their society. There was still a lot of work to be done there, she said. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked Mr KOX to elaborate on behalf of the parliamentarians and the Parliamentary Assembly. Mr KOX said that with artificial intelligence, people like to think it shows us something that is outside of us, but in fact, it was man/woman/mate-invented, and used and misused by people. Hiding what happened was also a mistake. For example, the big scandal in his country meant that the government had to step down, but not before horrible things had happened. They had argued that it was the computer that had said “no” to tens of thousands of citizens who were then maltreated, in a horrible way. The computer did not do anything; people did. He said including elements such as compassion, reasonable ability, and good faith was always their obligation in all of their legislation in a rule-of-law based state, and indeed were defined in their national and in international legal systems. The blame was with people, and for them to take that responsibility and not to shy away. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked for a clarification about the question on the UN. Mr ZINGERIS said it was about a future Congress in the United Nations the following year and how they would make a voting decision at the United Nations about a special tribunal. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS said that as a global platform for States’ interaction, there was a real importance of having cross-regional initiatives and coming on board together as “the world”, particularly on the new challenges they were facing. They had to remember that they went beyond their own regions and that they needed to get everyone on board in order to make progress on it. There was a lot more work to be done across the regions, including on the Tribunal. From their perspective as a Secretariat, the key thing would be to ensure that there was no overlap or competition between the existing mechanisms. She mentioned, in particular, the International Criminal Court. Support also needed to be given to the national courts in Ukraine. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS said the Summit of the Future was coming in 2024, postponed because of the big summit on the SDG Sustainable Development in the autumn. There were many different strands. The Secretary-General had been working on this. Human rights were included in all of the different policy briefs. The topics discussed in this room were also very relevant and would be part of the Summit of the Future, too. It was an opportunity to have pledges and real commitments, because it was also these public commitments that politicians make, which were useful even when they were not binding. She said they should all help to hold everyone who had made such commitments accountable for actually implementing them. These kinds of summits and events were very important for that. To conclude, she said that 2023 was the Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ 75th anniversary. They were working with the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, too, as it was across the UN system, but working across the world. She wanted to come back to the indivisibility and universality of human rights, that sometimes they heard alternative discourses coming back, narratives coming up, that “it's just you in the West, or you in the North”, and so on. She said, no, it was universal. They were working towards getting pledges from member States at the end of the year when they would be coming up to the end of this entire year with various topics, and concrete pledges for commitments of what will be done going ahead. She made a friendly call to the Council of Europe: regional organisations’ pledges were very much welcome as well. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR handed the floor to Mr Iulian BULAI. Mr BULAI thanked the Icelandic Prime Minister, the Chair of the Committee of Ministers, and the Icelandic Ambassador for their work. He represented the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group in the Parliamentary Assembly, who he said tackled the issues and challenges of the new generation of human rights very often. He was very happy about the panel debate. His question was about why – beyond admitting them, creating a formal way of discussing them, and defending

II SÉRIE-D — NÚMERO 63 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

32