of that. But during the CPA, the warring parties at the time and the international community all came together to stop the war and to include the referendum, in order to help the South Sudanese, by that definition, to have access to a referendum. I think that the peace agreement did not have enough emphasis on justice. It was only about the stopping of the guns. To be honest with you, I do not think that is a good example to be used. Because we have the Abuja Agreement and the Doha Agreement as well—[during none of these agreements] did the warring parties consider it important to implement something that could be followed, not only to stop the guns but to have a lasting peace and to proceed through justice. And none of these peace agreements, including the CPA, have a detailed chapter where warring parties have [realistic] mechanisms for justice. So I think it is better not to borrow from the CPA, but rather the Sudanese people should sit together and learn from the local initiatives. Include all the civilians, include the leaders, include everyone who has felt marginalised throughout history, and sit together and have lasting peace by including everyone. But I think that if we have learned something from all of that history, it is that history always repeats itself by having another war.   CJLPA : The army has been accused since Sudanese independence of usurping power and every time Sudan is at the brink of achieving democracy and good governance it sabotages such efforts. How do you see the historical role of the army in Sudan shaping the current challenges in establishing a civilian-led government?   MA : Even before the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in the last century, the army was always formed. It has a lot of military acts that make it very difficult for people from all over the country to see themselves in them, and [to see the army as] as representing them. This is one thing. Secondly the army is very politicised, the army has always participated in the political game in Sudanese history. And that has always kept the leaders afraid of the army, and then they create their own militias. If we speak about the RSF—according to all the legal definitions that I agree with, I don’t believe that the RSF is a militia, because it was created according to local laws and the same army approved those laws. They have different militias. They had the Popular Defence Forces in the past, and they have different kinds of militias and the government was very proud of having them. So I think the army as an institution is always participating in political games and creating militias that can make them always ready to sabotage democracy. They are always ready to make the way to democracy very difficult.   CJLPA : What steps can be taken to ensure genuine and smooth transition from military to civilian rule, especially given the historical dominance of the military?   MA :   Looking at the situation in Khartoum, it is taken over by RSF, half of Omdurman is taken over by RSF, the entire region of Darfur is now almost controlled by RSF, and the military moves to other places. So I think actually looking at this picture, just makes it so difficult now to pursue peace without looking at how to deal with a militia, with RSF and the allying militias. It makes it very difficult to look at moving forward for achieving a future for Sudan without looking at this, the armies and how they got into conflict. Now, in Darfur, I am not sure if the people in Geneina agree that they wanted to be under the rule of RSF. That is something very frustrating that we are looking at, and we do not understand how people are going to look at the future of Sudan without having the presence of the army. I think the only thing to have for future Sudan is a new matrix for the army. To go back to the barracks, just as the Sudanese revolution was calling for, and to take away and to dismantle all the militias. I think that is the only way to secure a national army without interfering in politics, which can always bring coups and bring an end to democracy.   CJLPA : Since we are speaking about the RSF and the SAF, maybe you can shed more light on the agreement that they had in 2021 and issues to do with the sovereign consult that has brought us to where we are today, on the transition.   MA : The framework agreement that was brokered by the unit arms was one of the sure mistakes done in our history. They saw how RSF had started to recruit some civilians to join their camp. SAF, which is the military, started to recruit other civilians. The RSF was very powerful at that time, and it became powerful because of the military itself, and the facilitation and the support, and the goal, the control over history. For the past ten years, the RSF has had access to all the camps, the mining areas, and that made it easy for them to control more. So the framework agreement, the mistake that was done by the unit arms, was meant to force peace no matter what. I am not saying that the unit arms bear all the responsibility by themselves, but they played a great role in that process, when they did not really do a full assessment to understand what would happen if they pushed so hard to have an agreement only with the RSF. I think that was supposed to be well-assessed by the unit arms, but was really mishandled by them. That brought this conflict forward. When they saw the RSF had started to become a rebel group and disobey the military, during that time, they were supposed to backup and come back to see how they can negotiate around this and urge the RSF not to continue forward with this and enter into confrontation. I think all of these aspects, if they had been considered by unit arms and other forces, if they had been really monitored at that time, we would not be in this situation now. Because there were a lot of ways to prevent this war if followed the right way, and not just looking for any peace.   CJLPA : Reflecting on what you have said regarding ways to prevent the current war and what you have termed the transitional process, and all the issues pertaining to the sovereign council—constitutionally and institutionally, what reforms do you believe would contribute to creating a more inclusive, democratic governance within Sudan?   MA : The constitution document itself is very weak by nature and the Sovereign Council amended it without including the civilians. They made the RSF leader into the deputy of the Sovereign Council, this was done unilaterally by the head of the army, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. The Sudanese people are supposed to start looking at the history and all the mistakes that have been made, and include all of the local mechanisms for peace and justice in order to have an inclusive process for justice and for the future. Because without having a clear constitution in which everyone feels represented, there is no way to have a lasting peace. I do not think the current or previous constitution documents are the best draft. There are many lessons that can be learned from the history of Sudan. There are some constitutions where, if we look at them, there are lessons to be learned. That can help to pave the way for an inclusive document where people can look at it and all feel included, and that they believe can take Sudan to the next step.   CJLPA : In terms of institutional reforms, do you think having a civilian leader without proper institutions weakens their role? Is this why the military or the militants get their way?   MA : I think there are some examples that we can look at. They used to have some circles of instability. But then when they have the Constitution protecting against like—one of the basic things, like now, Abdelaziz al-Hilu and the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] North are fighting for basic rights, and they are never recognised. It is not about documents, it is about the will. If the Sudanese people do not have the will to have lasting peace and to have democracy, even if we bring any institution from anywhere it is not going to help. Forcing people to believe that the constitution of Sudan is supposed to be like an Islamic government, that does not help. Even during the civilian government, the Muslim Brotherhood were able to make a campaign against the leaders, where they say ‘with the measurement of Islamic ruling, this is wrong’. They call them kafirs, and they call them infidels. And that makes it so difficult. The will is number one and then the documents and all of that can come later—but I think we need to look into helping people to become unified. Anything can come later, but the documents cannot be implemented, even if there is a good document, if there is no human will. I guess that is something we have to look at now.   CJLPA : Our next question is regarding the 2019 revolution and the subsequent events within Sudan. How do you view the transitional period that came after? It has been framed by some as a missed opportunity for achieving accountability and justice—do you agree with this perspective?   MA:  Of course, I agree with that. And I add that the Sudanese youth, and men and women, they sacrificed a lot in order to have the revolution achieve its goals, or at least to remove the Muslim Brotherhood leaders. But the problem happened because of the selfish politicians. They do not have vision, that is why they came and—to be honest with you—they hijacked the revolution itself. They sought to negotiate again with the military and they [reopened] the door for the military to come back and participate in politics. The three slogans of revolution—freedom, peace, and justice—none of [them] were part of the agenda for those civilians who came and hijacked the revolution. I [use the word] ‘hijacked’ because they did not care about freedom, peace, and justice at all. When they created their first government, it was weak. They did not care about training. The people who came and joined, like the officers, did not train. They did not provide basic training for governance. Someone may have had no experience at all, and they were are appointed to governance. The government becomes something useless. Ministers were appointed where it was their first job in their life, to be a minister. After that, nobody cared about legal reform, nobody cared really about institutional reform. These people hijacked the revolution, they betrayed the streets.   CJLPA : Given what you have just said, if you were to look at an effective transitional justice mechanism in Sudan—and we can even put it in the context of the post-2019 setting—how do you think, considering all of the complexities and the situation that did happen, that [transitional justice] could have been done better or actually could have been made effective?   MA : First of all, I think they have to let the youth create their own parliament, which was prevented from the first days. They have to initiate the institutions—there was supposed to be an institution for a peace, an institution for transitional justice, and an institution for reconciliation—but nobody cared about them. The first thing to be done is the Parliament, which is supposed to be led by youth, women and men. Also, to initiate institutions that can build a foundation for work around justice, transitional justice, reconciliation, because it was never dealt with. Those three things are the main things that can put Sudan in a constant position to have another war if not dealt with from the beginning. We need to include—not to exclude—the youth who led the streets. They were the people who were supposed to protect democracy at that time, to protect the revolution at that time, but they were excluded. And there should be trust—the people who hijacked the authority, they were supposed to trust the youth and to report to them when they are blocked by the military, they were supposed to come back to the youth. I think all of those were not met and I think those are the main things that led to this current situation. Because at the end of 2023, when the unit arms were leading negotiation between like both warring parties in order like to have the framework agreement dealt with by both parties led by sovereign RSF, that is exactly how they put back the ball back in the military’s court.   CJLPA : Could you elaborate a bit on how a youth-led movement could effectively result in an intersectional transitional justice movement? So again, looking at social justice, environmental justice, how would a youth-led movement in particular do well with these different forms of justice?   MA : We saw during the revolution that when the youth really managed to control a certain area, it was like an inclusive, small Sudan where everyone sees themselves there. Yeah, there are some issues here and there because of the inherited history and things. But I think that during my entire life, the only small Sudan that I saw had vision, or a way to go forward. I think that was like the second time. If a youth are given a chance to lead, like they did successfully with the revolution during 2019…   We did an oral history project in collaboration with George Mason University where we collected and included more than 120 interviews, in which we asked people what peace means to them, about justice and accountability, those basic questions. And when we asked these people those questions, and we completed the analysis with experts, I believe it was the only well-analysed document given out during the discussion around transitional justice in Sudan. I think that can tell us about the gap—there is no way that there is enough analysis. During that time, we gave out this document with all these views about what we see in that area, what peace and justice mean for people in from different places in Sudan. I think that can show exactly where the gap is, and can tell exactly that if the youth are given a chance to lead they are going to make it so that the small Sudan can grow to become like the bigger Sudan, and everyone can have their dreams met.   CJLPA : How do you see small Sudan being scaled up to big Sudan? What do you think that the process would be for this grassroots initiative to become bigger?   MA : The historic election, we saw the first obstacle in front of the youth movement is put by people who call themselves the (National) Democratic Alliance. Political parties are always scared of having anything led by youth and that is really something we saw. Youth are able to look into the future, because they have the dream. I think they have the vision, and they feel they are part of the future too. I think youth can be inclusive. Now for example, in the small institutions that were led by youth, we see the inclusivity, we see the justice, we see the vision, and we feel like everyone is really participating. Everyone feels that that they belong there. I think that if youth are given the chance to lead, which has never happened in Sudan, that they are going to be able to build the Sudan where everyone believes that they belong. With just what basic definitions are given to people, I think that can be the chance to rebuild Sudan with justice, with some institutions that research. There is a huge gap with regard to research on environmental harm. Nobody cares about the mining activities that were led by the old regimes. I think youth can bring research there that can help to stop all of these activities that can harm the environment, and in turn, can harm the future. I think they can lead the democracy to be achieved in Sudan.   CJLPA : There are different stakeholders in the community: the media, the communities themselves, and institutions of learning. In what ways, even for policymakers, can they affect justice, in what ways can we affect the transitional justice?   MA : In, Sudan they have traditional ways of dealing with justice. For example, in Darfur, in the Nuba Mountains, in in eastern Sudan, in northern Sudan, in the centre, they all have a sort of social reconciliation, where tribal leaders sit together and present a form of justice that can leave everyone feeling satisfied. One could ask the question of why would that be effective, for example, stopping the war in Darfur, because there is no institution to take that further. If the communities are ready to reconcile among themselves, if there is a state that can make that achievable, that can make the record of that—but that is not happening. So they can have a reconciliation or can have negotiations today around any matter that happens, but there is no support for mistakes—that cannot hold itself up, it is going to fall.   Speaking about the future of justice and future transitional justice, transitional justice itself is targeted by some politicians in Sudan who say transitional justice is a way of life that supports impunity, which is incorrect. That has actually led some people to advocate for justice being achieved only by the ICC, which is also a big mistake. It cannot achieve that—the ICC can only look at one case, only try the leaders, only try certain crimes—but there is a lot going on here, this is an entire country in chaos. I think that saying that only the ICC can deal with everything is a huge mistake. Academics need to write a lot in this area in order to clarify for local people how justice can be achieved, and that the ICC is not the only thing that can achieve justice. One quote I heard from the ICC prosecutor was that ‘justice does not die within the premises of the ICC’. I think that is a very clear way of speaking about justice. Scholars, academics, all the institutions, and the media can help to clarify that justice really is a process. It is not only something that can be achieved within one institution. And transitional justice is one of the important ways of dealing with accountability when an entire country is in a civil war.   In summary, it is important to look for justice as a process. Transitional justice is one of one of the cornerstones for that, especially since you cannot take everyone to court. Some of those [situations] are supposed to be dealt with according to the communities, and some supposed to be taken to the local courts. Building local institutions is very important and key and cornerstone for achieving justice too. So all these efforts, if they are done together, can help achieve justice. That is going to be the first step in a lasting process for justice and peace. That can happen only when we have transitional justice, that everyone feels satisfied.   CJLPA : It is not lost on us that after all of our discussion about how the previous transitional justice movement did not have the effect it should have, you yourself have had to make personal sacrifices as a result of your involvement. It is astounding for all these years, you have been able to keep going see this as a process, a light at the end of the tunnel. What keeps you motivated to continue doing the work that you do?   MA : I think that the dream to have a just Sudan is something always keeping me committed to this work. In fact, last year more than six months before the war, I was doing research with an institution pursuing studies for anthropology and I was working on the question of why people participate in a war. That was actually more than eight months before the war. The thing is, to see people suffering in Darfur, suffering in Khartoum, suffering in eastern Sudan, now in northern Sudan, and everywhere—that requires anyone to be committed, if not to achieve justice entirely, but just like to participate in that process. Even if it is with research, with one case, or even with educating one person. That is something really important that we have to take into consideration all the time. For me personally, I believe justice can happen and is going to happen sooner or later. That is something I am always committed to, participating in any process available: supporting the ICC, supporting any regional mechanism, supporting domestic institutions, helping local lawyers or local institutions to create records, or even doing interviews with elders or with communities for data collection. One of our goals is to achieve justice, to participate in this process and to do advocacy from Sudan. But I think that one of the goals we need to have is to create a record for the future. If we have that record for the future, people are going to see that and understand what has happened through history—and I think they will not repeat it again. All of this can really pile up, and lead us to not sleep until we see justice achieved. I think that everyone who has committed a crime should face justice through local courts, through universal jurisdiction, or through any kind of procedure. Justice is a must and it is going to happen sooner or later. This interview was conducted by Solomon Njombai and Alexandra Marcy Hall, Legal Researchers at CJLPA. Solomon, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, holds a Master of Arts degree in International Relations and an LL.M in Energy Law. His primary focus lies in comprehending how energy intertwines with global issues and how it drives interactions between states on a global scale. Alexandra is a human rights professional who has practised and researched extensively in North Africa and Europe. She currently works in advocacy for asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants living in London through an international humanitarian organisation.