His question was about the special tribunal against Russia’s crimes against the Ukrainian civilian population, children included, with the Register of Damages as a second step. He wondered if they could be a leading voice in the world, and asked if there was a commitment to the next Summit, initiating the agreement on establishing a special tribunal. Ms GYLFADÓTTIR said it was a big question and a huge task. Iceland was a part of the core group to lead the way. It was a complex issue as it had to be done right. Iceland was ready to do whatever they could to find the solution to close the accountability gap, for which they had some systems. It was her and the Government of Iceland’s opinion that those gaps needed to be filled. Russia had to be held accountable for its crimes. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked for three questions at the same time. Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN pointed to the lack of multilateralism in something like a Eurovision Song Contest, when a small group speaks on behalf of a group of people. His general question was about small countries, like his, demanding multilateralism, which they respected but also relied on. He pointed out the contradiction that the whole existence of mankind also depended on this, including on issues such as climate change and weapons of mass destruction. He had found out today that 20% of the world’s states were democracies, albeit some not even ideal ones, thus 80% were less and less democratic. He asked how they could demand that everybody participate in issues such as climate change. Ms Petra STIENEN led a round of applause for people behind the scenes of the Summit. She mentioned the “early warning signals” which traditionally come in a multilateral context from civil society, activists, youth, women, and climate justice activists. She asked how members of parliament could ensure that, after the following day’s declaration, they could grow this shrinking space and include these sectors of civil society. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR said that 70% of the Icelandic nation was preparing the Summit. Mr Mogens JENSEN addressed Mr KOX about multilateralism being weaker, though stronger international systems were needed between the Council of Europe and the EU, and the UN. He wondered if there were resources and scope to strengthen those relationships and develop the Partner for Democracy relationships too. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR pointed out that, as a small nation, Iceland still had a voice at the table. Ms GYLFADÓTTIR said Iceland had a small population, rather. They’d invested in the understanding of Icelanders that supporting Ukraine was about doing the right thing as humans, but it was also in their own interests, though it was further away than others. They were fighting their fight, and it wouldn’t stop there if they lost. Icelanders didn’t stand a chance in Putin’s world, so the multilateralism system had to be cherished. While surreal as numbers, the 20% / 80% numbers of democracies were very different systems. They had to work with multilateralism as much as they could even when discussing relationships with China, when it came to solutions for the climate, and even if different measures would be put on things such as doing business or property rights. It was different across challenges, sectors and platforms. Democratic countries should figure out ways to do that. She also said different systems had to be respected without discounting human rights. Democracy was the best way to prosperity, solutions, and a quality of life. There were other systems which had to be respected up to a point, but not when rights were being taken away from individuals. She also said other countries were part of the UN Charter, which was a foundation which was already broken. That needed to be agreed on, if everyone would respect that. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked how human rights defenders could have a role. Ms BERGHOLTZ referred to governments and institutions needing young people, but they needed democratic institutions, too. Two things were crucial in a flourishing youth civil society: capacity building but also places for meaningful participation. Young people were dramatically underrepresented in politics, did not run for office very much, but experienced threats and hatred. A survey from Sweden showed more than half of all presidents and chairpersons had been threatened individually, especially those from minorities and defenders of human rights. Some 2.6% of members were under 30, according to the rapporteur of the introductory memorandum for the potential for the establishment of a “youth partner” status at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The alternative was to, immediately, settle on including young people and understanding the needs of civil society and to support them, incorporate them, which the Council of Europe did via intergenerational activities.

20 DE JULHO DE 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19