Ms Natia Navrouzov:

Yes. I thank the Deputies for their questions, which were relevant. I tried to write down as many as I could, so if I forget any, they might let me know.

I will focus on accountability and the tribunal. Turning to Deputy Brady's comments, Ireland could provide support through diplomatic channels, particularly given that Ireland now sits on the UN Security Council. It would be great to remind the Security Council that, while establishing the Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da'esh/ISIL, UNITAD, was a good step, it was not enough. What is the point in having an investigative team gathering evidence that cannot be used in Iraq? It comes down to spending billions of dollars without serving justice to survivors at the end of the day.

I am unsure as to how aware the EU is of the draft law. It was presented at the end of April and matters are moving forward quickly. The Kurdish Parliament is conducting various consultations, but consultations with survivors are not scheduled yet. Ireland and the wider EU could push for these consultations with survivors, but also for consultations with the international community, including Ireland. ISIL is a global issue and needs to be addressed globally. From my experience as a lawyer, Ireland has great judges. They could sit on the tribunal or advise it. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a legal framework, the Iraqi judiciary does not have the expertise to prosecute international crimes. As such, capacity building is needed. Funding for the tribunal is also much needed.

A good point was made about the death penalty. It will be a sticking point because, with a death penalty, there will probably be no international support. We saw the same with the Iraqi High Tribunal, for which there was a great deal of goodwill. There was the will to prosecute international crimes, but because of the death penalty, the lack of transparency, the lack of involvement by survivors and the hearings not always being fair, the international community did not support the institution. We need to ensure that the same does not recur if a tribunal is established.

Deputy Gannon asked about the example of Rwanda and what had happened previously. There are different ways to have an accountability mechanism. It could be the same one as was used in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia, for which there was agreement between the UN Security Council and those countries through resolutions to establish a court. That is still an option in this case if Ireland and other countries negotiate it with Iraq at a diplomatic level. UNITAD is an example of Iraq's will in this regard, but Iraq might be too scared to deal with the issue alone. As such, the support of the international community is much needed.

Another solution could be the International Criminal Court, ICC. Unfortunately, Iraq is not part of the Rome Statute, but it could agree to be. That would enable such trials in the ICC. This is something else that Ireland could look into with Iraq.

Another option is a hybrid tribunal, that is, a mixed national and international process. This is actually what is being suggested now. There would be some international involvement under the draft law, in that some of the judges could be from the international community. Unfortunately, the number is not specified. If there was a majority of Iraqi judges and a minority of international ones, it could reduce the decision-making power of the international judges.

Regarding the Yazidi survivors Bill, it was sad to see that the survivors themselves were not involved in the process.

We really advocated for that. At the end of the day, some of our recommendations were taken into consideration. Currently, in the by-law drafting process, Yazda along with 31 other NGOs have formed a coalition that is working on reparation, which has provided a set of recommendations to the Council of Ministers in Baghdad. We are currently working on the by-laws.

Our main point was to have a survivor-centred approach and put the survivor in the centre of everything we are doing. We start by doing outreach. Many survivors in Iraq do not know even know this law was passed. It was discussed two years ago and it was passed in March this year. Outreach is, therefore, needed. It is important to ensure that survivors understand the process and know where to go to submit their paperwork. These are very practical things whereby if no-one really deals with them then this will not enable the survivors to be part of this reparation programme.

Another question was regarding the Sadiki initiative and how many other countries would need to pass such laws. I am not sure. I know that in Europe, some trials against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, members for crimes against Yazidis are taking place. There is no need as European countries already have the legal framework.

Other countries might need that but I am not able to tell the committee how many. Since most of the victims are in Iraq and most of the crimes happen in Iraq and Syria, it is very important to ensure there is a legal framework in this country. Otherwise, trials can be scattered like what is happening now. Only a handful of trials are being conducted, for instance, in Germany. If, however, there is no legal framework in the country where victims are or where the crimes took place, there will not be much justice served for the survivors.

There should also be accountability. Iraq needs to deal with the issue in terms of broader transitional justice to enable trust-building again between the society and the country. As I said, at the end of the day, survivors, unfortunately, do not trust the institutions anymore because they are saying the institutions did not protect us. Having a court would, therefore, send a positive message to the community.

One final point from my notes was about the funding we are requesting for the Yazidi Survivors Network. This funding would enable us to continue to empower the survivors. Currently, we have a group of 15 survivors who are willing to get further capacity-building on public speaking, IT, Arabic, and English so that they are able to carry the messages they want to carry in Iraq but also globally.

As I said, unfortunately, we are not able to be there physically with the committee. One of the things survivors want to do is travel and explain what has happened to them. Some survivors have done that and Ms Nasreen is a great example of that. There are, however, so many other survivors who are willing to do so and there are so many things that need to be done. We need hundreds of survivors to be able to speak up.

In terms of localisation, these activities will be mainly based in Duhok, Kurdistan, where we would want an office where we would be able to build out these capacity-building sessions where survivors could meet. This was one of the issues. They are currently scattered in different camps. They are not even able to meet physically to discuss what is important to their community and what they need to advocate for. Sometimes, they are not even able to communicate virtually because they do not have the money to buy the communication methods. As I said, the cost would be €370,000. It is a lot of money but it would also have a great impact on these survivors. Members will see the results quite quickly and for many years. I thank the committee. I hope I covered the questions that were for me.