Welcome to the press briefing of the UN Information Service here in Geneva.
Today is Tuesday 25th of August and I have the great pleasure and honour to start this briefing with the launch of the renewed call from the UN Secretary General and the ICRC President to adopt rules on autonomous weapons systems.
You have received this call by e-mail in various language versions.
The embargo falls right now, so you please don't hesitate to cover.
I'll start by reading the renewed call, and then I'll give the floor to my colleagues.
I'll introduce them in a moment for their introductory remarks, and then they will take questions on the call.
So let's start by reading.
So this is the call of the UN Secretary General and the ICRC President.
Three years ago, we called on states to establish specific provisions and restrictions on autonomous weapon systems.
Today, we renew this call with even greater urgency.
The fundamental concerns remain unchanged, but the risk have intensified.
We are now dangerously close to crossing a moral red line, the autonomous targeting of humans by machines.
The development of weapon technology has advanced at record speed, placing increasing strain on legal frameworks.
Since our previous appeal, the gap between technological capability and regulatory constraints has widened, with advanced technologies employed on the battlefield amplifying the risk of harming civilians and civilian infrastructure and aggravating civilian suffering in armed conflicts.
The development in use of autonomous weapon systems represent a further escalation, reducing human control over the use of force.
Autonomous weapon systems are not part of a distant future.
A race towards greater autonomy in weapons in weapons systems is already well underway.
At the same time, scientists and engineers developing these systems have themselves raised the alarm.
When the architects of this technology are calling for limits, states cannot afford to remain passive.
States have laid important groundwork through the United Nations General Assembly and the Group of Governmental experts under the Convention certain conventional weapons.
Significant progress has been made towards a shared understanding of the human judgement and control required, and of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law, address ethical concerns and reduce human suffering.
States must show political courage and move beyond incremental discussions towards decisive action.
Negotiations must begin now to urgently adopt A legally binding instrument to regulate autonomous weapon systems with clear prohibitions and restrictions.
A failure to act quickly and decisively will cost lives.
It will leave future generation to inherit a world in which the absence of clear and specific prohibitions and restrictions on these weapons opens the door to practises that would erode the protections international Romanian law is meant to guarantee.
A world where accountability is increasingly elusive, as responsibility for errors and breaches of applicable rules become harder to establish.
States have responsibility to those already suffering the consequences of today's conflicts and to those who will inherit the world that is now being shaped.
Future generations will ask whether leaders acted when there was still a chance to set limits before these weapons proliferated beyond control.
The upcoming 7th Review conference on the Convention, Certain Conventional Weapons in November offers the clearest path available for states to decide to move to negotiate a legally binding instrument.
The painstaking work undertaken over the past three years forms the ideal basis for such negotiations and must not be lost.
We urge states to seize this moment.
Continuing to design weapon systems that make it easier to wage war will only undermine our collective efforts towards a more peaceful world.
Innovation must serve humanity, not endanger it.
And this is the end of the renewed call.
And I would like now to give the floor to Caroline Melanie Regimbal, who is the Chief of Service of the UN Office for Disarmament Affair here in Geneva.
Melanie, thank you, Madame Alessandra for for this introduction and for sharing with us The joint appeal that has is essentially A renewed call from the UN Secretary General and the President of the ICRC, which comes at a very key moment for the international efforts on autonomous weapon systems.
The central message of this joint appeal is very clear.
There is an urgent need to begin negotiations on legally binding instruments to regulate autonomous weapon systems with a clear prohibitions and restrictions.
More than a decade of substantive and technical work has taken place within the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, or better known as the CCW.
This work has been instrumental in building understanding, expertise and areas of convergence amongst the states.
It's important, however, to distinguish between preparing for a substantive foundation for an instrument and negotiating.
1 At this stage, the group of governmental experts is not mandated to negotiate an instrument, but rather to elaborate a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature.
So whatever the outcomes next week, this work will provide states with substantive basis to move forward to the next phase.
As recognised in the appeal.
The key political milestone ahead is the 7th Review Conference of the CCW, which will take place here in Geneva in November and will provide States with an opportunity to decide on whether or not to launch negotiations on an instrument on laws.
That opportunity should not be underestimated.
Review conferences only occur every five years and provide one of the most important opportunities to advance the work on this issue.
Meanwhile, technological developments are not waiting for the diplomatic calendar.
The widening gap between technological capacity and capability and regulatory restraint is increasingly evident.
Autonomous capabilities are becoming cheaper, more accessible, and easier to integrate into existing weapon systems.
Autonomous weapon systems that can select and engage targets without human judgement and control raise profound concerns.
Their effects are difficult to anticipate and limit, posing challenges to compliance and international humanitarian law, increasing the risk of civilian harm, and raising fundamental ethical concerns about delegating life and death decisions to machines.
It is therefore imperative for States to seize the current window of opportunity while such weapon systems have not yet proliferated beyond control, and to ensure that disarmament and arms control remain A norm generating body and that they establish clear boundaries before harmful practises become entrenched and difficult to reverse.
Entering negotiations would give states the opportunity to shape the rules and ensure that these technologies are developed and used in accordance with humanitarian, legal and ethical principles and values that the international community seeks to uphold.
A decision in November to set negotiations in motion would also demonstrate that the CCW remains fit for purpose, capable of addressing emerging weapon systems and fulfilling one of its essential purposes, which is to respond to developments in weapons technology before their humanitarian consequences become entrenched.
As an established disarmament and international humanitarian law framework, the CCW brings together states with different military, technological and security perspectives and provides a forum to respond to emerging humanitarian and security challenges.
The Secretary General has long warned of the dangers posed by these systems, emphasising the machines that can select or engage targets and take human lives without human control and judgement are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited under international law.
He has urged the international community not to wait for an atrocity to take place before we take action, stressing that some decisions must forever remain within the human being, none more than the decision of taking or not a human life.
The joint appeal is a clear way is clear on the way ahead.
The international community has spent more than a decade examining this issue.
The 7th Review Conference of the CCW is a critical moment for states to show political courage and turned important groundwork into concrete actions by launching negotiations.
Thank you very much, Melanie.
And now I'd like to give the floor to Laurent Giselle, the Head of Arms and Conduct of Hostility Unit at the ICRC.
Laurent, thank you very much, Alessandra.
It's a pleasure to be here with your Nodia and with you, Melanie, in this room for this very important joint appeal.
And as you will see, we are very much aligned.
And my words will echo what Melanie just said.
But let me start with a few words about what delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross are witnessing in armed conflicts around the world.
What we are seeing is increasingly sophisticated weapons being used at ever greater speed and scale.
But what we see is not a story of precision, distinction and restraints.
It is a story of civilian skilled families, displaced hospitals, schools and home destroyed at ever greater speed and scale.
In short, an acceptable level of civilian harm.
That is the context, That is the sobering reality against which discussion on autonomous weapons system have been taking place here at the UN office in Geneva, in the CCW Group of governmental Experts for nearly thirteen years.
So what do we mean when we refer to autonomous weapons systems?
These are weapons that, once activated, select and engage targets without further human interventions.
Weapons of this kind already exists, but we are particularly concerned by the direction in which these technologies are moving.
Weapons controlled by increasingly complex artificial intelligence, whose functioning may become harder for human operators to understand and anticipate.
System used with increasingly broad operating parameters, not just defensively against incoming missiles, but now searching for a broader range of targets over larger area, including in populated areas and for longer period of time.
At the core of all concerns is the risk for these developments to reduce human control over the use of force, with the with the risk to with the potential to dramatically increase harm to civilians, destructions and violations of international humanitarian law.
IHL requires human beings to make judgements about whether an attack will be lawful, taking into account all the circumstances at the time.
Autonomous weapon systems make these judgements more difficult because the human operators does not know who or what will ultimately be targeted, or where or when force will be used.
This will depend on how the system responds based on the input it receives from sensors.
And in conflicts, things can change very rapidly.
A combatant can surrender or be wounded and therefore be protected from attack.
Civilians can enter the area of operations of the autonomous weapon systems.
The weapons may encounter a situation that could not have been anticipated.
The more unpredictable the system behaviour and the more further removed the human decisions is from the moment of the strike, the harder it becomes to ensure that the use of force will actually comply with international humanitarian law.
That is not simply a technical problem to be solved.
It is a fundamental problem which effectively delegating decisions about the use of force to machines.
And This is why the ICRC has long called for illegally binding instruments with clear prohibitions on certain autonomous weapon systems and restrictions on others.
In particular, such an instrument must prohibit autonomous weapon systems whose effects cannot be predicted by the operators and probably those designed or used to target humans, being directly.
Such an instrument must also set clear restrictions on other autonomous weapon systems, including limiting the type of target they can engage to typically military objects like enemy weapon system, fighter jet, tanks or warships.
Limiting the geographical and temporal scope of operation and the scale of force they can use, and limiting the environment in which they can operate to exclude their use in populated area where the risk for civilians is highest.
Together, of course, with requirement for effective means of the activation or neutralizations when the circumstances changes on the ground.
We are encouraged to see that the draft set of elements developed by the CCW Group of Governmental Experts reflects the structure of prohibitions and restrictions.
They are, of course, critical additional element that will need still to be incorporated for any future legally binding instruments to effectively meet the challenges posed by the development of autonomous weapons systems.
But the sets of elements in the current form, as included in the draft report of the group, provide a strong and sufficient basis for State to do what is now urgently needed to launch negotiations on the legally binding instruments to regulate autonomous weapons system.
The technology is moving quickly.
The international community has spent more than a decade discussing the risk, and now they must move from discussions to action.
And This is why the President of the ICRC and the Secretary General of the United Nations have decided to make this joint appeal now, and why the key message of the appeal is this.
And I quote, the painstaking work undertaken over the past three years formed the ideal basis for such negotiations and must not be lost.
The upcoming 7th Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in November offers the clearest path available for states to decide to move to negotiating a legally binding instruments.
We urge states to seize these moments.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you very much for these introductory remarks.
I'll open the floor to questions now.
Let's start from the left.
Stephan, Buzzer Litton, thank you very much.
First, we saw that fighting in the battlefield has been very brutal recently.
And I was wondering if what you've what might move military officials from using autonomous lethal weapons in the battlefield if, if brutality is becoming the norm?
That's my first question.
And the second question, are there any kind of discussions between military official, politicians and the industry that develop autonomous weapon?
The second part, Lohan, you want to start with first one, brutality is the norm in every conflict.
It's horrible in the 1st place.
So and the importance now and to some extent that also address the second part of your question even if I know Melanie, you will also talk to that in more detail is for the international community meaning states to decide what are the limits for autonomous weapons systems.
Again, we are not calling for prohibiting all autonomous weapons systems.
The call are very specific to prohibit certain types, the most unacceptable ones, the more where those where they are most risk for violation of IHL for humanitarian consequences for actually increasing the human cost of armed conflicts.
So again it and putting restrictions on other of course.
So we know states are developing autonomous weapons systems, some already exist and they will continue to do so.
But they need now to set the trajectory as the international community on what is not acceptable in those development and focus on developing those that are acceptable and not developing those that are unacceptable.
Because that makes it even more difficult after what's 1, the consequences are here to actually disarm what has already been developed.
Thank you for that second-half.
I mean, of course, negotiations always occur between states.
So they are the main actors involved in the decision making.
And at this stage, as we have mentioned, the international community has not begun to negotiate an instrument.
And what the secretary general is calling for, along with the president of the ICRC, is really to encourage the international community to move this process along.
And as it goes along to bring also, of course, all of the relevant stakeholders, but ultimately the decision will be in the hands of the states themselves.
And what we are aiming to do with this is to really to put in place the guardrails that are necessary to, as my colleague from the ICRC has said, to put in place the necessary prohibitions and restrictions as they apply to these new technologies.
But ultimately how that will be done and what that will entail is the decision that states will have to take in the future.
Right now we are in the process of identifying what would be those elements and then how that is done.
We'll be up for another set of decisions to come in November.
You have a follow up just to follow there, but is there an awareness in the industry about the problems that might occur with autonomous weapons?
Yes, I think that there have been numerous engagements with the industry and with the different stakeholders across the global international community.
And of course, states are moving forward and their decisions in a very informed manner and have gathered information from industry themselves.
A few years ago, there were a few calls from industry also to set in place precisely those guardrails so that they could continue to grow their industry, but within the boundaries of existing humanitarian and legal laws.
Do you have evidence that fully autonomous weapons are already in use against human targets on on the battlefield?
Do you have any examples?
And just an update, please, on on the talks in Geneva, what or perhaps more accurately, who is preventing states from advancing to the formal negotiation phase?
You want to take the first part of the question, Mindy?
No, we don't have currently evidence, confirmed evidence that autonomous weapons have been used to directly target human beings on the battlefield.
But that's certainly the trajectory of the development of that we see in terms of autonomous weapon system, even if they are not yet deployed.
And that's why it's so urgent to impose such a prohibitions.
What is of course clear is that autonomous weapon system are already used in the battlefield.
They are used in a broader environment and that increase the risk for civilians being killed.
But that's different from civilians being directly or even human beings being directly targeted.
Because of course civilians being directly targeted, it's already fully prohibited by existing law.
That's a war crime, whether that's with an autonomous weapons or not, if it's deliberately targeting civilians, the questions is that any autonomous weapon that would target humans and there's a high risk that targeting human is actually protected at the moment of the strike.
Certainly I think we can say quite firmly that there is a willingness and interest by the international community to continue these discussions.
The proof has been the last three years of the mandate of the group of governmental experts, which is not to start negotiations but rather to identify elements of and instruments which could then become and open the door to a negotiation.
So I think it is not a matter of who is blocking or not, but rather where we are in the process.
And this process is supported by all of the high contracting parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and has even brought in different actors who are not necessarily members to this convention to join the conversation on the set of elements which could form the basis of an instrument.
So I think so far the international community has put this at the forefront of the disarmament agenda.
And the proof is that we've been discussing this issue now for the full period of its mandate.
The group will complete its task at the end of next week and that will give us an indication of where we go next.
But I think we can safely say that there is wide support to continue exploring these issues.
About the fact that if some cases have already existed or not, you say that there's no evidence, but the other day there was some media reports about a drone guided by AI autonomous weapon that killed 3 Ukrainians on 6th July, which could be the maybe the first documented case of civilians killed by autonomous weapon.
So I was wondering if both of of the organisations have heard about this case, if you are looking at this case and if you any information about that.
I mean, we will refrain from from commenting on any specific allegations or or use, but I would just like to point out that AI technologies and autonomous weapon systems are slightly different issues.
AI is a modality that can be used within autonomous weapon system but is not in itself an autonomous weapon.
So although I will refrain from commenting on this specific incident because I I do not have enough information on it, I can say that that AI does not necessarily equal autonomous weapon system, but rather is one of the tools that bring these systems to life.
I just want to also agree with what Melanie just mentioned in terms of the distinction between AI and autonomous weapons.
You don't necessarily need to have AI in an autonomous weapons for it to be autonomous.
You have other forms of autonomous weapon system that don't rely on artificial intelligence, but of course an autonomous weapon system that rely on artificial intelligence.
And the development that we see today in that regard is precisely to increase the context and the operational modalities for that autonomous weapon systems to operate with causing increasing risk for civilians.
Now on, I'm not going to comment on that particular case either, but just on your point on being careful when we look at a specific incident and whether that's the first time or not.
What whether we speak of the first time that Syrian has been directly targeted by an autonomous weapons or whether that's the first time a Syrian got killed by an autonomous weapons And the latter occurred already weapons killed civilians, unfortunately all the time around the world.
And that's often in terms of incidental harm called collateral damage in newspapers and media and others.
And so that's not always prohibited.
There are rules on that on taking all feasible precautions, assessing proportionality of the incidental harm.
And that's also a decision that becomes far more challenging to take with an autonomous a weapon system, whether it's relying on AI or not, precisely because the operators doesn't know actually what the system will strike where and when.
And that's also the reason why we call for restricting the use only outside of populated area because that precisely where the risk of incidental harm is highest and the challenge for the operators to anticipate that risk of incidental civilian harm and they call feasible precautions to minimise that as required by existing law is the highest.
Isabel Sacco, Spanish news agency, Good morning.
I would like to to know what the more precisely the kind of weapons that you are asking to be prohibited because you said not you, the idea is not to, to forbid all the autonomous weapons, but some types of autonomous weapons.
So could you be very precise on what are you asking to to to prohibit and in what extent autonomous weapons are being used now in the battlefield?
Could you have any idea to say in we have 50 conflicts in the world in 10 of them or 20 of them we are using autonomous weapons and or in in the number of weapons represents 20% of all weapons that are being used.
I don't know they just to, to, to, to, to you to have an idea what we would like to have to to give the a sense of importance of this issue to the audience, you know?
I can start with clarifying what we call states on prohibiting.
So it's two types of autonomous weapons that we call upon states to prohibit.
The first, I mean two types, 2 categories and two prohibitions.
I would rather say 2 prohibitions because they can apply to many different types of weapons.
So the prohibitions is for unpredictable autonomous weapons, so those that either by the design or in the circumstances of use, the operators cannot adequately predict anticipate the effect of the use of force.
And that's actually a requirement from existing international United law currently, because it's a compulsory to limit the effect of the use of force in accordance with international material law.
So if it's not possible to predict it, then how is it possible to limit it?
Now we believe that it's important that a new instrument actually gets into more specifics in that regard.
And and recall that because precisely autonomous weapon system makes it far more difficult inherently because they are autonomous weapon system to actually predict the effects of the use of force.
So that concerned is increasing with that type of weapons compared to others and that's why we believe it's critical that this is recalled in that this is established and clarified in a new legally binding instrument.
The other aspect is anti personal autonomous weapon system, and by that we mean those that directly target human beings as opposed to those that target objects.
Of course a weapon that target an object can kill people.
If you target a tank, you can kill the crew in the tank or you can you can kill civilians who are around the tanks.
But there is a difference with targeting human beings and we call for that prohibitions on several grounds.
But let me flag 21 is the legal aspect.
As I mentioned, human beings can very quickly change their character of being a lawful target or being protected.
And that's also the case for combatants.
Combatants who are order combat because they surrender or because they are wounded, they become protected.
So it's extremely challenging for the operators to actually be sufficiently convinced and have sufficient knowledge that whenever the weapons strike, actually the person would be a lawful target.
And that's of course even more so the case with civilians who directly participate in our cities.
And as soon as they stop, they remain protected.
The other aspect is of course the ethical dimension, because all states have acknowledged that autonomous weapons in general raise ethical questions because there is less control on the use of force.
But it's obvious that it's for those that target deliberately human being that those ethical concern are at the highest because that reduce human life to data, algorithm, sensor and machine operations, in effect delegating the decision of who is killed to the machine.
Even now actually the law requires that it's human doing that.
But from an ethical perspective, that's also where you have the highest concerns.
So that's those two prohibition that we call for states to agree on and the rest to have limits on whether they are used.
We don't have the figures that you're looking for, but I just want to flag that sometimes it's also very difficult to know where they're used because states are not very transparent in that regard.
But also because there are a number of those weapon system that can be used in a remote control manner or can be used in an autonomous weapon in autonomous manner.
And therefore, it makes it even more difficult to know if in this particular instance or circumstance it has been used in remote control or in autonomous manner.
I think our colleagues from the ICRC, Laurent has given you a very comprehensive answer to to your question.
I would only add that the answer to your question will only be true after we have the outcomes of the group of governmental experts, because that is exactly what they are looking at.
They are looking at what are the elements that we want to put in place that could form the basis of a future instrument.
So they're looking at everything from characteristics to how it functions to what it is, what are the areas that we want to explore from a legal, humanitarian and as well as technical perspective.
So those characterizations and elements are the ones that are being precisely looked at under the group of governmental experts and their mandate.
I'll take the last two questions online, Jeremy, launch Radio France International and then Kasmir.
The international specific.
There are more the prudence only conflict problem.
Hi, thank you for taking my question.
Not to labour the point, but you said there was no figures yet on clear figures on where autonomous weapon systems have been used, but do you have any clear examples of where combatants have been killed using autonomous weapon systems?
And then my other question was if states agreed to proceed with negotiations after the review conference, how long do you think it could take?
I mean, I know you don't have a crystal ball, but how long could it take to actually then see a protocol being adopted?
I mean, we this could then take another few years I imagine.
But and what could be, you know, what are your hopes to for that process to be accelerated?
Just to clarify, I think I've mentioned that autonomous weapon systems already exist.
I should have been clearer maybe that they exist since a long time.
Anti weapon, anti sorry weapon systems to defence on warships against incoming missiles are very often autonomous weapon systems and that may be the case since decades.
The concerns we have is with the current development and the trajectory of the current development because it's very different to have an autonomous weapon system that is used against an incoming missiles in the middle of the high seas where you don't have anything civilians that resemble an incoming missile at the speed, shape, velocity and all of that.
If an incoming against the warship and we don't have civilians around.
So those type of autonomous weapon systems are not those that we plan to what we recommend states to prohibit and not those that would fall full of the restrictions that we impose.
That would typically be those where of course it remains important that they are predictable etcetera, etcetera.
But nobody is suggesting that those would be prohibited or restricted further than the current military practise.
I know that's a long waited answer to say that autonomous weapons have been used since a very long time.
And yes, of course they have been combatants being killed from autonomous weapon systems over since they exist in various theatres of operations.
That has been the case, yes, of course.
As you have mentioned, we do not yet unfortunately, have a crystal ball as to what will be decided.
This is a specificity on timelines and mandate that will need to be agreed upon.
During the review conference, states will have the opportunity to discuss this issue, and should they go forward, they will be the ones to establish the timelines, the duration of the mandate, the scope of that mandate, and to decide how best to proceed.
So we can anticipate that this is not something that will unfortunately happen overnight, despite the urgency of the matter and the reiterated calls that have come from the Secretary General and from the President of the International Red Cross.
But ultimately, this will be up to states to decide how they wish to proceed.
This working group that is working on the elements of of an instrument without prejudging its nature has had a three-year mandate and we will have to see what it is that states decide going forward.
But we hope that they will heed the call that has been made by these two institutions.
I'd like really to thank our colleagues, Karen, Melanie Regimbal from the Chief of the Service of you know that here in Geneva and Laurent Giselle, the Head of Arms and Conduct of Hostilities Unit at the ICRC.
Really thank you very much for for your remarks and for answering the questions.
You have the renewed call in your mailboxes and also on social media.
So please cover and promote this call largely.
We really need the support of the international community for this extremely important 'cause.
I'd like to call now OHCHR for the rest of the briefing.
Ravina, thank you very much for being with us today.
We have online James Rodever that, as you all know, is the chief of the Myanmar team in of the Human Rights office.
And he is calling in from Vienna, I think, to tell us about the human rights situation in Myanmar.
There's a new report maybe just no, I'll, I'll let you make the remarks and then I have a little note from the secretary General.
I don't know who wants to start Ravine or Yeah, go ahead.
You know James Roderhaven, well, he has been covering, he's been, he's been coming to you to speak about Myanmar for quite a while now.
The reason he's presenting from Vienna this time is because he's actually moving on to another assignment with our office.
So this will be his last press briefing to you on the topic of Myanmar.
Before I pass the floor to him, I'll just read out bits of our press release, which we've issued a short while ago.
You should have also received the report.
This is a Human Rights Council report by our office on the situation in Myanmar.
The human rights situation in Myanmar has plummeted to a new low.
From the ever worsening brutal abuse of the Rohingya population to the devastating impact of illicit economies, notably illegal mining for rare earths, our report details how unrelenting violence and a conflict economy work hand in hand to expose civilian populations to untold misery.
Military tactics aimed at imposing fear and control, facilitated by the use of new technologies to expand surveillance, permeate every aspect of life.
Highlighting acts of military violence against the civilian population, our report notes the persistent use of airstrikes, arson attacks, displacement and denial of assistance.
It also details the Commission by both the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army of widespread and systematic violations and abuses against the Rohingya.
9 years since the terrible violence of 2017 that forced hundreds of thousands to flee across northern Rakhine, the Arakan Army has perpetrated arbitrary arrests, torture, sexual and gender based violence and forced disappearance, forced labour and recruitment, unlawful confiscation of land and residential property, and the destruction of villages, religious and cultural sites causing renewed Rohingya replacement.
Children are systematically used for labour, with witnesses describing workers as young as six years old clearing jungle, constructing buildings and doing menial work for a kind families.
In one case, a child was forced to clear bones and skulls of the victims of a massacre.
Interviewees report the arrest and detention of Rohingya attempting to escape forced recruitment, with cases of Rohingya girls resorting to early marriage in the hope that married girls were less likely to be forcibly recruited and once detained.
Individuals report being routinely subjected to I'll treatment, with former detainees describing beatings with bamboo, rubber pipes and belts being burned with matches and cigarettes being hung upside down with their bodies spun until they passed out, chilli being applied to genitals and removals of fingernails.
The absence of the rule of law across Myanmar has acted as an enabler for illicit economies in the country, helping to finance the conflict, worsen the crisis and with impacts on the wider region.
Economic collapse and conflict induced displacement have also generated A labour market that is easy for economic actors and criminal organisations to exploit as civilians are lured into a system marred by endless human rights violations and abuses.
Unregulated exploitation of natural resources has destroyed the environment, livelihoods and traditional community based systems in a growing number of areas in the country and in particular in minority areas.
Findings indicate a peak in trade flows in 2023, amounting to 1.4 billion U.S.
Lack of economic opportunities, displacement and forced conscription have also triggered an influx of women into the mining sector, aggravating risks of sexual violence and harassment by supervisors, guards and militia members who operate with absolute impunity.
Toxic wastewater from leaching pools discharged directly into downstream agricultural land also has made the soil barren or it has significantly affected yield and quality, reducing farmers incomes.
The report depicts a picture of suffering, misery and cruelty on multiple levels and across the country that is heartbreaking.
We call on all states, companies and investors to undertake serious soul searching with respect to their actions or their inaction and to ask, is this fair and just for the people of Myanmar?
Their own reputations and their credibility are on the line.
I'll pass the floor now to James.
Today marks nine years since the Myanmar military carried out operations in Rakhine State that killed an estimated 10,000 Rohingya and displaced over 700,000 more to Bangladesh.
So it is with this that today we released this report that in part describes some of the ways that the Rohingya community is still being subjected to violations and abuses in a widespread and systematic manner.
Both the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army continue to perpetrate those violations.
But that is just one facet of a larger crisis that has engulfed the entire country over the last 5 1/2 years.
Thus far, that crisis has featured the killing of at minimum over 8 Hun 8302 civilians, 8302 civilians by the military, including 1850 two women and 1105 children.
Over 2460, two of these civilians have been killed in aerial attacks, including 870 women and 545 children.
Particularly, I would note that just in the last 100 days, at least 146 civilians have been killed in air strikes and there have been over 657 aerial attacks that have been reported to us over this.
Why do I mention the last 100 days?
Because the Myanmar military announced 100 days ago, upon forming their new governing body, that this.
Would be dedicated to efforts to bring peace to the country.
Those efforts have apparently featured aerial bombardments, artillery, artillery shelling and arbitrary and extradition judicial killings carried out during village raids and the continuation of arbitrary arrests and forcible recruitment of young people into the military.
As Ravenna mentioned, The report we released today also describes some of the aspects of how the conflict and deterioration of rule of law have greatly expanded the reach and scope of illicit economies and illegal activities of organised criminal networks and companies operating in conflict affected areas.
Of course, a lot of those companies that are working are working in minority areas because those are, in many cases the areas most affected by conflict.
And they are especially, especially involved in the exploitation of the country's natural resources, especially rare earth mining of rare earth minerals, which have had an enormous impact on local communities and on the environment surrounding those local communities.
This is the impact of over 5 1/2 years of the Myanmar military's quest for international legitimacy.
It is a crisis that deserves your attention because this crisis is only worsening and it has torn the lives of the civilian population apart.
Let me open the floor to questions now.
And yes, Pedrero French news agency.
One question concerns what you have mentioned.
OK, so it's a one question is about what what you comment about the children.
It wasn't clear to me in which state it was happening because you mentioned the Iraqian army, but then the Iraqi families.
So it wasn't clear what where this is happening.
And then a broader question about what to know what is UN stance attitude or member states that this year have openly embraced the the president despite the increased abuses mentioned in in the report of today.
Let me see the references that Ravenna made to children in Rakhine.
You know, that means, you know, the children in Rakhine state as a as a whole, in almost all the cases that we reference in the report, these are young Rohingya children who are being exploited or abused.
But there are also members of other ethnicities, children from other ethnicities such as the Rakhine ethnic group and and others who the Moreau and the the Chocma and other and other groups whose children have been exploited or abused as well.
And in terms of the other question about the the member states who are now openly embracing the Myanmar military, the only thing I can really say is this.
Of course, the UN still does not, has not recognised the the the Myanmar military as the government of the country.
That is a decision that has to be made in the UN General Assembly's Credentials Committee.
And so until such time as there is a recognition by that credentials committee, the UN does not deal with the military as the government.
And just to add to that, and yes, as we say in the press, as the High Commissioner says in the press release as well, it is the military's persistent kind of quest for legitimacy that has in fact only deepened this crisis.
I'll go to the platform, Olivia Deposita, Reuters.
Thanks very much for this briefing.
Just a question on the, the part about illegal rare earth mining.
I noted in the report, it says that a lot of this mining, a lot of these mining operations are largely geared towards the neighbouring Chinese market.
But I'm just wondering if if you've been able to trace whether or else they might be going any other countries who might be receiving these illegally mined materials?
And and also just to to ask what kind of engagement you've had in the lead up to this report with the Myanmar military and the and the ADA Khan Army?
And have you been satisfied with their engagement with you, James?
Well, we have been trying to track, we do see the flow of rare earth minerals coming out of Myanmar into other neighbouring countries.
However, we have not yet been able to verify or or prove that either by open sources or by, you know, victim witness testimony, eyewitnesses who've seen the materials being removed from the country.
But we know that they are showing up in other, in other countries.
We are trying our best to track that and of course to find, you know, the data to support which companies are actually the ones taking that material outside of of Myanmar.
In terms of engagement with the military and Ericon Army, are we satisfied with that level of engagement?
But we have reached out to both.
We sent them in writing lists of questions in order to try and get them to clarify their their activities and the circumstances around how they their various attacks or, or efforts to to shape and change local communities.
How and why that has been done, whether it's, you know, events as a policy or, or other aspects of, of how they're operating.
So yes, it was a very unsatisfactory engagement with them with.
For the purposes of this report, Nick, we can't hear you yet.
You have to put on your mic.
Good to see you in your Austrian incarnation.
A number of questions, one very specific one, the report refers to 140,000 Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh.
I just want to check, is that within the reporting period of this report or is it this year or when exactly does that apply to the second question, was ICRC had access to Aung San Suu Kyi earlier this month?
Is that indicative of any kind of softening line either towards her or to other political detainees?
Is anybody else having access?
Did the UN itself request and, and, and what was if if so, did it get an answer to that request for access to her?
And a third question if I may, just in relation to scam centres, has there been any consistent action taken to to try and contain or control or get rid of those?
And are we seeing external involvement in in funding them or, or or operating them?
Thank you very much, Nick.
Yes, they want the figure of 140,000.
That is the official figure that is that is put forward by UNHCR and and it tracks the movement of Rohingya particularly since January 2024.
So that's over the period in which a large number of Rohingya have have started going to the the camps or trying to get to the camps in Cox's Bazaar since the A A took control, started the process of taking control of large, large swaths of of Rakhine state with the the key, you know, Inflexion points there in in May 2024, August 2024, and then sort of consolidating that control by the end of that year.
But but people have still continued to leave even thereafter in increasingly greater numbers.
And that includes also, of course, this is the figures of those that have gone to Bangladesh.
But of course, many thousands of Rohingyas have sought boats out of Rakhine State to try and make their way to Thailand or to Malaysia or to other areas by, you know, extremely perilous, you know, unseaworthy vessels.
So I hope that answers that question.
Your second question on the access that was granted Dan san SU chi you know, we we of course took.
Took note of that, the way that it was publicised, which in some ways seems tantamount to parading of a detainee.
And, and I can't really comment on the requests for access to her by the UN.
Those efforts, of course, are led by the special envoy of the secretary General.
And she has been making requests to to visit on San Suu Kyi for, for years now.
And those have been, you know, in in all the past instances that I know about, those have been rejected.
So I don't know if if requests have been made since the, the publication of those photos, but I would be very interested to find out the, the answer to that question as well.
Your final question on scam centres, no, there has not been consistent action taken to contain their operations or to diminish their operations.
In fact, the scam centres, whenever they have been set upon by police.
Of course there's a lot of news made around efforts to, to free internationals being held by the, the, the, the organised criminal networks running the scam centres.
But what is not, you know, discussed are are the thousands still that remain in the clutches of those networks.
And often times those centres do not shut down, they simply move and move to other parts of Myanmar or move to other countries in the region where they continue to operate.
It's rather incredible to for for us to see.
But in many areas the the local communities have become increasingly dependent on the scam centres because they bring much more profitable employment opportunities for them.
So in some cases that has had a detrimental impact on local agriculture or on other local industries that cannot offer as attractive wages.
The other thing is, is that scam centres are actually now building infrastructure in some communities in order to increase their legitimacy.
They're building roads, they're Building Schools, they're building, you know, freshwater wells in as a way to endear themselves to the local community.
So they draw less attention to themselves and actually get the local community work, you know, working with them to to keep out armed groups or, or police efforts to shut them down.
And of course, all of this goes back to the fact that many of these stamp centres are actually very profitable for the military and the Border Guard forces and the EA OS who interact with them because they are, you know, getting some of the profits that they bring in.
And on this particular issue, I also remind you of the briefing that we got from Amy Pope, the Director General of IOM or I had a war trafficking day.
She described at length the mechanisms around this scam centres.
Nick, I see you have a follow up.
Sorry, quick one, just to have you been able to make any progress in identifying who the beneficiary owners, if you like of these scam centres are?
And from what you were saying about the high profitabilities for the military, you're clearly indicating that there's some complicity with both the the Jantura and other de facto authorities in in running these centres?
Sadly, no, I, I cannot report any progress in, in firmly identifying who are, who are the, the, the individuals running these networks.
It's something we're very interested in getting more information on.
It's just information that's very hard to get access to.
I don't see other questions for you on this subject.
But before we leave it, I just would like to remind everyone that the Secretary General is deeply concerned by the continued report of violence and his strikes in the country.
He reiterates his call on all parties to the conflict in Myanmar to end violence and reminds them of their obligations under international law to protect civilians.
Thank you very much, Ravine and Abel Wolf.
Thank you, James, for having been, you know, the voice of human rights in Myanmar all these years and wish you very all the best for your new functions.
And please in your new functions, come in and brief us also on the human rights situations that you will encounter in your new post.
And thank you very much, Ravina for for bringing him.
Oh, you have a question, but not for James.
But thank you very much, James.
And good luck with with your future endeavour.
Yes, Mohammed, thank you so much.
I have two short question about the Gaza Pravina.
As you may have seen, Israel has threatened Palestinians with expulsions and attacks, claiming that children's kites from Gaza ship landed in Israeli settlement near the border.
What is your reaction to Israel offering such a pretext to escalate its attacks on Gaza?
And secondly, Israeli high pressed high Priest David Youssef claimed that Israel almost all the Palestinian territories and called for a complete destruction of Gaza.
My question is, does does the destruction of a people and a region horrify you?
Thanks Mohammed, for these questions.
On the the threat of expulsions due to children's kites flying, I hope we can all agree that this is outrageous.
The latest these are the latest threats.
We we continue to see unacceptable rhetoric coming from the highest level of the Israeli authorities, showing utter contempt for international human rights and humanitarian law and advocating and inciting violence amounting to atrocity crimes.
Everyday Palestinians are bombed, struck and killed in Gaza despite a so-called ceasefire.
There have been numerous violations since October 2025, when the ceasefire was announced, including under international humanitarian laws, foundational principles of distinction and proportionality.
The violations, the suffering and the misery that continue to be imposed on the Palestinians in Gaza cannot be ignored.
And we are once again calling on third states to take urgent action, to insist on full respect for the ceasefire, to put an end to all violations and to ensure accountability and justice.
And we do all agree, I guess.
So let me go to our last, but definitely not last speaker, sorry.
The Speaker of the day, the colleagues from UNICEF.
You have brought us Doctor Tajdeen Oyevala with the UNICEF Afghans Country Representative calling in from Jalalabad.
You want to start to I give the floor to the doctor, straight to the doctor.
So Doctor Oyevala, you are welcome to the press briefing here in Geneva to tell us about the worsening conditions of child nutrition in Afghanistan, please.
Thank you very much, everyone.
And good afternoon from Kabul.
So I'm speaking to you from Kabul.
And thank you for the opportunity to brief you today on the worsening nutrition crisis that is faced by children in Afghanistan.
Across the country, 3.7 million children suffer from wasting.
They are acutely malnourished, including one million children who are suffering from life threatening severe acute malnutrition.
Nearly 40% of children admitted to hospitals with severe wasting and medical complications are babies under the age of 6 months old, and children who are under 2 years account for more than 80% of severe acute malnutrition cases that we are recording across the country.
We are also seeing immense pressure on hospitals.
Since the beginning of this year, more than half a million children were admitted for high risk, moderate wasting and severe wasting.
The severe acute malnutrition cases which were admitted with medical complications have actually risen by more than 1/3 this year.
For example, in July 2025, we recorded around 6000 cases, but for this year, our numbers are already hitting and going beyond 8000 cases.
In parts of southern Afghanistan, some hospitals are now seeing 3 or 4 severe malnourished children for every available bed.
I have just returned, like you said from Nangaha and I was at the Nangarhar Regional Hospital in eastern Afghanistan where I went into the nutrition ward and I met a young mother with a nine month old daughter and the daughter's name is Sajida.
Sajida came from a remote province not far from Nangarhar, the province of Nuristan.
And this is a province that recently was affected by severe flash flood.
And during that crisis, a UNICEF trained female community health worker found Sajida there suffering from severe acute malnutrition and referred to the Regional Hospital.
When Sajida first got on admission in the hospital, the doctors had little hope that she was going to survive.
She weighed barely 4 kilogrammes.
But after receiving therapeutic milk and other nutrition services and support, she's now stable.
When I met her two days ago in Nangarhar, she was still very frail.
My hope is that Sajidah will survive, although I acknowledge that she has not completely come out of the woods.
And Sajidah is just one of the many children suffering from malnutrition in Afghanistan.
But it's not only in the east.
What I witnessed in the southern part of the country when I visited the Regional Hospital in Kandahar in July, which provides services to five provinces in the southern region of the country, is similar.
I saw many young children with complications from malnutrition being treated.
These cases reflect a much bigger and increasingly alarmed picture across the country.
But today, I also want to draw attention to something that happened before a child reaches the stage of being in an hospital bed.
Last month, for example, UNICEF released a new report that we titled Too Little Too Late, the Diet Crisis Facing Young Children in Afghanistan.
And in that report, for the very first time in the scale that we did the analysis, UNICEF was able to analyse child malnutrition across Afghanistan, bringing focus to actually what our children are eating in the homes.
And the findings are very concerning.
Families begin cutting back on nutritious food, children are eating fewer different types of food, meals are becoming smaller and sometimes meals are skipped.
And in some instances, children do go hungry.
Half of Afghanistan children are living in what we call severe childhood poverty.
And what this means is that they're eating food from just two or fewer food groups that they require to grow and develop.
And when children reach the age of 6 months and when they should start receiving nutritious complementary food alongside breast milk.
The reality for many children and family is completely different.
What we see is that a child's first food may consist of little more than bread with tea or some form of watered down yoghurt.
And for a growing child this is simply not enough.
The UNICEF analysis also shows that children living in severely food insecured household can have up to six times more likelihood to suffer from wasting during the peak malnutrition.
Wasting is one of the most dangerous form of malnutrition that a child can be exposed to.
If I put it in a simple way, this means that the children are becoming dangerously thing for their height and often because they are getting not enough nutritious food, but also because they are sick or a combination of both.
Without timely care it can become life threatening and we are seeing many of that in our hospital beds.
But malnutrition in Afghanistan is not only about the lack of food.
A child who is already poorly nourished and then develops severe diarrhoea or a respiratory infection can deteriorate very quickly and a child who repeatedly becomes sick, in turns we much more continually become malnourished.
So it becomes a vicious cycle for those children that are experiencing these on the ground.
This year alone, this long standing problem have been compounded by several additional pressures that we are experiencing in Afghanistan.
For example, Afghanistan has endeared successful years of drought, floods, destructive rain and also many flash floods like I mentioned in Nuristan and with this year's Super El Nino upcoming, the impact of climate related shocks are projected to be more intense and will have more implication for children and by extension malnutrition.
At the same time, regional instability is disrupting cross-border trade and livelihood.
6 million people, more more than half of whom are children, who have already returned to Afghanistan since 2023, are putting additional pressures on jobs and on livelihood, and they are also putting additional pressures on essential health and nutrition services, which in themselves are already stretched to the limit.
In Nanga, for example, I met with these returnees in the last few days, and I met families who have returned whose children are receiving care and treatment for malnutrition at the Regional Hospital.
All of this is happening in a context we have Families have limited opportunities for livelihood.
In southern Afghanistan, some hospitals are currently seeing 3 or 4 severely malnourished children for every available dead.
And even when we successfully treat a child, the story is not over because treatment alone is not enough.
Yes, treatment saves life, but that is not enough when a surviving child to send back home into households that still cannot afford nutritious food or we do not have access to clean drinking water, or a household that cannot access basic healthcare services, we frequently see those kind of children relapse and come back for further treatment.
And This is why the new evidence from UNICEF matters in the sense that it allows us to shift focus a lot more to prevention.
It gives us an opportunity to identify the warning signs early enough and to act before a child reaches the point of severe malnutrition.
We need to protect the nutrition of women during pregnancy as well.
We need to support breastfeeding and when a baby reaches 6 months of age, we need to help the family to provide the diversity and nutritious food that a child needs to grow.
We also need to ensure access to healthcare services, sanitation and hygiene is in place, in addition to humanization services and social protection services, because all of these needs to work hand in hand around the same vulnerable family.
UNICEF and our partners are working to do exactly this, including through our first food initiatives, with a particular focus on children between the age of 6 and 23 months.
But this is actually where we face a contradiction.
A contradiction in the sense that at precisely the moment when the needs are increasing, the services available to children are being reduced due to funding cut.
More than 100 sites that treat children with severe wasting have closed when we compare to what we had in 2025, mainly because of resource constraint 100.
Most centres that provide nutrition support to children and malnourished pregnant and breastfeeding women have also lost funding.
And today, the nutrition sector response in Afghanistan faces around a 57% funding shortfall.
Specifically for UNICEF, the situation is even more stark.
Our nutrition programme in Afghanistan that is estimated at 180 million this year is currently only 22% funded.
And this is happening while the number of children that need our help is increasing.
So the message I want to leave with you today is very simple.
We can see that this crisis is coming.
We can see it in what our children are eating in Afghanistan.
We can see it in the increasing number of very young children who are becoming malnourished.
We can see it in the overcrowded hospital wards where three to four sick children are admitted on available beds.
And we can also see it in the child like Sajida whom I met few days ago in Nanga.
But seeing a crisis coming also means that we have an opportunity to prevent it from becoming much worse.
We should not wait until a child is dangerously thin and lying in an hospital bed before we act.
For that, UNICEF and our partners, we are urgently reaching out for flexible and sustainable funding to scale up prevention but also treatment services in the country.
Because when it comes to malnutrition, acting highly does not only save lives, it also ensure far more cost effective intervention.
Because we are able to avert major crises that have lifelong implication.
We know that many children are at risk.
We also know what to do to prevent untreat malnutrition, to avoid a major crisis ahead of us and therefore reaching out to the international community to come round and support UNICEF and partners so that we can provide the required services and support to the children of Afghanistan.
I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Thank you very much, Doctor.
I think your call has been very well heard.
I'll open the floor to questions now if any.
And yes, Pedrero French news agency, yes, thank you.
You you mentioned children suffering from acute malnutrition wasting, but do you have any figure about how many of those children are are actually dying from linked to malnutrition?
If you have some figures, thank you.
Well, it's difficult to make it direct link because that and malnutrition is a multi sectoral issue.
What we have is that with 3.7 million children who are wasted amongst that around a million of them are in severe acute malnutrition.
Meaning if there is no treatment and we're not able to act fast, that 1,000,000 number are at risk of dying.
But often what we see in hospitals is that when you have children with severe acute malnutrition and then they come down with complications.
Like 2 days ago when I was in the hospital, there were children with acute, severe acute malnutrition with complications such as acute watery diarrhoea, with complications like upper respiratory tract infection.
Then the situation becomes worse.
And that's where the the sequently that leads to death comes in.
If I take a step back, also referring to what I saw two days ago, you have very malnourished mothers giving birth to low birth weight children and those low battery children's are very low rate of survival because they have to go through intensive neonator care ward and if that is not provided then we lose those children.
So it's a mix of many things that is accountable for newborn death and but malnutrition plays a central role, you know, in brewing and increasing the number of deaths in very young children.
Other questions, Emma, that was a hand.
It was sort of a hand because it's on Ebola for UNICEF, Please.
It's on Ebola for UNICEF once Afghanistan.
Let's see if there's any other question on Afghanistan specifically.
I saw a release from UNICEF about a trial of vaccines for Ebola.
The vaccines are for the Zaire strain, but they're being used in the context of a Bundibugio outbreak.
So first, to clarify, do you know when the trial will actually start?
I see that the doses have arrived in Kinshasa but not in the east, and I'd really like your thoughts on how you're handling the ethical aspect of the trials and how you're communicating to the population.
2 issues that I can foresee potentially 1.
I guess not everyone who wants it will get it.
And two, it's a Zaire vaccine.
It might not work against Bundy Buggio.
Is there a risk that it undermines confidence in Ebola vaccines more generally in Congo?
Thanks for that question, Emma.
Look, overall the situation is, is highly complex, not only in terms of what you mentioned the the vaccine roll out, but getting buy in from the communities that this is the best way forward.
It has been a challenge, as you know, even with security issues.
So it's, it's a very sensitive environment for us.
But you know, the, the, this clinical trial is expected to provide evidence, which is essential for all stakeholders, including policy makers, of course, to inform the, the future use of the vivo vaccine.
The International Coordinating group on vaccine provision, the ICG has approved the allocation, as you mentioned for a phase three trial and and for use and healthcare and frontline workers in line with the strategic Advisory group on experts on immunisation, the SAGE and their recommendations.
So this is all being done pretty much by the book.
But your question on the interaction with these frontline workers and, and health workers who might be getting the vaccine or even for future civilians who might be aiming to, to get vaccinated if they they choose to do so.
It's key that, that, that those were offered the vaccine in the trial and otherwise receive all the information on the risks, the potential benefits and the limitations related to the use of, of the vaccine.
And then they're able to provide an informed consent or, or not.
So that's very much how we are approaching this with full transparency.
And, and because they, they, they will have to give that informed consent before moving forward, We take the opportunity also to educate the community on how to protect themselves from the virus, from the Ebola virus and, and not only the risks and benefits that might come with the vaccine.
So in terms of when did the trials will exactly start?
I, I don't, I don't have an answer for you.
Maybe a double HO would be able to give more details on all of this.
But as far as the, the interaction with health workers and frontline workers, we are very much informing them or of the risks of the potential benefits.
And yes, that it might not work at all.
And then they can make their informed, informed decision and and consent.
I was looking if he still there.
I don't know if he wants to add anything.
He's Tariq as you've put your camera on.
I don't know if you have any news on that.
So I think I think Ricardo covered really the the basics on that.
So the government of DRC has requested, has requested a release of Arriba vaccines.
So these are this is only licenced vaccines for years virus causing Ebola, Ebola disease.
There were some doses in the country, but there were, there was AICG decided to release 70,000 doses, 20,000 doses would would go, would go for this phase free trial that should as Ricardo already said should inform us really if there is a protection that Eribo vaccine is offering for Bundibujo virus.
Now you, you remember there is there was a technical advisory group that recommended that we go into this trial based on the animal studies that have been done in any case.
So it's not known whether the the vaccine is effective, but it is important to answer the, the question the people who are offered vaccine in the trial and otherwise receive all the necessary information on the risks, potential benefits and limitations related to the vaccine in an outbreak of Udibujo virus.
And obviously we work with government and other partners on the on the protocols for that.
I don't see other hands up at this point.
I'd like to thank Doctor.
Sorry, you have a follow up.
And yes, yes, a follow up to to Tarek.
Hi Tarek on this trial with Vivo, do you have an indication on when it could start and if the the approval has been given by by the authorities?
I cannot really tell you when it will it will start.
So Ricardo already mentioned that we had a meeting of had a special session of SAGE to look further into into recommendations how, how, how existing doses of Rebo will be used.
So we are waiting also for that those recommendations to be, to be released and then, and then working with the, with the government to see how, how this will be rolled out.
But again, it is really important to, to, to know that, I mean, we keep repeating this.
So there is a vivo vaccine, there are two other candidate vaccines that are, you know, initial phases of a, of a clinical trial.
But what, what, what we really need to understand is that at this stage, we need to focus on a, on the traditional public health measures, trying to find where the virus is, who has been in contact with infected people and how to make sure that transmission chains are being broken.
But again, we will, as soon as we get those recommendations from the from the stage, we will, we will inform you as well as on the next steps.
OK, So thank you very much to everyone that I'd like to specifically thank Doctor Tejdin Oyevale and as as he said, calling in from Kabul and Ricardo for for this update.
Thanks Tariq for tuning in on the Ebola issue.
I only have two little announcements for you, one for on the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will end it's 35th session next Thursday at 3:00 PM.
During this meeting, the Committee will present its concluding observation report submitted by Chile, Lithuania, Qatar, Slovakia and Sri Lanka, which will be published later on on the page on the web page of the Committee.
The Committee will devote the rest of the meeting to a commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is so we have this commemoration.
And just to remind you of the press conference today by Unity Today's Disarmament Day, the launch of the 2026 Arms Trade Treaty Monitory report that will be presented to you by Andrea Eduardo Verisco, the project lead of the Arms Trade Treaty Monitor and other speakers.
So that's going to be today at 2:30 in this room and you have the invitation and I think that's what I have for you.
So if you have no other questions for me, I thank you very much.
Wish you a good afternoon and I'll see you on Friday.
