Disclaimer: Asymmetrical Haircuts is produced as a podcast, meaning it is meant to be listened to and not read. Because of this, we recommend that you listen to the episode while reading, because the written word does not do justice to the emotion or tone used by our speakers. However, because we recognise there might be bandwidth issues or you might be using a hearing aid, we have provided written transcripts for all our available episodes.

[INTRO MUSIC]

Asymmetrical Haircuts: Justice Update with Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, in partnership with JusticeInfo.net.

Stephanie: 00:37  Hi Janet.

Janet: 00:38  Hi Steph.

Stephanie: 00:40  Today we’re going to look at war crimes investigations in Australia writ large.

Janet: 00:45  Yeah, great. They’re in the spotlight again now, with trials for alleged war crimes committed by Australian troops in Afghanistan, following the Brereton Report. 

Stephanie: 00:50  For more on the report and what happened afterwards, listen to our special series done by our former producer Susanna. We’ll link to this in the show notes. And new developments for people that have already followed that series will be that this year, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, was actually arrested and charged with five counts of war crimes for murder. 

Janet: 01:16  And there is actually a trial starting next year. That’s Oliver Schulz, who was arrested in 2023, another former soldier, and his trial for the murder of an Afghan man is going to commence quite soon. 

Stephanie: 01:29  And we’ve also seen that so-called ISIS brides were arrested, that they’ve been charged with the standard kind of terrorism stuff, but also slavery. We’ll also link to reports of this. 

Janet: 01:39  So the renewed interest in war crimes trials down under, I am speaking as somebody who lives in the, not only the global north, which I think Australia is part of, but also actually physically north, so, down under. That got us thinking about what has laid the foundations originally. And this was potentially, and we’ll explore this, Australia Nazi war crimes investigations. We’re talking a long way back there. And then we’re also going to be talking about Australian representation at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY, through to the present day. I knew that you’d get the ICTY in, Steph. I knew it.

Stephanie: 02:22  Of course. 

Janet: 02:22  You always do. 

Stephanie: 02:22  I always do. And we have the perfect guest to talk us through all of this. Retired Australian war crimes prosecutor, Graham Blewett. Hi, Graham.

Graham Blewitt: 02:30  Hi, Stephanie. How are you? It’s nice to be here with you.

Stephanie: 02:32  Thank you so much for agreeing to talk to us. When I read your 2023 book on the first years of the ICTY and setting up the office of the prosecutor there, I was really kind of surprised to learn that the ICTY actually leaned a lot on the experiences of people like you who had been involved in their home countries in investigating Nazi crimes in World War II in the 1980s and 90s, when there was this big push in Europe and also apparently Australia to find these lower-tier World War II perpetrators who had escaped justice by moving to other countries.

Janet: 03:08  Yeah, I read your notes here in the script. I haven’t read your book. I’m sorry, Graham. I will endeavour to borrow it from Steph and redress that. But what it reminded me of was that we did an episode earlier with another former ICTY, this time a trial prosecutor, Caroline Edgerton. And she was… You wrote this, Steph. I wouldn’t say she ‘got her Canadian war crimes chops.’ I would say that she learned about how to do war crimes investigations also via her Canadian background, actually here in Lithuania, where I still am at the moment and I’m recording from, looking at Nazi war crimes and tracking Nazi war criminals, partly in this region. And that was in the early 1990s before she joined the ICTY. So why don’t you kick us off, Steph?

Stephanie: 03:58  Graham, you started working for what is known as Australia’s Special Investigations Unit or the SIU in 1988. And that was the unit that was looking at these Nazi war crimes. What kind of things specifically were you looking at in these kind of late 80s, early 90s?

Graham Blewitt: 04:16  The most important starting point is what led to the creation of the SIU in the first place. That occurred because there was an investigative journalist who was working for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the ABC. And he’d been working on it for almost a decade, trying to determine whether or not there were war criminals living in Australia and whether or not those Nazi collaborators who did come to Australia did so with the knowledge of the security services, ASIO, as it’s called. That led him travelling the world, investigating allegations that had come to his notice that there were Australian citizens or residents who had committed war crimes in the Second World War. And he put together a series of radio broadcasts and they had a huge impact on the Australian community when they were broadcast in 1986.

Janet: 05:17  I can really imagine the kind of effect that had. I have some Australian relatives and they married into a family from, originally from Macedonia. So I’m aware that there are all these different communities in Australia. What kind of effect did that have?

Graham Blewitt: 05:33  One of the immediate effects was that the Australian public were horrified at the thought that there were mass murderers living next door to them. That public outcry, together with pressure being put on the Australian government to do something about it, led the Australian government under Prime Minister Bob Hawke to create the Special Investigations Unit that had the mandate to investigate those allegations and, if sufficient evidence could be gathered, to then prosecute those people in the Australian courts. The thought of deporting these people or sending them back to the Soviet Union would tantamount to a death penalty and the Australian government was not prepared to send people back to the Soviet Union, which is where most of the alleged perpetrators had come from and where the crimes had been committed. So, the decision was that they would be prosecuted as if the crimes had been committed here in Australia, and that they would be prosecuted in the state where they lived, subject to the laws of, the criminal laws and the laws of evidence in that state.

Stephanie: 06:43  You said that Australian public was kind of horrified at the idea of the murderer next door or mass murderer next door. Should I imagine that this unit went only after these people already identified by the journalist or were people trying to contact you, you know, concerned about their neighbour who looked kind of funny? You know, how should I imagine how you got your tips on what to look for?

Graham Blewitt: 07:10  The initial allegations, I think there were about 76 that were known and they were referred to the SIU by the government and after that, once the unit was established, that led to other organisations, other people, other media outlets, sending reports to the SIU that there were in fact other alleged perpetrators living in Australia. In the end, there were 840 cases that we commenced, investigations on and we completed all of those investigations. About half of them, it was established that they either had died or they could not be located in Australia, and that left with about 400 cases to investigate. In many of those, the allegations couldn’t be established and so it was more than the 76 were originally sent to us. But others came from all sorts of places, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, from American and Canadian war crimes units, so there was a lot of sources of the allegations.

Janet: 08:28  You mentioned there, Graham, there was an approach of using the laws that were in place in different states because Australia is made up out of different states. And, you know, I’m trying to conceptualise this, that everybody’s saying should we do it like this or should we do it like this, or how can we make this do practically? I mean, it really sounds like you were making it up as you went along.

Graham Blewitt: 08:52  Not really. I think the law that enabled these cases to be prosecuted in Australia was the Australian War Crimes Act of 1945. That was a piece of Australian legislation that enabled war crimes trials involving the Japanese war criminals to be investigated and prosecuted at the end of the Second World War. When those cases finished, that piece of legislation just sat dormant. When the SIU was established, it was decided to amend the War Crimes Act to enable these cases to be tried in the Australian courts under Australian laws. It wasn’t really making it up because all of the crimes that were nominated within the legislation were commonly known in all states of Australia, such as murder and manslaughter and rape and all those crimes that make up war crimes. And the legislation provided that those crimes, if committed and if they amounted to a war crime, would be prosecuted in the states where the person lived. That meant that in nearly all cases, the accused would be charged after he was arrested. He would go before a magistrate’s court. The magistrate would determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to put the person on trial. And if there was, the person would then be committed to the Supreme Court of the state where he lived, to be undergo a trial before a jury.

Stephanie: 10:13  This period of quote-unquote Nazi hunting coincided in the late 80s, early 1990s with the new bloody conflict in Europe, the 1990s war that tore apart the former Yugoslavia and ran roughly from 1991 to 1999, if you, it’s when the Kosovo conflict ended. At the time, were these parallels clear to you? Was it clear in Australia? I mean, this loomed extremely large in my youth as a, somebody being in high school and just starting university in the Netherlands at the time of the Yugoslav war. But was it something that you, that was clear to you that these similar kind of crimes were happening in Europe?

Graham Blewitt: 11:07  Well, as it turned out, some of the investigations that the SIU was undertaking involved crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. We were interviewing survivors and witnesses to those crimes committed in Yugoslavia. And our investigators were told by these people that… And this is in the late 19—well, the very early 1990s when it was apparent that there was real potential for a conflict in the Balkans to erupt. And these victims and witnesses were telling our investigators that if a war did break out in the Balkans, they would be obliged, in their view, to send their Australian-born sons back to Yugoslavia to participate in the fighting to seek vengeance and justice for the victims that were killed during the course of the Second World War and the perpetrators were not brought to justice. We were quite alarmed when we heard these reports. And I contacted the Attorney-General’s Department in Canberra to warn them that if a conflict did break out, that this was a potential problem and that it would be necessary to keep these young Australians under some sort of surveillance so that if they did that and came back to Australia, then they could be investigated and prosecuted if they committed crimes. Effectively, the Australian government ignored those warnings. So that, after that, I was aware of the conflicts breaking out in the Balkans and I kept an eye on it for the reasons that I just mentioned.

Stephanie: 12:50  And then in 1992, you get asked to join a UN Commission of Experts looking at setting up a Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. And in 1994, it kind of culminates in you becoming the Deputy Prosecutor of the ICTY, which was formally established a year earlier. Now, I assume that this, at some point, you had to come to The Hague where this new tribunal was going to be. And you know, I’m used to seeing the tribunal building and knowing where everything is, but kind of talk us through the first day for you in The Hague. Was there a space where you could set up? Did you have co-workers? Who was there with you? And how did you think about setting all of this up?

Graham Blewitt: 13:34  Just to put your questions into some sort of context, when the SIU was undertaking its investigations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we were cooperating very closely with the Canadian, US, English and Scottish war crimes units that had been set up. We realised that in many cases, we were investigating the same groups of perpetrators. For example, the Lithuanian 12th Battalion, and the Latvian Arajs Kommando. And it turned out that all of the separate war crimes investigators, units in different countries, were interviewing the same witnesses. And we were basically treading on each other’s toes. So we proposed that we have a meeting of all the investigation teams throughout the world, identify who we were investigating, prioritising those that were the most significant, and which country had the most interest in prosecuting those, so that, as I said, we were not stepping on each other’s toes. As a consequence of that, the Australian War Crimes Unit got a bit of a reputation as being a leader in these types of investigations. And that’s what led to the United Nations contacting me in 1982 to join the Commission of Experts. I said I’d be willing to do it on a part-time basis, but I couldn’t do it full-time because I was still involved in the war crimes prosecutions here in Australia. So I was told that it was a full-time job, and no thanks. 

Graham Blewitt: 15:12  But when the SIU finished its work, when the last case finished in December of 1993, I contacted the UN and said, you contacted me to join the Commission of Experts. I couldn’t do it then, but I can do something now. I see that you’re having problems setting up the prosecutor’s office, and if you think my expertise can help, then I will make myself available. That message was received in New York, and I was then invited to travel to The Hague to be interviewed for the job of deputy prosecutor. There was a Venezuelan man, Escovar Salom, who was the prosecutor-elect. He had not taken up office, but he interviewed me for the job and said he would recommend my appointment as the deputy prosecutor. At the end of the interview, which took place in The Hague, he said, I want you to come with me now to the tribunal headquarters where all the judges are meeting in a plenary session. And at that plenary session, he said, I’ve just interviewed Graham Blewett and I’m going to recommend his appointment as the deputy prosecutor. However, he said, I’ve got another announcement to make, and that is that I’m not going to take up my position as chief prosecutor. I have another job back in Venezuela and I’m intending to take that job. He then spent an hour explaining to the judges why he had made that decision. And in the end, I was asked by the judges to make a little speech, and I think I said a speech that only lasted 30 seconds, which made a big impression on the judges. So within the following days, my nomination as, or recommendation that I be appointed was accepted by the secretary general. And I was advised to get my bottom back to The Hague as quickly as I could to start the office. 

Graham Blewitt: 17:06  So Stephanie, now coming to your question, the first, when I first arrived at the tribunal, I was the only person in the prosecutor’s office. And effectively, I was the first person in the prosecutor’s office. All I had there was, I think, two floors in the building that were set aside for the prosecutor’s office. There were corridors on each floor with rooms off either side of the corridor. They were all empty. They had desks in them, and that was about all. So it was a lonely time. And I then set about creating the structure of the Office of the Prosecutor. In doing that, I used my experience from the SIU and also from my experience working at the National Crime Authority investigating organised crime, which is where I worked before I went to the SIU. I mentioned that because the National Crime Authority, the NCA, had multidisciplined teams. There were lawyers, investigators, analysts, all working on a particular case. And that was extremely successful. The SIU was established pretty much on the same basis, using multidisciplinary teams, so that by the time I arrived in The Hague, I realised that that was probably going to be the best way to get the office started. So in designing the prosecutor’s office, I created a secretariat for the chief prosecutor and his or her staff, an investigations division that would be responsible for undertaking the investigations, a prosecution section with lawyers and prosecutors to prosecute the cases, and some other support units. And that structure remained for the life of the ICTY. It was also adopted for the Rwandan Tribunal. And when the permanent ICC was established, that structure was also duplicated. Once the office was organised, I then set about recruiting the staff to fill those various sections within the office.

Janet: 19:12  What was your biggest day at the ICTY? Suggestion from Steph is that maybe it was when the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, still, I would suggest, probably the ICTY’s most famous detainee, even though he died in the end in custody, rather than facing full judgement, is that, you know, his arrest and transfer and seeing him in the dock, was that your biggest day? Or is there another one of those trials that you were more, maybe more intimately involved with that that was your big moment?

Graham Blewitt: 19:49  I think Milosevic was always the primary target of the ICTY. He could not be charged or indicted for the crimes committed in Bosnia or Croatia, because he was only the president of Serbia, the state of Serbia. However, when he became the president of the federation, that then gave him jurisdiction over what was turned out to occur in Kosovo. So there we were able to pin his direct responsibility for the crimes in Kosovo, and that led to his indictment. So I think the original indictment, which only involved Kosovo, was certainly a very significant day and probably the most significant day. We took the view that if he ever lost power, political power, that is, then it would be likely that he would come to The Hague. So we had an expectation that he would turn up one day, and that’s what happened. And when he was transferred to The Hague, and as the prosecution for the Kosovo charges were proceeding, sufficient evidence was also gathered to charge him with the crimes in Croatia and Bosnia. When the trial started, he was being prosecuted basically as the chief architect for all of the crimes that occurred in the Balkan wars from 1992 to 1999.

Janet: 21:11  That’s still very much a mantra of the tribunals that we cover at the moment. Just you wait, that person will potentially lose political power at some moment and be transferred, and then we’ll see it. And we’ve actually, for example, we’re covering at the moment the upcoming trial at some point of Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines at the International Criminal Court. Where i would suggest a lot of people in the Philippines never imagined that would happen, but because of a dispute within two ruling families, here we go, Duterte got transferred over. And was that always something that you were aware of, working there and working on these things, that you have to keep a weather eye for the realpolitik, the real politics around these cases?

Graham Blewitt: 22:04  Yes, definitely. At the ICTY, we realised that there were real possibilities that all of the major persons indicted would end up in The Hague, and as it turned out, they all did. So I think there was some justification for our optimism. And even today, I believe that those who are responsible for the crimes being committed in Ukraine and Gaza, under the same set of circumstances, could end up in The Hague. So I’m optimistic that one day, certainly some of those responsible for the crimes will end up in The Hague.

Stephanie: 22:38  I’m a big ICTY fangirl, so I can’t resist fangirling one more time. If you look at what is happening now at the ICC and all these universal jurisdiction efforts, how do you see the biggest legacy of the ICTY? Is that one of the people that kind of turn up in all these different justice efforts that do the same thing? A lot of former ICTY people are now working on accountability in Ukraine. Some other former ICTY people are in the ICC. Or is it the case law that you’ve established? And back to the classic Tadić case, the case that always gets cited. Whenever you have a war crimes case at the ICC, all the precedents are usually ICTY and ICTR. What for you is the biggest legacy that you see still?

Graham Blewitt: 23:28  Well, for me, I think the biggest legacy of the ICTY was the creation of the ICC. I can indicate that when I was advised that I was given the position of the deputy chief prosecutor, I travelled from Australia to The Hague via New York. In New York, I met with UN officials, US officials and various NGOs. At that time, there were steps afoot by many countries to create such a court. And I was told that if the ICTY failed, it would set back, by a decade at least, the formation of a permanent court. So that imposed a lot of pressure on me. And it was always in the back of my mind that if we failed, the ICC may well have been a casualty, which would be in addition to the failure of bringing justice to the victims in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. 

Graham Blewitt: 24:24  That was the initial legacy for me. And obviously, the trials that did take place in the ICTY, these were trials, the first international criminal trials since Nuremberg. And up until Nuremberg, international criminal law—well, virtually, it was very much established at Nuremberg, what international crimes were, so that the crimes were known. But up until the ICTY, international criminal law was merely an academic study. So when the ICTY indicted and charged and prosecuted those who were charged, it meant that the courts had to rule upon all sorts of aspects of international criminal law that had not been decided by a judicial body. So in many way, ways, the ICTY created the legal precedents that enabled subsequent tribunals, which included the ICC, to undertake their work. So I think, yes, the judicial judgments did form an important legacy of the ICTY.

Janet: 25:29  I’ve been writing quite a lot about this new special tribunal that’s been created for Ukraine that’s going to be tackling aggression. And, you know, you’ve spoken there about this overhanging thing that, you know, the ICC was going to be created and that was going to be the permanent tribunal. I’m so conscious with writing about this new tribunal for Ukraine, that we’re still, again, creating ad hoc solutions for these things. And I understand the technicalities, the reason why the ICC hasn’t got the jurisdiction to do aggression, but I wonder whether you are like me and a bit fed up with this kind of constant, let’s create another tribunal, another ad hoc solution. Did you think that it was going to be all over with the creation of the ICC?

Graham Blewitt: 26:18  One of my biggest disappointments when the ICC was created was that it was not given jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. If it had jurisdiction, the Ukrainian war may not have started because President Putin could have been indicted right at the very beginning when he invaded Ukraine with the crime of aggression. To think that one of the permanent members of the Security Council would even get involved in such a conflict was unthinkable. So when the conflict did start, when Putin illegally invaded Ukraine, he virtually was untouchable. The ICC had no jurisdiction. Had they had jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, in my view, the entire conflict could have been halted very, very early. So it’s it’s unfortunate. So if the ICC is unable to prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression, then the next best step is another ad hoc tribunal to do so. But they’re the two options. Either give the ICC the jurisdiction and let them do it. And that’s where it should be conducted. But failing that, then an ad hoc tribunal could certainly undertake the work.

Janet: 27:31  I’m just going to ask our intern, Caitlyn Tan, who’s joined us from Chile, to listen in to this conversation and wonder whether, she is somebody very new to this whole field, but been listening back to the podcast. Whether, Caitlyn, you have a question that you’d like to put to Graham yourself? 

Caitlyn Tan: 27:50  Graham, what do you think is the importance of international law today, especially when like bigger powers seem to be violating and dismissing it?

Graham Blewitt: 28:01  I think it’s essential, Caitlyn, that the rule of international law be upheld. In the absence of the rule of law, then democracies and free states will just disappear. And the world will be subjected to dictators. So what’s happening now in the conflicts you mentioned, in Ukraine, in Gaza, and other places around the world, it’s it’s essential that the rule of law prevail and that the perpetrators of such crimes be brought to justice. Without the rule of international law, that will never happen.

Stephanie: 28:37  If we look at kind of present-day war crimes trials in Australia, looking at Afghanistan and the ISIS brides, and maybe other issues down the pipeline, how do you see the historical thread from the Special Investigations Unit to now, to those early days? Is the case law of the special unit still being used as the basis for Australian war crimes trials? Do you have people coming to see you and ask you how you did it at the time? Or, you know, how do we pull the thread from when you started in the 1980s to what is happening now in Australia specifically?

Graham Blewitt: 29:16  Stephanie, you just hit a very sore point. When allegations emerged that Australian troops had committed war crimes in Afghanistan, following the Brereton Report, the Australian government determined that those involved should be investigated. And if there was sufficient evidence, they should be charged. So I think that was the right thing to do. When the Office of the Special Investigator was set up, I contacted the prime minister, the minister whose portfolio it was to oversee the Defence Forces, as well as the individual who was appointed as the special prosecutor. And I indicated to all three of those individuals that there were a number of Australian citizens living in Australia who had an enormous amount of experience in investigating war crimes, including the Nazis and war criminals in the Balkans. 

Graham Blewitt: 30:14  These investigators had a wealth of experience and would be able to assist in the investigations that the Special Investigator had to do. I said we were not looking for jobs, that I wasn’t looking for a job, but there was a body of expertise that could probably help you in your quest to conduct these investigations. And sadly, I didn’t get any response to those approaches. In particular, I was surprised because the Special Investigator was, in fact, the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time when the Nazi war crimes perpetrators were indicted here in Australia. So at the very least, he would have been aware of what was involved, he would be aware of how hard it was, and that calling upon the expertise of the SIU and the ICTY would have been invaluable, but those pleas were ignored. When the cases do take place here in Australia involving Australian Defence Force personnel charged with war crimes, then they will be conducted in the same way that the SIU perpetrators were prosecuted, in the Supreme Courts of the various states where the people live.

Janet: 31:30  Graham, beyond that use of expertise, do you, kind of, see that there is a kind of line to be drawn in Australia with everybody, with the public recognising that, from those early days through to now, that war crimes are something that have to be addressed and have to be faced within the courts? And that there’s no point of trying to sort of, you know, with that very straightforward, you know, putting sort of national stereotypes here, but very straightforward Australian attitude, you know, let’s just get on with it, lets deal with it properly? And do you think that theres a way that Australia looks at these things that you can draw a parallel from one through to the other?

Graham Blewitt: 32:15  My view is that the political scene in Australia is just not willing to tackle the question of war crimes and war criminals living in Australia. In fact, I think Australia has a reputation as being a safe haven or sanctuary for war criminals. It’s one of my lifelong goals to have established in Australia a permanent and independent war crimes investigation unit, similar to those in the US, and in Canada and in other places. And until that happens, I think Australia will only react to allegations that come out, and we’ll have to set up ad hoc organisations to do it. It’s essential, in my view, that a permanent war crimes unit be set up where expertise can be built up to undertake these investigations and prosecutions, because they are complicated and it does require an enormous amount of investigation. I repeat that i think the only way that can happen here in Australia is through the creation of an independent, permanent war crimes investigation unit.

Stephanie: 33:26  Well, on that note, I think we’re going to wrap up this podcast. I want to thank you. I understand that we’ve only scratched the surface on a lot of issues, but this is still more than most people probably know about war crimes investigations in Australia so i thank you very much for sharing your wealth of experience and expertise with us on that. We always end our podcast with what we call Asymmetrical Haircuts questions. One of them is: is there something that we didn’t talk about or didn’t mention that you really really wanted to say? I would assume that maybe the heartfelt plea for the war crimes unit was it, but is there a burning issue that you want to tell us about?

Graham Blewitt: 34:09  As you just mentioned, for me, the most burning issue is the creation of this permanent war crimes investigation unit in Australia. And i would love to see the ICC regain its credibility and to get on with prosecuting people like Netanyahu and Putin.

Janet: 34:28  Our other main Asymmetrical Haircuts question that we ask is: do you have any recommendations for our listeners? Have you in your, it looks like pretty much semi-retirement if you’re spending your time writing books and lobbying the prime minister and doing all kinds of other work, but in the time that you have, your small amount of spare time, do you have anything that you are reading, anything that you’re listening to or anything that you’re watching that you would like to recommend to people? It could be in this sphere that we’ve been speaking about, maybe you can mention the titles of your books as we go along as well, or maybe it could be something that you like very much in order to relax.

Graham Blewitt: 35:05  Well, I think I should mention my two books. The first one I wrote was my experiences in setting up the tribunal in my first, well, my ten years there, which were the first ten years of the Office of the Prosecutor. So that book is called “Justice in War Crimes,” and it is available. And I think related to that is my book about the Nazi war crimes investigations and prosecutions here in Australia. There is a lot to be said, and that book is called “Nazis in Australia,” so I would recommend those to people. There was also a recent documentary that was broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Service, SBS. I don’t know whether that’s available internationally, but it was an hour-long documentary on Nazis in Australia and the attempts to prosecute them and it’s called “The Hunt for the Last Nazis,” I think it was called. So that’s, I would also recommend that. It’s a powerful documentary. I don’t intend to do any more writing in terms of international criminal law, but I am working on a third book about my time at the National Crime Authority, so maybe that will come out one day.

Janet: 36:15  Well, we’ll look for that with interest. All very on-brand at the moment: Nazis, Nazis and war crimes. You know, you’re one of our kind of people, Graham.

Stephanie: 36:24  Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come and talk to us about this. And yeah, it’s fascinating to see how all this experience then leads to one court, that leads to another court, and how all these things intermingle with each other and link up. I thought it was also interesting that you said before you worked in organised crime and that helped you set up these joint units. And that is something that we also saw at the Kosovo Tribunal, a lot of the prosecutors and the Americans keep sending these people who are, have all this experience tackling organised crime cases, because it is very similar to war crimes cases in a way, so that link is also there.

Graham Blewitt: 37:03  Yes, I agree with that. I guess I should also say that I think the UN hasn’t covered itself with glory in certain areas over the years, but I think one of the best things it ever did was create the ICTY back in 1993. That was an unprecedented step. And they used their authority to maintain international peace and security to create the tribunal. So I think that was an outstanding piece of work by the UN, and one of the good things it has done.

Janet: 37:36  The halcyon days of the 1990s, when everybody actually did a bit of cooperation. We remember them well, but it’s  useful for somebody like Caitlyn, who probably wasn’t even born then, to be reminded that it wasn’t always as it is now. So thanks very much, Graham, and wish you well with your next piece of work.

Graham Blewitt: 37:54  Thank you, Janet.

[OUTRO MUSIC]

Stay safe and enjoy your day.