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 TUNE]

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

Janet: 00:10  Hi, Steph.

Stephanie: 00:11  Hi, Janet.

Janet: 00:12  So welcome back. Have you sort of gone headlong deep dive back into work, or are you more of a gentle slide in?

Stephanie: 00:20  I think the week that I was back I started with impending or actual Mladić deaths.

Janet: 00:26  Oh, we’re gonna get on to that later.

Stephanie: 00:28  So it wasn’t exactly a gentle slide. I returned and was reading all the emails, and then I saw this kind of back and forth in the Balkan media. There was a story about that they refused his return to Serbia, but listed from the things that he was really, really ill because they had a doctor saying that he would only live an expected redacted amount of weeks. And from experience I know that when doctors start talking in weeks, they usually mean days. 

Janet: 00:57  A short time.

Stephanie: 00:57  Yeah, so I was emailing everybody going, we should prepare for this for real for now. Of course, he’s been ill for a while, so.

Janet: 01:06  we’ll come back to that one. I was very happy that we had some really nice summer podcasts put out by our wonderful collection of production interns. I appreciate very much the work that they put in. So my return to work has been somewhat gentler. But my first question to you is, has there by chance been an important development during the summer in the relationship between The Hague and Japan? Was there anything that you noticed?

Stephanie: 01:36  Well, of course, with my specific slant, I noticed that there are now also sanctions against the Japanese president of the ICC from the US. But I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.

Janet: 01:49  No, I also noticed that the Girl with a Pearl Earring, which is perhaps the most important and certainly best-known Hague-based painting, has gone on tour yet again and is in Osaka, as far as I know, in Japan. They can’t seem to get enough of us Dutch stuff, including Nijntje, or as the rest of the world knows her, Miffy, the wonderful little rabbit, you know, big female icon of our time. But yes, I did, honestly, I did notice the sanctions against Judge Akane. Do you want to do the typical Stephopedia, tell us about it all?

Stephanie: 02:27  I wasn’t really there for it, so most of my office did it. So the Stephopedia would be that before we went on holiday there was an announcement from the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that they would kind of step up their campaign against the ICC to demolish it, quote, brick by brick, unquote. At the time he mostly focused on that he said that he would really heap on the pressure on states that rely on US military support to kind of, I guess, withdraw or limit their support for the court. So I wasn’t really expecting another round of sanctions, or if I was expecting sanctions I was expecting them to go for the entire institution, but instead they just did Judge Akane and Abdoulaye Sey, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer at the Office of the Prosecutor.

Janet: 03:22  Yeah, should we just explain why he was picked?

Stephanie: 03:26  Yes. Well, he is, in my understanding from my little diagram that I have who runs what investigation, is that he was put in charge of the Israel-Palestine team after Andrew Cayley left. So he’s running the one investigation that the US really, really, really is working against.

Janet: 03:45  I didn’t recognise his name in that context. I thought, I have seen that name somewhere before, and it’s because he’s on the list of people who are running to become one of the judges at the ICC. I think we’ll come back to that, that there’s an election at the end of this, this year and there are a very large number of African judges going for the, I think, two African spots that will become available on the court, and Abdoulaye Sey is one of them. Did, were you aware of him from that as well?

Stephanie: 04:18  I wasn’t aware of him from that, but I did notice that after he was sanctioned I was looking on his LinkedIn just to kind of see if my, because what I have is a kind of diagram of who I think works for what investigation just from context clues, because the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC since the first round of sanctions really tamped down on kind of releasing names of who is working on what and kind of protecting anybody who is not a prosecutor or a deputy prosecutor, so.

Janet: 04:48  Just to say, for people who don’t cover the courts, we get a number of documents that we scan all the time, and these have turned into, I mean, they’re still important documents, but you don’t get any indication of who is who in the different teams on those that we used to get before. And in court sometimes people’s names are not always said, are they, or they’re not always transcribed, if I’m correct.

Stephanie: 05:15  I think they’re not always said in court. They have to be transcribed for the transcription, and then there is a, the Office of the Prosecutor also has to grapple with the fact that I and other kind of media cannot quote people if we don’t have a name, just kind of for fact-check situations. And if you say something in public, then your name should be attached. But there are people who apparently have issues with that, so they kind of have to figure out who they’re going to put, who can say something and that we can then quote.

Janet: 05:45  What I was wondering about, and what people have been asking me about to some degree is, does this mark a really big change to have put the sanctions on the ICC president, not because of that specific position, but because she’s from Japan? Japan’s probably one of the court’s biggest backers in the sense that it pays a lot into the budget. It’s always been an important country in international justice. That’s, that’s a kind of mixed picture going back, but maybe similarly to Germany, the sense of, you know, how important that justice is in some form or another after you, your country themselves have either been through an atrocity or have been part of the perpetrators of an atrocity. And, you know, she’s quite soft-spoken. She, she doesn’t give a lot of media interviews, etc. But do we have a sense that, you know, this is an important development for the court, and will, I don’t know, strengthen the backbone of somebody or other to do something about this?

Stephanie: 06:49  I would love for it to strengthen the backbone of somebody to do something about it, but I’m not necessarily sure that Japan is going to be the country that does it. I mean, it, it is another escalation. Well, of course, obviously, the first escalation is when you start sanctioning prosecutors for doing their job. Then you escalate it to another level by sanctioning judges who generally are doing their jobs and also are much more seen as kind of independent and not, not actively trying to prosecute people. And then to escalate it into the president of the court is, of course, another ring of escalation. I think everybody was expecting institution-wide sanctions at some point, and so I find it remarkable, in a way, that we’re not at that point yet, that that seems to be still a bridge too far. I haven’t seen that much outrage about it, and I’m not sure if this is the thing that’s going to really strengthen the backbone.

Janet: 07:48  No, I agree. 

Stephanie: 07:50  Japan has been kind of, I think they said something that they regret this, but they haven’t said words like unacceptable. They haven’t just kind of said this is unfortunate, and they haven’t really said we’re going to fight this or fight back or whatever. 

Janet: 08:04  One of my other ways of opening this podcast was going to be, okay, what’s the difference between regret and condemn? And I can’t remember the other words, the words that I’ve seen different states use. I mean, I say at the end they’re all words, aren’t they, Stephanie? Do they mean anything? No, they’re just words.

Stephanie: 08:24  They’re just words. I think it will be important to see how Japan backs the president of the court, and for a lot of the sanctioned judges and prosecutors, as we understand it, the main component of how well they can continue to function in their personal life and their job with this sanction is essentially how much their state supports them.

Janet: 08:47  Gives them access, or enables banks to give them access, to what we regard as the normal parts of, you know, everyday life. You know, you need to be able to have a phone, so it has to be able to be paid. You need to have a bank card in some form. So yes, states are the ones who can enable, through their individual backing of the individuals, to make that happen.

Stephanie: 09:08  I think it might draw Japan in a little bit more to this ICC, but I think they were pretty much brought in already because they have, they have the Japanese president of the ICC, and that was a big deal. I am just, I don’t think that this is the big thing that will change it, although, of course, in a way, I hope it does because I do think that the ideals of the ICC are worth fighting for, and I don’t see a lot of fighting for. I see a lot of, oh, we regret and we condemn, but we’re not actually doing anything, you know, politically.

Janet: 09:42  Yes, somebody asked me that yesterday, whether I thought the ICC was worth fighting for, and I must admit I had a bit of a pause before I felt I able to answer the question. And to be honest, as a journalist, I don’t think that’s my role to say whether I think it’s worth fighting for. The ideals, yes-

Stephanie: 09:58  Yes.

Janet: 09:59  But the actual reality of the institution, I don’t want to see it go up in flames, I don’t want to see it die, I don’t want to see all of those things, otherwise I don’t have any work. But on the other hand, I’m not, I’m not a justice warrior.

Stephanie: 10:12  Yeah, there’s a, there’s a reason I said that the ideals of the ICC are worth fighting for.

Janet: 10:16  Yeah, understood. Well, talking about ideals. 

Stephanie: 10:19  This is an odd segue. 

Janet: 10:23  [Laughter] I know. Well, let’s see, here’s your ideal tribunal.

Stephanie: 10:26  Oh, in that sense.

Janet: 10:27  One of the worst people, but to be put on trial. You’ve mentioned already that you picked up that it was likely that the former Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladić was likely to die, and he did die. What’s it like being on death watch as a Reuters correspondent? What do you do? How do you make that work?

Stephanie: 10:49  He’s been poorly for a number of years, but it was getting progressively worse, and we had some applications from his defence that he was really, really sick and they wanted him released to Serbia, and then you also get a kind of glimpse at doctor’s reports.

Janet: 11:07  Yeah, but they’re redacted, aren’t they, so you don’t get substantial stuff?

Stephanie: 11:11  Yeah, they are redacted, but, you know, you have to prep and you have to prep at, I think at some point they started saying that death was imminent a couple of months ago, or death was likely. So I think before I went on holiday I even said, you know, you have to do a couple of things. So what you do is you prepare the snap for if it gets confirmed out of The Hague, and I started calling around the tribunal because, honestly, at the MICT, which is the residual, I think it’s now I-R-M-C-T, but we still call it the MICT because that’s just easier acronym to speak, but it’s the mechanism that deals with the residual international tribunal, so Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Janet: 11:56  And it’s a skeleton in itself, isn’t it, talking about-

Stephanie: 12:00  Yes-

Janet: 12:01  Organisations? You know, there’s not a lot of staff there, so presumably you were calling people to say, oi, get it together.

Stephanie: 12:07  Well, yes, and mostly, I mean, there’s honestly, there’s just some people kind of turning off the lights and making sure the files are kept somewhere where somebody could possibly see them again. But even the people that I spoke to after Kabuga, the Rwandan, the Rwandan suspect who was also on trial there, that I’d seen just months ago, that I tried to call, turned out they’re not working there anymore. Everything is really winding down. So I had understood from that, which is gonna go, I can see in the script that you’re gonna ask me this as well, so, you know, what I want to know when this happens is, and what it’s handy for me as a journalist to know, is like what, what are we expecting will happen? And I had managed to talk to somebody at the tribunal who explained to me that they probably would need 24 hours to confirm any death and that it would first be relayed to the Serbian authorities and his family. And we know that his family and both the Serbian authorities leak this stuff a lot, and his family speak was very outspoken.

Janet: 13:10  Yeah, so everybody’s going to, going to get to know that, so the news would come out from Belgrade rather than coming out from, from The Hague.

Stephanie: 13:19  Yeah. So basically I’m sending around emails to my team in Belgrade and my correspondent in Bosnia saying, you know, we, we’re prepping from this side. We have to have a portrait, you know, a kind of an obit for him, which would come out of the Balkans, so, you know, that’s done by my colleagues in the region, and also say we expect that it will come out of Serbian media, Serbian government, or his son who is in Belgrade, and this is exactly what happened. We were kind of on death watch, and then it turned out to be Serbian TV news that broke it. But it’s, if you know the Balkans, this was Informer television, and Informer is really closely aligned with the Vučić government in Serbia, so it’s really kind of the government TV. And because we knew that this was imminent and we were expecting it, you can then snap it with that source, with only one source, which is something that we don’t do a lot.

Janet: 14:21  Yeah.

Stephanie: 14:22  Except for when it’s really state TV, but the circumstances are such that, you know, this is probably true, and then everybody starts calling everybody else to get it confirmed. 

Janet: 14:32  The only things I’ve seen after the MICT since then were things about, you know, there had to be a decision on an autopsy and there had to be, you know, an investigation and things like that. But I think before we go into sort of, you know, how he’s seen, which is what I put next in the script, is maybe we need to explain to people who he was because I’m kind of making an assumption that most of our audience actually knows who Mladić was, but it’s a long time ago now. So why don’t you, what’s, what’s the Stephopedia for that?

Stephanie: 15:04  Yes, make me feel old. The Stephopedia is that Ratko Mladić was a Bosnian Serb general who basically ran the Bosnian Serb army, which was the statelet that broke away from Bosnia and fought very heavily in the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. Mladić, as the military commander, was essentially the right hand of the political leader Radovan Karadžić, but Mladić as a general, as the head of the military, oversaw the siege of Sarajevo and also very specifically the genocide in Srebrenica. And so he is not only the one that commanded the army that committed the genocide, but he also was personally in Srebrenica on the day that it fell. And you will see, if you saw some of the things that were shown on television of the obits, you have images of him kind of conquering Srebrenica, walking into the town. But he’s also seen, he goes to the compound where the Dutch UN soldiers are and he meets the Muslim refugees, women and men, and those are the men that, men among them will later be separated and from the women and killed. And he is promising them, no, you know, no harm will come to you, we will take care of you, and handing out candy to the children and things like that. 

Janet: 16:34  And he was found guilty by the Yugoslav tribunal for a number of charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Stephanie: 16:43  Exactly. And he was sentenced to life in prison, which is essentially what he got. He’s been in prison ever since. 

Janet: 16:49  I saw there’s a number of takes on the extraordinary that he’s persistently seen as a hero by Bosnian Serbs, and kind of a, in the, you know, a suggestion in some form that international justice, or his trial at the least, and maybe this whole kind of thing of international justice, doesn’t actually work because at the end of the day people are going to believe what they’re going, going to believe. How do those kind of takes make you feel as a journalist who’s worked in the former Yugoslavia?

Stephanie: 17:21  Well, I think it’s, it has gotten worse in a way. And the narrative, at least in Serbia in the beginning, was a little bit like, you know, those Bosnian hicks did all kinds of stuff that we don’t really agree with, and they were hiding Mladić, and he hid out in Serbia for a long time, but he wasn’t really necessarily seen as a hero of the Serbian people. And when I just arrived in Belgrade in 2010, there wasn’t a lot of, like, Mladić graffiti. You had to go to the Serb part of Bosnia for that kind of hero worship. But in recent years it got more and more, got a more nationalistic government, and it’s also kind of turning away a bit from the European Union and looking more towards Russia. You saw the kind of surge of Mladić graffiti and stuff. But I was shocked when I first saw, there is some, there’s always hardliners that are, like, really pro-

Janet: 18:17   Yeah-

Stephanie: 18:18  Mladić, but to have this graffiti in the streets, I was really shocked with the first time I saw that, when that was in 2016 or ’17 in Belgrade, when that started appearing. And this whole suggestion that the trial didn’t work, I mean, it doesn’t help with what we, what the tribunal wanted, which is reconciliation, but it does help narrow the space for denial. And this is always with the Srebrenica massacre, we should actually say the Srebrenica genocide. It used to be “it didn’t happen at all,” and then it was “it’s not that many people,” or it used to be it’s all, or it’s all military men and it were, there weren’t any civilians. And so now we’ve gotten to the point where they say, you know, yeah, a lot of people got killed, but we wouldn’t call it a genocide, it’s too few people to call it a genocide. So in that sense it narrows the space for denial, and I think that is the only thing you can hope for. You cannot convince people of something else, but the trials did put all these narratives out there and all these images and all these things. Also, I mean, they, these trials were 20 years after the fact, and we thought that we knew everything that happened in Srebrenica, but during Mladić’s trial there was this video that suddenly emerged from the Serbian paramilitaries organisation who had filmed kind of taking two men out of, out of Srebrenica, and young people, and you can actually see the, the summary executions. And we hadn’t seen footage of that. So even that, you know, things that we thought, well, now we’ve seen all the footage, probably everything is on earth that we could see, but somebody leaked this video that was probably circulating and all these veterans who had filmed this at the time, and it made it to the trial. So I think in that sense you can always kind of uncover new things, and that makes it hard to refute what happened in Srebrenica.

Janet: 20:15  I was gonna finish off the whole podcast with saying, looking ahead to some of the things, but just mentioning that we’re planning in November a live pod recording here in The Hague, and we’ll be past The Hague Justice Week, and one of the subjects for that is going to be about what archives, what evidence that’s come up in trial is actually for. Because, yeah, there’s, there’s a lot of questions over, for example, what will happen with the evidence from the Yugoslav tribunal, and I have a lot of questions about all these different tribunals that keep on being created, and whether there’s any thought process around archives and what evidence is used for, and so on and so on. So just to put that on the agenda for people to look ahead. But in terms of other things to look ahead to, or anything else you want to mention that, that’s, that’s happened, I’m certainly thinking we’re going to be concentrating on the ICC for the next few months, aren’t we, because a lot of stuff has happened and is going to be happening.

Stephanie: 21:19  Yeah, a lot of stuff has happened. We, of course, extensively covered the prosecutor, or that, we should say the former prosecutor Karim Khan was voted out. So we have, you know, who’s going to succeed him, how is that election going to shape up, who are the main contenders? But in the meantime we’ve also seen the withdrawal of now five state parties: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Chad and Venezuela. And this US campaign to up the pressure on other states, who we’re hearing also that the US is leaning on other states, and we’re wondering who will-

Janet: 21:53  Who’s gonna crack?

Stephanie: 21:55  And who’s going to withdraw? How much, you know, how much pressure will the US put? Will they actually say, you know, to Eastern European ICC members who rely on NATO support and, or, you know, military support from the US for, let’s say, anti-, anti-aircraft weapons, if they say you can’t have them unless you resign from the ICC or you withdraw from the ICC, you know?

Janet: 22:23  There’s always negotiations to go on. I was reading a piece by Cyril Laucci just before we started recording where he was kind of pointing out what isn’t happening. We still don’t have the use of the EU’s Blocking Statute, which is not a panacea, it’s not going to solve everything, but it’s a mechanism that would enable, if there are sanctions on the court, so maybe they’ll wait until there are sanctions on the court, it would enable some European companies to carry on doing some business with them if they wanted to and have their fines essentially paid for by the European Union. But there’s also nobody kind of, as far as we know, nobody’s trying to change anything or push anything within the court. I mean, those states who don’t like what is going on at the ICC, why aren’t they trying to get some kind of a deferral of the Palestine investigation if that’s what they want? So it could be deferred for a year by the Security Council, and again, and that might take some pressure off the court. I mean, there are things states could be doing if they wanted to. 

Stephanie: 23:32  I find it remarkable that there’s so little kind of coordinated effort to push back. And maybe, you know, the Dutch will probably, and my own government would probably, always say that they’re working on it in back rooms. And, I mean, the argument I’ve heard from diplomats is that they are pushing back, and because if they, you know, why do we think they keep just sanctioning just little clutches of judges, and, you know, why haven’t they done the whole institution? But it’s still, this is kind of death by a thousand cuts this way. But I wonder how much more they must escalate before they take a great unified stance, and that is what worries me. I’m not sure there will ever be a great unified stance.

Janet: 24:14  Yeah, States, unity, must be joking. So we also have to look forward to, towards the end of the year, we’ve already mentioned it, there’s going to be the meeting of the IACC, that’s called the Assembly of States Parties, the ASP, which when it’s in The Hague is one of our big jamborees that we like to say hello to a lot of people. At the moment it’s still slated to happen in New York, but with all of the sanctions from the United States, there has to be a question mark over whether that would be a sensible thing to do. Are you hearing anything more about changes, whether the election of the prosecutor is planned to go ahead at some time, presumably next year rather than this year? What are you hearing, Steph, that you’d like to share publicly on the podcast?

Stephanie: 25:04  What I am hearing is that a lot of states are pushing for a kind of full-fledged election process with kind of safeguards and trying to vet candidates.

Janet: 25:15  Well, that, that might be sensible, don’t you think?

Stephanie: 25:18  Right, but that will also take a long time, and so if you do go for that, then there’s essentially no way that you could have this year’s election.

Janet: 25:27  So what, what does that mean in terms of running the office at the moment? Because we have the two deputy prosecutors, that’s Niang from Senegal and female Khan from Fiji, who are jointly in charge. I mean, do they just stay in charge, I suppose?

Stephanie: 25:46  Yeah, I think that is what I understand. They are now, you know, interim in charge, and they’ve already been in charge for a year because before all of this, last year in May, the male Khan took a leave of absence because everybody thought that the results of the investigation would be imminent and the court would kind of quickly act, which of course-

Janet: 26:07  Took a little bit longer, partly because the procedure was so strung together, but it was just made up as it went along. It was very messy. I think we can clearly say that. And definitely doesn’t bode well to have such a messy procedure when you have what is essentially meant to be an independent prosecutor, and yet this is the way that, that states investigated and decided to, to remove him without there being, you know, a better formal process of doing that. So yeah, I think that’s also on their agenda. I don’t know if you agree.

Stephanie: 26:42  Yeah. On that note, we should also have a bit of a corrections corner here because we got some people involved with the vote on Khan got in touch with us to say that we, on the last pod before we took a break, when we talked about the vote, I think I said that talking about the different, the breakdown of the votes of Khan, said that they had almost gotten the two-thirds majority if they had gone with the two votes. 

Jane: 27:14  They got 82 votes against Khan, and I suppose it depends, therefore that’s the numerator, so it depends on what your denominator is on, on two-thirds of what.

Stephanie: 27:23  Well, yes, and that’s, that’s where we went wrong. I said that he, we assumed that he would have to have two-thirds of all state parties, but if they had gone for the two-vote system, it was explained to me, then the two-third vote to oust Khan, as it were, would have been two-thirds of the states present and voting-

Janet: 27:45  Ooo. Which is-

Stephanie: 27:47  Yeah, so it was overwhelmingly more than half, the kind of half of the states.

Janet: 27:54  Of one, many more than half the states, and, and more than the two-thirds. 

Stephanie: 27:58  And also if they had done the kind of, yes, there is misconduct, and now we vote on whether he can stay or not, that would have been two-thirds of the countries present and voting. And so he, they essentially would also have knocked out, out of the park. So it was, you know, we write overwhelming. And then you have people more in the Khan camp that are ridiculing this overwhelming vote, but, you know, the people who say the procedure is, say that, you know, the 83 of states present and voting is much more than the two-thirds they would have needed. So to correct the record.

Janet: 28:34  I get happy to correct the record. I’d just like to say how much I love our nitpickers. Number one, we love them because they’re lawyers and lawyers are our bread and butter. And number two, it shows people care and that they’re actually listening to the podcast, because the worst thing is that nobody actually bothers to listen when we put something together. So please, please keep on coming back and telling us where we get things wrong. I say that with all humility as Janet, not-a-lawyer Anderson, and knowing that I get stuff wrong and very happy to be corrected again and again. And let us know what you want to have in the podcast, because we’ve got, I’ve been lobbied over a number of things over the last few months and I’m trying to pick them all up at the moment. I’m, if you’ve contacted me and I haven’t got back to you, then get in touch with me again. But we’ve got, I love it when people tell us, you know, you should do a podcast on this, and I say, okay, let’s look at it. Let’s, let’s try and make that podcast idea happen, because, I mean, if you’re interested in it, then I’m sure many other people will be as well. So let’s do that.

Stephanie: 29:39  Yeah, get in touch. One of the things that was completely off my radar is that there’s another Lockerbie trial in the US, which has now been delayed, but I’d love to figure out what’s going on there. So if we have somebody in our listenership who knows more about it in a professional capacity and wants to come and talk to us about what it all means, then by all means make yourself known.

Janet: 29:59  Yeah, and get yourself a Scottish accent for for Steph because-

Stephanie: 30:03  Yes.

Janet: 30:03  She absolutely adores it if if Scottish or Irish people come on the pod. I mean, I am half Scottish and a quarter Irish but I don’t, I have this cut glass English accent. Well, not cut glass. I have very BCC English accent so I don’t make it for Steph.

Stephanie: 30:18  I did get incredibly spoiled with Irish accent on my holiday to Ireland, so I have, I have a bit of a buffer, but indeed-

Janet: 30:27  Yeah.

Stephanie: 30:28  Scottish and Irish accents preferred.

Janet: 30:30  You and your Celts. Right, I don’t know what we’re going to have even during the rest of this month, but we will make it up as we go along. And thanks very much for making the time today Steph, to have a chat and to set us back on course after the exciting summer that we’ve just had.

Stephanie: 40:46  No worries, I’m sure we’ll have a lot. My September is already kind of bursting at the seams with stuff and happenings so I’m sure there will be material for podcast. 

[OUTRO TUNE]

Outro: 30:58  This was Asymmetrical Haircuts, your international justice podcast, created and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg. This episode was created in partnership with justiceinfo.net, an independent site covering justice efforts for mass violence, and with The Hague Humanity Hub. Music is by Audionautix.com. You can find show notes and everything about the podcast on asymmetricalhaircuts.com. This show is available on every major podcast service, so please subscribe, give us a rating and spread the word.

Stay safe and enjoy your day.