My Dark Drawings  begin as I cover the white paper with the blackest of black charcoal. Working in a spontaneous manner I push and pull the charcoal this way and that, allowing the initial flow to take what direction it will. The surface is quickly loaded, black completely dominating white—but it is the white that holds the key. I rub, smear, and cover, standing back looking hard as I search for clues offered by remaining outposts of white. Soon enough my hand goes to work, led by my eye, pulling up light from the darkness with licks from my eraser, trying to locate that which is to be set free. Often the path taken leads nowhere and fresh charcoal almost covers my tracks, a history begins in the traces left by the forsaken trail. Always stepping back to look, once in a while taking photos with my phone to compress and clarify my progress. Then again my eraser goes to work. An image emerges, at times too quickly for its own good, yet others can be more recalcitrant. However when they do reveal themselves their confidence assured, they own me. Taking the lead they drag me along. I become their instrument, the initial clues gaining power, giving, informing, and demanding more as I follow their measure, dancing to their tune, uncovering rhythms as they evolve, leading on to the inevitable conclusion.   Their kindred cousins, ‘the others’, those whose ambiguity I desire, but it is so hard to find, slipping and sliding in the blackness. Again errant keyholes of light offer a release, a chance to realize an alternate prize, one that is seldom attained. Capriciously, they give lots and take back more. Show yet don’t tell! They know me all too well, these elusive shadowy potential presences. They tease almost wantonly, forcing me to bury them beneath my burned black charcoal. Seemingly understanding they could emerge again in another guise. At times that which was earnestly sought becomes a wasteland, chewed upon yet undigested, too hard to swallow.   The tango recommences and the hare runs free.    When all at once a fleeting glimpse sets tentative goals and these are sensed, sought, and achieved. This, on their own terms not mine, they tell me, ‘do no more for there is nothing more to do!’ The ambiguity achieved, a that or this, a this or that. The image giving once—then once again, the other and another, caught between being and slipping away, a duplicitous fiction. I fix them on the paper, and look, hope, ponder, in a perplexed vexation of delight. Lee Tribe Lee Tribe was born in Danbury Palace, Essex, England on 3 October 1945, growing up in Essex, beside the River Thames, as part of the post-war overspill from East London.  At 15 years of age he began an apprenticeship as a steelworker in the Docklands of London becoming a Journeyman Plater in 1966. Five years later, he was awarded a coveted place as a student in the Sculpture Department of St Martin’s School of Art, London, graduating top of his class with a BA First Class Honors. He went on to achieve a Masters Degree at Birmingham School of Art.  In 1977, he was selected to exhibit his work in the gardens of the Serpentine Gallery, London as part of a Summer Show. Later that year he left the UK to begin work on a Barnett Newman Scholarship at the New York Studio School, where he is still a faculty Member. He has exhibited extensively in solo and group exhibitions in America, the UK, and many other countries around the world. Lee Tribe has achieved several awards in sculpture and drawing including fellowships from the Ingram Merrill, Solomon R Guggenheim, and Pollock-Krasner Foundations. In 2010, he was elected to membership of the National Academy of Arts and in 2016 received an American Academy of Arts and Letters Lifetime Achievement Award as well as their Purchase Award. In 2019, he was the sole British representative at a sculpture symposium at the Luxon Academy of Art, Shenyang, China, also making and installing a large work in the Tangshan Delong International Sculpture Park, Hebei Province China. Tribe has work in museums, art galleries, and public and private Collections around the world. He lives in New York City and Shelter Island, with his wife and daughter.

І. Sexual violence as Russia’s weapon in the war against Ukraine: History and the present   On 24 February 2022, Russia launched an open military attack on Ukraine. The Russian troops invaded Ukraine near Kharkiv, Kherson, Chernihiv, and Sumy. As early as the beginning of March 2022, Russian troops occupied several population centres in the Kyiv region, including the town of Bucha. The world became acutely aware of the horrifying atrocities and war crimes committed in Bucha following the liberation by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. On 2 April 2022, the first video recordings of mass killings of civilians in the town of Bucha, Kyiv region, were published. In less than a month of occupation, more than 400 people were tortured and killed by the Russians. The bodies were found with signs of sexual violence. In addition, law enforcement agencies and human rights public organisations recorded numerous cases of sexual violence by Russian military personnel.   As of early December 2023, the law enforcement agencies recorded 257 cases of conflict-related sexual violence (hereinafter ‘CRSV’), which affected 96 men, 161 women, and 14 children. The age of the victims varies from four to 80 years old. As we can see, the Russian servicemen do not care about the age or the gender of victims of their sexual violence. This type of crime is just one of the tools used by the Russian military to wage war. When committing crimes of rape, forced nudity, sexualized torture, or forcing parents to watch the rape of their children, and children to watch the rape of their parents, they say that it is the punishment for the pro-Ukrainian position or for the fact that someone from their family serves in the Armed Forces, or they do it intending to cause significant harm to reproductive health to prevent childbirth, etc.   Analysing the information about the crimes committed by the Russian military in the occupied territories, we can say with certainty that the longer the Russian troops stay on the territory of Ukraine, the more cases of sexual violence and torture against Ukrainian citizens we record. For instance, as of December 2023, law enforcement agencies have detected 80 cases of CRSV in the de-occupied part of the Kherson region, 52 in the Kyiv region, 65 in the Donetsk region, and 16 in the Zaporizhia region. This was during active hostilities and the occupation of a significant territory of Ukraine. Parts of the Kherson, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhya, Luhansk regions, and several communities of the Mykolaiv and Kharkiv regions, as well as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, are currently occupied, with active hostilities taking place in a significant number of regions.   People feel unsafe and reluctant to discuss the violence they’ve endured. Their immediate concerns revolve around safety, housing, medical and psychological care, and financial stability. Our organisation, the Ukrainian Women Lawyers Association ‘JurFem’, offers legal support to CRSV survivors throughout the investigative and trial processes. Through our work, we’ve found that individuals who lack access to medical and psychological aid, housing, and a sense of security are hesitant to engage with lawyers and law enforcement. Consequently, we recognize that despite our efforts to uncover all instances of CRSV, victims require time to address their pressing needs and regain a sense of safety. The prevalence of sexual violence against Ukrainian men and women by the Russian military isn’t a new phenomenon. Historical records and research reveal that such atrocities have been perpetrated by Russian occupying forces during various periods, including the First and Second World Wars, the Ukrainian Revolution (1917-1921), and subsequent armed conflicts between the Soviet government and Ukrainian nationalist groups.   In the analytical study, ‘Gender Dimensions of War’ by JurFem, Ukrainian historian Marta Havryshko describes numerous eyewitness accounts and archival materials that record cases of sexual violence by the Bolsheviks, the Soviet Army, the Red Cossacks, and the Denikin troops on the territory of Ukraine.[1] These testimonies show that since 1914 and until today while occupying Ukrainian territories, the Russian army has continued to rape and torture Ukrainian women, girls, and boys, castrate Ukrainian men, and rape their wives and children in front of them.   As the historian notes in her conclusions,   The similarity of sexual crimes committed by Russians on Ukrainian lands in the past and today is also noticeable in their causes. One of them is the Russian military culture, which is based on violence and non-compliance with the norms of both Russian and international law regarding the rules of war. In such a system of coordinates, any actions of the Russian military that, in the opinion of their command, can bring the achievement of military and political goals closer are considered justified and expedient. In other words, commanders and political leadership of Russia turn a blind eye to the crimes of their subordinates, including sexual offences, justify them, and deny their presence in public discourse, because they are convinced that they perform certain strategic functions for them. For example, sexual violence can be interpreted as a means of motivating soldiers when the enemy’s female body is a trophy and a reward for service and loyalty. Furthermore, permission to rape ‘occupied women’ can be a tool to facilitate the anger and frustration of soldiers due to their losses at the front. Or it can contribute to the intimidation of local civilians who will flee from terror or obediently follow the orders of the occupiers. Or it may be a way of communication between the military. By torturing a Ukrainian soldier with genital mutilation and releasing this video, the Russians expect to instil fear among Ukrainian defenders, lower their spirit and morale, and force them to desert or sabotage their mobilization due to fear of capture and abuse. The weakening of the Ukrainian military’s confidence in victory also occurs due to the rape of civilian women. They serve as a means of demonstrating the enemy’s superiority that undermines their opponent’s masculinity by indicating that they cannot prevent the rape or punish the perpetrators.[2]   Sexual violence associated with the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine is a tool that was systematically used and continues to be used by the Russian occupying forces against the civilian population on the territory of Ukraine.   II. The Response to CRSV in the Conditions of the Full-scale Russian Invasion of Ukraine   Since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian government, together with civil society organizations, has started active work to create a response policy and assist survivors of CRSV. The war in Ukraine has accelerated a significant number of processes related to responding to cases of CRSV.   Ukraine adopted its first National Action Plan for the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security for the period until 2020 in 2016 after the beginning of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea in February 2014. The second National Action Plan until 2025 was adopted in 2020, but it had to be rapidly updated in 2022 after the full-scale Russian invasion. The preparation and updating of Action Plan 1325 in Ukraine always takes place with the participation of public and human rights organizations, with women-led organizations playing a significant role. This was also the case in 2022, when updates to the Plan of Actions and Measures were developed with the participation of women-led human rights organizations.   The updated National Action Plan until 2025 takes into account the challenges associated with the full-scale invasion, including the large number of internally displaced persons and women with children who were forced to leave Ukraine, and the increase in the number of women in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As of today, 43,000 women serve in the Armed Forces, which is 40% more than in 2021. Also, there is an increase in the number of women veterans.   In addition, the updated National Action Plan includes responding to cases of gender-based violence, including CRSV. National Action Plan 1325 is an important document, based on which regional plans are created in all regions of Ukraine and local authorities and public organizations frame and plan their activities.   Responding to cases of CRSV and providing assistance to survivors is stipulated not only in National Action Plan 1325 but also in other documents. Thus, in May 2022, the Government of Ukraine and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General Pramila Patten signed the Framework on Cooperation in the Prevention and Counteraction of Sexual Violence in Wartime.[3] The Framework is designed to ensure a prompt response to cases of sexual violence and appropriate assistance to survivors and to mobilize the necessary resources for this purpose.   The Framework includes tasks grouped into five areas: ‘Tracking trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation in conflict’ ‘Comprehensive assistance to survivors of CRSV’ ‘Access to justice and prosecution’ ‘Strengthening the capacity of the security and defence sector to prevent CRSV’ ‘Reparations and compensations’   To ensure cooperation with international partners in implementing the Framework, an Implementation Plan was developed in August 2022, which was agreed upon and approved. On 21 September 2022, it was presented in New York on the sidelines of the 77th UN General Assembly. Currently, state authorities, international partners, and public organizations are working to implement the measures and tasks provided for in the Implementation Plan for responding to cases of CRSV. This provides opportunities to coordinate joint work, strengthen each other, and understand in which direction it is important to move now. This Implementation Plan serves as a roadmap for the government and international and national organizations.   Our main focus now is to create survivor-centred services for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence. The Office of the Prosecutor General initiated this work following the approved strategic plan in partnership with public organizations. Last year, prosecutors and investigators, when identifying survivors of CRSV, began to work on meeting their primary needs for medical and psychological support, ensuring confidentiality, and preventing re-traumatization. A person responsible for interaction with public organizations assisting survivors of sexual violence started working in the Department of the Office of the Prosecutor General investigating CRSV crimes. Survivors of crimes currently under investigation can now receive medical, psychological, and social support thanks to the established effective cooperation of the OGP with public organizations.   Taking this experience into account, the Coordination Centre for Support of Victims and Witnesses of War Crimes began operating in the Office of the Prosecutor General in September 2023. The support mechanism aims to intensify protection and assistance for survivors and witnesses, strengthen their trust in law enforcement agencies, and improve the quality of pre-trial investigations. Additionally, the implementation of the Support Mechanism will ensure the successful implementation of European Union standards.   The Ukrainian criminal justice system must be working today to bring those guilty of war crimes to justice without waiting for the end of the war. War crimes, particularly CRSV in Ukraine, are classified according to Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Unfortunately, Ukraine has not ratified the Rome Statute, and the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine do not include liability for crimes against humanity or the entire list of war crimes. Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is quite general and does not contain the entire list of types of war crimes, but it refers to the norms of international law and the Geneva Conventions. This enables Ukrainian law enforcement officers and courts to apply the norms of international law without hindrance. Additionally, changes were made to the Law of Ukraine ‘On Free Legal Aid’ last year, granting survivors of CRSV and all types of torture the right to both primary and secondary legal aid. Despite several changes and the introduction of new approaches to the operation of the criminal justice system, many challenges lie ahead.   III. Challenge and Next Steps   The system we began constructing amidst full-scale war requires further development and improvement, both legislatively and practically. Presently, it’s crucial to ensure confidentiality and establish a system of security measures for survivors and witnesses of sexual violence at the legislative level. While Ukraine has legislation on safety measures for survivors and witnesses in criminal proceedings, it predominantly focuses on crimes related to organized crime rather than sexual violence.   Moreover, guaranteeing confidentiality for survivors during both the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings is imperative to prevent re-traumatization and stigmatization. Currently, prosecutors alter survivors’ data via decrees during the pre-trial investigation stage, a critical step given that 90% of CRSV cases are heard in absentia. Draft laws registered in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine aim to ensure the confidentiality of CRSV survivors throughout investigations and court proceedings. The next crucial step involves enhancing the capabilities of investigators and prosecutors to identify and gather evidence on all forms of CRSV, particularly those beyond traditional categories like rape or genital mutilation. Leaflets developed by our expert group at the OGP offer guidance to investigators and prosecutors on identifying various forms of CRSV, aiding in identification and investigation.   Furthermore, investigating CRSV crimes necessitates the simultaneous establishment of a system of social support for survivors. Without access to medical, psychological, and economic support or a sense of state protection, individuals are reluctant to testify about their experiences of violence. Hence, the government and public organizations are actively working on implementing a system of urgent interim reparations for CRSV survivors, emphasizing the importance of promptly assessing survivors’ needs to provide necessary assistance. It’s crucial to address the needs of male survivors in developing a state reparations mechanism, considering that existing services primarily cater to women survivors due to the pre-war focus of women-led organizations on gender-based violence. A high-quality system of urgent interim reparations will likely lead to an increase in the identification of cases and appeals to law enforcement agencies.   Additionally, building trust in the criminal justice system among CRSV survivors and working with Ukrainian society to prevent re-traumatization or stigmatization of survivors are equally important. This requires significant efforts to change approaches within the system and inform society about survivor-centred approaches in investigations. Importantly, our efforts extend beyond CRSV to encompass all forms of gender-based violence, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to support survivors regardless of the type of crime they endured. Khrystyna Kit Khrystyna Kit is head and co-founder of the Ukrainian women lawyers’ association ‘JurFem’. She holds a PhD in Law and is an attorney at law, who has been working in the field of women’s rights advocacy for over 15 years. Khrystyna is Coordinator of the expert group on conflict-related sexual violence at the Prosecutor General’s Office and Co-Chair of the subgroup ‘Access to Justice and responsibility’ as part of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine’s Inter-Agency Working Group on Combating Sexual Violence Related to Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine and Assistance to the Survivors (IWG). [1] ‘The Analytical Research Gender Dimensions of War ’ (JurFem , 14 April 2023)  < https://jurfem.com.ua/en/the-analytical-research-gender-dimensions-of-war/ > accessed 28 February 2024. [2] ibid 71-2. [3] UN Office of the SRSG on Sexual Violence in Conflict and Government of Ukraine, ‘Framework on cooperation between the Government of Ukraine and the UN on Prevention and Response to Conflict-related Sexual Violence’ (4 May 2022) < https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/framework-cooperation-between-government-ukraine-and-un-prevention-and-response > accessed 7 March 2024.

Sudanese filmmaker Ibrahim Ahmad exposes human rights abuses through his award-winning films. Chronicling the atrocities in Sudan, his work fights for justice and a better future. CJLPA : We would like to begin by thanking you for taking the time to interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . Your extensive career as a film maker, combined with your expertise as an activist, provides a valuable perspective on pressing Sudanese human rights issues and political questions, and their overlap. We would specifically like to examine key issues in respect to the film industry in Sudan and the issues it has faced under different regimes in Sudan, but also more broadly in the name of human rights. I wanted to begin by asking you to briefly outline your career and what prompted your decision to delve into the field of human rights advocacy?   Ibrahim Ahmad : I started film making in 2014. First, we started with a short fiction film—a drama about my late aunt. We posted it on YouTube and got positive reviews from our friends. For that, we shot the film with whatever cameras we had, and we had a lot of technical issues. But through the years, we developed ourselves and each time we make a film, we progress a bit into understanding the art of filmmaking.   By the last film, which is soon to be released, we fully understand how filmmaking is made in the whole distribution, production, and how to bring on talent. We don’t have professional academics in Sudan, so you just learn by mistakes. There’s no institute that teaches us filmmaking, and even the universities that have filmmaking are too weak. They don’t give you the full stretch of filmmaking. They just teach video production rather than film production because film is way broader. I decided to leave because I was living in a difficult area next to the airport, and we all know that the airport is one of the important places when it comes to war because either side wants to seize it, to be able to halt their travels or even make use of the airplanes for themselves.   When I was initially aware of what was happening, our building where we were living was immediately raided by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary force that makes up one side of the ongoing conflict in Sudan, and we couldn’t really move around with ease, so we had to sneak out in the back, and we couldn’t even go to the shops. All of the shops around were destroyed or began to be destroyed or emptied because people were panicking. We had to leave because there was no electricity, no water, so it was unbearable. I went to my friend’s house in another state nearby to regroup and understand what’s going to happen. Because Sudan was lacking professional videographers, I media outlets began reaching out to me and I started to do reports on what was happening in Sudan.   Initially, I started interviewing people who were coming from Khartoum to that city. That city [where I was staying] was one of the main cities to travel to or to pass by because it was safe. I went out to interview people about the situation, what they went through, and how many days it took them to reach there. Even though it was just a three-hour drive from the capital city, some people said it took them seven or eight hours to come there because the road was full of RSF and all these checkpoints, and also, they couldn’t go through the main road because it was dangerous, so they had to take shortcuts or navigate through the desert in order to reach to a safe place. Other than that, a lot of camps were created and schools and dorms in almost all hospitals, so an influx of people was coming in. We went out and interviewed them, also asking what was happening to them, how was the journey, what they’ve lost, and what they wish they had at that moment. A lot of them lost their houses and their belongings and some of them were willing to go back home because they couldn’t bear the idea that they were away from their home and their valuables left behind.   CJLPA : And during that time, how were you recording this all?   IA : I was recording everything with my phone because I left all my equipment at the office. I couldn’t take it out. Most of the media companies were robbed, so no one had a professional camera. I only had an iPhone, and any media company or TV channel that reached out, I just told them immediately that there’s no professional cameras. Those were also very dangerous to film with because a lot of people are panicking, so to see a big camera in front of them, most of them won’t accept being filmed. With the phone, it was a little bit soft and easy on them.   CJLPA : At the outset of the conflict when you were recording videos with your phone, were you able to draw attention to the human rights violations that occurred during that initial period of the conflict?   IA : I was filming a lot, and I was also reached by many different TV stations, even as far away as a Filipino TV channel, to represent Sudan and talk about the situation. So, yeah, I’ve contributed, though not that much. But, yeah, a lot of countries knew what was happening from my videos or interviews with me.   CJLPA : That’s why I would deny that statement that the videos weren’t much of contribution. It was pretty courageous of you, especially in the middle of a conflict, to record these things. At this juncture, maybe we can concentrate on specific films of yours and how they relate to issues of human rights. Starting with your film, Journey to Kenya, how would you relate that work to different phases of the current conflict in Sudan?   IA :   When Omar al-Bashir was in power, the government was banning sports and was against the development of the arts, and when he was ousted, the country was still in a phase of not knowing what was going to happen so they didn’t really think about what they can do for the young people to amplify their creativity.   This [Jiujitsu] club, which is called MTC, have been working for five years in Sudan, developing themselves by themselves without any kind of support, just by advertising a lot, posting a lot on Facebook. And I was helping them as well with whatever I could do at that time.   They were so dedicated to their sport that they were invited to Nairobi to compete in a competition. So, without any support, they had to do it by themselves because the government didn’t really support sports. They had a little bit of money to either take two people by plane, or just try to find another way to go to Nairobi with the full team and have more representation of Sudan. At that time, Sudan really needed someone to represent it internationally and just reassure the pride and the resilience of the Sudanese youth. People needed to see another side of the revolution.   So, they decided to travel to Kenya with a minivan and the full team and endure all that journey just to be able to represent Sudan. And I was invited by the coach because he’s been a good friend of mine for a long time. He said, ‘why don’t you document this? This can be a great thing’.   I accepted the invitation and just started filming, not knowing what I was going to do with this, but I just kept filming all these precious moments. Sometimes I couldn’t film it because I had to endure the same thing that they went through. I had two jobs: just to be there in the car alive and then to film. Because we didn’t have enough money and because the journey’s timeline was longer than expected, we were short on meals. We expected to reach there in two days, but it took us six days and the car broke down. We had a lot of issues, overheating, and sometimes we had to stop just to change a car part, but despite what happened, we reached Nairobi on the morning of the competition.   We didn’t take enough rest, we just took a shower, but once we were there, everybody was clapping for the fact that we reached the competition after six days and how much dedication we poured into it because most of the teams, even the main person who was organising it, he himself said that he wouldn’t go through all of this to come to the competition. It was a proud moment for Sudan and all of us.   CJLPA : Would you say the resilience and the persistence you showed throughout the journey from Sudan to Kenya is the same resilience and persistence that human rights advocates like yourself have shown throughout the conflict?   IA :   I think that it’s the same resilience, and I can say that it’s even growing bigger. Few people believed in the revolution in 2018, but right now most of the people understand why all these young guys went out to protest. I can say that the resistance, the resilience, all these traits have grown to a point where we were having protests every Monday and Thursday because now it’s running through our blood. We want to give a statement that we don’t like what’s happening and it should be changed. And the only way to change it is through protesting in the street and marching and chanting to raise our voices.   CJLPA : Your film The Salon highlights women’s rights and the importance of empowering women. Can you elaborate on how the film relates to the current events in Sudan?   IA : I think The Salon  is a key film because it shows, like I said, another side of resistance. Not everyone can go to the street and protest because they fear for their lives or their family fears for them. But when you see the main character is protecting all these women, you can see that it’s some kind of resilience and some kind of a self-protection from the community because the community that al-Bashir grew or nurtured for the last 30 years is a toxic community, is a community that destroys your personality as a woman or as a man with Islamic laws and restrictions that only benefited the regime. Everyone felt unprotected, everyone felt that they needed to hide themselves and that they needed to play characters just to protect themselves.   If you heard old stories about Sudan, we didn’t even have violence. We didn’t have segregation between men and women, and no one really felt that they were disgraced. But right now, everyone’s angry automatically because of what’s happening in the community. You couldn’t spread your wings, you couldn’t do activities, you couldn’t do music concerts, so you kept this sadness and anger all the time inside of you, and then you poured it on your fellow community members because you need an outlet for that anger.   That’s why all these women felt abused, and they needed someone to just talk to because Sudan hasn’t been female friendly for the last 30 years. They needed a space where they could talk and share with each other what was happening through their life without paying extra money to a therapist or to someone professional. They just needed to talk and to feel like they’re not alone, that there’s someone out there who’s facing the same thing.   CJLPA : You mention issues to do with double standards on the application of Islamic law. Considering the Islamic laws on the interaction between men and women, when you were filming this, did you feel concerned for your safety because of what you were doing?   IA : Yeah. Before filming we were fully aware of the consequences that could happen after the film or even during filming, because to see a man going into a salon is very odd in the Sudanese community. So, I was taking care to film with them without really grabbing attention. When I was filming in the early days, they weren’t feeling comfortable, but as time passed and they felt more comfortable with me filming them, I was treated as a family member.   When it came to outdoor shots, we had to shoot it really quickly because we didn’t want to grab attention either for the film or for the women. Filming outdoors in Sudan at that time was not restricted but kept under the radar. So, whoever had a camera in the street would be questioned and sometimes taken into custody and interrogated to know the motive behind filming.   CJLPA : Your film Khartoum Offside also focuses on women. Can you tell us more about that?   IA :   Khartoum Offside  is about a female football team. It was filmed in 2018-19, and once [Abdalla] Hamdok’s government took power, people felt relieved because it was almost civilian rule. People felt that they could do their activities, and the film was about the female football league and the issues that they faced because, as I said, for 30 years the country didn’t support sports or arts, and to have a female football team was a taboo. So, the film explores the lives of these football players and what they went through, either in their family or the community, just to be able to play football.   CJLPA : You highlighted that the film came out when Hamdok was in power. Do you feel that if Sudan had a civilian president, then these issues concerning women’s rights and human rights would be more respected by the government?   IA :   Definitely, because in my personal opinion, when Hamdok was ruling, a lot of doors were open to us. He even reached out to us filmmakers himself to understand what issues we were facing in our work. We told them about how we had been harassed on the streets while filming or how equipment is difficult to get into Sudan. He had an idea of talking to the police to discuss the potential of allowing us to film in the streets without permission. We wanted to film a lot of beautiful sites in Khartoum, and that was the time when everybody felt relieved.   CJLPA : Within the two years Hamdok was in power, there were really remarkable changes, especially within the arts industry. Do you maybe feel that the revolution was betrayed somewhat by subsequent events?   IA :   Yeah, because once the coup happened, all our efforts were lost. I think that the general felt a threat that he would be arrested by the international court, or with civilian rule he may be arrested in Sudan, so that’s why he did the coup. And now he took all these ministers away and then got ministers from the old regime.   CJLPA : Your films incorporate many issues concerning Sudanese culture and traditions. Can you share some specific cultural influences that have inspired your filmmaking and how have you incorporated those influences with your filmmaking?   IA : Well, the main theme of my films is just exploring Sudan and the achievements of the youth or anyone improving the community. I want to tell these stories about Sudan, but not in the typical African way of saying ‘this is a weak country, and we don’t have this and we don’t have that, we don’t have resources, all these dictators…’, but in a way that explores the resilience, the power of the youth. I don’t want to just follow the herd, but I’d rather find my own path rather than things that people usually follow because their ancestors used to do it. And I also try to explore that and understand that. Should we keep doing it or should we find another way? Because time changes and the community changes, so you need to understand the evolution of your surroundings. So that’s also my kind of way of doing my films or exploring what is inside Sudan.   CJLPA : Are you in a position to make other films in Sudan or influence the art of filmmaking in Sudan? How risky is it for you to make films right now?   IA : It’s a bit risky, but it also depends on where you are filming because some places are totally safe, and some places are totally unsafe. In Khartoum and Gezira state in Khartoum, it’s totally destroyed. There’s a high risk of you being killed or arrested either on the way or while doing filming. But in other states, I think it’s safe to film, especially if it’s something indoor or in the camps.   CJLPA : How does a visual medium like film contribute to raising awareness about the issues in Sudan and other tragic events that have happened over the years? How do you see the film industry and how can it create this awareness?   IA :   To me, film is the medium where you can express everything you want to express without restrictions. It’s just you and your own creativity, and it’s also the medium where you get entertained. And at the same time giving all this information, all this knowledge without feeling bored, without feeling that someone is injecting it to you forcibly. So, you are entertained, but at the same time understand the context of the message of the film. You understand how Sudan is, what people do, how people eat, how people live, how people dress in a non-informative way, just through different shots and different scenes.   In Journey to Kenya, you see how Ethiopia is, how Kenya is, how Sudan is. All this information is injected into your brain without you feeling like it’s too much. I think that film is the way that you can express what you believe in and fight for the cause that you want to fight for.   And it can reach internationally, because maybe internally you all know that you want to fight the system, you want to oust al-Bashir, but if you make a film about it, then the whole world knows what you want to do in your own country. And that’s one of the things, Sudan isn’t really known outside of Sudan. Some people still ask where it is. Some people even mistaken it with South Sudan. So, you need to explain what Sudan is, what Sudan isn’t, and once you make all these films about Sudan, then you don’t need to explain that because the films themselves explain Sudan.   CJLPA : In creating these films, how do you balance your creative expression with the responsibility to accurately depict sensitive subjects?   IA : I think that it depends on your awareness and the measures that you take to protect yourself and protect characters and understanding the consequences of putting out a message or idea. For example, at the salon, we took this measure of putting masks on the girls’ faces to hide their identity, but we didn’t hide the cause, the idea, the thing that they went through. We know that a lot of girls in Sudan go through the same thing, and this is a film that Sudanese girls would understand it the best because they personally face this a lot. So, once they watch this movie, they would understand that there are heroes like the main character of the film. And there are also other heroes like this director who had the guts of making this film and helping women because that’s what women wanted.   CJLPA : How can international audiences engage with Sudanese stories and understand the significance of the events of the last 30 years of Sudanese history?   IA :   Sudan wasn’t really on the map for the last 30 years. It was distant. It was in the shadows. And with these films being internationally projected, people are starting to notice Sudan, and starting to take actions towards Sudan, raising funds, coming to Sudan to do projects, coming and engaging with the civil society and with the community. These films somehow shake the consciousness of the international community, even for the Sudanese people that are abroad because the TV and the broadcast don’t really project what’s happening in the streets. With these films, you would understand more what was subliminally hidden in the community, whether it’s with the football team, whether it’s with the salon, whether it’s with Journey to Kenya , all these films explored things that aren’t clear in the community that no one really knows through TV and television and broadcast. These films reach out, they let the whole world understand what’s happening in Sudan and let the Sudanese people also understand what was happening in Sudan. But to me, right now, let’s say I’m outside of Sudan, I can’t open the news and expect to understand what’s happening. Once you watch a film, then you have a broader perspective of the things that are happening.   CJLPA : When we discuss creating awareness and how different audiences react to your films, how do you encourage dialogue and action from your viewers to address the issues that your films highlight?   IA : I think that I never really forced people to talk about Sudan, but through the film, they automatically start the conversation about how Sudan is. For example, when we screened The Salon, a lot of lawyers and activists reached out to us to talk about potential work in the future to address women’s rights issues. Because once you make a film about a specific cause, that means you are advocating for that cause, or you are willing to further step up for it. The film is just a way of telling the problem. Each film projects its message in its own way. With Journey to Kenya , a lot of people began sports, going to gyms, starting their own passion through the film. So that’s how the conversation starts, but they just get inspired and then they start doing actions afterwards.   CJLPA : How has your approach to filmmaking and storytelling evolved over the years, and what key lessons have you learned as a filmmaker?   IA : At the beginning, I was just reaching out with stories to entertain people. But through the years, I’ve understood that your film can make an impact. What you address in a film can really change lives, can heal, people can shed light on an issue that no one wants to talk about. All these films that I explore or contribute to or participate in, they are films that address big social issues that need to be fixed.   I felt at some point that I could contribute to improving the community for myself, from my fellow youngsters and for everyone. I’m not that politically enlightened, I just know what’s happening in the streets, and I wanted to put it in a mold that people will observe without feeling that you need to be very intellectual. I wanted to entertain people, but at the same time, put out a cause that everybody was facing, but not having the same everyday conversation. We want to do that. How can we change that? And this is very bad in the community, so I’m putting it in a way that I’m reaching out to you because we both live in the same community and at the same time, I want to spread it across because once we are more than one or two individuals, then if we join arms, then we can fight for our rights in a louder voice.   What I’ve learned is that you need to find the right way for the right cause because not everything can be fought the same way. Some stuff can be fought through protest, some people can participate in marches, some people can post on Facebook. Some stuff can be fought through films. You need to find the suitable medium for your cause, because it depends on the level of seriousness, it depends on which medium do you use. Let’s say you want to talk about a serious thing on Instagram, no one would take that seriously, because it’s some kind of an entertaining medium. But once you say the same things on Facebook, it’s different. People will take it more seriously once you go down the street. That means it took another level of seriousness. Once you march into the palace, that means it’s something very annoying, irritating you, and you went all this way and willing to be dead just to give your voice. It depends on what you are saying and where you are saying it, and who you are saying it with also.   CJLPA : Can you provide any insight into your upcoming projects or themes that you hope to explore in your future films especially now in the context of Sudan?   IA : Before the war began, we were doing a film about women who got into prison during the revolution and what they endured inside while they were there. We made a short film about that and should be released soon internationally at festivals. Like I said, we want to shed light on these issues that Sudan faces that no one sees, or even if they see it, they don’t really talk about it. So, it’s about women who got into prison and how they got arrested and how they endured all this time until the ousting of al-Bashir. The film is called Bougainvillea  named after the flower, which is resilient and strong, as are the women in the film.   CJLPA : What impact would you like to see from your films, both those you have already released and those you have yet to create? IA : I’d like to see people understanding more about their community and giving each other some space, not forcing their ideas onto each other just because someone in the past told them or their ancestors or their fathers. You need to give the new generation space to express themselves, either artistically or just by letting them do what they want to do. Sometimes parents think that they’re protecting you by forcing what they’ve learned onto you. I want them to understand that this is a whole generation, this is a different time. Things have changed. And I also want the community to accept themselves and be aware of the issues in order to contribute to improving things. This interview was conducted by Solomon Njombai, Legal Researcher 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.

Nila Ibrahimi is a 16-year-old Afghan women’s rights activist who narrowly escaped the Taliban following their return in August 2021. Upon the overthrow of Kabul in August 2021, Nila’s online notoriety as an activist and her status as a member of the Hazara ethnic community rendered her a target of the Taliban. Nila now resides in Canada with her family and continues to raise her voice to injustice as she raises awareness and fights for the all the women left behind in Afghanistan. CJLPA : Welcome Nila Ibrahimi, and many thanks for taking the time to come and interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art , to discuss your story of having to lose everything you love and know in the name of fighting for women’s rights. Following the return of the Taliban in August 2021, you voiced the need to protect women’s human rights through your online presence as an activist. As a result, you became a target to the Taliban and this put you and your family in immediate danger, having to narrowly escape Afghanistan.   I would like to begin by asking you to briefly take us through your story, from your initial reaction when the Taliban first reached Dasht-e-Barchi to having to escape your homeland and everything you know to find refuge in Canada.   Nila Ibrahimi : It all started from 15 August when the Taliban got to Kabul. Before that, they had conquered the other provinces of the country, and Kabul could be next. But it was shocking and so horrible that it happened in a day. I mean, I can’t say that day was a normal day in the beginning, but we were just having breakfast and I was thinking if I should start studying for tests that we could have the next day.   I was in the middle of studying when the neighbours told my mom that they had arrived. That was when we were all in panic and we started burning the documents of my whole family, especially of my father who had passed away a month after I was born. And it was so shocking because, from what I remember, I was feeling like Kabul and Afghanistan—our whole country—was kind of trapped with the Taliban, people who did not believe in democracy and in women’s rights or in human rights in general. And I felt like the world had shut their eyes on us. It was just a very difficult situation. That’s all I could say.   CJLPA : Thank you for sharing that. And going back to your upbringing, and having just spoken about how you have lost your father at such a young age when you were only a few months old, in regard to the Taliban’s requirement that men accompany women on outings, how did not having a male chaperone in your family affect you and your mother? Were there hardships specific to your family dynamic because of this?   NI : My father passed away a month after I was born, so in the first period of the Taliban coming to Afghanistan, I was not born. I have just heard the stories that my mom told me about her not being able to go outside the home without a man because it wasn’t allowed during that time. And I think, even if women have the mindset that they are independent, by these small rules, it can change by the passage of time. Them having to rely on a man for doing small things like going out to go shopping or for a walk, all of these things can affect their mindset in the long run of them thinking that they’re dependent on men. I think it’s a whole big philosophy in general—men and women and their rights—but what I know is that they should have equal rights. But that wasn’t the case back then. And I think, now that the Taliban are in Afghanistan, it’s going to happen by the passage of time. I hear from the people back home that girls with different coverages, who aren’t more modest, are going to be taken by the Taliban and God knows what will happen to them. So they have no other choice than having a male chaperone wherever they go.   CJLPA : Do you think that because of that—and how it starts affecting the mindset—the people around you, girls around you, start almost vocalising the same beliefs in the sense that women shouldn’t be doing this, women shouldn’t be working, women shouldn’t be receiving an education? Or do you think it’s more of a response of protesting ‘this is outrageous, and this is not what should be happening’? Where does it fall under the spectrum with this psychological manipulation of evoking these thoughts?   NI : I think it really depends on women and their backgrounds before the Taliban came and took the regime in Afghanistan. There are different families with different mindsets, so it really depends on the family’s mindset as well, where the women are brought up. I know people who protested after the Taliban came but they were shut down because it wasn’t appreciated, of course, by the Taliban. They were hit, they were beaten, and some of the leaders of those protests were taken away by the Taliban. And there were some other people who just appreciated the Taliban coming to Afghanistan, because they shared the same extremist beliefs with the Taliban. I think it really depends on who we are talking about.   But I can assure you that the girls and women who have been educated in these 20 years from the break of the first period of Taliban ruling over Afghanistan, those people actually were protesting, they were not welcoming all of those changes suddenly in their lives. And I think they are still working for it but it’s just hard when you cannot control anything and you have a government that does not support you.   CJLPA : Could you briefly discuss some of the opposition that you were involved with before you had to leave Afghanistan? Was there ever a point where you considered not opposing the Taliban out of fear for you or your family’s safety?   NI : When I posted that video,   prior (to the Taliban coming to Afghanistan), I was in a position with the government because they wanted to ban girls over the age of 12 from singing in public—that included me. So it was scary to do that because of the things my mom had told me about the Taliban, the possibility of the Taliban coming to Afghanistan, and me being at risk because of speaking up against rules that the Taliban would have appreciated as well if they were in the government, because they’re against girls’ education, against girls’ activism, against singing. So it was a bit risky and hard to do that. But, despite the risks and challenges, I did that because I believed that if I cannot have a life that I lead, that’s worth nothing. So I tried to talk to my mom, and I did convince her but it wasn’t easy.   CJLPA : What did your family think of your advocacy just in general? You mentioned that the older generations tend to comply easier in situations of oppression because they have been subjugated in the past. Did they try to deter you from speaking in any way or express any thoughts about how you should go about it?   NI : So, my mom has lived during the first period of the Taliban coming to Afghanistan. And, of course, as I said, the small rules in the daily life of a woman can really change the mindset that she has in her own life. And I think my mom is more cautious now because she knows how cruel and mindless the Taliban can be. She tried to convince me not to post that video. And I think it’s all because of that mindset, and because of having to live with the Taliban in the first period. But because we were lucky to be in a family where we were all educated, and we had gone to a prestigious school that taught us about democracy, about being confident in our own skin to talk about or ask for our rights, we could help our mom be with us in that journey. But not everyone is able to have that. Education overall is the key to all of these problems.   CJLPA : Before you had to leave Afghanistan, I know you said you saved your school reports. I wanted to ask what the school reports basically represented to you, and whether you saved any other items, and what these meant to you as well?   NI : So, after the fall, there were many things that I really wanted to take with me. They were my TOEFL [Test of English as a Foreign Language] books, my novels—not the novels that I had written, the novels that I had read. Most the things I could not take with me. But the most important one was my journal. I was journalling every single day, from June of that year until August. And I had written every single day from 15 August until we went to Pakistan. I kept writing and writing and writing, because during the fall, I came upon a quote that said: ‘When you can’t control something, when you’re going through stuff, try to write it down because it helps with your mental health and your state of mind’. I was feeling that what I was going through was not just for me and the world should not be ignorant about it. They should know about what’s happening because it’s not only about Afghanistan, it’s about a part of the world in the 21st century. And it’s shocking that it’s happening so I’m sure everyone wants to know about it.   So that was really important for me, my school reports as well, because it was all I had worked for. I remember when I was in first grade, I was so excited to get one of those certificates of appreciation. And as a child, that was my dream to have many. And when I got all of them, I could not think of burning them along with the other family documents that we had burned. So I tried to take the risk of bringing them to Pakistan and I did.   CJLPA : In the process of having to leave Afghanistan, do you remember in your friendship group or circle, were the girls around your age also trying to leave and they weren’t able to?   NI : So the day before 15 August, we were just at school, we had our tests. And I remember my friends and I were joking about having to wear burkas again because it felt impossible for us to be forced to wear them again. And I mean, it happened the other day and it was just so shocking, it was surreal.   I did not know then that I was going to leave on 20 August. I had not seen my friends for five days after that test and I was not in contact with them. But when I got to Pakistan, I really talked to my friends and I was urging them to leave Afghanistan. But, I think because they were in a bad mental state, and also because their families’ decisions really differed from the way we thought, they decided to stay. During that time, after that test, I wasn’t in touch with my friends at all. But from what I know, some of my other friends got out as well, and now they are in other countries like the US.   CJLPA : Now, at this point, since the Taliban came back to power over the years, it’s just gotten worse and worse. We see what’s been occurring in terms of women’s rights continuing to be limited. How difficult now would it be to leave? Is it sort of when they first came to power that was the moment to leave and now it’s just impossible, or do you know how that process is from people you still know there?   NI : I’m not really sure about that process of leaving now because their policies. The only way out, I guess, for girls is to be with a male chaperone—I don’t mean on the streets, I mean to leave the whole country, they have to be with someone who is male. For example, most of the people or the girls who are getting scholarships from the US or Canada or any other country in the West, they have to be with a male chaperone to travel to Pakistan and then their visa applications and all of that process is going to be taken and processed from that country. And I think the Taliban would not appreciate that in Afghanistan so it has to be done in another country.   CJLPA : Building on that, I would like to further engage with you in terms of the international community’s response. The era Afghanistan is now facing is a direct consequence from the US pulling out in Afghanistan. What were your thoughts about the US pulling out initially?   NI : During July and August of that year, there were many conferences with the US and our country, and Zalmay Khalilzad, who were talking about bringing peace, and they were signing contracts with the Taliban. I was a teenager—I think I was 14 at the time—I was hopeful and optimistic that things were going to change and I wouldn’t have to leave my country because I was planning to get a scholarship and study in the West. But there was this dark side to all of that, they were just what was on the screen.   As I spoke about in my speech in Geneva, when President Biden talked about having to leave Afghanistan with the army, he had talked with a couple of teenage girls, and one of them had said: ‘You cannot leave because if you leave, I will not be able to become a doctor. That’s a dream of mine’. And I think millions of girls in Afghanistan can relate to what she said there. So what I can say about the US getting out of Afghanistan is that if they had started the peace negotiations, at least there could have been some resolution, there could have been some results. But instead, they left and did not finish what they started.   CJLPA : On that basis, I don’t know if this is a discussion that you’ve previously had with your mother or other generations before, but how do they actually feel about having a Western presence in Afghanistan? Because usually, in those other circumstances, it’s all about wanting to get them out of the country and be our own independent country—’We don’t need the US or other Western countries to save us or to dictate our politics’. Was there any sort of sentiment of that kind before the Taliban came to power?   NI : I haven’t had any conversations like this with my mom because it wasn’t a struggle for my mom that Westerners were helping us build our country, because—this is what I think—when it comes to peace, or building peace in a country that is developing and is not developed, the countries who believe that every country should have the rights, or should have the state to develop, they should help. And I don’t think it’s about where they come from or the religion. But I just think when it comes to helping one another, we should take a step forward. Growing up, I don’t remember talking about this with my mom or my family because it wasn’t something that we really talked about. It was much appreciated that other countries—not only the US—were helping Afghanistan during these 20 years. I think that was much appreciated.   CJLPA : And on that note, do you think the Western presence such as the US is what Afghanistan needs for potentially a certain amount of decades before it can be its own independent country without needing that Western support? Or do you think Afghanistan could never truly be free and democratic without having the US or other Western countries present to sort of prevent the Taliban from regaining control?   NI : The hard part about my advocacy is that I do not have the solution to these political complexities. And I do not know what could happen and what should happen in that case.   CJLPA : Taking the focus back to how young women and girls in Afghanistan are coping with daily life, there are reports of secret schools that have been opened to provide education for girls. How effective are these schools in combating the Taliban’s ban for education for girls?   NI : I think online schools or secret schools should be appreciated. They do need help and I think if we do help them, it can change—a small amount, but still, it’s better than nothing. But generally, overall, it cannot be compared to the right of education of every girl being able to go to school like publicly, really, because there are girls who are not in that good economic situation to have access to the internet or electricity. It’s really a privilege, I guess, to have that now in Afghanistan because there aren’t many job opportunities as well. And it’s getting worse and worse. And maybe as the family’s economic situation is getting worse, they’re not going to be as worried about their girls’ education.   That’s a nightmare, because the future of my country is all about education and keeping everyone informed about things. But if all of their daily struggle is to think about whether they have something to eat or drink that day or that night, their minds are going to be limited to just that. And it’s going to affect a lot of things in the long run, especially the education of girls and boys, because boys are now being forced to work outside of their homes in order to support their families. And it can really shift their focus from studying to working as well. So overall, everyone is in a very bad state.   CJLPA : Can you speak further on what life is like for your friends who are still in Afghanistan? You mentioned that people are really struggling to survive out there, so have you heard back about what’s been happening to your friends?   NI : My friends, most of them are depressed. When I talk to them and ask them about their days, they’re just tired of being in their homes like prisoners all day having to do nothing overall. And most of them are not in a very good economic situation. So they’re basically busy with house chores, which is not what I really wanted them to be busy with, because it affects their mindset in the long run. And also, they’re depressed because they cannot go outside freely. And every day, they cannot study—I think it’s not allowed to own books publicly. It’s just a nightmare. They were allowed to go to educational centres like English or art courses, but they’ve been banned from doing that as well. And I think it’s gonna get worse and worse every single day for them.   CJLPA : How can we, in the West, help? After everything you’ve endured or the loss that you’ve suffered, how do you empower yourself as a woman?   NI : I think in the part of supporting Afghan girls, we can support online schools and the secret schools that are active in Afghanistan. This can educate a small amount of the population in Afghanistan and that is something that we can do.   How do I empower myself as a woman? I think that’s a very hard question for me to answer but I just tried to keep believing in myself and in the power that each woman and man holds. Because I think we’re focusing too much on women that we forget that men and women should stand together. I define feminism as equality between men and women, and we should focus on both. But generally, because Afghan girls are in a much riskier situation, it’s appreciated that we help those online schools and secret schools.   CJLPA : Could you speak a bit more about, in an ideal world, what the future of Afghanistan looks like? Is it more like how it was when the US was there or do you see a better, alternative future for your country that you would like to envision one day?   NI : If I’m being optimistic, if the western countries and put pressure on the current regime so that they rethink some of their policies, I think we would have a better Afghanistan—at least, better than when I was back home, because when I was living in Afghanistan we weren’t safe either because there were explosions happening in educational centres. There was a risk of an explosion happening at our school because it was very prestigious and we had received threats from the Taliban. So every single day, when I left home, I did not know if I was going to come back. I even had dreams about explosions happening at our school.   But I just hope that now that the Taliban are in control, they will just rethink their policies because they are in power so I do not understand what else they want. And I think, if they do so, we will have a much better country with opportunities, job opportunities, for both men and women, where they can work together for a better future.   CJLPA : Thank you Nila and I think that was also beautifully said and really addresses the crucial points. On a final note, what is the lasting message you want readers and viewers to think about in terms of the current situation for Afghanistan, to spread awareness?   NI : I just want to say to the world that I’m 16 years old, but I keep talking about political matters while I should be just in school. It has put a lot of pressure on me, but I think what you can do as adults is help raise awareness. People who have power and influence: put pressure on the current regime so that we can change things, so that we can support those innocent girls who are locked up in their homes, stripped of their basic human rights. If you believe in human rights, if you believe in women’s rights, and a better future, you should be taking a step. Because if you do not, I do not know why you should be calling yourself a human rights activist. So just do not forget the girls and the people of Afghanistan. This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, the Legal Editor and Founder of CJLPA’s Special Edition, ‘The Human Agenda’. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is a qualified lawyer in England & Wales specializing in public international law.

Ali Safavi is a member of Iran’s Parliament in Exile, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and President of Near East Policy Research (NEPR), a consulting and policy analysis firm in Washington, DC. A sociologist by career, Safavi studied and taught at UCLA, California State University Los Angeles and University of Michigan from 1972 until 1981. An activist during the anti-Shah student movement in the 1970s in the US, Safavi has been involved in Iranian affairs since then and has lectured and written extensively on issues related to Iran, Iraq, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and the political process in the Middle East. This interview was conducted on 4 November 2023.   Personal Introduction   CJLPA : Can you elaborate on your role and experiences as an activist during the Anti-Shah protests in the 1970s and your involvement in the student movement in the US during that period?   Ali Safavi : Before the revolution, I pursued studies in sociology at UCLA and taught at California State University, and the University of Michigan from 1972 to 1981. My older brother, Hossein, who was later executed by the clerical regime at the age of 29, was also studying in the US at that time. He focused on aerospace engineering at Northrop University in California and was a prolific writer and editor. Both Hossein and I actively participated in the vibrant anti-Shah student movement of the 1970s. We distributed pamphlets and reading materials opposing the Shah’s corrupt dictatorship, participated in meetings, conferences, and protests by Iranian students in Los Angeles, the Bay area, and elsewhere.   The plight of political prisoners, especially the leaders of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) also known by its Farsi name, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), deeply resonated with us in the mid-1970s. The MEK, initially operating underground during the mid-1960s, gained widespread recognition in 1971 after the arrest of most of its leaders and members. Figures like Mehdi Rezaei became prominent in the struggle. At only 19, Mehdi Rezaei delivered a poignant and historic discourse against the Shah during a military tribunal, knowing it would lead to severe torture and his execution. His sacrifices earned him the affectionate nickname ‘the rose of the revolution’ among the Iranian people, and he was executed by a firing squad in 1972. Mehdi Rezaei’s impact on society was so significant that Ahmad Shamlou, arguably Iran’s most famous poet, dedicated an entire poem in his honor.   The struggle, conviction, bravery, and perseverance under SAVAK’s brutal tortures of individuals like Mehdi Rezaei and Ali Asghar Badizadegan, one of MEK’s three original founders, inspired many students studying abroad, including myself. Badizadegan, despite enduring unspeakable agony, remained silent and was executed in May 1972. My understanding of the MEK deepened through reading the last defense of their leadership, including Massoud Rajavi, at the Shah’s military tribunals and their books smuggled out of Iran.   The historic protests against the Shah’s visit to the US in November 1977 crystallized dissent. Tear gas filled the air as students confronted the regime, capturing an iconic moment of the Shah wiping his tears, induced by the gas, behind President Carter’s podium at the White House. Mohammad Hanifnejad, the founder of the MEK, prophetically declared days before his execution, ‘Our deaths will serve to motivate and fuel the future struggles of our people’. Time has become the arbiter of truth, validating his foresight. Since those tumultuous days, the legacy of sacrifice has reverberated, becoming the catalyst for enduring struggles, and I am humbled to have played a very modest role in this historic odyssey.   CJLPA : Building on your experiences during the Anti-Shah student movement, are there specific incidents or encounters that significantly shaped your views on activism and the political landscape in Iran?   AS : My intellectual journey and political convictions during that period were shaped by numerous small and significant episodes and interactions. Two pivotal chapters, however, stand out as prominent markers.   The first chapter unfolded with the discovery of a new movement known as the MEK. Founded by visionary Muslim intellectuals—Mohammad Hanifnejad, Saeed Mohsen, and Ali Asghar Badizadegan—in September 1965, the organization aimed to replace the Shah’s dictatorship with a democratic and secular republic. The organization rooted its principles in a progressive and tolerant interpretation of Islam, presenting a counter-narrative to the rigid and medieval views propagated by clerics. Their remarkable achievement lay in their meticulous exploration of the Holy Quran and the Nahj al-Balagha (Path of Eloquence), authored by Ali, the first Shiite Imam. Through an in-depth examination of the teachings and traditions of Prophet Mohammed and the Shiite Imams, they successfully unearthed the authentic and original ethos and teachings of Islam. This endeavour effectively dispelled the misrepresentations of the religion that had been skewed by despotic leaders to further their own ends, thus unveiling the genuine, enlightened essence of Islam.   This historic overhaul extended to the understanding of God, human evolution, gender relations, social dynamics, and concepts such as the afterlife, jurisprudence, Islamic rituals, and history. The broad revitalization of Islamic philosophy was a stark departure from the self-serving narratives woven by the mullahs, who had wielded Islam for centuries as a tool of profit. As a young university student in the US, encountering this rejuvenating and modern outlook invigorated my belief in individual agency and a personal connection with God. It harmonized my revived personal beliefs with the political vision of establishing a modern, secular, and democratic state in my homeland that respects human rights for the first time in its history. Back then, progressive Islamic thinking did not exist. Instead, Marxist ideas held sway in more underdeveloped countries like Iran, where the intelligentsia had been greatly impacted by the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Tsarist Russia. The MEK founders, and subsequently, Massoud Rajavi, the sole surviving member of its original leadership, offered Iranians opposing the Shah an alternative vision, one that rejected Marxist materialist philosophy and concepts.   The second chapter was when my curiosity led me to Neauphle-le-Château outside Paris in 1978 to explore the rising figure of Khomeini. At the time, he was positioning himself as the leader of the anti-Shah revolution with the help of Western media. Interactions with Khomeini himself and his supporters during this pivotal moment left me convinced that they were fundamentalists driven solely by the pursuit of power. My fortuitous departure from France, preceding the revolution, afforded me a firsthand understanding of Khomeini’s true colours. ‘This is too good to be true’, I recall telling one of my friends as I was about to depart for the airport to return to the States. This lived experience solidified my belief in the MEK as the singular ideological, cultural, and political alternative to the imminent havoc orchestrated by the mullahs. Thousands of young individuals, like myself, were gradually awakening to this political reality, distancing themselves from the right-wing Islamic fundamentalist wing of the revolution as well as the extremist leftists. Without the MEK, many more would have been subsumed by the mullahs’ fundamentalist ideology, and Khomeini would have been able to realize his dream of an Islamic Caliphate.   CJLPA : Considering the historical challenges faced by the MEK and other opposition groups, what strategies do you believe are crucial for fostering unity and resilience within the opposition, especially in the face of evolving political dynamics?   AS :   In forging solidarity against the Iranian regime, two critical factors must be embraced:   1) A resolute demand for the complete overthrow of the regime, including the disbanding of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and an unequivocal rejection of the velayat-e faqih  (absolute clerical rule) along with all its internal factions.   2) A shared commitment to establishing a democratic and independent republic founded on the separation of religion and state. This delineates the key common grounds essential for the formation of a potent political coalition against the current regime. In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) proposed the formation of the National Solidarity Front with the explicit goal of overthrowing Iran’s ruling religious tyranny. Within this framework, the NCRI expressed its readiness to collaborate with other political forces based on three simple principles: rejecting the velayat-e faqih  system and its factions, advocating the separation of religion and state, and the commitment to a republic, while rejecting all forms of dictatorship. This proposal has been steadfastly presented for over two decades, and the NCRI remains committed to it.   CJLPA : Given the role of youth in recent protests, how can their engagement contribute to the realization of a democratic Iran and the protection of human rights?   AS : The 2022-23 protests in Iran have highlighted the crucial roles played by young people and women, showcasing their leadership and resilience. Despite the regime’s propaganda and Western appeasement, these demonstrations show the progress of Iranian society, especially in the elevated status and involvement of women. Young women fearlessly took the lead in the protests, confronting the Revolutionary Guards and organizing widespread demonstrations. These were not spontaneous actions with no historical precedent. The uprisings are the culmination of over 40 years of struggle by the Iranian people, marked by significant sacrifices such as the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Women, in particular, have played a pivotal role in steering the resistance, guiding and mobilizing the youth in various instances of protest, reflecting a collective aspiration for substantial change. Thousands of young people are actively participating in the MEK-affiliated Resistance Units inside Iran.   Despite facing brutal repression, with over 750 protestors killed by the IRGC in 2022, the situation remains volatile, characterized by increased strikes and protests. The uprising, led by youth, unequivocally illustrates the Iranian people’s yearning to end religious dictatorship and establish a republic based on free elections and democratic values. It has exposed and rejected false alternatives, underscoring the pivotal role of the youth, especially women, in the Resistance Units. Young people are also actively engaged abroad, particularly in leading demonstrations in world capitals against the regime. The annual Free Iran World Summit witnesses numerous young Iranians advocating for a free and democratic country. Additionally, many youths are present in Ashraf-3, Albania, home to thousands of members of the MEK, which stands at the heart of advocacy for freedom and human rights in Iran. Human Rights Violations   CJLPA : Expanding on your critique of the Iranian regime, could you provide examples of specific instances where political, religious, and socio-political rights have been systematically violated?   AS : The Iranian regime is fundamentally ingrained with the systematic violation of basic freedoms and rights, constituting an integral part of its core identity. This regime is built on two fundamental principles: domestic suppression to counter the absence of popular consent and terrorism abroad aimed at imposing its medieval ideology on the modern international order. The origins of the regime’s oppressive tactics can be traced back to its inception, driven by the necessity to enforce its medieval religious rule against the prevailing desire of the people for a modern, secular state. However, the wholesale reign of terror reached a turning point with the uprising on 20 June 1981. That is when millions across the nation, with half a million in Tehran alone, peacefully protested against the regime’s efforts to monopolize power. The response was swift and brutal, involving mass arrests, torture, and executions. Detained protesters, enduring severe torture, remained resilient, refusing to divulge even their identities. The ensuing reign of terror reached its apex in the 1988 massacre. In 1988, facing strategic and existential challenges on the verge of his demise, Khomeini issued a handwritten religious decree, instructing the complete extermination of political prisoners, predominantly members of the main opposition MEK. This heinous act claimed the lives of 30,000 political prisoners, over 90% of whom were MEK members. The massacre, labelled by Amnesty International and legal experts as a ‘crime against humanity’, was seen by some scholars as a genocide, orchestrated to eliminate a population with differing religious beliefs.   The regime’s relentless assault on dissent continues today. Political dissidents and peaceful protesters are systematically arrested, tortured, and executed. Amnesty International and the United Nations have documented thousands killed and tens of thousands imprisoned and tortured during the nationwide uprisings in 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2022. The regime boasts the dubious distinction of having the highest per capita execution rate, underscoring its ruthlessness. In 2023 alone, more than 864 have been executed, including many dissidents and members of Baluchi, Sunni, and Arab minorities. Moreover, it stands as one of the most misogynistic regimes globally, perpetuating systematic violations of women’s basic rights, curtailing their freedom of attire, and restricting their participation in socio-political life.   CJLPA : In the recent crackdown on protestors, how do you see the Iranian government’s actions impacting the rights to fair trial, freedom of association, and the right to life?   AS : The regime has killed and imprisoned thousands of peaceful protesters in recent years. In 2019 alone, the regime massacred over 1,500 protesters. The mullahs lack a genuine popular support base, relying instead on repression and exploiting Western appeasement to maintain their grip on power. Faced with protests, the regime’s response has been marked by the use of lethal force against unarmed demonstrators, resulting in widespread killings and torture. Regime officials openly issue harsh crackdown orders, leading to the deaths of numerous young men and women, as evidenced by available footage and documents. Amnesty International has verified the killing of children during these protests, and the regime has resorted to mass arrests, conducting house-to-house searches in certain cities. The regime’s tactics include physically assaulting protesters, inflicting injuries such as blinding them with pellet guns, and deliberately shutting down the Internet to suppress news coverage of the atrocities. Despite the severity of this extensive and brutal crackdown, international reactions have regrettably been limited.   In a report published on 6 December 2023, entitled ‘Iran: Security forces used rape and other sexual violence to crush “Woman Life Freedom” uprising with impunity’, Amnesty International provided harrowing details on the use of sexual violence and rape by the security forces and judiciary enforcers against young men and women alike. To quote Amnesty International’s Secretary-General Agnés Callamard:   Our research exposes how intelligence and security agents in Iran used rape and other sexual violence to torture, punish and inflict lasting physical and psychological damage on protesters, including children as young as 12. The harrowing testimonies we collected point to a wider pattern in the use of sexual violence as a key weapon in the Iranian authorities’ armoury of repression of the protests and suppression of dissent to cling to power at all costs. [1]   CJLPA : Mahsa Amini’s tragic case highlights a challenge to freedom of expression. In your view, how does the government’s response impact not only women’s rights but also broader rights related to expression and dissent?   AS : This tragic case transcends mere freedom of expression; it shows the inherent misogyny embedded in the Iranian regime’s DNA. Despite the pivotal role Iranian women played in toppling the Shah’s dictatorship, they have endured over 40 years as worse than second-class citizens, systematically excluded from sociopolitical engagement. The mandatory veiling imposed on women serves as a blatant manifestation of the regime’s assault on fundamental freedoms.   The 2022 uprising, catalysed by the tragic death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the regime’s security forces, symbolized a resounding call for freedom and democracy. It constituted a firm rejection of the theocracy grounded in the velayat-e faqih  principle, overwhelmingly perceived as a fundamental impediment to freedom, democracy, and economic prosperity. The uprising underscored that the younger generations are aligned in their demand to dismantle all forms of dictatorship in Iran, including the monarchy that preceded the clerical regime and empowered the mullahs.   The slogans echoed by the protestors, coupled with the high price paid in the form of torture and death, exemplified their unwavering commitment to a vision of a secular, free, and democratic republic in Iran. This envisioned Iran would prioritize economic progress over nuclear armament and foster peaceful relations with its neighbours. Conversely, the regime’s response underscored its utter intolerance for dissent, brutally suppressing calls for basic freedoms and rights and proving to the world that it must be overthrown.   CJLPA : How does the intertwining of theocracy with governance contribute to human rights violations in Iran?   AS : The ruling religious dictatorship in Iran systematically violates the fundamental rights of its populace, undermining the essence of human existence. It suppresses political opposition, curtails freedom of expression, and discriminates against minorities and women, all under the banner of Islam. The regime has perpetrated mass executions, denied the right to free elections, and established an absolute totalitarian state. Egregious violations include the brutal war on the people of Kurdistan, atrocities against Arabs in Khuzestan, systematic killing of the Baluchis in the southeast, and widespread execution and imprisonment of MEK members. Unresolved dossiers include political killings like the chain murders, mutilation of Christian priests in the 1990s, the Qazvin uprising in 1993, and crimes in Kahrizak prison in 2009. The theocratic regime strips Iranians of their right to determine their future, claiming to act as God’s representatives. All non-regime political activity, associations, gatherings, newspapers, and information dissemination are strictly prohibited. Opposition to the regime, especially with the MEK, results in severe punishment.   Religious persecution targets dissidents and followers of various religions, with inquisition, excommunication, and charges of apostasy used for suppression. Gender discrimination persists in civil laws, with corporal punishments, torture, and flogging. Women face state-backed oppression, including acid attacks, compulsory veiling, and extensive monitoring. Iran’s diverse ethnic groups suffer systematic deprivation of equal rights, essential services, and communication in their mother tongue. Property rights violations involve confiscation of opponents’ properties, exploitation of public lands, and looting profitable enterprises, enabling control of over half the country’s Gross National Product by Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards. Workers’ rights, student associations, and the right to form independent syndicates are systematically denied. Families are denied knowledge of their loved ones massacred in 1988, as the regime obscures mass graves. The regime’s crimes are committed under the guise of acting on behalf of God and Islam, contrasting with the MEK’s opposing reading of Islam, making them the antithesis to the regime’s existence. The regime attempted to annihilate the MEK to justify its crimes under Islamic teachings.   CJLPA : You highlighted the elevation of individuals implicated in the 1988 massacre to prominent positions, including President Ebrahim Raisi and others in his cabinet. How do you see the composition of Raisi’s cabinet impacting the prospects for human rights and the rule of law in Iran?   AS : Raisi’s cabinet is alarming due to its inclusion of individuals with backgrounds steeped in terrorism, embezzlement, and mass murder. The entire Iranian regime, not just specific cabinets, has thwarted any prospects for improvements in human rights. Nevertheless, the composition of Raisi’s cabinet carries significant implications. Raisi himself, a member of the Death Commissions in 1988, holds a dark history responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of political prisoners. Khamenei’s strategic choice of Raisi as president indicates the regime’s dire need for a proven henchman to suppress current popular protests and forestall its potential downfall. Despite Raisi’s brutal crackdown, which has resulted in 1,777 executions since he took office, the Iranian people remain committed to overthrow the regime. The regime’s oppressive measures have failed to quell rising protests, indicating that the Iranian people refuse to succumb to intimidation and terror. The human rights situation is poised to rapidly deteriorate further under Raisi’s administration.   CJLPA : Given the prevalent human rights violations and lack of accountability in Iran, what specific measures do you believe should be taken to achieve justice, especially for the victims of the 1988 massacre (historical human rights abuses) and recent crackdowns on protestors?   AS : Ali Khamenei, Ebrahim Raisi, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei, and other regime leaders must face justice for genocide and crimes against humanity. The Iranian regime’s human rights dossier, particularly the 1988 massacre, should be referred to the UN Security Council for further action. The truth is that if the regime is not held accountable for its past crimes, its future crimes will be inevitable.   CJLPA : Beyond the political sphere, how have accusations of corruption and lack of transparency affected the social fabric of Iranian society, and how do these issues contribute to human rights concerns?   AS : The regime’s systematic and rampant corruption has unleashed the forces of poverty and social exclusion. Official reports indicate a doubling of people below the absolute poverty line, with an estimated 36 million individuals falling into poverty in 2020. A staggering 70% of Iranian society reportedly lives below the poverty line, according to a member of parliament. Uneven wealth accumulation has resulted in a significant surge in commodity prices for average citizens. The overall cost of living has surged, exacerbating the challenges faced by women and families, especially amid the twin crises of poverty and the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. Many Iranians are grappling with dire needs for food, housing, medical care, clothing, and other essentials, compounded by a decline in income and a drastic rise in everyday expenses.   The economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic has pushed numerous businesses to the brink of bankruptcy, resulting in widespread job losses. Some food items have witnessed a staggering 90% price increase, and housing rentals have multiplied. The escalating poverty line and pervasive inflation contribute to a disturbing rise in child marriages. The situation is particularly dire for women in Iran. Extreme poverty has led to severe employment inequality, with a decline in the number of working women and a disproportionate impact on them during the pandemic. The majority of working women are engaged in informal employment, making up 60% of employment in Iran, exposing them to greater vulnerabilities, particularly concerning health, safety, and labour laws.   These economic dynamics are influenced by endemic corruption. The integration of military forces into economic activities and rapid privatization policies has led to the concentration of wealth among the elite. The result is a stark contrast between the colossal wealth amassed by less than one percent of the population, including the offspring of state officials, and the poverty experienced by millions of Iranians.   Corruption has permeated almost every sector, leading to the manipulation of resources such as water, control over university entrance exams, and the erosion of free education. Transparency International’s report ranks Iran 147th out of 180 countries in terms of economic and administrative corruption. The state-run ‘Rokna’ website reported on 26 September 2023 that:   In a troubling situation where 7,000 schools across the country lack basic amenities like drinking water and sanitary facilities, it has come to light that students from affluent families in Tehran are opting to order food from the upscale school menus for their daily lunch. [2]   A significant share of oil revenues is allocated towards domestic suppression and sponsoring terrorism abroad. The ongoing nationwide protests since 2017 are a manifestation of the people’s understanding that corruption and poverty will only end with the overthrow of the clerical dictatorship.   The National Council of Resistance in Iran: Partnering with the International Community CJLPA : In advocating for democracy, what role does the NCRI play in addressing the rights and freedoms you’ve highlighted?   AS : The NCRI fulfils a pivotal role by showing a path forward for the Iranian people and the global community—an alternative that stands ready to usher in a new era post-regime. Central to this vision is the NCRI President-elect Maryam Rajavi’s 10-Point Plan, a visionary blueprint that upholds fundamental principles such as human rights, gender equality, minority rights, the separation of religion and state, and the abolition of the death penalty. This plan serves as both a compass and a foundation for the future of Iranian politics. The NCRI has strategically directed its central energy towards shaping the future trajectory of Iran. Comprising twenty-five committees, the NCRI actively exposes the regime’s manifold abuses, shedding light on the socio-economic challenges plaguing Iranian society and proposing expert-backed solutions. Functioning as a dynamic hub, it mobilizes collective intellect to brainstorm, crowdsource ideas, and devise strategies for the extensive challenges that will confront a liberated Iran after the regime’s overthrow.   Moreover, the NCRI fosters a culture of open dialogue and tolerance through its extensive activities, gatherings, and frequent sessions. It is a tireless champion of inclusivity, diversity, and pluralism by serving as a microcosm of Iran’s rich mosaic of ethnicities, religious affiliations, and sociopolitical orientations. Over 40 years, it has endured and thrived as the longest-lasting political coalition in modern Iran, weathering formidable geopolitical challenges one after another.   Notably, the NCRI stands as a staunch advocate for women’s rights and freedoms. Beyond mere rhetoric, it integrates these values into its culture and historical identity, ensuring mechanisms, checks, and balances to safeguard women’s rights. With more than half of its members being women, including Maryam Rajavi herself, the NCRI exemplifies a commitment to women’s empowerment that extends beyond mere symbolism.   CJLPA : Considering the rights outlined in the NCRI’s ten-point plan and your writings, which do you see as most crucial at this point in time, and how does the NCRI navigate challenges in promoting these rights?   AS : These rights and freedoms constitute a comprehensive and interconnected framework, each reinforcing the other. As I mentioned earlier regarding the velayat-e faqih principle and the theocratic nature of the regime, the mullahs’ fundamental impediments have stifled these essential rights and freedoms. Consequently, the Iranian regime actively launches extensive demonization and vilification campaigns, particularly targeting the NCRI and its President-elect. The regime’s objective is to erase the concept of a viable alternative from the minds of both the Iranian people and the international community. Unfortunately, some elements in Western media and certain policymakers have shown a degree of susceptibility to the regime’s propaganda.   The Iranian reality is that there exists a modern, inclusive, tolerant, progressive, non-ideological, well-organized, financially-independent, and thoroughly representative democratic coalition embodied by the NCRI. It does not want foreign meddling or wars in Iran. All it asks for is moral support from the international community. This coalition stands as a compelling alternative to a fundamentalist, warmongering, and terrorist state. This pivotal narrative has been overlooked by the media for an extended period, to the detriment not only of the Iranian people but also of generations in democratic countries who have borne the strategic consequences of engaging with this regime. Just envision the potential impact if policymakers and public opinion influencers accurately portrayed the reality of the NCRI. It would have massive consequences not just for Iran but for the region and beyond.   CJLPA : The NCRI looks toward the international community for support in bringing about democratic change in Iran. How does the organization aim to balance its reliance on global backing while maintaining its independence and credibility as a genuine alternative to the current regime?   AS : The conflict between the clerical regime in Iran and its people has created a convergence of interests between the Iranian people and the global community. The epicentre of terrorism and warmongering, the head of the snake, if you will, lies in Tehran, prompting the Iranian Resistance to seek international support for democratic change. We are not asking western powers for direct intervention to overthrow the regime, but we are calling for a halt to misguided policies that have aided the oppressive regime, enabling it to prolong its rule and spread chaos in the Middle East. The Iranian Resistance urges an end to appeasement, emphasizing the right of the Iranian people to struggle for regime change and a free Iran. Concessions to the regime would only embolden its oppressive and terrorist policies. The West should categorize the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity, expel regime agents from European institutions, reinstate UN Security Council resolutions, and reimpose sanctions against the clerical regime. To curtail Khamenei and the IRGC’s financial resources, activating the snapback mechanism to prevent oil revenue influx is crucial. Recognizing the Iranian people’s fight against the regime and the youth’s resistance to the IRGC is paramount. The call for justice involves holding regime leaders like Khamenei, Raisi, its Judiciary Chief Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei, and others accountable for genocide and ongoing crimes against humanity. These measures underscore the actions the international community can take. The Iranian Resistance, steadfastly relying on the Iranian people, remains independent in its pursuit of democratic change.   CJLPA : The ten-point plan outlines an ambitious vision for the future of Iran. What practical steps and strategies does the NCRI envision to gradually implement these points, especially considering the complex socio-political landscape in the aftermath of the current regime?   AS : A central mission of the NCRI is to conduct transparent elections for a national and constituent assembly within six months, steering Iran toward a democratic trajectory. This commitment stands as a stark repudiation of failed theocratic and monarchical models, echoing the NCRI’s foundational declaration of ‘no to the Shah and no to the mullahs’. Embracing principles of freedom, people’s sovereignty, and gender equality, the NCRI is a counterforce to regimes built on torture, murder, plunder, treachery, and deprivation. Rooted in the struggle against the Shah and the subsequent oppressive rule of the mullahs, the NCRI emphasizes the transfer of sovereignty to the Iranian people post-regime overthrow. This commitment is encapsulated in the NCRI platform’s recognition of the people’s right to determine their destiny, a principle further refined by the need to provide resources and avenues for citizens’ active participation in decision-making.   Beyond its foundational principles, the NCRI has been instrumental in fostering cooperation among disparate groups opposed to the regime’s tyranny. The 2002 ratification of the Plan for the National Solidarity Front underscores the NCRI’s openness to collaborating with forces seeking a democratic, independent republic divorced from the monarchy or religious dictatorship. Confronting the rise of religious fascism, the NCRI formulated the Plan on Provisional Government’s Relations with Religion in 1985, categorically rejecting religious coercion and advocating for equal rights irrespective of religious beliefs. The 1981 NCRI Platform, advocating for equal political and social rights and the elimination of gender, ethnic, and religious privileges, remains a cornerstone.   The NCRI’s commitment extends to addressing the oppression faced by women in Iran. For over three decades, the NCRI has championed a plan to eliminate gender inequalities, inspiring Iranian women to actively engage in the struggle for freedom and equality. To this end, the Mrs. Rajavi has articulated a detailed 12-Point Plan on the rights and freedoms of women. Autonomy for oppressed ethnic minorities has been a consistent focus, with the NCRI presenting a comprehensive 12-point plan for the Autonomy of Iranian Kurdistan in 1983. This enduring model reflects the NCRI’s dedication to solving post-Khomeini Iran’s problems while adhering to democratic principles and the people’s interests. Notably, the NCRI, pledging not to seek power but to transfer it to the Iranian people, has outlined a roadmap for a transitional government. Free elections for the National Constituent and Legislative Assembly within six months of the Transitional Government’s formation underscore the commitment to a peaceful transition of power. In internal relations, the NCRI diverges from traditional power balance dynamics, adopting a ‘one vote for every member’ principle regardless of organizational size. Decisions are based on a simple majority, with the NCRI President ensuring collective decision-making, fostering a truly democratic ethos. Amid the challenges of exile, the NCRI perseveres through debates and persuasion, emphasizing the importance of public opinion, general elections, and free public debates. This commitment to democratic ideals underscores the NCRI’s credibility, its enduring struggle, and its impactful role in inspiring progressive generations toward freedom.   CJLPA : You call for the International Criminal Court to adjudicate the 1988 massacre as a crime against humanity. Is it even possible for the ICC to do this, especially considering it is an institution that has been heavily criticized of being biased?   AS : There are varied perspectives regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC), but when it comes to its mandate, prosecuting individuals accountable for ongoing crimes against humanity undeniably falls within its scope. Practically speaking, the ICC has the authority to initiate proceedings against leaders of the clerical regime, as evidenced by its actions in comparable situations. Therefore, the primary issue isn’t the capability of the ICC or perceptions about it, but rather the political will to act, not only within the ICC itself but also across the broader international community. This highlights the need for a concerted global effort to address such crimes.   CJLPA : On the discussion of sanctions, how do economic measures impact the Iranian government’s behaviour regarding human rights, and are there alternative strategies worth exploring?   AS : To begin, it is a fallacy to presume that easing international sanctions will compel the Iranian regime to abandon its belligerent policies or improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Paradoxically, 2013’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or ‘Iran Deal’) saw a surge in the Iranian regime’s terrorism in the region and across Europe. Likewise, recent clandestine negotiations initiated by the US administration have emboldened the regime to escalate its acts of terrorism. In November, a prominent Spanish politician supporting the NCRI was shot in broad daylight, prompting police investigations into ties to the Iranian regime.   Concessions would only serve to bolster the mullahs further. The series of uprisings from 2017 to 2022 have shattered any illusions about the regime’s stability. The regime is now at its most vulnerable state, and providing assistance to it will only exacerbate the suffering of the Iranian people without averting its inevitable downfall. Consequently, while comprehensive sanctions remain crucial, they must be accompanied by additional measures as part of a broader policy of assertiveness against Tehran. Notably, this policy should encompass support for the organized resistance movement of the Iranian people and the acknowledgment of their right to self-defense.   Effectively addressing the Iranian regime necessitates three vital steps. First, the policy of easing sanctions must cease, activating the snapback mechanism and reinstating UN Security Council Resolutions. Second, both the US and the EU should formally recognize the Iranian people’s struggle for regime change. Third, the international community should endorse the legitimacy of the youth’s struggle against the terrorist IRGC. They are defending themselves against tyranny because the regime has closed all peaceful avenues. Increasing sanctions, recognizing the Iranian people’s struggle, and endorsing the youth’s resistance will convey a strong message to Tehran’s tyrants.   CJLPA : Considering the role of the current regime in perpetrating human rights abuses, do you think the regime is in a position to bring about genuine justice and uphold the rule of law in Iran? If not, what alternative mechanisms or entities could facilitate the establishment of justice in the country?   AS : The regime will never uphold genuine justice or rule of law. If anything, human rights are deteriorating significantly in Iran. The Iranian regime’s human rights dossier, particularly the 1988 massacre, should be referred to the UN Security Council for further action. If Western countries believe that the regime can improve human rights, then they should make any negotiations or normalization of ties contingent on the abolishment of the death penalty or improvement of human rights in Iran. Again, the only lasting solution lies in the overthrow of the regime in its entirety.   The Post-Regime and the Future   CJLPA : How can the building of democratic institutions address not only political rights but also social and economic rights in post-regime change Iran?   AS:  The Iranian people have endured two major dictatorships since the pivotal 1906 Constitutional Revolution, which aimed to establish a democratic parliament. Both Reza Khan and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah), and the clerical regime since 1979 have undermined the democratic achievements of their respective revolutions, monopolizing power and suppressing dissent. The recent protests reflect a collective awakening, with chants like ‘Death to the oppressor, be it the Shah or the Leader (Khamenei)’. The regime’s attempt to divert protests by resurrecting ‘Reza Khan’ underscores their fear of an alternative narrative.   In the early 1950s, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, a democratically elected leader, not only nationalized Iranian oil but also championed progressive legislation for women’s rights, workers, students, and families. Both the Shah and clerics resisted Mossadeq’s progressive reforms. They allied with foreign powers to overthrow his democratic and progressive government. When peaceful avenues for political representation were closed, socio-economic rights suffered under both regimes. Contrastingly, the NCRI upholds the legacy of the Constitutional revolution of 1906, Mossadeq’s ideals, and the 1979 anti-monarchical revolution. Advocating for the rule of law, elections, and a representative form of government, the Iranian people now aspire to establish a secular and democratic republic.   CJLPA : Considering the global audience, how can people and organizations worldwide express solidarity with the Iranian people and contribute to the cause of human rights and democracy?   AS :   People and organizations worldwide have voiced their support for the Iranian people and their organized opposition through their legislative bodies and elected representatives. Last year, 125 former world leaders endorsed the NCRI’s 10-Point Plan, as did 3,600 parliamentarians in 61 legislatures, including 29 majorities, in 40 countries. They can further support the Iranian people by compelling their executive branches to stop appeasing the mass-murdering theocracy. In   her 23 November 2023 visit to the European Parliament, Maryam Rajavi outlined the right approach for expressing solidarity with the Iranian people, stressing that ‘the head of the snake is in Tehran, the epicentre for the export of terrorism and warmongering’. She called on the international community to:   Place the IRGC on the terrorist list; Shut down the regime’s embassies in Europe; Expel the regime’s agents and spies from European institutions; Restore the UN Security Council’s six resolutions, consistent with Resolution 2231 and re-impose the sanctions against the clerical regime; Trigger the snapback mechanism to prevent oil revenues from pouring into the coffers of Khamenei and the IRGC; Recognize the Iranian people’s struggle for the regime’s overthrow and the young people’s fight against the IRGC. [3]   CJLPA : What do you see as the most formidable challenges for those advocating change in Iran, and how can these challenges be addressed effectively?   AS : Recently, Dr Alejo Vidal Quadras, a former European Parliament Vice President who was shot in the face on 9 November 2023 by agents suspected of having ties to the Iranian regime, said:   The West has tried to appease, to negotiate, to dialogue, and to make concessions. We have now all the evidence that this approach has not worked and it will never work. One can make the effort to compromise with a rational enemy. Reaching an agreement with irrational Absolute Evil is just impossible. [4]   Appeasing the Iranian regime and acquiescing to its demands and blackmail remain to be one of the main challenges. Western powers routinely either remain silent or facilitate restrictive measures against the organized opponents of the regime. This has led to a culture of impunity, which has only emboldened the medieval theocracy in furthering its abuses at home and its intransigence abroad.   CJLPA : Drawing parallels with historical revolutions, what lessons can be applied to the ongoing struggle for freedom in Iran, and how can the mistakes of the past be avoided? [5]   AS : The world can certainly learn some lessons from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. In 1938, he went to Munich to sign an international agreement with Hitler. He called it ‘peace for our time’. Hitler promised he had no more territorial demands to make in Europe. But, in less than a year, Chamberlain was forced to go to war with Germany. In his 5-minute speech to declare war, Chamberlain said that Hitler’s ‘action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force’. On 3 September 1939, he concluded: ‘Everything that I have worked for, everything that I have hoped for, everything that I believed in during my public life, has crashed into ruins’. Appeasing dictators is a dangerous game. That’s the first historical lesson.   The second lesson is around the importance of having an alternative after the overthrow of the theocracy in Iran. When addressing the alternative to the Iranian regime, it’s not a mere rhetorical claim but a robust framework steering the multifaceted struggle against the oppressive regime. The alternative functions as the guiding force, orchestrating the course of actions in this battle. It elucidates the necessary steps, defines the direction, sets priorities, and safeguards the Iranian people’s assets from the regime’s plundering machinations. In essence, the alternative serves as the benchmark in the quest for overthrowing the clerical regime.   To underscore the roots of this alternative, exemplified by the NCRI, it has been fortified through a protracted and challenging resistance against religious tyranny. This force opposing religious fascism has meticulously devised plans, developed a comprehensive program, and paid the price for its day-to-day defiance. In recent years, despite mounting difficulties, it has augmented its capacity to bear heavier responsibilities and confront the regime. An integral aspect of the alternative lies in maintaining political demarcations and upholding democratic principles. The alternative stands as a bulwark against the encroachments of the enemy while practicing honesty, sacrifice, and an unwavering commitment to the cause of freedom. In contemporary political discourse, there’s a proliferation of fabricated alternatives. However, the crux of the matter lies in their practical approach to bring down the existing regime. While fantastical visions of rapid change may be entertained, the hard realities dictate that the overthrow of the regime requires an organization with a sturdy political alternative.   Over the past century, Iran has witnessed the failures of two dominant currents: the despotic rule of monarchy and the subsequent religious dictatorship. The regimes of Reza Khan, his son Mohammad Reza, Khomeini, and Khamenei have all led Iran down paths of dependence, despotism, war, suppression, hunger, and disease. The rejection of both models—monarchy and religious tyranny—gave rise to the NCRI, founded on the unequivocal declaration of ‘No to the Shah and no to the mullahs’. This rejection is rooted in opposition to torture, murder, plunder, treachery, and the deprivation of the people’s rights. In 1979, the Western world was caught off guard. It scrambled to support an alternative to the failing regime of the Shah and succumbed to the mullahs. This time around, there is a strong alternative that represents democratic ideals. The West can ill afford to avoid supporting it. The alternative represented by the NCRI is not a theoretical construct but a resilient force shaped by decades of unwavering resistance. It stands as a beacon for a democratic, independent Iran, grounded in the principles of freedom, gender equality, religious freedom, autonomy for ethnic groups, human rights, economic justice, and national solidarity.   CJLPA : If you could convey one message to the global community encapsulating the essence of the Iranian struggle for rights and freedom, what would that message be?   I believe the global community must recognize and support the resilient fight of the Iranian people for their fundamental rights and freedom. This is not merely a battle against an oppressive regime; it is a profound quest for basic human dignity, democracy, and the right to self-determination. Our resistance, led courageously by women and the youth, is not just a series of sporadic protests but a sustained movement forged through relentless sacrifice and unwavering hope.   It is critical to understand that Iran’s geostrategic position in the Middle East means that the political direction it takes will have a lasting impact on its neighbours. A democratic Iran would be a lynchpin for enduring peace and stability in the region. This geopolitical reality makes it doubly imperative for the world community to stand with us in our quest for liberty. Our struggle, while deeply nationalist in its roots, echoes a universal cry for freedom and justice and serves not just our national interests but the broader interests of regional and global stability. We seek not just the world’s attention but its active solidarity. Understand that the spirit of our movement is a testament to the indomitable human will to thrive against tyranny, and it deserves the unequivocal support of the global community in fostering a future where peace, democracy, and human rights prevail.   CJLPA : What next, Mr Safavi? Where do we go from here?   AS: We will continue and expand the activities we have undertaken so far. The Iranian Resistance consistently emphasizes that the sole responsibility for overthrowing the clerical regime and establishing a democratic government in Iran lies with the Iranian people and their organized resistance, represented by the NCRI. They are committed to continuing their efforts, both within Iran and internationally. The MEK-affiliated Resistance Units inside Iran have seen growth in their activities, both in scale and impact, and this expansion is set to continue.   Externally, the Resistance is focused on persuading Western nations to shift away from a policy of appeasement towards a more assertive stance, holding the Iranian regime accountable for its actions. Given that the regime in Tehran has effectively shut down all avenues for political activism, the Resistance argues that the international community should acknowledge the right of the Iranian people to confront the regime’s oppressive forces. This includes initiating a nationwide uprising aimed at toppling the regime, a move the Resistance views as essential for achieving democratic change in Iran. This interview was conducted by Solomon Njombai, Legal Researcher 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. [1] ‘Iran: Security forces used rape and other sexual violence to crush “Woman Life Freedom” uprising with impunity’ ( Amnesty International , 6 December 2023) < https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security-forces-used-rape-and-other-sexual-violence-to-crush-woman-life-freedom-uprising-with-impunity > accessed 10 March 2024. [2] See Mansoureh Galestan, ‘Iran’s Regime Thrives on Corruption, Though Not for Long’ ( NCRI , 26 September 2023) < https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/economy/irans-regime-thrives-on-corruption-though-not-for-long/ > accessed 10 March 2024. [3] Maryam Rajavi, ‘Conference at the European Parliament, Strasbourg’ (22 November 2023) < https://www.maryam-rajavi.com/en/conference-strasbourg-parliament-standing-against-main-instigator-war-iranian-regime/ > accessed 10 March 2024. [4] ‘At the European Parliament, MEPs join Maryam Rajavi in urging EU to blacklist Iran regime’s Revolutionary Guards’ ( EU Reporter , 23 November 2023) < https://www.eureporter.co/world/iran/2023/11/23/at-the-european-parliament-meps-join-maryam-rajavi-in-urging-eu-to-blacklist-iran-regimes-revolutionary-guards/ > accessed 10 March 2024. [5] See Ali Safavi, ‘How Iran’s Revolution Mirrors Those Of The Past’ ( Eurasia Review , 16 November 2022) < https://www.eurasiareview.com/16112022-how-irans-revolution-mirrors-those-of-the-past-oped > accessed 10 March 2024.

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 To where I don’t know And I have to go And War must come It takes everything Ruins them Disvalues them Destroys them And War Ruins me Disvalues me Destroys me Like I don’t exist anymore Like I didn’t exist ever before And War everyday In everywhere Goes on Nobody cares, but I don’t understand Why do I have to leave Why do I have to miss My home My friends My bookcase My love I miss me and the time That I was reading a story Or watching a movie Now I am in the story Now I am in the movie In the middle of a nonsense world In the heart of a War Among the numbers of a line of news Being read Being ignored Being heard Being ignored Being seen Being ignored Not dead But buried   25 August 2021. Kabul, Afghanistan   In August 2021, my family and I travelled across Afghanistan, searching for a way out. One time, on the way, our bus broke down, and we were in the middle of nowhere surrounded by mountains. There was no other car that could take us, so we walked for hours. My 15-year-old brother was carrying our only luggage, which contained a pair of clothes for each one of us and the dearest of our belongings. The Taliban, with their cars and their guns, were passing us, and my dad constantly was saying do not look at them. Walk as if they are not here. With a long black scarf covering my whole body and face, with my head down, and the Taliban all over the place, having every means to do every harm to my family. 2 days later, we were at the Torkham border. We spent the night sleeping on a dirty ground. It was dark and horrifying. The thoughts were frozen in my brain. I was so numb, so dreamless. I felt I was not dead yet, but the Taliban were pouring soil on me. As a reader, I am in love with words and the change they can create. There is an English expression that I really like, which is 'NOT EVEN IN MY WILDEST DREAMS'. So in that moment of terror, not even in my wildest dreams did I ever think that in less than two years, I would be speaking before the United Nations to advocate for my people. Soomaya Javadi Soomaya Javadi is a Hazara human rights activist who fled Afghanistan with the help of the 30 Birds Foundation. Actively advocating against ethnic or gender-based discrimination, she is part of the '#StopHazaraGenocide' movement. Currently, Soomaya is working as an early childhood educator and studying at the University of Saskatchewan.

Brought from my cousin’s Shropshire home early September 2023, the spalted limewood log from which  Eyeless in Gaza  is carved had been left barely protected from the elements after the tree was felled by a storm. It was over four years since that disaster. Axe and saw joined the host of creatures that had invaded the wood before I started to cut with the gouges and chisels of the woodcarver. There was no idea to start with—only to incise and discover. Following routes burrowed by small insects, such as woodworm, and moulds into bark and sapwood seemed a way to learn its story and find what I, as co-sculptor with these small beasts, could expand.  The wood was rough with uneven texture that often did not hold together. I removed much of this outer material, hoping to find firmer ground for a more durable image. As I was cutting an archway through soft tissue aiming to have a strong primary image through which to enter, news came of the fearful events of 7 October at the Gaza border. Without doubt, the response to the initial attack would be savage in the extreme. Nothing could be done to stop this humanitarian disaster, in the first days at least. Pain of all the victims pulled into this vortex of horror directed my excavations. The madness of a double history of oppression, the lack of air, inability to speak or breath, the weight of rock, the fearful scramble to escape, the hands reaching for help—always the hands. The fissures in this partially rotten trunk echoed the nature of that riven land, constantly torn asunder for three thousand years. No claim could justify what was being inflicted—not now, when the whole world needs to work together to save the very air we breathe.  This is the broken citadel, the yearnings of many peoples who would break each other and therefore themselves rather than share. As the images became clearer I was conscious to hold back and not indulge in too polished a depiction. (In any case very little of the wood allowed it.) Art, even in tragedy, is not meant for cruelty but for cleansing, for catharsis—to transform us into whom we truly can be. How could I assuage some of the sorrow of the images that appeared?   Hidden inside our hearts is the fire of life, the eternal light passed from generation to generation. I found a pit in one side of the ‘rock’ of the tree and carved into it to create a cave. This holds a lamp whose translucently covered flame shines with the rhythm of a heartbeat. Willow Winston   Wide-ranging art practice, including engraving, painting, and theatre design, laid the foundations of Willow Winston’s sculpture. Her metal constructions embody in material form the beauty and emotional power of abstract mathematical concept. With work in public collections in the USA, the UK, and Canada, she has exhibited on both sides of the Atlantic and taught from postgraduate to primary level.   Committed to innovative educational methods, she has developed ways of using art to teach sciences. Her current major concern is working with community groups involving painting to make and exhibit collaborative sculpture. She was elected to Membership of the Royal Society of Sculptors in 2016 and appointed Patron of Centrepieces Arts Project for Mental Health in 2021.

Susie Alegre is a leading international human rights lawyer who has worked on the most challenging legal and political issues of our time, such as human rights and security, combating corruption in the developing world, and protecting human rights in light of the rise of artificial intelligence. In our interview, Susie unravels the key issues she exposes in her book Freedom to Think , which received wide acclaim and was chosen as a Book of the Year in the Financial Times  and the Telegraph , and longlisted for the Moore Prize for Human Rights Writing.   CJLPA : Welcome, Susie Alegre, it is an honour to have the opportunity to interview you for The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art.   What prompted you to author a book and, more specifically, this book— Freedom To Think —especially given your background as a respected public, international, and human rights lawyer? Susie Alegre : To be honest, before I became a lawyer, I was planning to be a writer. But it’s incredibly hard, if not impossible, these days to be a writer as a primary career. I always wrote fiction; I didn’t expect to write a nonfiction book. But when I first heard about Cambridge Analytica in early 2017, that was when I first started thinking about the right to freedom of thought in relation to technology. When I started looking into it, I found very little out there, whether in academia, case law, or commentary. It was all focused on privacy, but my feeling was very much that freedom of thought was the heart of the problem, and something that would resonate with the wider public—because it was something that really shocked me, this idea that my mind could be being accessed and manipulated for political gain if you like. The more I looked into it, the more I realized that it was really core to a lot of the developments in technology—highlighted, for example, in Shoshana Zuboff’s book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism . So I started work on freedom of thought. The thing that tipped it over into thinking, ‘maybe I should write a book’, was reading Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus , in which he talks about how humans are becoming hackable, as it were; he talks about the hackable human and a sort of deterministic tech future. His book was firstly very persuasive, but secondly made me deeply disturbed and quite angry about the take on human rights law. So it made me want to write a similar public-facing book, highlighting why human rights matter and why they could be the answer for our human future. So it was two things: one, reading about Cambridge Analytica and finding that so disturbing, and then secondly, reading a very popular book about our future and feeling like that book needed an answer, or that its arguments needed an answer that would be accessible to the public. And so I decided to try and write a public-facing book about this idea of freedom of thought, why it matters, and why we need to think about it now. CJLPA : The first part of your book provides the historical grounding of the right to freedom of thought, discussing how it was previously violated through the Salem witch trials, religious persecutions, experiments on the brain, and then propaganda. So what, in your opinion, makes the AI invasion that we are facing today more dangerous and concerning? SA : I think it’s not necessarily more dangerous or concerning than what happened in history. In the first half of my book, I was looking primarily at what was happening before the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, before we had international human rights law to constrain it, if you like. What I find concerning now, particularly in the context of AI, is the narrative that we don’t have a legal framework. You’ll see them vaguely talking about ethics or saying, well, we need global regulation. Actually, we have a global legal framework that identifies human rights that our governments have an obligation to respect but also to protect, which means that our governments have obligations to protect us from potential human rights abuses, carried out by companies, carried out by each other. And so I think what’s disturbing now is that, particularly in relation to the right to freedom of thought and inferences being made about our inner lives, we are somehow being conned into believing that there is no legal framework and that it’s all terribly difficult to manage. Whereas really, what we’re looking at is a crisis of effective application of human rights law, rather than an absence of law or regulatory vacuum. CJLPA : Human rights atrocities have invariably been based on judgments related to racism, xenophobia, classism, misogyny, or prejudice against people with disabilities. One idea that everyone is excited about with AI is that it is designed to analyse the data it is provided with objectively and detached from the emotions that people would normally have. So, in essence, AI is arguably as good as you make it. If we give the AI the correct data, and as individuals, detach it from these issues and the bias that comes with it, is there not a capacity to argue that AI could be the lesser of two evils between human bias and AI being given the data and doing what it is set to do? SA : I think it’s not necessarily an either-or question. One of the significant challenges, which applies to both to some extent, is how we explain the decisions that the AI is making, as well as the issue of automation bias—our inclination to believe what a computer tells us. One example I discussed in the book relates to credit risk assessments in the financial services industry. During my time as an ombudsman, I handled a case where a woman’s credit level was dropped without warning. The lack of warning was one issue, but what stood out was that when we questioned why her credit level was dropped, the response was essentially, ‘the computer said no’. It was an algorithmic process that determined her decreased creditworthiness. However, when pressed to explain what specific factors led to this decision, they couldn’t provide a clear answer. We went back and forth, and they had no substantial reason, suggesting it was probably in her credit record. I provided the credit record and asked them to identify anything on it that might have triggered the change. They couldn’t find anything. In the ombudsman environment, the key consideration is whether a person has been treated in a fair and reasonable way. It cannot be fair and reasonable if you cannot explain why a particular outcome has occurred. If it’s entirely inexplicable, fairness and reasonableness are in question. This is one of the challenges with algorithmic processing—it’s challenging to discern what might be causing unexpected outcomes or what the ‘Ghost in the Machine’ is that triggers apparently biased results. You could argue the same for human beings, but challenging a human decision is, in some ways, potentially easier if they can’t explain their decisions. When issuing judgments, there’s an obligation to elucidate why a particular judgment was reached. Going back to the ombudsman example, there’s a requirement to rationally explain why a conclusion about fairness and reasonableness was reached. While individuals may arrive at different conclusions, the ability to explain the reasoning is crucial. Using automation in certain circumstances could be beneficial and provide a more level playing field. The key question is: in what circumstances will that be the case? How can you ensure that the input is unbiased? How can unintended consequences be avoided, and what steps should be taken when things go wrong? CJLPA : Drawing on your last point, where you mentioned that in some circumstances, AI could be used and could be beneficial, what circumstances do you envision that to be? Do you see that in the sense of, for example, job applicants? In US college admissions, there’s this process of affirmative action to promote minorities from certain backgrounds and provide them with equal opportunities. In the legal industry, there’s a lot of discussion about promoting women and individuals from specific minority groups to ensure access and potentially using AI to identify individuals from certain backgrounds so that they’re not overlooked in favour of the ‘typical’ candidate. Do you think that could be a good use case, or do you think it would continue to marginalize certain groups? AS : As far as I’ve observed, that approach doesn’t seem to work effectively. The reasons for its ineffectiveness are debatable, but I haven’t come across any notable examples of it functioning well in practice. Instead, what I’ve witnessed is the automation of the opposite effect. For instance, in companies using algorithms to sift through CVs for senior management positions, the algorithm might interpret any mention of the word ‘women’ as a proxy for not being suitable for senior management roles. Even when efforts are made to eliminate gender identification, the algorithm can still pick up on other indicators, such as participation in the women’s hockey team, reinforcing existing biases. There are alternative methods to address these issues, such as affirmative action and blind CVs. For instance, in recruitment practices where individuals reviewing CVs are not provided with information like the university attended, school attended, or the applicant’s name, preventing them from making inferences about the person’s background. While it could be argued that AI could be employed to remove such details, it may be unnecessary, and a simpler solution could involve asking individuals to submit blind applications, removing the need for AI in the process. CJLPA : Sometimes, having a blind CV may not be ideal because you want to actively promote access. Do you think there’s a need to provide that extra push to individuals who may not have had the same opportunities initially? SA : I believe there are two aspects to consider. Firstly, the use of blind CVs, where the omission of information about an individual’s school or university can contribute to equalizing opportunities. Secondly, there are other methods for promoting diversity that go beyond CV filtering. For instance, providing priority for accessibility for disabled applicants and implementing diversity questionnaires can be separate initiatives from the CV assessment process. CJLPA : The next topic I’d like to explore is access to information, a crucial aspect allowing individuals to form their opinions based on the content and information available online. Who makes the call on what information is accessible? An illustrative example is the political context in the US. It’s evident that Democrats might strongly advocate for stricter gun control, citing public safety concerns. On the flip side, conservatives may argue that this narrative is misinformation, claiming it infringes on personal liberty, despite ongoing mass shootings. Simultaneously, they propagate the news about the right to bear arms as a constitutional right, asserting it promotes safety. Considering the nuances of these perspectives, how do we justify these stances, and what grants us the authority to make such determinations without labelling them as misinformation from the conservative standpoint? SA : I believe there are issues surrounding the way misinformation and disinformation are framed, contributing to an information economy crisis. When attempting content moderation, particularly in the realm of misinformation, where grey areas abound, one can observe authoritarian regimes closing down information sources on similar grounds. We are currently facing an information crisis, and the key issue lies in content delivery and targeting. The internet, in theory, is a great tool for democratizing information. It enables access to information that for someone like me, growing up in a small village before the internet, was theoretically inaccessible, except through libraries. Libraries, therefore, play a crucial role in fostering freedom of information. However, the current functioning of the internet revolves around targeted delivery. It’s no longer about individuals freely seeking information in this era of accessibility. Instead, it’s about how information is targeted and fed to each individual. The real issue lies in targeting and profiling, not the content itself. I illustrate this point in my book using the example of the Flat Earth Society and YouTube. Researchers in the US attended a Flat Earth Society Conference to understand how people in the 21st century came to believe in a flat Earth. Remarkably, every person they spoke to had reached this conclusion through YouTube. They had initially gone on YouTube to explore other conspiracy theories, not specifically the flat Earth. YouTube’s recommender algorithms identified them as individuals interested in conspiracy theories and started presenting content about the flat Earth and moon landings being a hoax. This continuous stream of personalised information can be likened to a form of personalised brainwashing. The only exception was one individual who hadn’t encountered it on YouTube directly but had been persuaded by his son and daughter-in-law, who had arrived at the belief through YouTube. The issue, therefore, is not the content itself, but how it is delivered to us. While we may believe we have access to an incredible wealth of information, the reality is that it is delivered in a very targeted and personalised manner, exploiting our individual vulnerabilities. CJLPA : Your statement about the source of information is interesting and particularly relevant in today’s age. You pose a question, and receive an answer, but lack knowledge about where that information originated, its source, and the potential biases embedded in a particular source. Now, shifting the focus, how do you foresee the implementation of regulatory frameworks to protect users? What specific measures or changes would you like to witness in addressing these issues? SA : I believe that effective regulation should operate from the inside out. Regulation concerning the permissible use of technology is crucial, surpassing measures like content regulation that merely nibble around the edges. From the perspective of the right to freedom of thought and freedom in our lives, it is essential to scrutinize technology, focusing on the reasons and services described by the companies themselves. Consider Cambridge Analytica, for instance. They provided a service to understand voters on a granular level, assessing their personalities and using that information to manipulate them into behaving differently. This was the service they were selling. When we consider the right to freedom of thought as preserving the right to keep thoughts and inner life private, free from manipulation, and immune to penalties based on thoughts alone, it becomes clear that what Cambridge Analytica offered should be deemed unlawful. We need not concern ourselves with whether it was effective or how many people it potentially manipulated or where the money came from—the service itself is illegal, much like the way subliminal advertising was made illegal. I propose identifying certain technologies, such as emotion recognition tech, designed to understand what’s going on inside somebody. In my view, this raises serious questions about violating our right to freedom of thought. If a technology is designed to understand what someone is thinking and feeling, rather than what they’re doing or saying, it should be outlawed. It’s about scrutinizing its purpose—if it interferes with the right to freedom of thought, it should not be allowed. This approach, focusing on purpose-driven regulation, is what we should consider for the next wave of regulation. CJLPA : In everyday web usage, it’s common to encounter prompts asking if you accept cookies before proceeding to a website or accessing articles. Users often consent to this in exchange for information, creating a trade-off for access to certain content. How do we address this constant acceptance of cookies, as it seems to grant websites more capacity to trace users’ activities and interests, particularly concerning targeted news articles? SA : I think there’s a big question about what you can and cannot consent to. So, while you may consent to your doctor’s surgery using your data for your medical benefit, even if you hit ‘consent’, realistically and professionally, your doctor should be prevented from sharing your medical data with the local pizza shop to tell them that you’re feeling depressed. Maybe now would be a good time to target you with advertising for comfort food. That is just something that, professionally, ethically, and legally, would not be allowed. And so, I think there’s a big question about, you know, you can’t just sell your soul for access to the surgery or sell your soul for access to Twitter, whatever it is. So, I think there are questions about what activities are legal, regardless of whether or not you consent. CJLPA : Another point that I found interesting in your discussion was about hate speech, specifically its use as a tool for propaganda. It’s crucial to differentiate between hate speech and what is often claimed to be freedom of speech, as you highlighted. This brings me back to my earlier question about who makes that call and how to ensure it aligns with the principles of human rights. What makes me ponder this is the challenge of distinguishing when people are targeting certain ethnic groups, which may be easier to discern, from situations where it’s more blurred and difficult to call individuals out. Especially in the context of mass media and international lawyers focusing on the actions of a country like Russia, for example, it can lead to a nuanced situation. On one hand, there’s accountability for the government, but on the other, you see everyday readers, influenced by media narratives, beginning to antagonize Russia as a whole. How can we control this aspect of not necessarily misinformation, but how it’s consumed by the everyday user? SA : Globally, it’s complicated, because there are two aspects. One is about freedom of expression, generally, and the kind of content. In places like the US, the concept of freedom of expression is very different from what it is in Europe. I’m probably more European than Anglo-American in my approach to freedom of expression, and I recognize very much the responsibilities that are inherent in the right to freedom of expression in international human rights law and the limitations put on it. Free speech absolutism, I think, is a very American thing. But it’s also becoming an agenda globally because of tech solutionism and the role of America in global technology. So, I think one question is about content. In terms of who makes the call, the European Court of Human Rights has made a lot of decisions about what speech is protected and what isn’t because it amounts to hate speech. So it’s going to be on a case-by-case basis, rather than there being a blanket question. I think that’s important to bear in mind that it is on a case-by-case basis: some cases are going to be glaringly obvious, others will be very context-specific. A line that you say as part of a poem that isn’t in a more global context a call for hatred is very different from somebody standing on a platform, calling people to go and kill others. So it’s very much context specific. On the other side, I think the big issue that we have today is, again, that question of how information is delivered. If you look at something like online misogyny, someone like Andrew Tate, a lot of what Andrew Tate says is probably very clearly on the wrong side of the line if you were to bother trying to defend his right to freedom of expression. But in terms of online misogyny, a lot of the issue with it is not individual comments. Again, it’s the way that the information and the messages build up. So it’s more about kind of a gradual brainwashing, if you like, rather than looking at one piece of content and saying, ‘Oh, that’s definitely hate speech against women’. It’s about the way an individual is targeted, and groomed, if you like, towards misogyny because of the way online information works. So it’s about a barrage of negative coverage of women, each single piece of content potentially not rising to what might be considered hate speech. I think that is what’s very different in the online environment. It’s not so much about content; it’s about the delivery methods. CJLPA : Moving on specifically to discussing the legal framework in the context, one of the interesting quotes in your book was, ‘The thing about philosophy is that you can generally ignore them with impunity’. But you go on to say that the law is different, and I completely agree with that. Especially in the context of international human rights, there are legal frameworks, but the question often arises about their adaptability, and thematically, that becomes an issue. We live in a digital age where politicians are leveraging technology, as extensively discussed in your book, to manipulate elections and, ultimately, undermine democracy. Simultaneously, there’s a concern about whether the entities we trust to make necessary changes and adapt to these innovations are doing so to protect us. In such circumstances, what can we do, or I suppose not do, to ensure that human rights are protected in this context? SA : There are several questions. With politicians, one thing we can all do is vote, to hold them to account and keep asking them questions, holding them to account, embarrassing them, basically, into respecting human rights. One of the reasons I wanted to write the book as well was, as I said, really to give a kind of public understanding of why we should all be bothered about human rights, why it’s not an issue just for somebody somewhere else in the world. It’s something for all of us. What can lawyers do? I think lawyers can consider the big picture, and think about those wider underlying frameworks when talking about the law, when arguing as to what the law should be. It’s going back to those first principles. So when you’re looking at things like data protection, think not just about the detail of GDPR compliance, but think about why this matters. Where is it coming from? And how might that expand the way you look at it? I did some work for the Digital Freedom Fund, looking at potential areas of strategic litigation using the right to freedom of thought and the right to mental integrity, both in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. One area I looked at was the sharing of data related to mental health, for example. So, looking at it not just from a privacy and data protection perspective but also from the perspective that, when you’re looking at the GDPR, you have to read it through the lens of the European Charter. Applying the full range of rights of the EU Charter to understand what the GDPR means in practice, including this right to mental integrity and right to freedom of thought, how this changes the way you analyse the law, how it should work, and what the outcomes should be. So, I suppose what I would say is, to take a broader focus in your interpretation of legal provisions with the idea of what this means from a human rights perspective behind and going beyond privacy. Also, taking risks in making arguments that potentially open up new avenues. CJLPA : On that point about adopting a broader approach, let’s return to the realm of international law. Specifically, do you believe that the existing frameworks and treaties adequately reflect the demands of the digital age concerning freedom of thought? Or do you think there’s a potential need for a new treaty among state parties to address the intricacies of technology and the emerging issues that weren’t necessarily foreseen years ago when the initial drafts took place? SA : I think there are two things. One, I believe, is absolutely about access to justice and enforcing the legal frameworks that we have, which is a significant problem at the moment. I think the international rules-based system is very shaky right now. Again, that’s one of the reasons I wanted to write this book: to remind people of why it matters, why we should care about it, and why we really don’t want to lose it. Even though it may be shifting at the moment, we need to go back to basics and remember why it matters and why it continues to matter. So, shoring up the existing frameworks in things like the European Court of Human Rights has been an incredible tool for developing what human rights mean, and through the living instrument doctrine. But, with Russia pulling out, and the UK considering walking out after 20 years of debate, I think that would be a very dangerous thing to do. The European Court of Human Rights is incredibly important as a backstop of accountability, protecting us from the changing vagaries of politics to remind us of those fundamental points. In terms of whether we need something new for technology, particularly on a domestic level, we do need effective laws and regulations that protect human rights. Putting in place laws and regulatory frameworks that allow us to enforce basic human rights in the context of technology and AI is really important. Regarding an international treaty, I think unless we have proper enforcement mechanisms sorted out for the treaties we already have, I’m not sure how much value there is in a new treaty. On freedom of thought, what I would say is, I think it would be useful to have a new general comment, for example, from the Human Rights Committee about what freedom of thought means in the digital age. Clarifying what it means is really important and looking at the development of case law. So we’re starting to see case law at the international level. Otherwise, we have tons of ethical frameworks and regulations around AI and technology in general booming, whether it’s in the OECD, UNESCO, Council of Europe, or other parts of the UN. I’m not sure how useful it will be in the end if we don’t have proper enforcement mechanisms. That’s about putting money into enforcement mechanisms and resisting the temptation of political interference to undermine them. CJLPA : Continuing from your last point on enforcement, it was insightful to explore the framework within international law. I found it particularly interesting in your book how optimistic you are about the international mechanisms in place to prevent atrocities and the need to ensure a strong international justice system capable of bringing perpetrators to justice worldwide. In comparison, I’ve spoken to other international criminal lawyers who have stopped practising at the ICC due to issues such as procedural challenges, funding constraints, lack of accountability, and internal conflicts among councils. Despite these concerns, you seem more optimistic and hopeful that the international justice system could be the avenue to address these issues. Could you elaborate on your perspective? SA :   I mean, to be clear, we are at a really low point right now. So, you know, I’m not Pollyanna about it. But I sort of believe that rather than ditching those ideas, what we need to do is try to persuade governments and the public that we need to reinforce those things. A lot of the problem with those international mechanisms, and it’s the same with domestic human rights oversight, is a lack of funding and political interference. I’m obviously not Pollyanna about the international frameworks. But I think rather than saying, ‘Well, what we need is a new one’, or just giving up on what exists, what we need is more focus on how to reinforce the international rules-based order. What do we need to make it work? Rather than, ‘Shall we have a new shiny one and have something new that we can ignore?’ It is a really tough time to be working in international human rights law or international criminal law. No question about that. But we can’t just give up. So you have to cut it, you have to keep going and feel like you know, this too, will change. But having said that, I don’t practice in the ICC, and I wouldn’t seek to right now. CJLPA : Let’s delve into the ICC, and then circle back to the European mechanisms, which are fundamental in ensuring accountability for atrocities. Human rights, as you emphasize in your book, play a key role in challenging the status quo and providing a framework to protect each individual, no matter how unpopular their stance may be. There’s a trust that the judicial system will be as progressive as society. Now, as we engage in this conversation, can we trust that these mechanisms will also recognize and address the dangers posed by AI, considering the invasions and challenges to freedom of thought that it brings? SA : I know we can’t, but I think you have to believe in progress. And I think one of the key things to bear in mind, particularly when you’re working in areas like strategic litigation or the development of legal policy, is that it can be a very slow incremental process. There will be setbacks on the way, but you have to believe in the direction of travel and whether or not they will be progressive. I mean, it’ll depend on who’s appointed. That’s the case in any court, really. But it is about protecting the independence of judges, whether they’re international or domestic. Looking again at things like funding and protecting against political interference, I think, is absolutely key. CJLPA : Your discussion in the book about the lie detector is noteworthy. It’s commonly inadmissible in many courts, yet it sparks an interesting conversation. I recently spoke to Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner, who shared his experience of enduring incredibly degrading torture. What caught my attention was his mention of being forced to take a lie detector test, which he passed three times. He mentioned that after the test, one of the guards, with whom he had a good relationship, told him, ‘You’re never getting out’, as they perceived him more as a witness than a perpetrator. In a way, this shows how he wasn’t what they believed him to be and perhaps affirmed his innocence to some extent. In such circumstances, considering that torture should never be used, which is an absolute human right but often not respected, do you think a lie detector test could be a useful tool? While respecting that it has its own complexities and limitations, could it serve as a deterrent in situations where physical torture is a potential threat? SA : I don’t think it would at all. Also, I think that putting someone through a lie detector test itself, particularly in those kinds of circumstances, is itself inhuman and degrading treatment. But, you know, the idea of, well, is it better to interfere with freedom of thought than to commit torture? One of the things that I find very interesting and telling is that in international human rights law, the protection of the right to freedom of thought is protected absolutely. So it’s protected in the same way as torture, as the prohibition on torture and the prohibition on slavery, which shows how vital it is to what it means to be human. A lot of the arguments about lie detector tests go to the question of whether or not they’re reliable. Personally, I think that misses the point. I’ve heard those arguments as well about torture, for example that the main reason not to use torture is because the information extracted is not reliable. That’s what you’ll hear from some people around the world when you talk about the prohibition of torture, particularly in the counterterrorism context. Taking away the reliability question, there is just this question about why it’s a violation of a fundamental right and why it’s kind of irreversible. As I say, I think the reasons why freedom from torture is an absolute right are quite obvious. When it comes to the right to freedom of thought as well and the lie detector test, the fact that you’re being forced to go through it to get out of jail free or whatever puts you in an impossible position. There’s no actual way you can consent to that. There’s no way that you can deal with what the outcome of that will be. Regardless of whether it correctly identifies if you’re lying or not, I think it is an absolute interference with this inviolability in ourselves. I don’t think it does protect you from torture. I think the two go together. Torture was used as a method of extracting your thoughts. Lie detectors may not amount to torture, but as I say, I think they probably are inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly in that kind of context. So I don’t think it’s any better, really. CJLPA : Another concerning aspect that has been discussed is the development of predictive analytics, especially in the context of legal proceedings. There’s a growing conversation about using predictive analytics to aid judgments, building on our earlier of whether AI could potentially provide more objective and rational decisions compared to human biases. The concept is that by feeding AI with legal precedents and relevant facts, it could generate conclusions following previous patterns on a rational basis. Given the complexities we’ve just explored, do you believe there’s an element of everyone getting too excited about AI? Do you think that the current pace of development lacks sufficient concern about potential risks? Are people generally welcoming the idea of reaching a point where AI could be tested and used in practical legal scenarios? SA : I think it depends; I believe it’s about people becoming too overexcited about AI. In the context of writing judgments or legally enforceable decisions, there are several problems. One current issue is that certain applications, like chat-based ones, can be unreliable. Earlier this year, there was a story about a Colombian judge who claimed to have used ChatGPT in drafting part of a judgment. However, based on my experience with using ChatGPT, it tends to make things up. While it produces plausible prose, it may be factually incorrect, and if you’re a knowledge expert, you can identify that what it has written is completely wrong. It sounds convincing and rational, but the content is inaccurate. This, in my opinion, is a significant problem. AI could potentially be useful in tasks like drafting contracts, especially for handling large parts of contracts that are standard or routine. It could identify contractual clauses that might no longer be lawful, among other things. For such bulk work, AI might have a role, provided there is thorough human verification. However, when it comes to judgments, a fundamental issue arises from the assumption that there is only one answer to a legal question. In reality, most legal questions brought to court are not straightforward; if they were, cases would be settled before reaching that stage. By the time a matter is in front of a judge, it’s because the combination of facts and law makes the situation unclear. The majority of cases settle or don’t escalate because the law is clear. The notion that AI can eliminate bias and solve complex legal questions seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of justice, the nuances of law, and the fact that the law evolves. Law is fundamentally about human interactions. Despite this, in specific areas of law, AI could prove valuable for handling routine tasks where clarity exists, as long as there’s human oversight to ensure accuracy. CJLPA : Given everything we’ve discussed, a recurring theme highlighted in your book is the fundamental importance of recognizing the freedom of thought and understanding that once lost, it may be irretrievable. This resonated with me, especially in the context of today’s digital age. How do we ensure the protection of the human right to freedom of thought and prevent the normalization of digital practices that could potentially erode this freedom permanently? Considering the lack of sufficient discussion on the dangers amidst the prevailing excitement, particularly with a new generation growing up in this era, unaware of a time when these issues weren’t prevalent. So, the key question is, how do we effectively safeguard and raise awareness about the importance of preserving the human right to freedom of thought in today’s digital age? SA : Well, I suppose writing a book about it, talking about it, ideally making a documentary about it. Finding ways to reach out across barriers to talk to people who aren’t just specialists in technology or in human rights, reaching out to a wider public. This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, the Legal Editor and Founder of CJLPA's Special Edition, 'The Human Agenda'. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is a qualified lawyer in England & Wales specializing in public international law.

Mansour al-Omari is a Syrian human rights defender and legal researcher. He holds an LLM in Transitional Justice and Conflict. Al-Omari works with international and Syrian human rights organisations to hold the perpetrators of international crimes in Syria accountable. In 2012, al-Omari was detained and tortured by the Syrian government for 356 days for documenting its atrocities while working with the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression as the supervisor of the Detainees Office.   CJLPA : Good afternoon, Mansour al-Omari. It is an honour to have the chance to interview you for The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . You have been a polarising figure in your work defending the human rights of all Syrians around the world for the last few decades.   Mansour al-Omari :   I appreciate your description of me as a polarising figure, as long as you mean that the two polarised divisions are the ones who support human rights and justice for all regardless of irrelevant considerations such as political, tribal, racial, or sectarian affiliations; and those who deny human rights and justice for all. CJLPA : When you first began working as a journalist, can you please describe the challenges you faced having to adhere to censorship by the Syrian government?   MO :   In 2011, the official Assad media, at its primitive level, was no longer able to confront the widespread citizen journalism. There were citizen journalists using social media accounts in every neighbourhood throughout Syria. The Assad regime realised the need to be present on social networking sites, which dominated the traditional media, so it had to enter this space. The regime’s organised presence on social media platforms began with the establishment of Internet centres affiliated with the security departments, in which people were employed, each with a large number of fake accounts on social networking sites. One of their tasks is to pursue posts and accounts related to the revolution, and to spread the regime’s narrative. This began in Internet cafés, including in Damascus, in the suburb of Harasta, in Latakia, and elsewhere. Then, centres dedicated to this activity arose, with each employee receiving a monthly salary of twenty thousand Syrian pounds (400 dollars) in 2011, a high income by Syrian standards. Subsequently, al-Assad supported the establishment of the so-called Syrian Electronic Army, whose mission was to spread the regime’s propaganda, and to hack newspapers, websites, and activists’ social media accounts.   In the same context, the Assad regime allowed the creation of orchestrated accounts on social networking sites of a news nature, under the supervision of intelligence, with the aim of confronting news accounts opposing the Assad regime narrative, including independent news websites and accounts of activists, in addition to publishing fabricated news and disinformation within the framework of psychological warfare during the war.   The media, according to Assad himself, is one of the arenas of the ongoing war. With the spread of many accounts supporting the Assad regime that started their work by supporting the military battle, and then later ‘veered’ towards criticising the government sometimes, the Assad regime, fearing the spread of the culture of criticism and the loosening of the cordon that governs it around the Syrian media, issued laws strengthening its governing control, even over the posts of ordinary people on Facebook, which contributed to terrorising and muting the voices that began to rise. This included financial fines and imprisonment for those who criticise the government.   Self-censorship is the most widespread organising factor for everyone who works in the media in areas controlled by the Assad regime. The regime’s practices of harassing, arresting, killing, assassinating, and torturing anyone who raises his voice with a different narrative, or publishes news that does not imitate the official version, in addition to the restrictive laws and instructions of social cyberspace, is the main determinant. Media and ordinary voices under Assad rule are silenced and media professionals’ pens are automatically trimmed.   Targeted propaganda media is one of the main pillars for the creation and survival of dictatorial regimes, and these regimes succeed in controlling and spreading information only by suppressing any media that may present what contradicts the official narrative. Any real loosening of the security grip on the media will weaken the pillars of these regimes, and will expose their corruption and criminality.   CJLPA :   In February 2012, you were arrested by Syrian intelligence forces along with 15 other journalists. You were made to disappear without giving any statements and your family did not know your whereabouts. During your imprisonment you were transferred through various prisons under the supervision of Maher al-Assad, where you were regularly tortured.   There are various torture mechanisms that are used in Syrian prisons, most famously Sednaya Prison, nicknamed ‘The Human Slaughterhouse’. To the extent you feel comfortable, what are some of the torture methods that are used by officers within in Syrian regime and can you tell us your experience dealing with Maher al-Assad?   MO :   Those descriptions I will present of the situation in detention are taken from my unpublished memoir / non-fiction book of the events in Syria, starting with the Tunisian revolution in 2010, and ending in 2018. I finished writing my memoir in Arabic, and now plan to translate it to English and look for a publishing house.   In the Air Force Intelligence Investigation Department in Mezzeh airport we used to hear the sounds of torture and the screams of the victims. One evening, the sound of electric buzz began to rise, and then we heard hysterical screams. After maybe ten seconds, the victim’s voice stopped. During the day, the jailers tortured their victims in the corridor in front of the cells. The beating was very close to us, while the victims were screaming as if they were among us. The jailers cursed everything, mothers, wives, and holy women! They asked many of their victims to walk on their hands and knees and imitate the sound of a donkey or dog, and they beat them hard in the process:   Jailer: Raise your voice, bark like a dog, and walk like a dog. You are nothing more than a dog. Victim: Ho-ho-ho-oooo, I beg you, I did nothing. Jailer: Shut up, you are a dog, you don’t talk, you only bark. Victim: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Jailer: I don’t like your barking, I want you to bark like a real dog, bark from your heart Victim: Hoo, ooooo. Jailer: This is the freedom that you want? We will teach you the meaning of freedom, you sons of whores.   They laughed and continued to beat him. In one of the rounds of torture, a victim pleaded with the jailers, trying to convince them that he had not demonstrated even once:   Victim: I swear to God that I did not demonstrate, I am a man who loves my job and I have been married for less than a month. Jailer: So you are a new groom. Tell us about your wife. Is she beautiful? How do you fuck her? Victim: Please I can’t, I didn’t do anything, please stop hitting me. Jailer: Well, we will stop beating you, provided that you imitate the sound of your wife when she reaches orgasm while you are having sex with her.   The victim tried to beg them to leave him, his crying intensified, and he began to weep, with intensity the jailers beat and insulted him. Until finally he started imitating his wife’s voice. He groaned a little, then fell silent. The jailers laughed loudly, and one of them said: ‘You imitate your wife’s voice, you of little honour!’, and continued beating him.   Every Friday evening and on the following two days, they would bring batches of detainees, and put them in a cell in front of our cell. We knew that these detainees were demonstrating on Friday and then participating in the funeral of the demonstrators who were killed by the intelligence and the army. Demonstrations in Syria used to take place on Fridays and then Saturdays, the two official holidays in Syria.   Once they brought a batch of demonstrators, and they were young men, including children. We could see them through a window above our cell door with iron bars. The jailer shouted at one of the children and asked him to stretch his hand from inside the cell between the bars above their cell door. The jailer tied the child’s index finger with a plastic handcuff and pulled it against him.   The child begged him:   Child: Sir, for God’s sake, for God’ sake, I did nothing. Please, my finger will be cut off Jailer: Shut up, if your parents did not raise you well, we will.   The child screams rose. The jailer lit his lighter and started burning the child’s fingers.   Child: Oh mama, oh mama, for God’s sake my fingers are burning. Jailer: I will burn you all today, you son of a bitch.   After around a month they transferred us to a fourth division detention, a facility in the Damascus suburbs led by Maher al-Assad. We arrived by bus at a dark place. There were fifteen detainees, including my colleagues. Our hands were tied to an iron chain, and we were blindfolded. I heard one of the officers say to those who received us: ‘Here are the intellectuals, take good care of them’. They had prior knowledge of our existence, and he asked them to torture us badly.   They ordered us to walk quickly. I began to hear the screams of my colleagues who entered the building a few steps before me. The screams were mixed with insults and cries of extreme pain. Screams rose as I walked until I reached an entrance. I almost stumbled upon a marble threshold above a rocky ground that seemed clear due to the reflection of the light coming from the entrance. Then I slowed down until I almost stopped. The horror of what I heard did not prevent me from continuing to advance towards that horror, like one who is forced to walk towards his death. I took three steps, while I was able to see from the bottom of the blindfold, so only my feet and what was around them were visible, and on the left side I saw a small army of feet and shoes. Two feet wearing brown-yellow (khaki) military shoes, which I immediately recognized as the regular military shoes of the Fourth Division commanded by Brigadier General Maher al-Assad.   I was about to take a fourth step until I received a blow on my back that made me lose my ability to breath, so my back bent hard and I stepped again, looking at my left side, and saw two feet wearing white sneakers. It was only a second or less until I received a blow with this shoe on my face and another on my back, I was still resisting falling to the ground because that spreads the pain in more areas around the body. Meanwhile, Bassam al-Ahmad, who was in front of me, retreated while trying to hide from the blows, so that his short and skinny body became under the bend of my body.   That was the only moment when I realised that I am not alone, but that someone is suffering more than me. I was covering Bassam and taking some blows meant for him, but one of the officers pulled him away and hit him again. We were walking, with the jailers shouting to move forward and then stop.   The jailers’ shouts filled the place, mixed with the detainees’ hysterical wails and the sounds of whips and sticks. I turned my eyes again to my left to see a black civilian shoe approaching me, then I felt a cold touch on my back between my shoulders and I lost consciousness.   When I came back to life, I was sitting on the floor of the corridor with my head hanging over my thighs, my legs wide open and stretched out on the floor, my palms arched in a paralytic drape, my fingers apart pointing downward in a convulsion.   I remember that scene very well, as if my soul was hovering over my body and looking at it. I did not feel pain at the time, but a strange feeling overwhelmed me. It was a mixture of astonishment, sadness, sorrow, and perhaps pity, except that the pain returned again with the screams and insults, followed by beatings on the feet from all sides.   ‘Get up and stop pretending, you son of a bitch!’ I tried to stand up, but my feet did not help me, I could not get up with my body. But I had to stand up and move, these monsters were screaming like crazy and they might simply kill me. I wanted to avoid the random blows, but I could not. I did not understand what was going on. I wanted to stand up, but my body did not listen to the orders of my mind, while the random beating increased with shouting and insults.   I moved my hand very slowly, my fingers were still stiff, and my legs were completely separated from my will. I put my palm under my thigh at the knee. I put my hand under it and raised it, so I folded my knee to the top to bend it, then I bent my other knee in the same way, and bent my back and began to stand under the weight of my body, which refused the trampling of successive blows. I put my hands on the ground and lifted my body until I was balanced and straightened. The moment I stood, someone jumped up and slung a stick on my back.   I felt as if a huge weight had fallen on my backbone from above, and I almost hit the ground again. I didn’t, because my mind decided not to fall again. I received many punches and blows with feet and sticks. I continued walking under the blows of the soldiers, until I reached the edge of a staircase, when one of them pushed me to fall and roll about twenty steps, in front of another jailer. I injured my legs, and still suffer from physical injuries to my body today. The jailers went inside the cell twice a day to beat and shock us with tasers. Once the jailers kept beating my head to the floor, and broke my tooth.   CJLPA :   During your time in prison, you compiled a list of the names of your fellow prisoners on scraps of tissue and shirt, written with a mixture of blood and rust. You did this noble act to inform the families of the prisoners of their whereabouts. Did any of your fellow prisoners make it out or ever reunite with their families?   MO : Yes, I know that only four of them are now safe with their families. One is Ammar Alabsi, from Aleppo. I used to teach him English in detention. When Ammar was released, he recognized his name on one of the shirt pieces.   In Istanbul, after my release, a new journey began. I had to find the families of my fellow detainees to tell them the fate of their loved ones. At the same time, I started my work again with the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), which was run by Yara Badr, and with the Violations Documentation Centre, which was run by Bassam al-Ahmad and Razan Zaitouneh. I was very happy that I was able to continue the work for which I was arrested, but this time from outside the country.   The journey of finding families continues till today. I could not find all the people, for several reasons: due to the unavailability of the registered phone numbers, because the bombing affected their homes and destroyed the infrastructure in many regions of Syria, or because some of them were displaced from their homes or migrated from the whole country. Most recently, last year, in Sweden, I met a Syrian that has the same surname as one of my fellow detainees whose name I smuggled out on the cloth. I asked him about my fellow detainee, and he recognized him, he was his relative and told me that he died in detention in 2014.   It was not easy to find the families, but what helped me the most in reaching them were the local coordinators. They are organised groups of Syrian revolution activists, working in organising demonstrations, providing relief and medical materials, and media coverage. In every city, town, and village there was at least one coordinator, and all of members knew each other and knew the residents of their areas. For example, I used to communicate with the Coordination Committee of Darayya, and provide them with some names of detainees from Darayya, so that they could search for their families, and tell me if they had reached them or not.   Sometimes I searched on Facebook for the names of the detainees, and I found a page in the name of one of them, calling for his freedom and release. I saw by chance one of them had published a picture of one of my fellow detainees, so I contacted the publisher of the picture, as happened with the Manaf Abazid family, where Hind al-Majli published his picture, and I contacted her via Facebook and reached his mother.   CJLPA :   Can you describe your life and environment after being released from prison?   MO : After I was released on bail (I am still on trial in Syria), my family and friends asked me to leave the country, because they were concerned about my life, especially since one of my colleagues at SCM, Ayham Ghazzoul—who was arrested with us and released before me—was arrested again and killed under torture by the Syrian government.   I was also exposed to some incidents after my release that shocked me. One day, I was in a taxi heading home. A soldier at a checkpoint stopped us and asked for my ID. He took my ID looked at it and said with threatening accent: ‘Al-Omari! And from al-Midan? Do not cross from here again’. It was a threat that I would be arrested if I was stopped again by this checkpoint. I understood the reference he made. Al-Omari Mosque was the cradle of Syria’s revolt, the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in March 2011, as the first sit-in took place in it. The al-Midan area was one of the first and the few areas of extensive demonstrations in Damascus. Even while I was in detention, one day the jailor said to me ‘you are from al-Midan, we destroyed your area’.   When I was arrested in Feb 2012, the scene was of demonstrations everywhere in Syria and very few spots of fighting. But when I was released, Syria was a totally different place. There were almost no demonstrations, and war was raging with many different actors. A week after my release, I fled to Lebanon, and my friends booked me a ticket to Istanbul, Turkey. From there I continued my work and carried a huge burden because three of my colleagues, Mazen Darwish, Hani Zetani, and Hussein Ghrer were still detained. The day before I was released, Mazen Darwish presented me with a pen covered with coloured beads. It is the pen that I carried with me for a long time, with an unuttered message from Mazen: ‘Use this pen. The pen is stronger than a rifle facing dictatorships, they fear it more than bullets’.   My pain was so overwhelming when I left my colleagues behind. After I was released, I wrote what I believed in:   Excuse me, and wait with me 3 pm, Wednesday, February 6th, 2013, I crossed the iron gate of the basement, embracing my incomplete freedom My freedom was not shared with my fellow detainees, Mazen, Hani, and Hussein I was alone with a singular freedom that is not suitable for the plural. I could not refuse it…I would accept it for a while… I, Mansour al-Omari, will continue my journey with my colleagues In solidarity with them, and for them I will not practice what they are deprived from I will not look at the Mona Lisa I will not read Omar Khayyam’s poems I will not listen to Fayrouz’s song ‘We are coming back to love’ Or Marcel Khalife, ‘My home was burnt like a paper’ I will not celebrate I will not laugh I will not drink Araq I will drink my usual morning coffee with Mazen and Hussein without Mazen and Hussein I will stand at my window bars every day at two o’clock, waiting for Hani To see him from behind it and not see him I will watch ‘Lincoln’ or ‘Les Miserables’ Excuse me…I am still detained with my colleagues   In 2013, when I was released, I met some of my family, but I couldn’t meet my father, who passed away in Syria in 2021, and never was able to meet him since my arrest in 2012. CJLPA :   Today we see President Bashar al-Assad justifying the bombing on civilian territories in Houla, Aleppo, and Idlib by claiming they are only bombing so-called ‘terrorist’ strongholds. How can the international community persecute the people responsible for these countless massacres that have been occurring for decades?   MO : The current common understanding of accountability among international and Syrian organisations and lawyers should jump over the criminal accountability and extend to the right of international crimes to redress. The efforts and resources of international and Syrian organisations and lawyers are focused on persecuting the perpetrators and holding them accountable, whilst a high road, must occupy a big part of those efforts. However, assisting torture survivors should also be a priority, and it is not as complicated as holding the Assad regime accountable. Sentencing the perpetrator and compensating the victims are two primary outcomes expected of legal proceedings in justice systems worldwide.   Assisting torture survivors through rehabilitation and redress is a substantial part of the justice they deserve and are asking for, and it is required by international law. According to a thematic note by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, titled ‘Ensuring torture victims’ rights in the global compact’, in order to rebuild their lives after torture, victims need a stable and secure environment and access to holistic rehabilitation services as early as possible in host countries.[1]   UN experts stress that reparations for victims of rights violations are not optional. The UN’s ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’ clearly state that the victims should be provided with effective remedies, including reparation: adequate, effective, and prompt reparation for harm suffered.[2]   CJLPA : What is a piece of advice you would like to give to young Syrians that are looking to make a change in their country?   MO : Never be satisfied with premade ideas or preconceptions or long-settled themes and always question them. Rethink long-established narratives. Never give up—patience, patience, patience—and find a balance between your work and life. Bodily and mental health are important. A healthy body and mind mean healthy thoughts. I have had serious health issues because I ignored my body while working like a machine. Our strife and work will be long, so we have to adopt a healthy lifestyle to be able to walk the long rocky path. This interview was conducted by Nour Kachi, Legal Researcher CJLPA: The Human Agenda. In addition to his role at CJLPA, Nour is currently working on qualifying as a lawyer in the US and UK. [1] International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, ‘Ensuring torture victims' rights in the global compact’ ( UNHCR , 2017) < https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5a0ac2a47.pdf > accessed 10 March 2024. [2] ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’ ( OHCHR , 15 December 2005) < https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-and-guidelines-right-remedy-and-reparation > accessed 10 March 2024.

The book is a simple yet complex idea that has profound influence on culture, society, and religion that transcends time and civilization. The book is a platform or foundation for the study of the Humanities because it has so much power over the course of human life. The impact of books and the knowledge contained dictates human history, influences religious and political policy, supports the powerful, and inspires the repressed. In early book creation the relationship between word and image was essential. The word spoke to the privileged, the educated and the image informed the poor and illiterate, yet both groups needed books to guide their lives.   I grew up with books; my mother was a voracious reader and raised her children to cherish books. The book is a living memoir, a repository of memory and meaning that goes beyond the story that lies within. My work captures the physical body of the book as if it is a living figure with a spine, the leather cover is skin, and the pages flesh. The physical traits reflect the life of the book, both good and bad, exposing bumps, bruises, withering age, or a child's scribble. How often have you found a special memento in the pages of a book that floods your senses with memories? The Hidden Life of Books explores various book collections. Chapter IV explores holdings in the British Library about Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and the African American musicians, thinkers, and poets he admired and collaborated with. One of Coleridge-Taylor’s earliest collaboration was with poet Paul Laurence Dunbar, whose poetry and prose are often written in ‘the negro cadence’. Coleridge-Taylor was moved by Negro spirituals and inspired to integrate the music into his compositions. These sounds were foreign and fascinating. Through Dunbar he met Rosamond Johnson, James Weldon Johnson, WEB Du Bois, and Booker T Washington. These men developed lifelong friendships, and a creative exchange that influenced the Harlem Renaissance years later. Coleridge-Taylor’s story is an important and unique part of English History. Born mixed race and illegitimate, one could not imagine his rise to fame, respect, and influence both in England and in the United States. But against all odds he did just that. His life was not without racial struggle within the suburban Croydon, and of course when he toured America. While an Englishman to the core, Coleridge-Taylor was uniquely aware of his African ancestry of Sierra Leone, one of the largest slave ports to the Colonies. It was no surprise that he looked to the black musicians, artists, and poets of America to explore his African background. It is estimated that 25% of slaves in America came from Sierra Leone; the connection was not lost on him. In his British Library essay Mike Phillips highlights Coleridge-Taylor’s sensitivity to race ,   Coleridge-Taylor also took a passionate interest in the issues of race, the politics of colonial freedom, and his own African background. After reading the work of African American writer W.E.B. DuBois, he attended the first Pan-African conference in London in 1900 and became part of a loose circle of black activism. His name was already well known in Black America. In 1901 a Samuel Coleridge Taylor Choral Society had been founded in Washington DC.   Phillips continues,   Typically, perhaps, Coleridge-Taylor’s view of his racial and African heritage seems to be filtered through the African American experience…   For the Americans, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor exemplified a life free from the weight of slave history, but not from racism. From their vantage point he moved through life more easily, commanded respect, and received accolades from white audiences and patrons. He did not accept the Jim Crow laws of the United States when touring there. The story of him refusing to move to the 3rd class car where Negros on the train were required to sit, remains legendary in the United States. Coleridge-Taylor boarded a train and sat in 1st class with his 1st class ticket. While on route the conductor asked him to move to the 3rd class car, after a passenger complained about him. He replied with a beautiful English accent ‘I am an Englishman, and not required to move’. The conductor left it at that. He conducted himself differently than African Americans, almost oblivious to his race at times. His refusal to acquiesce to Jim Crow laws was stunning and powerful for his American friends. They would never have considered refusing, for fear of the severe repercussions.   Chapter IV also focuses on Rosamond Johnson, and his time in London. American Oscar Hammerstein opened the London Opera House in 1911, and appointed Rosamond Johnson as the artistic director. This move was groundbreaking and did not go unnoticed. Of the many experiences Johnson had in London, the relationship between him and Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was inspirational and life changing. In the end, the Johnson Brothers and Coleridge-Taylor formed a strong bond, only broken by the sad, premature death of Coleridge-Taylor. Laura Migliorino Laura Migliorino was born in Cleveland Ohio, and grew up in a Chicago Heights, a Chicago suburb. Migliorino’s BFA is from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and MFA is from the University of Minnesota. She teaches at Anoka-Ramsey Community College as a Photography professor. Migliorino received numerous grants from the Jerome Foundation, several Minnesota State Arts Board grants and various exhibition prizes. Her work is in the permanent collection of the Walker Art Center, Weisman Museum in Minneapolis, and The Minnesota Center for Book Arts. She has exhibited internationally for over 30 years. Migliorino’s work has been featured in the Huffington Post , DOMUS Magazine , Pittsburgh Post Gazette , the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and DWELL Magazine . She is a 2021/22 Fulbright scholar at Eccles Centre for American Studies at The British Library in London.

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 an 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, the 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.