OHCHR Press conference 01 March 2021

Thank you very much for your patience and and a warm welcome to you A virtual welcome archly to for us for joining us here at this press conference.

You will have received a news release today from our two presenters joining us at this press conference.

And yes.

[Other language spoken]

Concerning the case of Alexei.

Navalny now this news release.

Points to communication issued by the rapporteurs to the Russian authorities on 30 December 2020 and, as procedure dictates, this document is now publicly available and can be seen online.

You will find the link in the document in the news.

Release that you received a short while ago.

So we are joined by **** Kalamar, the Special Rapporteur on the extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions, and from Miss Irene Khan, here in person, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of protection of the right to.

Freedom of opinion and expression.

Apologies, Mr turned on my.

And we're also joined by Mr William.

[Other language spoken]

Navalny as well as Mr Jacques Marie.

The rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, so all four of the presenters.

All the four of these palace will deliver opening remarks.

And then we'll open the floor for.

Questions and we will try to.

[Other language spoken]

Conference to about one hour.

So without further ado, if I can turn to Miss Calamar for your opening remarks, if we can make sure she's unmuted.

Thank you very much.

Yes, thank you very much, Jeremy.

Thank you very much to everyone for joining this important press conference.

On the flight from Tomsk to Moscow on 20th of August 2020, Mr Navani experienced symptoms that he will later described as beyond as being beyond pain.

He lost consciousness shortly afterwards.

The plane's pilot diverted the flight to Omsk and made an emergency landing, and two days later, on the 22nd of August, Mr Navarny was evacuated for Berlin or the Charity Hospital.

Clinical findings both at the Omsk hospital and in Berlin indicated poisoning with a substance from the group of cholinesteras inhibitors.

However, the Russian laboratories could not confirm what other doctors in Russia had found clinically.

A week or so later, 5 laboratories over the spread of a month, including three located in Germany, France and Sweden, are approved by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Those five laboratories return the same findings.

[Other language spoken]

Toxicological tests have provided unequivocal proof that Mister Navani had been poisoned with a nerve agent from the Novichok Group.

Mrs Khan and I pursued an investigation over several months into the poisoning and attempted killing of Mr Navani, and the focus of our investigation was really to identify and determine the extent, extent of state responsibilities for this attempted killing.

It is our conclusion that Russia is responsible for the attempted arbitrary killing of Mr Navalny, and we have reached this conclusion on the following ground.

First, Novichok was purportedly developed by the Soviet Union at this stage in 2020, when only Russia is known for manufacturing the substance for offensive as opposed to defensive purpose.

Only the Russian state is known for having developed, stored and used Novi shock.

Second, the particular compound used against Mr Navalny is a novel form of Novi shock, suggesting that the toxic substance has been further developed.

You may recall that in the aftermath of the Novichok poisoning of the Mr Skipple and his daughter and the killing of Mr Downs tergus in Salisbury, certain Novichok compounds were added to the Chemical Weapon Convention Schedule 1A.

The chemical weapon against or the chemical compound used against Mr Navalny is different than the one that was used in 2019, pointing to further or parallel development to earlier forms of Novit shock.

Third, we explored whether the substance that poisoned Mr Navalny could have been developed and used by a non state actors.

In fact, I should say that the large part of our work as a Special Rapporteur really was to determine whether non state actors could have done that.

However, it is our conclusion that it is very unlikely that a non state actors would have had the capacity to further develop such toxic.

Further, any private buyer of such a substance would need to have a great technical expertise to handle it so as to be able to verify whether it was too old to be used, whether the chemical agent were still active, whether the compound was still stable.

Since not all variants of the Novichok compounds are stable, it is our finding that those who poisoned Mr Nabani were extremely familiar with with it's handling.

They were able to use it properly in that case, probably through skin contamination and to avoid their own contamination.

Such expertise is unlikely to be possessed by any non state actors within Russia.

At this point, the role of the Russian state is further demonstrated by the fact that at the time of Mr Navalny's poisoning, he was under intense surveillance by Russian intelligence.

It just flies in the fact of the in the face of the fact that people other than those monitoring is every move could have introduced to themselves in the hotel room with a highly dangerous poison and a new where and how to handle it in the hotel room so as to poison Mr Navalny.

It is also the findings of our work that the poisoning and attempted killing of Mr Navalny, along with the lack of investigation and the denying narratives, are part of a larger trend ongoing over several decades of arbitrary killings and attempted killings, including through poisoning by the Russian authorities of journalists, critics and dissidents, and are therefore consistent with an overall pattern of modus operandi.

It is our finding that Russia's apparent repeated systemic practise is relevant in assessing the responsibility of Russia for Mr Navani's attempted ******.

A repeated practise such as the use of signature poison is probative in determining whether the state bears responsibility for another similar attack.

Allegations suggest that, as in other case, Mr Navalny was engaged in activities disfavoured by the government, he was exposing the heat and wealth of in the individuals associated with the Government of Russia, and he was encouraging and advising political candidate in local elections.

As in other cases, Mr Navalny was poisoned by a signature compound, this time Novichok, one unlikely to be used by a non state actor or another government.

And as in other reported cases, the attempted killing of Mr Navarny has been followed by inaction with either no criminal investigation and by attacking the credibility of the victims and other elements pointing to the responsibilities of the state will be presented by Mrs Khan.

Allow me to add that even if Russia were to argue and prove without a doubt that they did not poison Mr Navalny, their responsibilities under international human rights law is nevertheless engaged.

The attempted.

Killing will constitute a failure on the part of Russia to protect Mr Navalny against the foreseeable and preventable threats to his life.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that the poisoning took place under their very watch.

In conclusion, since August 2020, we have called on the Government of Russia to ensure that a credible, transparent investigation respecting international standard should be conducted promptly and to make the findings public.

Their response to date falls short.

Some government officials even dismissed what happened to Mr Navalny as a staged performance.

Simply denying responsibility while failing to engage in an effective investigation constitute in itself a violation of the right to life.

Shedding lights on the circumstances of Mr Navalny's poisoning is part of the state's obligation to protect human rights, including the right to life and freedom of expression.

Given the inadequate response of the domestic authorities, given the use of a prohibited chemical weapon, given the apparent pattern of attempted or actual killings, we believe an an an international investigation should be carried out as a matter of urgency in order to establish the fact and clarify all the circumstances concerning Mr Navalny's poisoning.

Thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

And yes.

And now we'll hear from Irene Kahn.

Who will deliver some remarks from?

From the room here.

[Other language spoken]

OK, the attempt on Mr Navalny's life did not happen in a vacuum.

It happened because of who he is and what he has been doing.

He's a politician and an anti corruption activist.

He's a staunch critic of the Russian government.

He has repeatedly denounced the corruption of senior officials or individuals closely associated with the Russian government.

He has a large following in social media and he has organised large protests.

[Other language spoken]

Mr Navalny has been subjected to restrictions on movement arrests for participating or organising peaceful demonstrations.

He was twice attacked with chemical substances prior to the poisoning of last August, and he and his supporters have suffered numerous physical attacks and threats.

He has faced harassment, including judicial harassment, surveillance and criminal sanctions.

These actions violated his right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and participation in public affairs, and sought to suppress his political activities.

The European Court on Human Rights repeatedly found that the administrative sanctions against him, including his detention on several occasions, to be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court noted that the measures taken against him were unjustified, were imposed in a disproportionate manner and for ulterior motives, in other words, as retaliation for his political activities and to suppress his political activities.

The Russian authorities brought criminal charges against him for fraud or money laundering, investigated, prosecuted and convicted him ostensibly for these criminal offences.

But the underlying purpose appears to have been to retaliate against him for his political opposition and to threaten and discouraging from participating in public affairs, organising public rallies and carrying out his anti corruption reporting.

The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights confirms this position.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court has stated that there was evidence to support the view that the authorities were becoming increasingly severe in their response to Mr Navalny in light of his position and activities, and the alleged prosecution was being carried out against him not as a private individual but as an opposition politician.

Other actions by the state against Mr Navalny also show a similar pattern of politically motivated action to restrict and suppress him as a political opponent.

For instance, the 2017 decision by the Russian Electoral Commission to ****** his candidacy on the basis of a conviction in a trial in Russia, a conviction that the European Court has found to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

And as a result of the decision of the Electoral Commission, Mr Navalny is precluded from public office until 2028.

Another example of the politically motivated action appears to have been taken against FBK.

It should be noted that FBK was designated as foreign agent under a law which the UN Special Procedures have criticised on multiple occasions for being used to silence dissent.

To sum up, the motive of the poisoning, preceded by a long history of attacks, harassment and trumped up charges, was both to violate the human rights of an individual but also to knock out a political opponent.

And we believe that there might be a broader purpose to the poisoning.

Novichok was chosen precisely to cause fear, and we believe that the poisoning of Mr Navalny might have been carried out deliberately to send a clear, sinister warning that this would be the fate of anyone else who might criticise and oppose the government.

[Other language spoken]

Khan now we'll hear from William Borden, who's a lawyer for Alexei Navalny.

[Other language spoken]

To testify of the clear determination.

The First Amendment in September.

Of Alexei Navani, wife when?

He was still in hospital.

To initiate this like a nation inquiry, it's very important for.

His family and all his team try to accentuate consolidate all the possibilities to obtain the the close and.

What happened in in Russia?

[Other language spoken]

I want to testify of the real, clear determination of Alexinaveny, when we met him in Berlin, to to initiate this inquiry.

He considered for an extremely important to.

To.

Love this.

Kind of umbrella of United Nation of course never underestimate of the situation like wars and.

What but the risk?

We take considering this decision to fight back Russia.

I want also to which ones I've been a very.

Honoured.

One to receive the trust of Alex in other men and 2nd honoured to have met.

Even Khan and.

I just got him out and thanks for the exceptional commitment to to damage us to have access to this extremely clear conclusion.

In addition, still 2 words just.

To.

Remind to everybody.

The the current proceeding in.

[Other language spoken]

French company named Ivoche without.

Ivoche involvement, The criminal proceeding in Russia some years ago.

[Other language spoken]

Would have been possible.

Against Alexei Navalny and no imprisonment.

That.

Could have been possible, so I don't want to multiply remarks on this, but just keep in mind the fact that main European company.

Because of the cynical commitment in this.

Criminal proceeding helped the help Moscow to to consolidate the appearance of objectivity and rationality.

Of this proceeding so I.

Conclude just to say that again, thanks to Henkan and outstanding work, this would contribute to consolidate worldwide truth on the origin, the reasons and the others on.

The Alexei poisoning.

Thank you, Mr Bodon.

I see that.

And yes, Callum, you have your hand.

[Other language spoken]

I was going to turn to the last speaker, unless you wanted to to mention something at this stage.

And yes.

No, no, it's because I could not hear Irene, OK.

Sorry for that.

[Other language spoken]

So if that's OK, then I will.

[Other language spoken]

The rapporteur of the.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council.

Of Europe or I'll final speak before we turn to you for your questions, Mr Merrell, see Buble.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

First of all, I would like to thank Annis Kalamar and Missus Khan for inviting me at this.

[Other language spoken]

I look forward to reading their reports and I think it will be an important.

Element for me in my own work for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, You, you know that we the Members.

Of the assembly were also outraged when Alexei Navalny was poisoned, that is.

[Other language spoken]

As the leader of the Liberal Group.

In the assembly and with the.

Support of all the four other.

[Other language spoken]

We pushed for Rapid.

Response And at this stage, it was in October, the Russian delegation promised to cooperate with our work.

I was then appointed rapporteur by the Assembly.

[Other language spoken]

Efforts and human rights.

And I am.

Still at a relatively early stage of my work.

And I have.

Not yet drawn any conclusions.

[Other language spoken]

To a wide range of.

[Other language spoken]

On different respects, including Mrs Karama and William Borden, who is here.

I've travelled to Berlin to meet Mr Navalny.

And the German authorities.

And I've also organised a hearing in the Legal Office committee with Mr Rosette, who presented his evidence of FSB.

Involvement in Mr Navalny poisoning the regional.

Authorities that declined my invitation to send a representative to participate in the hearing.

And the members of the Russian.

Delegation to the assembly also declined.

This is regrettable even if both the authorities and the delegation.

Were acting with their own rights, but our committee was denied the possibility of hearing directly from the Russian.

Committees on their response to the Benincat reports.

I will then continue to encourage the Russian side.

To give me clear and detailed.

Answers to this and to.

The many other.

[Other language spoken]

Has authorised me to conduct a fact finding visit to Russia.

I hope that the Russian.

Delegation will agree that this visit can take place rapidly.

The Assembly expects national delegations to cooperate with its reporters.

And my contact with the head.

Of the Russian delegations indicates that he may support.

[Other language spoken]

Member of the Council of Europe and Russia was very keen to return to the Parliamentary Assembly a year ago.

It is the only pan European political institution to which they belong.

It's time for Russia to see the assembly as their own, so I will do my best to promote the dialogue, but the choice is theirs.

At the end of the day, we are political assembly and we decide by majority.

And not on the basis of consensus of states.

[Other language spoken]

Now we will turn over to you colleagues for your.

[Other language spoken]

Right now we have a first question.

[Other language spoken]

You Wanda, for taking my question, I have a.

Couple of them.

So the first question is to use.

Special rapporteurs in your.

Letter you stated that the.

Novichok's concentration and Mr Navalny.

[Other language spoken]

And yet you're talking about the nonville form of the substance, so.

[Other language spoken]

Specify what it actually.

Is and do you have?

[Other language spoken]

You please share the formula.

If you have the formula of your.

Substance and the second.

Question is, do you have the?

Information or do you?

Possess the relevant.

Documents about the Navalny's.

Consent to have his samples Biomaterials handed over for analysis today or in laboratories or in military laboratories.

And the last question is, do you consider?

As legally justified the involvement of foreign military laboratories.

You mentioned Sweden, Switzerland.

And Germany to be?

Involved in the civilian.

Investigation concerning Russian citizens.

So do you, could you name any international?

Treaties providing for such legal.

[Other language spoken]

OK, maybe and yes do.

You, yeah, I'm not sure I I understood the the first question.

Yes, indeed.

The by the time the, by the time Mr Navali arrived in in Germany and the samples were collected from him under the OPCW watch, I have to add they send people there to be present when samples were collected by the time that was done and the analysis took place.

I was told by various people that interviewed that the level of Novit shock left in the samples were very small, but sufficient for them to reach their conclusions.

You do not need an enormous amount of poison in the current state of, of, of knowledge of research.

But I'm I'm not sure I understood your your question, but there is absolutely no problems except in terms of the repetition of the test that were done.

And my understanding is that the same test where was carried out several times in order to confirm the findings.

The fact that the the the level of Novichok was very low does not preclude being able to reach a finding that is unequivocal.

If that was your question, that's what I have said.

We did not, at least in our investigation, we did not focus on on the the water bottle collected by Mr Navalny's team.

We mention it, but it is not, we can't consider that as an element of proof simply because of the way it was it, it was collected.

So that that is not something I am attaching evidentiary weight, you know, I, but I think it matters for the story.

But in terms of the evidentiary weight, because the chain of custody was what it was, it doesn't have, it doesn't have evidentiary weight.

I you know the the evidence related to Novic shock is taken from the the the laboratories.

In terms of your last questions, I am a bit puzzled.

You are asking whether foreign laboratories can can do a research of sample.

My suspicion is that they do that often all the time.

You know, and I'm I'm not sure.

I don't know which legally legal justification you are hinting to.

There is nothing prohibiting a scientific laboratory to undertake investigations if they are requested so by by a private actor or by an international organisations.

Let me remind you that, yes, there were three laboratories in Germany, France and Sweden that carried out that inquiry, but there were also two others that were requested directly by the OPCW to undertake a study of the sample.

The samples were collected using the the highest standard of chain of evidence.

The OPCW team flew to Berlin to be present when the samples were collected and kept watch over those samples.

In any case, the OPCW is perfectly untitled under the terms of its work to demand that the laboratories that have been vetted by them, approved by them, that those laboratories conduct their investigation.

Thank you and yes, nobody has something.

To add and.

Maybe we can turn to Peter Kenny in the room here.

Peter, go ahead and close your question.

Thanks for taking my question.

This is for Anya's Kalamat.

I'd just like to ask you, the Russian state has not responded to your requests and Mr.

Navalny is in gaol at the moment, so where do you see this process?

[Other language spoken]

Well, that's, that's indeed a good, a good and and absolutely valid questions.

Look, as far as special rapporteurs are concerned, we're doing what we can with the instruments and the tool that we have as, as special rapporteurs.

What are they?

A we need to speak up when others cannot.

We need to bring about the information that we have collected and analysed according to very strict standard of evidence and legal analysis.

And we need not to be afraid of speaking truth to power because This is why we have been appointed.

So this is one thing we're doing.

We are contributing to storytelling, to the narrative around the poisoning and hopefully therefore to the search for for accountability.

Second, we, you know, the fact that the Russian authorities are not responding to us is one thing.

We are certainly not taking that, you know, I mean, not lightly because it's part of the international human rights system.

But if they don't want to talk to us but are prepared to talk to Mr Jacques Mayer, so be it.

[Other language spoken]

What we do want is for Russia to interact, to dialogue and to contribute to a formal process of truth telling an investigation into the poisoning of of Mr Navalny.

And as and very importantly, we certainly are want to keep the issue on the agenda because as you know too well, Mr Navalny is currently detained in a penal in in a new a new prison.

He has been transferred there very recently.

He should be, as Irene can elaborate upon, he should be released according to our own analysis.

But most importantly, at this at this time, everything must be taken to ensure that he's protected, that he's protected against illness, that he's protected against attack, and that he's certainly protected against killing.

Irene, you wanted to add something, please, if you can put here.

[Other language spoken]

I want to add that Mister Navalny fortunately is alive and therefore his human rights are continue to be an issue.

They continue to be violated.

He's in detention and we will continue to continue to support his case and to press for a resolution of the issue, but we hope that others will join in.

Thank you both and.

We have a question now from Anyas from Jean France Press.

[Other language spoken]

It's a question to the.

[Other language spoken]

I wanted to know if some someone or somebody asked you to to look into that case and who asked you to do?

That or is.

[Other language spoken]

And about.

The call for the International.

Investigation.

To whom exactly are you addressing this call?

[Other language spoken]

Russia to authorise it, but.

Who should be doing this international investigation?

Is it the Human Rights Council to decide?

[Other language spoken]

The head of the UN who should be in charge?

[Other language spoken]

Over to you on this.

[Other language spoken]

Well, and and Irene too, I think in terms of the origin of the of the demands for our intervention that came from from Mr Navalny's lawyers.

I should, however, be very clear upon the fact that we receive Irene and I and other special rapporteur, dozens of requests every every day or every week depending on the mandate, and that the fact that someone is requesting our intervention does not necessarily mean that we are going to proceed.

So upon receiving that first demand, we will do what we have to do, IE our due, we will implement our due diligence, diligence standard, follow them in order to determine whether this is something that we ought to do in terms of our in terms of our mandate and capacities.

Second, with regard to the international investigation, Irene can ask more to that we leave it, we have left it fairly open so as to give all the actors involved a great deal of flexibility in terms of who and what should do should happen.

I'm I'm glad that Monsieur Mayor, for instance, is attempting and he's pushing for for such fact findings because that is an important first step.

You know, we will be very ready, the special rapporteurs will be very ready to go on a fact finding mission with Mr Mayor or outside Mr Mayor's visit and alternatively, indeed those who have an interest particularly in controlling prohibited weapon and chemical weapons should push for further for further investigation.

[Other language spoken]

I just wanted to add that the first request actually came in August from Mr Navalny's representatives to us.

So I confirm what Anya has just said.

As far as international investigation is concerned, our first request both in August and again in December, when we wrote to the Russian government, was for the national authorities to open an investigation because we feel very strongly that they have a responsibility to do so.

However, we have not seen any response on their side.

We have not received a response to our letter of December and that is why we are turning to the international community now.

And there are many options.

The Human Rights Council, we report to the Human Rights Council, we're accountable to the Human Rights Council, it will receive our report.

There is of course, the **** Commissioner's Office, there are European institutions.

So it's an open call for the international community to take very seriously a case like this.

Thank you once again, both of you.

Now we have a question from the room here.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

Gabriella Sotomayor, Mexican journalist for proceso 2 questions if may I do you fear for Mr Navalny's life now that he has been removed from his Moscow gaol?

It it appears to be a very harsh prison and and Mr Navalny, I think he said that he will not commit suicide.

I think he he he said that and and then just a second question.

Since you are together here at the end.

Of the press conference at the very end, this is a very important subject.

[Other language spoken]

If you can give us your reactions to the United States report on the ****** of Jamal.

Khashoggi if it's possible and.

If you have time, thank you very much.

OK, over to our panellists.

I think Irene may want to take the questions.

Well, we have, as you know, very clearly in our press statement, put the Russian Government in front of its responsibility.

Mr Navalny, a Russian citizen, is in Russia under the control of the government and therefore it is their responsibility to ensure that he remains safe.

Thank you very much, Irene.

OK, on on the 2nd.

Part of your question let's let's take this afterwards, OK, Thank you Gabby.

We now have a question from Constantine of Task News Agency.

If we can unmute Constantine, yes, go ahead.

If you can pose your question, we can hear you.

[Other language spoken]

You're you're unmuted rather.

[Other language spoken]

OK, maybe we can come back to you.

Constance, we can't hear you.

Let's move then to Musa.

[Other language spoken]

The.

LA Premier Facebook The numbers Jean Papa le poor poor LA Reconnaissance **** **** the accepted legal domestic.

[Other language spoken]

They said to move Move's conclusion permitting whether you're the senior clinic.

The.

[Other language spoken]

Bienotte Mercy, let's try before we turn to Peter Oliver in the room.

[Other language spoken]

One more time and Constantine from TASS Constantine, do you want to?

Pose your question, OK, I think we still have an issue.

With that so.

We'll turn now to.

Peter Oliver from Russia Today in the room here.

Hello, Peter Oliver from RT International.

This is to the special rapponteurs.

Amnesty International have said that they will no longer consider Alexei Navalny a prisoner.

Of conscience after it.

Became clear that he'd advocated violence and discrimination against ethnic minorities and migrants in Russia.

These amounted to racial slurs that were made primarily against.

Migrants from Central.

Asia and which they were referred to as cockroaches and flies, things that needed to be gotten rid of.

I look forward to reading your full report what I have read so far.

[Other language spoken]

Happened to Mr Navalny in the summer.

[Other language spoken]

An offer of support.

For Alexei Navalny, in light of that, how does that support sit alongside these comments made by Mr Navalny that he has been given opportunity to retract and has chosen time and time again not to retract?

How does that sit alongside the UN support?

For him, let me start by saying that human rights belong to all of us, the best of us and the worst of us.

And there is no excuse, no justification for the violations that Mister Navalny has suffered.

The right to life, his right not to be tortured, his right to have free speech, to carry out his political activities, none of that is affected by what he may or may not have said before.

Furthermore, under international human rights law, the prohibition of advocacy to hatred calls for strict interpretation, including clear criteria for legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimate aim.

It's laid out very clearly how that is to be determined, not through a public smear campaign.

Have you heard the comments?

It is has to be tried lawfully because if it's an unlawful act, it has to be tried lawfully, not to be determined by your view or my view as to whether or not that was an unlawful act.

I'm not speaking about Amnesty's decision as a private actor.

It can decide what it wants to do.

I'm talking about the legal situation, and under law there are certain rules.

Russia has laws on hate speech.

Many other countries do.

And we also know, and I know a special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, that very often these laws are broad, overly broad, poorly interpreted and used against critics.

So one has to be extremely careful about this particular prohibition under international law and not use it bandy it loosely.

Just in your position as the rapporteur for a freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the word ********* is a motive, is it not?

How can that be interpreted any other way than the way?

Sorry, what is your question?

What is your question?

That a particular is his language is his?

Language is his language that he's used in the past.

It all justifiable and you are justifiable.

For what?

For no, no, it's sorry, is the is the support that you're giving him, is that allowed to sit alongside these statements that have been made by?

Mr Navali, in the past, the support that we are giving him is because his life right to life was being violated, because his right not to be tortured was violated, because his right to carry out political and public affairs was being violated, because his freedom of expression was being violated for those reasons.

It has nothing to do with what he said in the past 1315 years ago, we have looked at his activities, now, his condition, his political opinion and under those conditions we believe he qualifies under the mandate.

[Other language spoken]

So in this order, Stephanie of Reuters.

And then we'll go to.

Laurent Ciero of Swiss News Agency.

And we'll try Constantine again, so.

Let's go to Stephanie Reuters.

[Other language spoken]

You're unmuted.

Thanks very much.

[Other language spoken]

Have wanted to hear more.

About how you imagine this, excuse me, international investigation might be configured.

With it.

You know whether it would involve more than just.

The.

UN Human Rights Council potentially, but it seems that maybe you're you're.

Leaving that open for now.

Specifically Russian foreign.

Ministry spokeswoman in response to our.

Query earlier said that again made the case Russia's case that they want Germany to release some data.

Which Moscow has accused Germany of withholding in some way.

Can you comment on that?

And.

Whether you looked into that?

That issue.

That is their take on this.

[Other language spoken]

Yes, of course, we are fully aware of of the position taken by Russia.

Let's be very clear, The, the, the, the jurisdictions over the killing is Russian.

It is not German and Russia has access to the the weaknesses.

They had access if they had wanted to the crime scene or the alleged crime scene and they had access to everything that took place prior to the analysis carried out by by Germany.

The notion that the onus is on Germany to to prove or disprove what they've already alleged is just just makes no sense from an investigatory standpoint.

Russia has more than enough at the moment to carry out it's own investigation.

It is not up to to Germany to provide provide information with regard to the sample itself that was collected from from Mr Navalny.

You know, this matter should be really to be handled to the OPCW.

It's an international organisation that is responsible for dealing with the prohibited weapon and any questions related to to the sample and to the finding should be, should be handled at that level.

So as far as we are concerned, it is and it is for Russia to demonstrate that it is prepared and willing to carry out an investigation in good faith.

And so far it has done everything but that.

Right.

[Other language spoken]

And yes, now we have Laurence here.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you for taking my question.

A question to NES Kalema as well.

[Other language spoken]

Previous investigations, for instance, the Khashoggi.

[Other language spoken]

You you blame directly some dignitaries.

[Other language spoken]

You mentioned presumably that ****-ranking official might might have been.

Involved.

Are you in the capacity to be more precise speaking either of individuals?

Or entities within the Russian government.

[Other language spoken]

Unfortunately, the investigation that we carried out in that case, you know, for a variety of reasons, one of which was the context and the time that we had to do it, we did not go into the individual criminal responsibilities for for the killings.

You do know that states in Europe have sanctioned specific individuals associated with the Russian government, So presumably they have their disposal sufficient evidence that allowed them to identify those people.

I did not look into that evidence and did not proceed with determining individual liability.

You will note that this investigation was carried out in the and was is has been made public as an allegation letter rather than as a report of of findings.

And at the moment that is what we have done.

It does not stop others, my successor or indeed Irene, to then focus in the next stage on individual personal responsibilities for the killing.

[Other language spoken]

And yes.

Let's try.

Again with Constantine, if we could unmute him and.

We'll give it another shot.

Constantine, if we can.

[Other language spoken]

A bigger problem, I'm sorry.

About this, we could perhaps have a question, perhaps.

Yeah, if you send a question in the chat that might work.

In the meantime, let's take one final question.

[Other language spoken]

Then we will have.

To wrap up after that.

In in the meantime, Constantine, if you can pose your question in a chat and Elizavetta, if we can unmute you, go ahead.

[Other language spoken]

Just just to follow up on my first question that about the formula.

Actually, Miss Calamar, I asked you if possessed the exact.

Formula of this absence.

That was found in Mr Navalny.

Can somebody repeat that?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

We didn't hear it either, if you could repeat that.

[Other language spoken]

Do you possess the exact formula?

That was of the of the substance that was.

Found in Mr Navalny.

That was my first question actually.

[Other language spoken]

I know it is in the hands of OPCW and the various other actors in the note.

To be honest, you know, I'm not, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not sure I would have been in any position to, to do to do much with a chemical formula.

What I do know is that that chemical formula indicates that this is a novice shock, but that it is not quite the kind of novice shock that has been used in 2019, in other words, that it is a novel form.

The compound is slightly different than the one that had been identified in 2019, including in the context of the OPCW reopening or revision of the Schedule 1 of a ban ban compound.

My expectation, Elizabetha is and my hope as well is that there will be a further public discussions within the OPCW over this novel form of of Novic shock.

[Other language spoken]

It is a catch 22 scenario where but some level making it public can open up new development and while keeping it secret makes it more difficult to develop, counter counter poison and counter ways of of dealing with it and identifying it.

But my hope is that that formula will eventually make its way to all Member State of the OPCW so that they can take actions to stop, to stop it, to counter it and to identify.

It thank you very much on.

Yes, and and I apologise.

Constantine to you, we could perhaps discuss this offline.

I think this.

Will end the the press.

Conference on on Mr Navalny, the Communique I.

There was a question on Mr Khashoggi and yes, if you'd be willing to share just a a very brief.

Comment on that and I.

Think Miss Khan also wanted to say something so.

Over to you on yes.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

So I think I was asked to comment on the the DNI report, the Director of National Intelligence Report that was made public on Friday regarding the responsibilities for the killing of Mr Jamal Khashoggi.

I welcomed the report, having called for it since June 2019 when I issued my report.

I I consider that report, the DNI report, as an important demonstration of the United States being prepared to actually implement their Constitution and the law and to act transparently when in in in that particular case.

So the report for me is to be welcomed.

The fact that the report named the quasi head of the state, Mohammed bin Salman, has been responsible for the operation that killed Mr Jamal Khashoggi is an important demonstration as well on the part of the United States to be to be transparent.

So now that's for the positive things.

It's also good for democratic institution, by the way, that these legislative demands be fulfilled.

And it was a bipartisan demand.

So, you know, at that level this is a very important step.

On another level, I was disappointed and I am disappointed.

First of all, factually speaking, the report provides nothing new.

It is an analysis of circumstantial evidence and a judgement that is being brought forward.

Important, but I would have expected more material evidence, and presumably they exist, but they have not been declassified.

So what has been declassified appears to be very little indeed, and that disappointing.

The second source of disappointment, which is arguably even more important, is the fact that so far the government of the United States has not announced any actions to build on their findings of a liability and responsibility on the part of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

It is extremely, in my view, problematic, if not dangerous, to acknowledge someone's culpability and then to tell that someone, but we won't do anything, please proceed as if we had said nothing.

That to me is an extremely dangerous move on the part of the USA.

If what they want to do and which you know what President Biden has announced during this campaign to protect freedom of the press and to really announce a new era in terms of human rights based policy, then to refuse to help, to account, to sanction the man who has with ultimately responsible for killing Jamal Khashoggi.

That to me is extremely worrisome.

And I have and I am calling on the US government to act on it's public findings and to sanction Mohammed bin Salman for what he has done to sanction him.

[Other language spoken]

The other 17 + 76 now individuals are sanctioned to sanction him in the diplomatic.

Sense of the world by banishing him from some of those circles.

I call on them to play a lead role internationally to really allow for, you know, investigation of killings and other violations against journalists, human rights defenders.

And I call on them to adopt new laws that will sanction individuals who threaten and create an atmosphere of impunity for the killings of journalists.

There are many things that the US government can do.

The one thing it cannot do, it cannot do is to be silent and take no action on their findings.

The Khashoggi investigation took place before I took up my mandate.

My predecessor was involved and worked with Anyas Kalimar on that issue because Mr Khashoggi was a journalist and therefore it comes under this mandate.

And like Anyas, I'm pleased with the report has been published, but very disappointed, very disappointed indeed that on the issue of accountability, the US has not seen it fit to take a stronger action at this stage.

They have introduced Khashoggi Shank sanctions and I hope that they would be used.

And for all of you who are at this press conference, you're all journalists and you probably know that only 12%, only 12% of killings of journalists ever get investigated, prosecuted.

So that is an appalling number around the world and the US should take the lead in motion for accountability.

Thank you both very much.

Thank you also to Monsieur.

Bourdain and Merrill for joining.

Us and of course for to all of you for joining us at this press conference and I bid you a good afternoon.

[Other language spoken]