UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : HRC 62 - Human Rights Council at 20

So Excellencies, colleagues, distinguished participants, good afternoon.

I I warmly welcome all of you.

I welcome the speakers to this informal high level discussion on the equation of the 20th anniversary of the Human Rights Council.

And the theme is 20 years, 1 Council, what we have built and where we go next.

So it is not so much about what we have built, but it is more on that basis where do we go for the next 20 years.

It is my honour to welcome our distinguished panellists.

On my immediate right is Mr.

Walker Turk, whom we all know, our High Commissioner, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Next to him is His Excellency Ambassador Luis Alfonso Dalba Gongora, the first President of the Human Rights Council, And next is His Excellency Mr Carlos Soretta, the Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the UN Office in Geneva, who was also like like Ambassador Dalba, also here 20 years ago in this very room.

Next to him is Miss Farida Shahid, our Special Rapporteur on the right of Education, speaking as a member of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, followed by Miss Amina Bouya, Chairperson of the Global Alliance of the National Human Rights Institutions.

And finally, but certainly not the least, is Miss Malak, Global Youth Ambassador for Plan International.

I warmly welcome all speakers and thank them for their presence, for their presence.

The UN Secretary General, Mr Antonio Guterres, will deliver his opening remarks by video message.

For me personally, it is truly an honour to be, to be doing this role, to be sitting here with all of you and to preside over the Human Rights Council.

In its 20th year, 20 years ago, the council held its its first meeting in this very room.

So this is worth marking.

But for us, it's, it is more than just a celebration, it is also a time to to reflect, to really be thinking about, about the future.

[Other language spoken]

The first, what the council has built is real.

We have the Universal Periodic review, every UN member states is touched by by this process.

We have the special procedures, we have the investigative mandates, the national human rights institutions, civil society participation.

These are all all real and it is meant to have impact on the ground.

These are not abstractions and they have been built over the years.

Apart from that also of course, it is the participation of all UN member states, the full participation of of all of us.

And this international mechanism is supported by the national human rights institutions and by regional organisations, While while we have built Israel, but the ground under us, under the UN system is also shifting.

The multilateral order that gave birth to this council is under strains and we cannot ignore the changes that is taking place around us.

Multipolarity is not a talking point, it's a reality.

It is reshaping what states expect from from this council and also what they are willing to contribute.

I often describe this council as both fragile and agile.

There is that fragility and we know this because we we deal with it on a daily basis.

It is not only about the the institutions and the rules, but it also the council relies on existing practises and adjustments that are made on a continuous basis.

And for that reason it is also agile and other UN institutions are also looking at what the Human Rights Council is doing.

And also the Council is, I think, one of the few UN institutions that operate at ambassador level mostly at least.

So today's conversation is a test of that agility.

And out of today, I hope that we can start thinking about the future, how the Council should operate into the future, what can be expected of it.

I don't expect that we will come to any particular agreement, but if we start thinking about it and thinking in a serious way, we start to plant the seeds to to germinate in the next days, weeks, months, I think that that would be a good way forward.

And I now have the honour to give the floor to His Excellency the Secretary General, Mr Antonio Guterres for his video message opening remarks.

[Other language spoken]

For 20 years, the Human Rights Council has worked to ensure all people can fully enjoy their human rights.

Its creation by the General Assembly marked a decisive step towards realising these fundamental freedoms.

But across our world today, human rights are under assault, rolled back strategically and without shame, violated fragrantly and with impunity.

The consequences are devastating for individuals, communities and entire societies.

This makes the Council's work more vital than ever.

One of its most innovative tools is Universal Periodic Review, which calls on every member state to stand before its peers and account for how it fulfils its human rights obligations and commitments.

This process has fostered the culture of dialogue that is driving legal reform, strengthening public institutions and advancing protection.

At the same time, the Council's Commissions of inquiry and fact finding missions document abuses, preserve evidence and recognise victims, helping to promote accountability and counter impunity.

Its working groups and expert mechanisms shape human rights norms and standards.

Its independent experts and special procedures service eyes and ears of the international community and shine a light where darkness looms.

Its complaints procedure enables individuals and groups to bring forward credible allegations of serious violations, and its engagement with civil society, human rights defenders and victims brings frontline voices into global decision making.

I urge Member States to continue strengthening the UN human rights machinery and provide the resources it requires to succeed.

And I encourage all sectors of society to join the Global Alliance for Human Rights, launched last week by the High Commissioner, because when rights are denied, peace becomes fragile, and when inclusion and equality are delayed, development falters.

I count on the Council to keep speaking up when others fell silent, standing firm when principles are challenged, and amplifying the voices of the vulnerable.

Your work reminds us that peace and justice begin with respect for the human rights of everyone, everywhere.

I wish you a productive discussion.

I wish to express appreciation to the Secretary General for his message.

Now, before we continue, a few housekeeping points.

The first is that following our initial conversation with the panellists, I will open the floor for views and comments and questions by all colleagues.

This is an informal discussion and interpretation will therefore not be provided.

There is no official list of speakers, so colleagues wishing to speak are invited to to raise their name plates.

My colleagues will will note them down.

Members of the civil society are invited to register at the list of speakers desk.

Let me now turn to our distinguished panellists and I have the pleasure to give invite the High Commissioner to to speak.

And I would like to ask him as the institutional insider, as someone who knows the UN system very well.

And above all, the Human Rights Council and the the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are the Council's tools, Council's tools, still doing what they are meant to, to, to serve the distance between Geneva and the rights holder on the ground.

How, how more, how better can can that be bridged?

What does it mean for, for this Council to remain fit for purpose in a shifting multilateral landscape?

[Other language spoken]

Well, thank you very much.

It's a testimony to one of the features of the Human Rights Council that you managed to change the format of our discussion by actually having us in this format and with an interactive dialogue that is truly interactive, I hope, because I've tried many times to change the way that we do these things and I'm very impressed that you managed to do it.

So I think that shows that's one feature that I would say is very important for the, for the Human Rights Council to absolutely retain its ability to innovate.

And I think when you talk about are these tools still fit for purpose?

It is important to start with what the council has actually achieved over over the last 20 years.

And it's, it's I think we need to always build on the achievements and see how we can reinforce them and how we can continue innovating them in in today's world.

And I think one of the achievements, the Council is a model of participation.

If I compare it with other parts of the UN system and especially I would say between Geneva and New York.

I mean the Council involves civil society.

Of course we, we always wish more.

But it, it, it is very important when it comes to participation of civil society organisations.

It makes sure that indigenous peoples are represented.

It has, I have been to many interactive panels that involve children, that involve young people, but that involve also survivors and victims.

And, and I think that's a model of participation that the UN needs to stand for and needs to even go further on.

And I think it's, it's really one of the treasures of, of the council.

The other thing is, of course, the council is the engine room on so many fronts.

It's the engine room of the intergovernmental, it's the intergovernmental centrepiece of the human rights ecosystem.

So the discussions that are taking place here, well, they cover the whole governance of of human rights in in many ways.

Governance not only in terms of topics, but governance also in terms of making sure that it links up to the different pillars of the United Nations.

I think the Council can be very proud through its deliberations of having contributed, for instance, to the sustainable Development agenda.

Sometimes when I listen to development debates outside Geneva, I'm still struck by the dichotomy that is built between development on the one hand and human rights on the other.

I think the Council has long overcome this and in fact has contributed and hopefully will contributed also to a vision post 2030 of what development means in the future.

And and that's so it's a tool of for us to, to deal with this.

The council has been a normative trended standard setting bearer.

I mean we have declaration on Indigenous peoples enforced disappearances.

Now you have 6 instruments that were adopted through the council.

There are 7 that are currently under discussion, including the latest on, on, on, on education, but also on older people, rights of older people and business and human rights.

So you have a number of very top development, a number of very topical issues that are being discussed here, including from a standard setting perspective.

And I think that's always great to see because when you look at international law more generally, international law sometimes has become very stagnant.

But the Council in its deliberations proves that it is still an engine of standard setting and development, and not just about the past, but very much looking to the future.

I mean, a lot of Human Rights Council resolutions that were passed are covering the future climate change.

I was first in a debate on climate finance.

I mean, where do we have these debates in this?

I would say also challenging a little bit the status quo type debate and we need to have one part of the UN that that actually challenges our assumptions.

So that's incredibly important.

The UPR is a big innovation.

The fact that you have about 59 special procedure mandate holders and we will hear obviously from from one of from one of them.

I mean it's very important because it's it, it allows direct engagement with member states.

It allows also direct connection with victims and survivors and with human rights defenders.

And then you have the accountability mechanisms.

I mean the the fact that the Council should probably emphasise more that it is a tool of prevention in terms of early warning and early action.

And we have over the years had 40 fact funding missions and commissions of inquiry.

And they have put the spotlight and done the documentation that is necessary to not only make sure that violations are covered, but they are also directly responding to survivors and victims.

And that telling of history has not only influenced political debates, but it has also, I think, importantly, led to accountability in individual cases because some of the documentation has been used in universal jurisdiction cases, in Supreme Court cases, and including in international courts as well.

So that, I think is really important.

So it's important to build on what we have to make these tools even better and to see that continuous improvement is the way to go.

It's not that we are not.

[Other language spoken]

It is perfect.

The Council isn't perfect either, so there is of course an emphasis on continued improvement, on rationalisation and so forth, but I think it's important to be aware of what the achievements have been of the Council.

[Other language spoken]

Ambassador De Alba, you were present at Creation, you were in this room 20 years ago, you left the Council's institution building package and you presided over the eruption of Council Resolution 5/1.

Now, with the benefit of distance in time and space, after 20 years, has the Council become what it was set out to be?

And how do you see in a world that is very different from how it was 20 years ago?

How will the Council be in the next 20 years, please?

Thank you very much, Mr.

[Other language spoken]

Let me start by thanking you for organising this panel discussion and the format that you use.

It is a format that we use a lot in the building of the Council in formality, informality, to be able to identify different positions and nuances and build the bridges that were necessary.

Building the Council was not an easy task.

Let me let me share with you.

It was not easy because Member states have very different views of what needed to be changed and what needed to be retained from the old Commission.

It was not easy because the international context situation was not good either.

They were countries that opposed the creation of the Human Rights Council and were not supporting the the building of the new institution.

There were conflicts in Gaza as today, conflicts in in in Lebanon and later, a little later, the conflict in Darfur.

So it was not easy.

But today I can tell you that we were able to reach to the higher possible level of consensus, not to the minimum common denominator that used to be frequently the norm in the House.

And that was possible mainly I I would say because of two things.

The first one is that we were able to build trust among ourselves and for doing that in formality exchanges not only between a member state but cross regional dialogue was extremely useful.

Dialogue with civil society, dialogue with the special procedures, dialogue with the national institution, opening the council to the full participation they used to come.

Civil society used to come to the Commission only once a year, one day a year.

And in the Council we open the doors for participation of all those very important players from day one.

And so building trust and making it inclusive was extremely useful.

And the second element was how to reduce polarisation selectivity, double the standards.

And for that the UPR help us a lot, because having the possibility to review the situation in all countries without an exception contributed a lot to that.

But not only that, it was also a shift in which instead of looking to finger point difficulties of misbehaviours, serious violation, or in addition to that, we were also looking into ways in which we could support efforts, national efforts, and not only governmental efforts, but also effort by the civil society to be able to comply and and and respond to to the challenges.

So it was a much more collaborative cooperation approach that that that we use.

Those two were I think the, the keys for, for getting this consensus that was to the highest possible level there.

But going to the second part of your question and, and the future, let me tell you something that I, I've been thinking since the day I left Geneva.

The institutional building package was built in such a way that it allows you to improve on a daily basis.

We have a mechanism to review the the functioning of the council every five years, but you you don't need to wait for the five years to do it.

There are many windows that we left open that can be used.

The UPR itself, just to give you some examples can be strengthened very much because it needs more interaction with the High Commissioner's Office.

For instance, this is something that we left pending it, it there is a door, but there is no clarity what the role and especially the analytical role of the High Commissioner's Office should be participation of experts, both governmental and non governmental into the process.

It's also possible under the the existing rule.

So this is an example interaction with the special procedure.

It's another one.

We have the reports which are formally introduced into the review, but there is much more than we can do and interaction with civil society.

So there are ways of improving and basically we need to go back to the fundamental basic building trust, making sure that we look into the individual responsibility of every single actor, whether governmental or non governmental.

They need to feel responsible and in doing that you have to be careful with the regional positioning.

Regional positioning has frequently blocked progress.

We need to have more inter regional dialogue to be able to identify issues regardless of the political solidarity between groups.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much, Ambassador d'alba.

So building trust is always, is always critical and part of the centre of diplomacy is about building trust.

[Other language spoken]

You are the Chair of ASEAN Committee in Geneva 2026.

Apart from being in this room 20 years ago, now as a regional organisation has its own architecture, its own rhythm, its own mechanisms on human rights.

So what is how does the region look at engagement with Geneva, with the Human Rights Council?

How does the Human Rights Council, how is it seen from the region and how do you think is the mechanisms between regional, the region from the region and Geneva, the Human Rights Council?

You have 5 minutes, Excellency, Thank you.

Thank you very much part and good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

The the ASEAN Regional human Rights Mechanism is the youngest of all the regional mechanisms.

In fact, some have said it is the least evolved.

We, for example, have not reached the point where we have a human rights court, a regional human rights court and the powers given to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights are rather limited.

Although the language in our Charter on Human Rights is quite progressive.

But I'd like to zoom, zoom in a little more about our region.

Our region, ASEAN is a very diverse region in terms of history, political systems, colonial experience, religion, race.

It's, it's so diverse that someone had said that if we did not have a well grounded determination to protect the human rights of our citizens right after the Cold War, it's the, it's a formula of diversity that could have led to genocide or civil strife, which happened in in other parts of the world, but it did not happen in, in ASEAN.

Just to show you how the how diverse our region is and how it affects certain values, we have the we have the first Republic in Asia in ASEAN, yet we have the longest living monarchy in ASEAN.

We have the largest Roman Catholic country in Asia and the largest Muslim country in the world in, in ASEAN.

We have some of the oldest countries or kingdoms in in ASEAN and yet we have also one of the youngest states currently now in ASEAN and the list goes on.

But very early on, our leaders realised that we have to get set aside this diversity if we are not going to suffer the human rights violation.

The humanitarian disasters that happened when the anchor of the cold of a bipolar world were, were, were dissolved and people were were left or peoples were left to to fend for themselves.

[Other language spoken]

In fact, it was only in 2008 when we finally agreed to have a human rights mechanism in in our region.

And it's not because we did not value human rights, but we were making certain that we had to establish common grounds within this diversity on where we stand on, on on human rights.

For example, there are issues like death penalty where we have we're very, very a bit again diverse on on gender, on other things that but we have decided what we must not let this differences stop us from trying to find common ground on the things that are important.

And this characterises what we use in ASEAN, which is a consultative and consensus basis, which is of course, in the UN the most one of the most difficult things to to achieve.

And I was just listening to you, Sir.

And it's true that there should be more.

I think ASEAN would benefit a lot more from inter regional discussions, especially in terms of how to evolve in in the future.

And by one of the I was thanked by Arthur.

I think you required everyone to try to wear their their national costume.

As a young officer attending UN meetings decades ago, this was the way the UN was.

You'd attend the General Assembly and you don't see a sea of dark suits.

People still wore national costumes.

The other difference now, which I think is also very important, is we're seeing a lot more women being present and representing their countries, which is a a good development.

I have nothing against dark suits by the way, but it was truly a very colourful if when you look down at the general and it's very, very colourful.

So we have the mechanism now and we have adopted some frameworks for human rights and it's continuing to evolve.

And what's happening is we're looking very closely at how regions are are evolving.

We're noticing, for example, that the work of the Human Rights Council, the resolutions you see, they end up in, for example, in the, in the regional courts, human rights courts, they're ending up being used as authorities.

They're being cited by petitioners as well as respondents and then by judgement.

So that I think we're, we're we're, we're looking at that and seeing if we do develop, for example, a regional court, we have to be ready for that, that the important work of the Human Rights Council will figure into how we are able to implement norms or be held accountable for those norms in the in in our region.

[Other language spoken]

One underlying issue from from your presentation is the issue of sovereignty, sovereignty and human rights.

And on this I I turn to Miss Shahid as you add Voice of the Council special procedures to this discussion and 20 years of special procedures mandate being renewed, report submitted, dialogues held, The system is functioning.

But you, you know more than most that function is not the same as impact.

And we had the discussion before we began this, this dialogue.

What does a special procedure need both from this Council and from Member States to remain a genuine instrument of change and change that is in bettering people's life, people's dignity, while at the same time working with with states, state sovereignty?

So how, how do you, how would you describe your function as special procedures?

[Other language spoken]

President, and first, let me congratulate you on having this session with the different mechanisms and structures that coming together.

It's very rare.

And so we thank you for this opportunity.

Also, I think over the years the Human Rights Council has really built a very robust system of independent human rights experts mandated to promote, to monitor the situations, to look at where there are challenges or violations, to look at where there are new issues arising.

And I think we do that as the special special procedures mandate holders.

I'd like to just go back to what the general secretary general said, that human rights are under assault.

So we need strengthening of all human rights mechanisms across the board and we need to work more closely together.

[Other language spoken]

I think the special procedures is one of the most agile forms of responding to what's going on.

The Secretary general said the Human Rights Council is the ears and eyes and the Human Rights Council says we are your ears and eyes.

So we, I think, do manage to be the front line for voices that are unheard.

We also do speak when others fall silent and sometimes people don't like what we say.

But we do believe that we are pushing the envelopes.

We're bringing to the table things that are not always discussed otherwise in other areas.

So I think as the High Commissioner also said, challenging assumptions.

I think we also help to do that.

What we think is normal may not be and as we just heard, regions are different, etcetera.

I think in terms of what we have achieved, I think we don't do just reports and dialogues, but our reports do have impact.

However, we need better mechanisms to understand what those impacts are and perhaps information from the states would help because I found out years later that so many states had used my report to make make their own policies.

Others have made laws, changes in laws.

They have brought in structures and independent thinking, new thinking, new issues have been taken on board that countries did not necessarily have any focus on.

So I think those are some of the things we do.

We also help to develop human rights standards and we conduct country visits, which is unique to the special procedures.

And I think that's something that's very important because it gives us direct access to people on the ground.

And therefore, we are able to, one, bring the voices of those people to forums such as this, and two, to help the local people take forward the issues using our reports and using the visits as a a point of departure.

I think we provide expert and technical advice to states, to UN entities, to other stakeholders.

And I think we also play a role in crucial early warning systems.

We do hope, however, that some of times we feel our early warning systems, our early warnings are not taken with the amount of seriousness that we would like to see there.

I think we can go into the various policies.

In terms of the future, we would like a strong, independent, well funded SP system and for this we really do think we would like to be at the table of the discussions and reorganisation.

We are absolutely for change where it is needed.

We are looking at new ways to do things.

I had an informal interaction yesterday which was wonderful because we had a dialogue.

I would really like to emphasise and thank you both the Mr.

President and the High Commissioner for supporting mandate holders under attack.

And I think that is something which is very serious and we have to come up with ways to really look at this more seriously.

We are trying our best with the financial constraints to work as the best we can, but we really would like to have a dialogue with the concerned people and we really feel we need to be consulted on this.

It's not just because we have knowledge and expertise.

I think you also need to think that if the kinds of report and work that we do, if you were to get independent experts, how much would you have to spend on them?

We're free.

So what we are bringing as value I think is not comparable to other things.

And sometimes the the estimate has been one person has told us is like if you have a report that's written by us with all the meetings and everything else, it's maybe 500,000.

If you get experts to do the same, it'll cost you three times that much.

So when we're looking at efficiency, we need to look at that, but we also feel it's equally crucial to look at effectiveness and not just efficiency.

So we need to have those conversations.

I hope, Sir, that all of us will get a chance to continue that discussion on how we can reinforce ourselves, because I do think human rights, like the Secretary General said, are really under threat and we need to ensure that the system as a whole is as robust as it can be in the future.

[Other language spoken]

Indeed, we need to have a quality discussion on precisely on that matter.

Now, turning to Miss Boya, the National Human rights Institution is rooted on the ground.

It plays as a bridge as part of the international human rights architecture, but rooted on the ground, it knows the ground in which it operates.

Now as your in your position as chair of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, you have this vantage point to see how the Nhris and the Human Rights Council can have can strengthen their their communication both ways, the transmission and how the national human rights institutions can support the Human Rights Council even in a changing drastically changing environment.

You have the floor Madam, 5 minutes.

[Other language spoken]

President, of course, thank you very much for this opportunity to share galleries reflections.

Then over the the past 20 years, the close interaction between the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special procedures, the Ganery, it's regional network and national institution has helped build a very inclusive and participatory human rights system very important for us.

The second Ganery represented today more than 119 national institutions accredited compared and with only around 50 national institution when the Council was established in two in 2006.

During this year, we have also a sexual advocated for important resolution by the General Assembly of United Nation and also by the Human Rights Human Rights Council.

This reflects the growing recognition that national institution are essential bridge between the national and international levels.

We contribute through our reports, waiting submissions, oral statements and engagements with the special procedures to share national realities to the Council and we help translate international commitments into action at home.

We also use the Council's recommendation to strengthen our dialogue with governments and support the implementation of human rights at the national level.

However, Mr.

President, this bridge does not function equally everywhere.

Some national Institution A status are able to make full use of the Council's mechanisms.

We remain firmly committed to a human rights based approach even in a region affected by the geopolitic geopolitical tension.

Some some national institution rely in EPA recommendation to assess legislation and public policies.

Others use visits by special reporter to draw attention to national human rights challenges.

They also participated actively in councillors session to encourage their state to fulfil their international commitments.

Other national institution, however, face serious challenges.

Limited resources, shrinking civic space and difficult political environments reduce their ability to engage effectively with the Council and its mechanisms.

Today, we are also facing a broader challenge, a growing crisis of trust in institutions.

This effects institution at the national and international level, including the international human rights system.

People are not rejecting institutions, they continue to expect institutions that are effective and capable to responding to the challenges they face.

What is questioned is whether institution can deliver meaningful results.

This reality also affects the human rights mechanisms.

It remind us that the Council value depends not only on dialogue and recommendation, but also on their implementation and their impacts on the people daily lives.

National institution continue even to promote the implementation of its recommendation, often in difficult national context or, as you said, President in the complex multilateral environments generally take the opportunity to to to reframe is convinced that the Council is strongest when the connection between the national and international level works in both directions, when national experience inform international discussion and when international recommendation lead to real to real change on the ground.

In today's challenging context for multilateralism is therefore essential to consolidate trust in the in the Council and ensure better coordination between the Council and other international human rights mechanisms.

Transforming the Human Rights Council into a platform of convergence within the international human rights protection system would sure offer a concrete response to current challenges and strengthen its impact in advancing the effectiveness of human rights around the world.

[Other language spoken]

And finally, we go to our Global Youth Ambassador, Miss Malak.

You represent a voice and the perspective that this council ultimately would have to serve.

Now, how do you look at the Human Rights Council?

Is it serving its purpose?

And above all, the next 20 years will be your future, not our future, but it will be your future.

How do you expect the Council to play its role in protecting, promoting human rights of all people?

[Other language spoken]

President, I stand today before you not just as a speaker on Abana, but just as an answer, a live answer to your question.

[Other language spoken]

I am a medical student from Jordan, also a global youth ambassador for the Blan International.

My presence here on this stage right now, right here, is the greatest example that we are moving towards the future.

To answer your question honestly, Mr.

President, from outside the Geneva bubble, actually the Council tools are not really are not really reaching the root of the youth around the world.

So as we see many, many young youth in a rural village and also many defender on the ground, this room feels light years away.

Right now, youth engagement with this body is largely tokenistic.

We are invited to fill quota to talk in a side event where the real decision makers have already left.

The system function beautifully on paper, but on the ground is is crowding out the distance.

Coming from Jordan, a country that continuously believe in youth, supports our human rights and the champion our potential, I learned that youth are not just a vulnerable group to protect, we are a stakeholder to partner with.

As a future doctor, I look to the Human Rights Council from a clinical lens.

You can to cure the future illness with the with the best medicine.

The next generation facing facing many challenges, moving from digital challenges to AI ethics, even to a climate crisis.

So we need really we are looking forward the next 20 years.

It must transition from listening to youth to Co leading with youth.

[Other language spoken]

What kind of partnerships do we need?

We need a direct pathway between Geneva and youth LED organisation.

We need a gaol accountability mechanism where youth directly report on on complaints.

Let my participation today be the standard for the next 20 years, not the exception of the bust.

[Other language spoken]

And also I look for interacting with all the delegation today to turn this into reality.

Thank you all.